Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by TheBloodguard, Apr 7, 2009.
It's MY business becuase your smoking in public places affects my enjoyment of those places by tainting them with disgusting smells and dangerous smoke to my lungs.
It's MY business because countless smokers decided the world was their ashtray and toss their butts onto public sidewalks, gutters and parkways.
Smoking is simply a disgusting habit that people pick up for the simple fact to "look cool" with not a simple redeeming quality behind it.
I am SOOO happy they jacked up the taxes again. Keep them coming.
So, your solution is to give them cigarettes and have them smoke themselves to death? Why not just march the elderly into detention centers before they reach that point and make soylent green burgers out of them?
I'm on board with this.
I think his solution is to let people make their own damned decisions.
Who said it was a "solution" to anything?
It is my argument against bans/limits/taxes" It is my argument against authoritarian laws.
Sorry the idea of freedom and letting people do what they want with their own bodies is so alien to you that you equate that idea with Nazi death camps and sci-fi atrocities.
Argument fail: I see beer cans and bottles by the roadside all the time (sometimes even in my yard--I damn sure didn't put them there). And candy wrappers. And newspapers, etc...
Using costs gets us to all kinds of odd conclusions. For example, capital punishment is a much cheaper way to handle murderers than long-term incarceration. In fact, considering the recidivism rate among most criminals, a major expansion of using the death penalty would really reduce our prison costs!
All the arguments above illustrate that, while costs are a useful type of information in making decisions, they also are quite unreliable. So why do we do it all the time? In part, because it has become a cultural norm in a supposedly business-oriented free market society to consider dollar numbers as really important. And in part because we're lazy. It is pretty easy to quantify most things in terms of dollars spent and earned, wasted or saved. Gets you an number quickly. But how do you put a number on the value of the existence (vs. death = non existence) of a person, to other people or to the greater society? How do you quantify "quality of life" for a sick or an elderly person with disorders that affect their daily lifestyle? You probably can't assign those numbers, and we are so dependent on hard numbers to justify decisions that cannot be challenged, that we will use the numbers available, no matter how questionable, and we will ignore other types of non-quantifiable information.
You know what happens when the people get to tax and ban things they don't like? Pretty soon, something you favor will fall under their axe.
What will you do when it's your bull getting gored?
"Cost to society" is the driving forced behind the extreme taxation and much of the laws on tobacco use.
Let's face facts, the majority could care less if people die from smoking. It's the idea that they are paying more for their care that makes the majority want to punish the minority here.
Not really. They don't produce much after 65.
Well, when it comes to seatbelts, motorcycle helmets and smoking people often make the wrong decisions.
Again, I have no problem making smoking seem like a bad decision through legislation and higher taxes. I have no problem with cops writing tickets to people not wearing seatbelts or helmets. Society is trying to change people's habits and guess what? It's working!
Wrong according to YOU. Who are you to dictate what others do with their bodies?
Ah, the slippery slope argument...right on schedule too. :thumbsup:
It's my understanding that the appeals process tends to make those sentenced to death actually more expensive than just letting them rot for decades. I don't have any hard figures on that for you, though.
Psst, let me let you in on a little secret, it's not ME. I just said I don't oppose it, and I really don't.
Fast food, risky hobbies, living in highly polluted areas, etc.
So when society is trying to change people's habits and you agree with them, it's cool, but when society elects a GWB or goes on a years-long SUV buying binge...
Amused, congrats for creating yet another heated debate thread. Your reputation for this is nothing short of legendary.
An extremely valid argument, especially when it comes to authoritarian laws.
Hey, it's better than mindless neffing, right?
So do bums, should be ban them as well??????
Oh believe me, I hate stupid legislation. This is not stupid legislation though. Not in my opinion.
Haha.. that's awesome.
So whats next? People will start saying that smoking is a form of population control?
I think that is a leap. Are you assuming these people work past retirement? If not they are a drain on the system each year they are living past being a "productive" member of society.
Then hit reply and post in the other thread. I don't care what your mother told you, you're not special.