I don't get people why they are so against it? If someone chooses to smoke let them do so, no one crashes a car while smoking.In my opinion, its like every thing else that is excess of everything is bad. My father started it at 17(same as me) and my grand fater at 14.They are still okay(now they age 79 and 40). Tell me about your opinions.
if you do something that has no positive affects to people around you and only has negative affects then the obvious solution is to stop it affecting people around you and the best way I can think of is a fishbowl on their head to stop smoke escaping.
There are plenty of health problems, but at the end of the day, I don't think it's the government's job to protect you from making stupid decisions.
It is if those stupid decisions also have an impact on the health of others. I'm not sure if I agree with everything that's being done against smoking, but I'm glad something's done.
A lot of teens think smoking is cool, mainly cause it is cool to die?
No....if you're going to post, at least post something more thought provoking? Please?
It is if those stupid decisions also have an impact on the health of others. I'm not sure if I agree with everything that's being done against smoking, but I'm glad something's done.
Not to mention that the medical resources spent on saving your tar filled lungs could be spent saving other people.
It is if those stupid decisions also have an impact on the health of others. I'm not sure if I agree with everything that's being done against smoking, but I'm glad something's done.
There are so many things that effect others though. So then the question is where you draw the line for that. If you constantly use antibacterial soap then that will result in germs getting stronger and more difficult to kill. That effects everyone else. If you get drunk you may beat your wife, that effects someone else. If you suck at driving you could crash. Second hand smoke is a hassle sure, but I'm perfectly content with designated smoking areas, if you aren't standing around polluting the doorway it's plenty easy for non-smokers to avoid that area by the side of the building where you smoke. Granted, you will still see some effect, but how much effect counts? If you start trying to enforce too many small things then you end up banning too many things.
Granted as said, I don't think you should be allowed to smoke wherever you want. There is a line where there are others involved, like a nurse smoking at a maternity ward, or smoking in restaurants, or even doorways. But if you're smoking in a place where people can keep a pretty good distance from you I think it's excessive to try to get into making rules about that.
Not to mention that the medical resources spent on saving your tar filled lungs could be spent saving other people.
Like the guy who thought it would be cool to skateboard down a flight of stairs? Or the one who decided to drive event though they hadn't slept 24 hours? Or the baby who's parents didn't have the foresight to put the windex out of where it could put it's hands on it? Or the hypochondriac who thinks they need to get checked again for cancer? Not to mention hospitals do take money for these things. I fail to see how you think this argument isn't completely absurd to be honest.
Like the guy who thought it would be cool to skateboard down a flight of stairs? Or the one who decided to drive event though they hadn't slept 24 hours? Or the baby who's parents didn't have the foresight to put the windex out of where it could put it's hands on it? Or the hypochondriac who thinks they need to get checked again for cancer? Not to mention hospitals do take money for these things. I fail to see how you think this argument isn't completely absurd to be honest.
What about the people with the common cold? Or people who get into traffic accidents? Or people who are stricken with cancers? Or those born disabled?
What's the point of throwing up random minority examples? Are hypochondriacs in the majority? Are they even a significant group? Or are people who don't sleep 24 hours and go driving that numerous?
I mean, think again before even calling an argument absurd, and then hurling a ton of examples that are pretty much unique and one off to back your claims.
Doesn't really seem like a question, so if it was sorry. But then again, you should be able to figure this one out by yourself pretty easily.
Why would anyone want to die? Even if it raises their coolness rating to Arctic levels? Who in their right mind would want to? I would say it starts of sometimes in a bid to act hip, but after a while the main reason why they smoke is because it's so addictive, like it or not, they're hooked. And they can't stop easily.
But then again, the idea of coolness is not linked to death, rather it's cool to be seen as the daring in-crowd and smoke even when you know the dangers of smoking. There's on the other hand nothing remotely cool with dying, so you're right on the cool part, but not right about why it's considered cool.
But then again, the idea of coolness is not linked to death, rather it's cool to be seen as the daring in-crowd and smoke even when you know the dangers of smoking.
What about the people with the common cold? Or people who get into traffic accidents? Or people who are stricken with cancers? Or those born disabled?
What's the point of throwing up random minority examples? Are hypochondriacs in the majority? Are they even a significant group? Or are people who don't sleep 24 hours and go driving that numerous?
I mean, think again before even calling an argument absurd, and then hurling a ton of examples that are pretty much unique and one off to back your claims.
Yeah, so smoking increases risk of lung disease. Right, so let's ban it, because we need the hospital space and medical equipment, and we can't have people choosing to increase their risk just because they want to smoke right? Why stop there though?
I mean, if I eat 3 donuts a day then my chances of a heart attack sky rocket, and the LAST thing we need is me in the hospital wasting medical equipment because I couldn't control my diet. I mean, real emergencies are happening. I propose we have the government carefully regulate the food I buy to make sure I don't increase risk of heart failure.
Also, if you spend too much time in the sun then you increase risk of skin cancer, and really it's not so realistic to measure if people wear sunblock, so let's just carefully regulate how much time people spend in the time because we need hospitals for REAL emergencies, not stuff that could have been prevented if people acted in a more healthy manner.
I mean really? Or are we just going to be inconsistent? Well you can enjoy the taste of a few doughnuts a day, but you can't take a smoke break during a stressful day at work to relax a little, because... smoking is bad kids.
Why utilise a slippery slope fallacy that holds no weight at all? Why cloud the argument with other examples, and claim that because there are so many examples, we should give up trying to solve one of them, because heck! everyone else harms their bodies so nothing should be done.
I mean really? Or are we just going to be inconsistent? Well you can enjoy the taste of a few doughnuts a day, but you can't take a smoke break during a stressful day at work to relax a little, because... smoking is bad kids.
The difference also lies in that smoking has further negative externalities, it can directly affect others via second hand smoke, but will the spit flying from a few doughnuts kill off the guy next to you? No, it won't.
And yes, I do believe that government should actively encourage, not regulate, the eating of healthier foods, or as economists say, merit goods. Same for smoking, I'm not advocating a ban, but increased step ups to discourage smoking.
And yes, I do believe that government should actively encourage, not regulate, the eating of healthier foods, or as economists say, merit goods. Same for smoking, I'm not advocating a ban, but increased step ups to discourage smoking.
Lol. In that case we really don't have huge disagreement. I don't see a problem with educating people ever. Which going to come out of taxpayer money probably. Outright banning is what I think it ridiculous.
Why utilise a slippery slope fallacy that holds no weight at all? Why cloud the argument with other examples, and claim that because there are so many examples, we should give up trying to solve one of them, because heck! everyone else harms their bodies so nothing should be done.
It's not a slippery slope argument, the "why stop there" was sarcasm. Slippery slope implies if one thing happens the others will follow. Whereas I was just saying that in terms of who gets treated at a hospital I fail to see a difference. Sure second hand smoke factors in, but ideally, you mark off smoking areas that are far enough away from important areas that non smokers are at minimal risk. If you are in a deliberate smoking area that is far enough off that you would have to actively decide to stand there with the person to get any real exposure to second hand smoke then you have pretty minimal second hand smoke problems. In that case, smoking and getting lung cancer verse eating donuts and getting a heart attack seem pretty much interchangeable.
Of course, there is a factor in favor of smoking. Here in NZ, cigarettes cost 20$ a box, if more. Now imagine how much of that money goes to government, then imagine how many people smoke. It's impossible to go to the dairy and not find someone buying cigarettes. And that money that goes to government flows back into helping public things i.e schools, rebuilding in Christchurch, hospitals. It works well.
