[FoRK] Welcome to the American Totality. You've been warned.

[Jeff Bone]

Blah, blah, blah.

I won't have this fucking argument again.  YOU WON.  Let it go.

jb

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?
>
> -Ian.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork