183 replies to this topic

[TianZi]

Extension cords do not cause harm to others. Cigarettes do. The object itself is harmful, not just the
way it is used. There are other substances that could be smoked that wouldn't cause harm. It's not the act of smoking that
causes the harm, but cigarette tobacco itself that does. I think you are confusing the issue.[/font][/size]

Your argument is that it harms others. It does not harm others unless it is used carelessly, so I do not think it is confusing the issue. You seem to be using one line of reasoning to make up your mind that it should be banned and another to argue it. Shifting your reasoning back and forth is the equivalent of making an excuse. I am echoing mike250 here that a total ban would be flawed reasoning.

This is the perfect example of why I think it should be outlawed. An innocent child suffers from the ignorance of his own father smoking. I know someone who the exact same thing happened to but it was the father of children who smoke instead. At 69 years old he was told during an emergency visit to a hospital that he better stop smoking or he will get cancer. He never smoked a cigarette in his life, but his kids did and he spent a lot of time with them. It' so unfair.

If you don't think the extension cord analogy is justified, then think about cars and someone that is putting on make up while driving. Should we ban cars?

Crack cocaine is a much better analogy. Crack cocaine poses a serious risk not just to the user but non-users as well. Should we legalize crack cocaine?

Should mandatory seat belt laws be revoked? How about laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets?

The government does have a vested interest in protecting its citizens from harm that unnecessarily puts a heavy financial burden on the state. The question is where that line should be drawn.

Should we ban mountain climbing as well? How about Twinkies? A rule of reason needs to be applied here. Due to the harm smoking causes to non-smokers, it should be banned in public places but permitted in one's own home, but not if children are present.

Taiwan, my current country of residence, will implement a very strict anti-smoking law countrywide starting in 2009. Smoking will no longer be permitted in any enclosed public place unless it is a special room set aside for smokers, completely sealed off from the rest of the establishment, with a separate ventilation system. Outdoors, smoking will not be permitted in the vicinity of a host of public locations: within [x] meters of a school, MRT station, bus stop, library, museum, etc. etc.

what about private places? Are the property owners free to decide.

If it's open to the general public, it's not not truly private.

[mike250]

Extension cords do not cause harm to others. Cigarettes do. The object itself is harmful, not just the
way it is used. There are other substances that could be smoked that wouldn't cause harm. It's not the act of smoking that
causes the harm, but cigarette tobacco itself that does. I think you are confusing the issue.[/font][/size]

Your argument is that it harms others. It does not harm others unless it is used carelessly, so I do not think it is confusing the issue. You seem to be using one line of reasoning to make up your mind that it should be banned and another to argue it. Shifting your reasoning back and forth is the equivalent of making an excuse. I am echoing mike250 here that a total ban would be flawed reasoning.

This is the perfect example of why I think it should be outlawed. An innocent child suffers from the ignorance of his own father smoking. I know someone who the exact same thing happened to but it was the father of children who smoke instead. At 69 years old he was told during an emergency visit to a hospital that he better stop smoking or he will get cancer. He never smoked a cigarette in his life, but his kids did and he spent a lot of time with them. It' so unfair.

If you don't think the extension cord analogy is justified, then think about cars and someone that is putting on make up while driving. Should we ban cars?

Crack cocaine is a much better analogy. Crack cocaine poses a serious risk not just to the user but non-users as well. Should we legalize crack cocaine?

Should mandatory seat belt laws be revoked? How about laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets?

The government does have a vested interest in protecting its citizens from harm that unnecessarily puts a heavy financial burden on the state. The question is where that line should be drawn.

Should we ban mountain climbing as well? How about Twinkies? A rule of reason needs to be applied here. Due to the harm smoking causes to non-smokers, it should be banned in public places but permitted in one's own home, but not if children are present.

Taiwan, my current country of residence, will implement a very strict anti-smoking law countrywide starting in 2009. Smoking will no longer be permitted in any enclosed public place unless it is a special room set aside for smokers, completely sealed off from the rest of the establishment, with a separate ventilation system. Outdoors, smoking will not be permitted in the vicinity of a host of public locations: within [x] meters of a school, MRT station, bus stop, library, museum, etc. etc.

what about private places? Are the property owners free to decide.

If it's open to the general public, it's not not truly private.

a good way to let government intervene and control

[Athanasios]

The government does have a vested interest in protecting its citizens from harm that unnecessarily puts a heavy financial burden on the state.

That argument is a valid argument and should be argued separately from the "because it harms others" argument. Most of these arguments turn into jumping one argument from another so they never end. It is caused by a bias in reasoning. The conclusion has already been made, oft for emotional reasons, and is then argued for without care of logic or fairness.

My response to that argument is to show the financial burden that it causes to the state. If those that wish to continue the habit pay for that burden via tax then they should be able to continue the habit. In Texas, we do this for motorcyclists that do not want to wear a helmet. They have to buy a sticker that is placed on the license plate of the bike if they want to ride without a helmet.

[TianZi]

The government does have a vested interest in protecting its citizens from harm that unnecessarily puts a heavy financial burden on the state.

That argument is a valid argument and should be argued separately from the "because it harms others" argument. Most of these arguments turn into jumping one argument from another so they never end. It is caused by a bias in reasoning. The conclusion has already been made, oft for emotional reasons, and is then argued for without care of logic or fairness.

My response to that argument is to show the financial burden that it causes to the state. If those that wish to continue the habit pay for that burden via tax then they should be able to continue the habit. In Texas, we do this for motorcyclists that do not want to wear a helmet. They have to buy a sticker that is placed on the license plate of the bike if they want to ride without a helmet.

1. The obvious difference here is that driving without a helmet does not ever place others at direct risk, whereas smoking does.

2. "a good way to let government intervene and control"

Even in the U.S., a public accommodation is not treated the same as a purely private residence. This is why restaurants, hotels etc. may not discriminate on the basis of race, but you are free to be a bigot and deny non-whites entry to your home (I'm assuming you are white, feel free to correct me if I am wrong).

Edited by TianZi, 21 August 2008 - 06:21 PM.

[mike250]

The government does have a vested interest in protecting its citizens from harm that unnecessarily puts a heavy financial burden on the state.

That argument is a valid argument and should be argued separately from the "because it harms others" argument. Most of these arguments turn into jumping one argument from another so they never end. It is caused by a bias in reasoning. The conclusion has already been made, oft for emotional reasons, and is then argued for without care of logic or fairness.

My response to that argument is to show the financial burden that it causes to the state. If those that wish to continue the habit pay for that burden via tax then they should be able to continue the habit. In Texas, we do this for motorcyclists that do not want to wear a helmet. They have to buy a sticker that is placed on the license plate of the bike if they want to ride without a helmet.

The obvious difference here is that driving without a helmet does not ever place others at direct risk, whereas smoking does.

if they are being careless true but otherwise if you're a responsible person then you only harm yourself.

Edited by mike250, 21 August 2008 - 06:26 PM.

[Athanasios]

The obvious difference here is that driving without a helmet does not ever place others at direct risk, whereas smoking does.

That is a totally separate argument which has been gone through even in the last 30 minutes on this very thread.

see:

That argument is a valid argument and should be argued separately from the "because it harms others" argument. Most of these arguments turn into jumping one argument from another so they never end. It is caused by a bias in reasoning. The conclusion has already been made, oft for emotional reasons, and is then argued for without care of logic or fairness.

This is a good place to practice controlling our bias. Like Robin Hanson said, the reason respectable scientists and politicians do not talk much on life extension and other valid but radical ideas is that they do not want to be associated with the types of people who do. If quality of debate and critical thinking is raised, these issues would not have that stigma. Controversial subjects such as these are the perfect testing grounds.

[TianZi]

The obvious difference here is that driving without a helmet does not ever place others at direct risk, whereas smoking does.

That is a totally separate argument which has been gone through even in the last 30 minutes on this very thread.

see:

That argument is a valid argument and should be argued separately from the "because it harms others" argument. Most of these arguments turn into jumping one argument from another so they never end. It is caused by a bias in reasoning. The conclusion has already been made, oft for emotional reasons, and is then argued for without care of logic or fairness.

This is a good place to practice controlling our bias. Like Robin Hanson said, the reason respectable scientists and politicians do not talk much on life extension and other valid but radical ideas is that they do not want to be associated with the types of people who do. If quality of debate and critical thinking is raised, these issues would not have that stigma. Controversial subjects such as these are the perfect testing grounds.

That second-hand smoke harms non-consenting others is a fact, not a "bias."

[mike250]

The obvious difference here is that driving without a helmet does not ever place others at direct risk, whereas smoking does.

That is a totally separate argument which has been gone through even in the last 30 minutes on this very thread.

see:

That argument is a valid argument and should be argued separately from the "because it harms others" argument. Most of these arguments turn into jumping one argument from another so they never end. It is caused by a bias in reasoning. The conclusion has already been made, oft for emotional reasons, and is then argued for without care of logic or fairness.

This is a good place to practice controlling our bias. Like Robin Hanson said, the reason respectable scientists and politicians do not talk much on life extension and other valid but radical ideas is that they do not want to be associated with the types of people who do. If quality of debate and critical thinking is raised, these issues would not have that stigma. Controversial subjects such as these are the perfect testing grounds.

That second-hand smoke harms non-consenting others is a fact, not a "bias."

the keyword in that sentence is non-consenting but if they are consenting adults then where is the problem? A total ban would not distinguish between those two categories.

Edited by mike250, 21 August 2008 - 06:29 PM.

[missminni]

Extension cords do not cause harm to others. Cigarettes do. The object itself is harmful, not just the
way it is used. There are other substances that could be smoked that wouldn't cause harm. It's not the act of smoking that
causes the harm, but cigarette tobacco itself that does. I think you are confusing the issue.[/font][/size]

Your argument is that it harms others. It does not harm others unless it is used carelessly, so I do not think it is confusing the issue. You seem to be using one line of reasoning to make up your mind that it should be banned and another to argue it. Shifting your reasoning back and forth is the equivalent of making an excuse. I am echoing mike250 here that a total ban would be flawed reasoning.

This is the perfect example of why I think it should be outlawed. An innocent child suffers from the ignorance of his own father smoking. I know someone who the exact same thing happened to but it was the father of children who smoke instead. At 69 years old he was told during an emergency visit to a hospital that he better stop smoking or he will get cancer. He never smoked a cigarette in his life, but his kids did and he spent a lot of time with them. It' so unfair.

If you don't think the extension cord analogy is justified, then think about cars and someone that is putting on make up while driving. Should we ban cars?

Crack cocaine is a much better analogy. Crack cocaine poses a serious risk not just to the user but non-users as well. Should we legalize crack cocaine?

Should mandatory seat belt laws be revoked? How about laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets?

The government does have a vested interest in protecting its citizens from harm that unnecessarily puts a heavy financial burden on the state. The question is where that line should be drawn.

Should we ban mountain climbing as well? How about Twinkies? A rule of reason needs to be applied here. Due to the harm smoking causes to non-smokers, it should be banned in public places but permitted in one's own home, but not if children are present.

Taiwan, my current country of residence, will implement a very strict anti-smoking law countrywide starting in 2009. The Taiwan government has clear interest in reducing smoking as the country has a national health care system. Smoking will no longer be permitted in any enclosed public place (this includes restaurants, bars, discos etc.; I'm unaware of any special exemption for "members only" establishments) unless it is a special room set aside for smokers, completely sealed off from the rest of the establishment, with a separate ventilation system. Outdoors, smoking will not be permitted in the vicinity of a host of public locations: within [x] meters of a school, MRT station, bus stop, library, museum, etc. etc. It will be wonderful to not have to choke on smoke wafting over from the smoking section in every restaurant, as if often currently the case.

That's great. They are talking about extending the smoking ban here to include outdoors on the sidewalks because they are so crowded that you do suffer from second hand smoke. As of now, they still allow it and with all the foreigners, who smoke much more voraciously than Americans, especially the French ooolala, they smoke like it's a career, it's pretty bad.

[Athanasios]

That second-hand smoke harms non-consenting others is a fact, not a "bias."

Please read the thread and bring up an issue that either has not been discussed or bring up an argument on why the counter-arguments are invalid. Otherwise, we are just running in circles indefinitely.

[TianZi]

The obvious difference here is that driving without a helmet does not ever place others at direct risk, whereas smoking does.

That is a totally separate argument which has been gone through even in the last 30 minutes on this very thread.

see:

That argument is a valid argument and should be argued separately from the "because it harms others" argument. Most of these arguments turn into jumping one argument from another so they never end. It is caused by a bias in reasoning. The conclusion has already been made, oft for emotional reasons, and is then argued for without care of logic or fairness.

This is a good place to practice controlling our bias. Like Robin Hanson said, the reason respectable scientists and politicians do not talk much on life extension and other valid but radical ideas is that they do not want to be associated with the types of people who do. If quality of debate and critical thinking is raised, these issues would not have that stigma. Controversial subjects such as these are the perfect testing grounds.

That second-hand smoke harms non-consenting others is a fact, not a "bias."

the keyword in that sentence is non-consenting but if they are consenting adults then where is the problem? A total ban would not distinguish between those two categories.

I do not favor criminalizing smoking tobacco, but rather restricting use to purely private, non-commercial residences where no children are present, or other environments in which smoking does not present a risk of any sort to potential non-consenting other persons.

[mike250]

The obvious difference here is that driving without a helmet does not ever place others at direct risk, whereas smoking does.

That is a totally separate argument which has been gone through even in the last 30 minutes on this very thread.

see:

That argument is a valid argument and should be argued separately from the "because it harms others" argument. Most of these arguments turn into jumping one argument from another so they never end. It is caused by a bias in reasoning. The conclusion has already been made, oft for emotional reasons, and is then argued for without care of logic or fairness.

This is a good place to practice controlling our bias. Like Robin Hanson said, the reason respectable scientists and politicians do not talk much on life extension and other valid but radical ideas is that they do not want to be associated with the types of people who do. If quality of debate and critical thinking is raised, these issues would not have that stigma. Controversial subjects such as these are the perfect testing grounds.

That second-hand smoke harms non-consenting others is a fact, not a "bias."

the keyword in that sentence is non-consenting but if they are consenting adults then where is the problem? A total ban would not distinguish between those two categories.

I do not favor criminalizing smoking tobacco, but rather restricting use to purely private, non-commercial residences where no children are present, or other environments in which smoking does not present a risk of any sort to potential non-consenting other persons.

whats your definition of purely private? By the broad idea you mentioned in the previous post it is easy to extend the concept to private properties like homes that, with or without the presence of children, would be considered public places unless family and immediate friends are excluded from the general "public".

Edited by mike250, 21 August 2008 - 06:45 PM.

[missminni]

The obvious difference here is that driving without a helmet does not ever place others at direct risk, whereas smoking does.

That is a totally separate argument which has been gone through even in the last 30 minutes on this very thread.

see:

That argument is a valid argument and should be argued separately from the "because it harms others" argument. Most of these arguments turn into jumping one argument from another so they never end. It is caused by a bias in reasoning. The conclusion has already been made, oft for emotional reasons, and is then argued for without care of logic or fairness.

This is a good place to practice controlling our bias. Like Robin Hanson said, the reason respectable scientists and politicians do not talk much on life extension and other valid but radical ideas is that they do not want to be associated with the types of people who do. If quality of debate and critical thinking is raised, these issues would not have that stigma. Controversial subjects such as these are the perfect testing grounds.

That second-hand smoke harms non-consenting others is a fact, not a "bias."

Exactly. This is not debateable. It's just true, and in response to cnorwood comment:

This is a good place to practice controlling our bias. Like Robin Hanson said, the reason respectable scientists and politicians do not talk much on life extension and other valid but radical ideas is that they do not want to be associated with the types of people who do. If quality of debate and critical thinking is raised, these issues would not have that stigma. Controversial subjects such as these are the perfect testing grounds.

There is no such thing as a respectable politician and most scientists are owned by the companies that subsidize their work. Now what were you
saying about people like us...we are not respectable? Please. You need to reconsider that.

[TianZi]

That second-hand smoke harms non-consenting others is a fact, not a "bias."

Please read the thread and bring up an issue that either has not been discussed or bring up an argument on why the counter-arguments are invalid. Otherwise, we are just running in circles indefinitely.

I have responded directly to your individual posts, and in each have succinctly explained why your counter-arguments are invalid. It is absurd to ignore the issue of harm done to non-consenting others by smoking and attempt to treat it as a purely economic issue as you have, implying it is enough the smoker pay some additional tax as apparently motorcyclists who choose not to wear helmets do in Texas. You cannot divorce these issues as you'd like to do, at least not logically.

And as regards your comments about scientists not wanting to be associated with the types of people who long for immortality, the usual reason they give for this is not that they believe "immortalists" are raving loons, but rather that they believe them to be incredibly narcissistic, egocentric, and concerned with the welfare of no one other than themselves.

I'm done here. For me, this is no longer an issue: From 2009 onwards, I'll be largely free from unwanted exposure to cigarette smoke thanks to the anti-smoking laws about to be implemented in my country of residence.

Edited by TianZi, 21 August 2008 - 06:57 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

The average smoker lives only to 69 years compared to 80.5 which is the average in Sweden, I think that says all. It is much more dangerous to smoke than have a BMI of 30.

[missminni]

The average smoker lives only to 69 years compared to 80.5 which is the average in Sweden, I think that says all. It is much more dangerous to smoke than have a BMI of 30.

And lung cancer is one of the most difficult cancers to survive.
At it's earliest detection one only has a 50% chance of surviving another five years. How could one choose to smoke knowing this?

Stage I Lung Cancer
The lung cancer is confined to the lungs and surrounded by normal tissue.
Five-Year Survival Rate = 50%

Stage II Lung Cancer
The lung cancer has spread to nearby lymph nodes.
Five-Year Survival Rate = 30%

Stage III Lung Cancer
The lung cancer has spread to the chest wall, diaphragm, or other nearby organs or blood vessels. The lung cancer may have spread to lymph nodes in the mediastinum or the other side of the chest or neck.
Five-Year Survival Rate = 5 - 15%

Stage IV Lung Cancer
The lung cancer has spread to more distant sites in the body.
Five-Year Survival Rate = Less than 2%

Small Cell Lung Cancer
Limited Stage Lung Cancer
The lung cancer is confined to one of the lungs, the mediastinum and nearby lymph nodes.
Five-Year Survival Rate = 15 - 30%

Extended Stage Lung Cancer
The lung cancer has spread to other lung tissues or other areas of the body. Five-Year Survival Rate = 0 - 2%

And the problem is that non-smokers who live with a smoker have 20-30% higher chance of getting cancer.

Research has generated scientific evidence that secondhand smoke (that is, in the case of cigarettes, a mixture of smoke released from the smoldering end of the cigarette and smoke exhaled by the smoker) causes the same problems as direct smoking, including heart disease,[5] cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and lung ailments such as COPD, bronchitis and asthma.[6] Specifically, meta-analyses have shown lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer, and those exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased risk of 16–19%.

[Athanasios]

OK, so what do you think about people smoking cigars? It has been shown that smoking 1 to 2 a day has no impact on longevity. Keep in mind the restrictions that they can not do it where it has been proven to harm others. In other words, they can do it in public outdoors.

[missminni]

OK, so what do you think about people smoking cigars? It has been shown that smoking 1 to 2 a day has no impact on longevity. Keep in mind the restrictions that they can not do it where it has been proven to harm others. In other words, they can do it in public outdoors.

Cigars are rarely inhaled by the smoker so there is no impact on longevity, but they often develop mouth cancer.
Keep in mnd that non-smokers who are nearby cigar smoke ARE inhaling it and that it is foul smelling to a non smoker. I think the same
restriction should apply to all tobacco that is smoked. Now if someone wants to chew tobacco, I have no problem with that because
it is only harming them and not impacting on others.

[TianZi]

So I'm not quite done here, after all.

Taken from the website of the US Department of Health & Human Resources, Office of the Surgeon General (http://www.surgeonge...factsheet6.html); see in particular Points 4 & 5:


The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report
Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General has concluded that:

• Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.Supporting Evidence
  
  
  • Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.
  • Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
  • Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.
• Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.Supporting Evidence
  
  
  • Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
  • Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.
• Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.Supporting Evidence
  
  
  • Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
  • Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
  • Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
  • Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
  • Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.
• Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.Supporting Evidence
  
  
  • Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
  • Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
  • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
  • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.
• The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Supporting Evidence
  
  
  • Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
  • Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.
• Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.Supporting Evidence
  
  
  • Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
  • Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
  • The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22 national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30 independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address reviewers’ comments.

Citation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.

[StrangeAeons]

So I haven't read through the entire discussion, but here's my rationale:
people do have the right to smoke, they should have the right to do what they choose to their bodies; they should not do this in public places, though, because this is essentially placing the convenience of a minority above the health of a majority; and even if it were the other way around I would still agree.
There are some more complex issues, though; smoking around your children should be illegal, as I believe this constitutes child abuse. Of course, there is an issue of how feasible enforcement of this is; likewise it goes down the slippery slope of whether or not feeding your kids fast food every day should be illegal, because the health risks are at least as bad. It breaks my heart to see teenagers with Type II diabetes; so ultimately these issues will require creative solutions that focus on education and various other things in order to avoid violating civil liberties. I also think expediting the distribution of e-cigarettes would be a tremendous boon for everybody,as this completely eliminates the second-hand smoke issue.
On the other hand I believe there is an asymmetry in terms of what is prohibited and what damage it does. If cigarettes are allowed, and cigarettes are detrimental to health chronically; and alcohol is around, and alcohol causes altered mental status acutely and health damage chronically, then there is no reason whatsoever that marijuana should be illegal. David Pearce states it somewhat more radically but also more eloquently on his Biopsychiatry homepage:

Yet frequently and perversely, the more hazardous the drug, then the easier it is to get hold of in our society. The carcinogenic cocktail that carries off more people than all other toxins combined can be purchased quite legally and effortlessly at any tobacconist or newsagent. Obtaining the less lethal - but scarcely socially desirable - street opioids and psychostimulants requires a little more exertion. Yet they can still be readily purchased in pubs and clubs in all the big towns and cities. Many of the more beneficent drugs discussed here, on the other hand, are unlicensed, "investigational", or available on a prescription-only basis. They're not illegal to possess. But they are hard to obtain short of visiting countries where they're available over-the-counter or using online pharmacies of uncertain reputation.

I imagine of all people, we in the life extension community, and especially fans of nootropics, know that there are certain potentially amazing substances or drugs that we would like to tinker with which can be difficult to acquire from reputable sources; even though there is rarely ever an illicit intention.

[mentatpsi]

excellent reply PetaKiaRose;

i think the asymmetry is mainly associated with the funding and management of the "War on Drugs". I think if the management used scientific tools to gauge health risks, then they might realize that instead of spending taxes on the enforcing of several illegal drugs, they could just tax the selling of these drugs based on severity of health effects and whatever else they can think of. Because in the end, the health concern is linked to the prices of insurance later on in life, and that creates ripples on to our economy. This was actually on Forbes Business on Fox News, interesting enough. The only problem is special interests groups and how they influence studies. The main argument against this is the image it sends to the public, after spending all that money, what message are they giving to the populace.

[StrangeAeons]

Well, speaking of special interests, all we need is a few eccentric billionaires to garner public interest in Noots and LE-related substances and then Big Tobacco would have to square off with Big Racetam, Big Orthomolecular, Big Adaptogen, and Big Resveratrol. That would be pretty awesome
EDIT: I know this could loosely be tied to Obama due to his nasty little habit that he's had trouble quitting, but I think a Nav should pull this out into the Politics & Law main subforum.

Edited by PetaKiaRose, 25 January 2009 - 09:57 AM.

[mentatpsi]

Well, speaking of special interests, all we need is a few eccentric billionaires to garner public interest in Noots and LE-related substances and then Big Tobacco would have to square off with Big Racetam, Big Orthomolecular, Big Adaptogen, and Big Resveratrol. That would be pretty awesome
EDIT: I know this could loosely be tied to Obama due to his nasty little habit that he's had trouble quitting, but I think a Nav should pull this out into the Politics & Law main subforum.

Maybe if i just dress up as an aristocrat i'll be able to sway studies... i can't say i have great wealth but maybe... I do love the Big noot joke pretty awesome. Except then the price of it would go up and my aristocrat outfit will have no effect on my lack of desire to pay too much . There really should be a sad face for the emoticons -.-.

Nod.

[Luna]

I wish smoking would be banned from the world.

I can't stand the smell of ciggarates and the smoke coming off them on my face and cloths.

The health damage caused both to the smoker, passive smoker and environment is also annoying.

And here it is everywhere, walking at the street of a city in Israel guarantees you a shower that day!

[.fonclea.]

So what do you think.Many people want the right to damage their bodies as well as causing danger to other people through passive smoke.

I have a short horrible story to tell here.......

My grandmother has been married 4 times and everyone has died of lung cancer (of all different types of cancer)and every one has been asmoker.
This sounds completely unbelievable but it's actually true.
To watch someone die from lung cancer directly attributed to their smoking isn't very nice.

On the other hand we have the liberty that everyone should be allowed to what they want to their bodies.

please motivate why u voted as you did!!

First of all i wouldn't marry your grandmother (soory i could not afford to say it)

Second in france we banned smoking in all publique space but it's not as good as we thought: in trains smokers go to toilets for exemple. The good point is now i don't have to take a shower at 3pm back home after a party. A complet ban just remove the problem but does not eradicate it.

I deeply hate the smog since young, i wouldn't allowed refund of treatmunt against cancer for smoker but i wouldn't forbid it in some public space. Education should motivate people for not smoking in some circumstances.

[Lallante]

My approach would be to keep cigarettes legal, ban them in public places so that you cant force your smoke on others, and tax them according the value of their externalities (ie if 1million packs are sold a year, and smoking costs 100million in healthcare costs to the government, then each pack would be taxed $100!).

People should be free to do what they want to their own bodies, but when market values do not represent the actual social cost of a good, tax should remedy this! I like to call this approach free-market socialism.

[bobdrake12]

Keep them legal, ban them in public places and tax them.

[EmbraceUnity]

My approach would be to keep cigarettes legal, ban them in public places so that you cant force your smoke on others, and tax them according the value of their externalities (ie if 1million packs are sold a year, and smoking costs 100million in healthcare costs to the government, then each pack would be taxed $100!).

People should be free to do what they want to their own bodies, but when market values do not represent the actual social cost of a good, tax should remedy this! I like to call this approach free-market socialism.

Taxing externalities is actually just regular ol' free market-ism. Though it would more than a step up from what we have now.... socialism-for-the-rich.

[JLL]

How you guys combine free markets with taxes in your heads is real funny.

[Lallante]

My approach would be to keep cigarettes legal, ban them in public places so that you cant force your smoke on others, and tax them according the value of their externalities (ie if 1million packs are sold a year, and smoking costs 100million in healthcare costs to the government, then each pack would be taxed $100!).

People should be free to do what they want to their own bodies, but when market values do not represent the actual social cost of a good, tax should remedy this! I like to call this approach free-market socialism.

Taxing externalities is actually just regular ol' free market-ism. Though it would more than a step up from what we have now.... socialism-for-the-rich.

No it isn't. Externalities do not exert any (or rather more accurately, proportionate) force on demand or supply, and therefore on price. Please explain how externalities, for example of smoking, would be reflected in a 'true' free-market?

This demonstrates 2 fallacies of the free market- the assumption that consumers have perfect information, and the assumption that people will act with rational collective interest.