Secondhand Smoke Debate, From News thread 07 June

This whole paragraph is entirely pointless, because under this hypothetical, discussed law smoking in public places would be illegal. Saying "X isn't currently illegal" is not an argument against making X illegal.

Alan said that no one worried about how clean car exhaust is. I refuted him.

Adequate ventilation isn't enough. Smoking in restaurants isn't a necessary part of that business, so I'm arguing that it should be banned, not just lowered.

Sorry, I have been arguing the wrong thing then. I was arguing that since smoking is not illegal, then resteraunts should have the choice over whether or not it is allowed in their establishment.

Your argument is smoking should be outlawed. My appologies, but your cause, Which I will not argue about the justafiability of, is meaningless and ignorant.

Sadly, Jogurt mi amigo, our government doesn't have balls. They know smoking kills people, so what do they do? Tax the hell out of it so they can collect their cut.

You can argue til your face turns blue, but sadly. Your cries will fall upon deaf ears. Approximatly 23% of adults in the US smoke. This is a large constituate of voters. Too small to be anywhere clost to a majority, but large enough to make congressmen sweat.

Votes our politicians do not want to lose. Also as I said earlier cigarettes are taxed for what the government calls "safety reasons."

I call it monitary income.

If you scream your head off about this subject collect a large group of people to scream about the subject, and not be stupid about it like thetruth.com (Thieir key argument is against the fact that tobacco companies actually WANT people to smoke, even though they FORCIBLY have to put money towrds anti smoking ads.... It's called capitalism, dumbasses), then maybe you can get some headway.

So Jogurt, As long as smoking is legal, banning it from a resteraunt because it's harmful, is just like barring alcohol, not because it makes people get drunk and act like jackasses, but because it can have potentially harming effects on the kidneys years down the line. Also theres no bars that feel the backlash when someone is hit by SECOND-HAND CARS.

Or maybe fatening food should be banned because it can cause heart attacks.

I still do not understand why there are no warning lables forcibly printed on fast food wrappers. Hell thanks to one lawsuit there are warnings on cups that say "Caution: Cofee may be HOT"

Do you understand what I am getting at here Jogurt?

I'm asking to take your argument elsewhere because it does no good here. I think we can all agree smoking is bad. You yourself have cited the reasons.

As long as it's legal I think designated smoking areas should be allowed, but regulated so nonsmokers can avoid it. But as I said earlier, that's not the right argument for this type of debate.

I guess I am pro smoking, as long as it doesn't effect others. I aam also pro drug, pro fat, pro alcohol, pro caffine.

I personally believe a person should be able to partake in whatever they want to partake in as long as they do not hurt anyone else. Now you make a valid argument for second hand smoke. True, second hand smoke casn be harmful, but it can be avoided.

I think we can both agree no matter which side we are on legislation and regulation are now where they need to be. You propose an outright ban and illegization of smoking. I propose the regulation and designation of properly maintained public smoking areas.

Guess that is where our line is drawn.

I don't want to outright ban smoking. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on the planet, and prohibition of addictive substances has never worked out.

I just want it so that you aren't allowed to smoke around anyone who either chooses not to smoke or is not old enough to legally make that choice. That means no smoking in public outside of dedicated smoking rooms (like the ones at airports) or at home if there are minors around. Just as I think alcohol and cannabis consumption should be allowed as long as the person does not do anything that could be dangerous to others while intoxicated.

And while this wouldn't mean all smoking would be illegal, it would mean smoking would be illegal in restaurants, so, there, that should clear some stuff up?

And there are already some states that ban smoking in public. Here's the list. So there's drive, at least in parts, to ban this.

Thank you Jogurt, it's nice to see a full out stance.

I think that with proper ventilation, seperation, and workers willing to endure the risks, that smoking in bars and resteraunts can be saved.

I think it does, however, need to be federally regulated. Unfortunatly "People For The Increased Regulation But Not Illigalization of Cigaretes" (PFTIRBC) does not have the same ring to it as "Stop Smoking Now" (SSN).

And a very comprehensive list (I live close to Scranton, PA), but it's wikipedia, so that's to be expected.

Its funny they mention Utah having banning smoking in bars and such... but we've had the Utah Clear Act for a long time. You can't smoke near ANYWHERE.

I think my university actually banned smoking within a certain distance of building entrances because so many people would congregate around the doors that it was hazardous to enter or leave a building at certain times... I would literally have to hold my breath while running into a certain building to avoid inhaling enough smoke to keep me coughing for a week.

Thinking of it like that, I'd be all for allowing specifically ventilated rooms. Unfortnately for some older buildings it would be impossible to do that, and even for new ones it would be expensive, possibly too expensive to actually impliment that rather than just saying "go outside".

...That's the best birthday present ever.

Proper ventilation would be excellent for some places- expensive, I would bet, but very worth the cost. How many people would be able to actually afford the changes that would need to be made for proper ventilation?

Or am I completely off track here?

Actually, you're not. There should be a trade off to offer a smoking section, and price is definatly it.

Hmm, text adds are giving me info for Legal Prostitution. Guess Google isn't above an analogy either.

What do I think about smoking in public? I had a severely asthmatic friend die because someone was smoking in a no smoking restaurant. You can guess what I think. If you can't imagine me punching everyone in the face when they say they have a right to risk anyone's health but their own.

There should totally be smoke pits where you can legally blow tobacco and pot in each other's face, though. I'd wait outside them sucking down my coffee. I'm not about making drugs illegal for being addictive if they aren't also life destroying.

This a blog post just as angry as the debate going on here. And tangentially related.

The articles I've looked at are peer-reviewed. That's the same sort of quality control used in all sciences. It's a very good one.

As for the rest, FZ, would you honestly not believe in global warming if you couldn't see the effects yourself? Not believe that alcohol is a drug if you never saw a man get drunk after drinking? Not believe that countless thousands are dying in Iraq if you never saw a wounded man return from it? If you would, why do you need to see people dying of a special kind of lung cancer? If you wouldn't, then why do you believe that Pluto exists? Have you seen it yourself? In fact, we knew Pluto existed before any human had ever seen it, thanks to measuring things indirectly. Like you have to do with determining how carcinogenic something is.

I'm sorry to say, but there's no such thing as Secondhand-smoke-cancer. Lung cancer is lung cancer. When someone's diagnosed, you don't see tiny cigarette signs on the tumor or anything. You simply have to look at statistics (which is a science in itself, by the way. If you think it's all just nonsense, go take an upper-level stats class and breeze through it. It shouldn't be that hard, right?). If more people get lung cancer who are around smoke than people who aren't around smoke, how do you not conclude that smoke causes cancer?

correlation does not imply causation?

am I done?

edit: although your conclusion about banning public smoking later on down the road I agree with. Just not THIS one.

This post has been edited by Juron Pilo on Jun 30 2007, 11:28 PM

If you have insights so deep as to overturn the very way statistical studies are concluded, you should probably bring this up somewhere more important than a webcomic forum.

Either that or you're just being pedantic and tossing out useless platitudes, in which case, congratulations?

Well, theres a hundred other reason thats wrong.

For instance: smoking causes ALL cancer?

Not even only all lung cancer?

This I doubt greatly.

See, statistics alone does not proof make?

edit: oh, and just because one CAN assume that a causes b(just like that) doesn't mean one HAS to. Leaving it at "b is probable" is fine.

This post has been edited by Juron Pilo on Jul 1 2007, 05:33 AM

If you are trying to poke a hole in her argument, you arn't trying very hard.

Trying to switch all cancer with a large crioss section of cancer cases is not a compelling argument

Smoking causes lung cancer, that has been established many times over, look up the studies yourself if you don't believe me. Trying to argue that point is going to get you no where.

I don't even agree with Jogurt's proposal and feel I need to point out you are making a fools argument.

*shrugs*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedantic

And your right. I'm NOT trying very hard. Every time I do, you just say I'm pendantic. Well that doesn't really do anything to cast doubt on my argument. Also, it is not foolish. *shrugs* Grammar is important. Besides, I am openly descriptivist, among many other liberal facets. Accusing me of being too picky doesn't really get you anywhere.

It should be "is the primary cause". Cause and effect and suchforth. Remember, descriptivist.

I'm going to take pendantic as a compliment.

Actually does accomplish something. I'm not trying to argue with you, like I said, I disagree with Jogurt.

I'm just trying to get you to make more intellegent arguments.

YOU ARE NOT BILL CLINTON, You will not succeed in arguing the definition of the word "is"

You're not trying very hard.

With your weak arguments I barly have to try at all. Now get out of this thread and come back when you have a decent argument.

I'm not trying to be mean, but you are not helping your case.

Try harder?

The problem with "correlation does not imply causation" is the real phrase is "correlation does not necessarily imply causation." Specifically for the situation A correlates with B, there are a number of conclusions one might find.

1 A causes B.
2 B causes A.
3 C causes both A and B.

Now, lets apply this to smoking and cancer.

1 Smoking earlier in life causes cancer later in life.
2 Caner later in life causes smoking earlier in life.
3 [Something] causes both smoking and cancer.

Since the future cannot influence the past, that leaves 1 and 3. If 3's something is stress or wanting to fit in as a teen or anything else that causes smoking, and you can correlate that to cancer while taking smokers out of the equation, than you've proved the statistic faulty. I'll assume there aren't any statistics looking for that, even funded by tobacco companies that would love one to be proven true. Because smoke has carcinogens, you can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unless you think exposing cells in a petri dish to chemicals and seeing which ones get more cancer is an association that you shouldn't take seriously. Really, it would never end with some people. Please don't be those people. They scare me because it's either punching smoke or cement with them; they either change their minds at the slightest hint of evidence (showing they've never thought about it enough to come up with a counter argument), or refuse to change them completely. :?

Since smoking causes cancer, wouldn't that give weight to the statistical correlation of second hand smoke and cancer?

More fun with causation and correlation:

Violent kids are known play violent videogames
1 Playing violent video games cause violent kids.
2 Violent kids prefer to play violent video games.
3 [Bad role models/lax parenting/advertising/gangs/peep pressure/rap music] cause violent kids and cause them to play violent video games.

People who are addicted to caffeine are jumpy.
1 Caffeine makes people jumpy.
2 Jumpy people like caffeine.
3 [those with fast metabolism/people who pull all-nighters/lovers of coffee's taste]tend to both jumpy personalities and caffeine addiction.

... That was really about using statistics ALONE to prove anything. *sighs* I just didn't like that little logical leap. I know theres plenty of evidence and studies on the subject and its a strong claim

This post has been edited by Juron Pilo on Jul 1 2007, 02:30 PM