|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2005 : 01:11:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Lots of things have been legal in the past. What has this to do with anything?
It means that once it was worse and somehow the world still turned.
quote:
Its up to the legislators to decide what actions should be criminal. Many things have become illegal as they are unpleasant to other people.
Well then you might want to wait until you get that law passed before calling it a crime.
I'm not saying it's a good thing or even not harmful, but giving your kid a cupcake is bad for their health as well. I think doctors should warn mothers of the dangers of smoking around children the same way they would warn parents about the dangers of obesity.
However, I don't think anyone should lightly throw around the term "abuse."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/09/2005 01:30:08 |
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 01:44:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Lots of things have been legal in the past. What has this to do with anything?
It means that once it was worse and somehow the world still turned.
Still, what has this to do with anything?
quote:
quote:
Its up to the legislators to decide what actions should be criminal. Many things have become illegal as they are unpleasant to other people.
Well then you might want to wait until you get that law passed before calling it a crime.
Did I call it a crime?
Do you feel that I should refrain from expressing my opinion on what should be legal?quote:
I'm not saying it's a good thing or even not harmful, but giving your kid a cupcake is bad for their health as well. I think doctors should warn mothers of the dangers of smoking around children the same way they would warn parents about the dangers of obesity.
However, I don't think anyone should lightly throw around the term "abuse."
Once again if you are to lazy to move your ass to another room (or preferably out doors) to smoke and thereby subject you children to the risk of long term health problem you are in my opinion a lousy parent who abuse your kids. If it was up to me this should be illegal.
I'm willing to discuss sweets & obesity in an appropriate thread. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 21:24:10 [Permalink]
|
Starman wrote: No, this is a straw man.
I have not said anything about sanctions or other consequences.
It is not a straw-man. You have repeatedly said, in one way or another, that smoking around one's kids should be illegal and considered abuse. That implies consequences. The consequences of other forms of illegal child abuse are typically the removal of the child, at least temporarily, from the parents' home. I have already given my argument as to why that would be more harmful than the smoking. You have not responded to that argument.
Should people and kids with respitory problems be confined to their homes for the benefit of these drug users?
No, and they aren't and they never have been. Most public places and businesses are non-smoking and those that allow smoking often offer a non-smoking section as well.
Its up to the legislators to decide what actions should be criminal.
That's only one part of the democratic process, which first involves the people voting for those legislators, and then voting again later, perhaps differently, depending on if we liked what the legislator did. Legislators aren't the public's rulars. They are our servants.
Not to mention that much anti-smoking legislation has been put up for vote directly by the people. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/09/2005 21:24:58 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 21:33:11 [Permalink]
|
In response to these of Starman's responses to Humbert: Still, what has this to do with anything? and I'm willing to discuss sweets & obesity in an appropriate thread.
Humbert's point is pretty clear. He's agreed with you that smoking around your kids is bad, but he's unwilling to go as far as using the term “abuse” because he doesn't think it is bad enough that there should be legal consequences. He brought up the cupcake example obviously to point out that not all things that are harmful are harmful enough to warrant legal action against. I doubt – given the context of his remarks – that he was trying to say cupcakes and smoking around your kids are equally bad.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 23:08:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
The consequences of other forms of illegal child abuse are typically the removal of the child, at least temporarily, from the parents' home. I have already given my argument as to why that would be more harmful than the smoking. You have not responded to that argument.
Strike two!
Please don't invent opinions and claim I have them, it is silly.
I have no obligation what so ever to defend such nonsense.
Please learn what a straw man argument is, so you can avoid using them.quote:
Should people and kids with respitory problems be confined to their homes for the benefit of these drug users?
No, and they aren't and they never have been. Most public places and businesses are non-smoking and those that allow smoking often offer a non-smoking section as well.
I see that you are fortunate enough to be free from serious respiratory problems. Not everyone is so lucky however. My question was ironic, but still there are people who avoid going to public places as they can't cope with smoke (which by the way doesn't magically disappear when it reaches a non-smoking area).quote:
Humbert's point is pretty clear. He's agreed with you that smoking around your kids is bad, but he's unwilling to go as far as using the term “abuse” because he doesn't think it is bad enough that there should be legal consequences. He brought up the cupcake example obviously to point out that not all things that are harmful are harmful enough to warrant legal action against. I doubt – given the context of his remarks – that he was trying to say cupcakes and smoking around your kids are equally bad.
Yes that is how I also read his post. You should however as we have seen be carful when you try to express other peoples opinions. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 00:12:04 [Permalink]
|
Starman wrote: Strike two!
Please don't invent opinions and claim I have them, it is silly.
I have no obligation what so ever to defend such nonsense.
Please learn what a straw man argument is, so you can avoid using them.
Look, I know what a strawman argument is. This is not that. This is apparently a misunderstanding, which should be pretty darn obvious from my explanation of why it was not a straw man argument.
Since you won't argue for the removal of children from homes where parents smoke regularly, would you mind explaining what you mean, then, when you keep saying that you consider smoking around kids to be "abuse" that is "criminal" and should be "illegal"?
In your claim that I'm making a straw man argument, you said: I have not said anything about sanctions or other consequences. But when you advocate making something a criminal activity, you advocate for consequences. You can't have it both ways.
So to be quite plain - if you were in charge of making the laws, what would you have happen to parents who were caught smoking regularly around their kids? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/10/2005 00:16:16 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 00:46:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Humbert's point is pretty clear. He's agreed with you that smoking around your kids is bad, but he's unwilling to go as far as using the term “abuse” because he doesn't think it is bad enough that there should be legal consequences. He brought up the cupcake example obviously to point out that not all things that are harmful are harmful enough to warrant legal action against. I doubt – given the context of his remarks – that he was trying to say cupcakes and smoking around your kids are equally bad.
Yes that is how I also read his post. You should however as we have seen be carful when you try to express other peoples opinions.
No, she got it right.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 01:19:39 [Permalink]
|
A cupcake really canot be compared to a cigarette. In moderation both fat and sugar are healthy - in fact neccessary for a healthy diet. Smoking, however, is always harmful; to deny the negative effects of passive smoking would seem to me to be ludicrous, and even if special smoking areas are conscientiously instituted in public areas non-smokers will often be required to enter these should they work in the building, or have important business with a smoker.
No-one should have to choose between their job and their health. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 02:10:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
No-one should have to choose between their job and their health.
I agree, which is why I support efforts to supply waitresses and bartenders with gas masks.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 12:25:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
So to be quite plain - if you were in charge of making the laws, what would you have happen to parents who were caught smoking regularly around their kids?
There, now we are getting somewhere.
No I don't think that a parents getting caught doing this should loose custody of their kids (Though it ought to be considered if there are other reasons for this.)
A warning, a fine or something similar should be enough for a first offence. If the parent persists in this behavior, the consequences should as always be more severe. As always in such cases, what is best for the child is the most important.
So here are my questions for you. There are parents all around in the world that hurt and put their childrens life at risk in this way. Do you think they should be allowed to do this?
Is there any thing else than calling them nasty names on a forum very few of them are likely to visit that you think should be done?
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 12:42:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
No, she got it right.
In that case,
With the word abuse , I meant:
To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
I realise that the world might have a special meaning where you live, but you have to remember that not all of us live in the US.
Subjectmatter gave a good reply to your cupcake argument. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 13:19:47 [Permalink]
|
Starman wrote: So here are my questions for you. There are parents all around in the world that hurt and put their childrens life at risk in this way. Do you think they should be allowed to do this?
Yes. Smoking in the house can lead to a kid having some respiratory problems. It may even contribute to lung cancer later on in life. But a fine takes resources away from a family. I'm not sure what you mean by “more severe consequences”, so I can't really respond to it. We can't solve every unethical behavior with fines and force. The biggest problem with this is that it is totally unenforceable. The exposure must takes place over years to have much of an affect. How do you prove that a parent is exposing their child to cigarette smoke in an enclosed space over a long period of time AND that that activity is causing health problems? It would be such a ridiculous process just proving that any law has been clearly broken, that the kid would be in college by the time any could be established. Unless you are advocating that simply smoking around kids at all should be illegal. And that, IMHO, is ridiculous.
SubjectMatter wrote: A cupcake really cannot be compared to a cigarette. In moderation both fat and sugar are healthy - in fact necessary for a healthy diet.
Lots of people with major and minor mental disorders self-medicate with cigarettes. Often social workers who work with mentally ill patients are torn because smoking has been shown to help with schizophrenia, and they don't know if they should encourage smoking or discourage it. Smoking can help with constipation. Smoking also lessens and slows the affects of Alzheimer's disease.
Nicotine in moderation is not always detrimental to one's health and can be quite pleasant. I enjoy a good cigar every time I go to Canada. I just attended a wedding and two of my old college buddies of mine and I smoked a single pack of clove cigarettes over the weekend. They tasted yummy, heightened the mood and helped bring back wonderful nostalgic memories. Sometimes, when the mood strikes me and I happen to be in the right kind of bar, I'll order a Dean Martini (comes with a lucky strike). Enjoyment of life is healthy. Sadly, lots of people – perhaps even most smokers – are so addicted to nicotine that they cannot enjoy it in moderation. And society already has many policies in place that help non-smokers, such as programs and support groups, non-smoking businesses and sections, etc. But ultimately it is the smoker's responsibility to deal with abusive behavior.
Smoking, however, is always harmful; to deny the negative effects of passive smoking would seem to me to be ludicrous, and even if special smoking areas are conscientiously instituted in public areas non-smokers will often be required to enter these should they work in the building, or have important business with a smoker.
Regarding that last thing, if you have a repertory problem and have business with a smoker, you can always politely tell them about the problem and they will refrain from smoking in your presence. You don't need a legal ban to deal with something like that.
The studies that show that passive smoking in businesses is detrimental to the health of non-smokers has been debunked. Someone posted this last time: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html but you can do the research yourself. Those studies were done with bad science. The only studies that show that passive smoking has a serious negative affect on the health of non-smokers is when it is done in enclosed spaces, constantly, over several years. Spouses and children of pack-a-day smokers who smoke in the house all the time are in danger. Employees mostly are not in danger.
No-one should have to choose between their job and their health.
I agree. But whether people are doing this depends largely on the local area. I support the ban on smoking in bars in NYC because a huge number of |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/10/2005 13:25:06 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 04:44:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
No-one should have to choose between their job and their health.
I agree, which is why I support efforts to supply waitresses and bartenders with gas masks.
That is for me an unbelieveably idiotic remark that serves no purpose other than aggrivating the tone of this discussion.
Waitresses have the same right to a smoke-free workplace as anyone else.
You know damn well none would use gas masks as you suggested, nor should they have to. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/11/2005 04:45:57 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 11:30:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
No-one should have to choose between their job and their health.
I agree, which is why I support efforts to supply waitresses and bartenders with gas masks.
That is for me an unbelieveably idiotic remark that serves no purpose other than aggrivating the tone of this discussion.
Waitresses have the same right to a smoke-free workplace as anyone else.
You know damn well none would use gas masks as you suggested, nor should they have to.
Why do you find it idiotic? If second-hand smoke were a safety concern then employees should be issued appropriate safety equipment. Have you ever worked with hazardous materials? I have, and I can tell you that the rubber gloves and ventilator I had to wear were mandatory. But there is no such push for waiters and waitresses, and you find even the idea idiotic. Why? Because second-hand smoke is not a hazard.
I don't believe people have a "right" to a smoke-free workplace. (Why would that be a right?) I believe every job comes with trade-offs and merely unpleasant smoke is simply one factor among many that people need to consider when choosing a job.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/11/2005 11:44:10 |
|
|
|
LizW
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 12:27:53 [Permalink]
|
Whoooaaaaahhh... Let's back the Holier than thou parade up just a little bit.
Which public buildings are we talking about. Libraries, hospitals, schools and other government controlled amenities, in which case I say sure non-smoking is the way to go. If we are however talking about privately owned businesses such as bars, and restaurants then shouldn't the decision lie with the proprietor depending on whose custom he wishes to encourage.
Smokers make an easy whipping boy for people who want to believe they are crusaders for health, because it is easier to point at someone and say you shouldn't smoke than it is to roll up your sleeves and tackle problems like the woeful lack of effective physical education in schools, or city planning that all but discourages pedestrian and bicycle traffic to name just two.
When we try to dictate to people the way they have to care for their own bodies, because it may be possible that it will effect us, the slope becomes slippery pretty quickly. How about mandatory prozac for anyone shown to have problems of temper. Arrested for driving under the influences of caffeine. State mandated high fiber, low fat diets to hold down healthcare costs. These seem like ridiculous examples but thirty years ago so would a smoking ban in all retaurants and bars, but they are reality now in many places.
As for people with asthma don't go to a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. You don't see people who go into anaphylactic shock from shellfish hanging out at Red Lobster. (sorry that was a bit glib but I'm worked up) |
You learn something new every g****mn day! |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
