[FoRK] Welcome to the American Totality. You've been warned.
<jbone at place.org> on
Mon Feb 4 16:43:41 PST 2008
Blah, blah, blah.
I won't have this fucking argument again. YOU WON. Let it go.
On Feb 4, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Ian Andrew Bell wrote:
> On 4-Feb-08, at 3:12 PM, Jeff Bone wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Ian Andrew Bell wrote:
>>> The logic that is in practise used to justify the prohibition of
>>> smoking has much more to do with "Second Hand Smoke".
>> Bzzt, thanks for playing.
>> One of the more "sophisticated" arguments that's been used e.g. in
>> Texas and other more conservative parts of the country to sell
>> smoking prohibition to people who are inherently anti-regulation
>> is this: that smoking-related disease costs *everybody* whether
>> or not you smoke, are exposed to second-hand smoke, or none of the
>> above. It's a public concern because it's an economic concern;
>> i.e., it's a pocketbook issue. From the primary costs (burden on
>> public subsidies of health care) to the derivative costs (using up
>> healthcare "bandwidth," effects of absenteeism, etc.) --- so the
>> prohibitionists say --- it's a serious enough economic burden that
>> it warrants an otherwise-unacceptable regulatory response.
> Right, so you have refuted someone else's argument here, or rather
> worked to substantiate it quite nicely.
> My argument though was that second hand smoke, ingested
> involuntarily in the presence of smokers, is inherently hazardous
> and dangerous to one's health. It's an argument largely copied
> from the rhetoric underpinning workplace smoking bans in
> restaurants and bars, etc. Therefore, and based solely on that
> premise, it's been a public health and safety concern.
> To wit: http://www.bcfed.com/node/352
> The economic issues are the reasoning underpinning super-high taxes
> on cigarettes, and are largely unrelated to the public health
> issue. As you could rightfully argue, the actual effects on the
> health care systems of any society are difficult to track right
> down to the individual smoker / disease and therefore it's unfair
> to regulate WHETHER you can smoke or not.
> I think most of those of us who are rational, thinking human beings
> and understand that voluntarily lighting a bunch of chemicals
> wrapped in paper and sucking the offal into your lungs is a bad
> idea, and a few of those among us are strong-minded enough to
> suggest that if you do it near me, I have a more direct model in
> mind for the infusion of those chemicals into your system.
> Second hand smoke causes cancer. Some argue that with the more
> effective filters on cigarettes it's even more dangerous than
> actually smoking, with comparable prolonged exposure. You don't
> have the right to give other people cancer.
> If smokers are feeling persecuted, perhaps it's because they should
> be. What alternative would you suggest.. that the rest of us all
> be forced to wear rebreathers?
> FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK