Planning a smoking area?

[Xest]

Of course nothing is ever 100% knowable and this is the domain you're trying to move the discussion to with references of philosopher-scientists like Lakatos and Hempel. The problem is that this isn't realistically applicable to this kind of discussion, for the mainstream we have to accept that 99.99999999999% proof of damage is acceptable when making decisions on whether smoking effects health.

If indeed this is what you were referring too all along then fair enough, you're correct, however it seems rather odd to bring that kind of idea into a discussion where philosophy about what is proof is irrelevant because if we're to base all the worlds policies around the fact nothing is ever 100% knowable, we may as well give up with everything now, the fact that the majority of people accept 99.999999999999999999999% proof as acceptable when making decisions is what allows us, as a species to move forward. Using this kind of argument would perhaps be more relevant in discussions about god whereby never being able to prove his non-existence is a very useful argument for the pro-religious but also highlights how weak an argument they have.

[Lieva]

Avoiding the question again? Shall I assume from that therefore it's that you do think discrimination is okay but only when it doesn't bother you? You clearly understand that discrimination is acceptable in some circumstances in that you accept that murder and paedophilia are things society doesn't need, so why do you cry discrimination in the smoking case? would you expect a paedophile to cry discrimination and people to turn round and say "Yeah fair enough mate, sorry we discriminated against you come out of jail"? I think not.

yknow this reminds me of something..
Didnt a group of peadophiles once try to sue for discrimination at one stage..
I think it was thrown out but im sure it happened..

[Sharkith]

Of course nothing is ever 100% knowable and this is the domain you're trying to move the discussion to with references of philosopher-scientists like Lakatos and Hempel. The problem is that this isn't realistically applicable to this kind of discussion, for the mainstream we have to accept that 99.99999999999% proof of damage is acceptable when making decisions on whether smoking effects health.

If indeed this is what you were referring too all along then fair enough, you're correct, however it seems rather odd to bring that kind of idea into a discussion where philosophy about what is proof is irrelevant because if we're to base all the worlds policies around the fact nothing is ever 100% knowable, we may as well give up with everything now, the fact that the majority of people accept 99.999999999999999999999% proof as acceptable when making decisions is what allows us, as a species to move forward. Using this kind of argument would perhaps be more relevant in discussions about god whereby never being able to prove his non-existence is a very useful argument for the pro-religious but also highlights how weak an argument they have.

At last we agree. Now why is it important to be clear about the science. Well because we need to bring clarity to the discussion and seperate out aspects that are largely irrelevant.

As you have said in this statement this is a political decision and under the conditions of politics the burden of scientific proof is not the issue. The issue is the degree to which we can secure a collectively binding decision and this can be achieved by drawing on ethics, health, economics and science. If you are very careful about how each of these respective domains enters the debate you can usually secure clarity over the arguments.

Why I got involved here was because I could see several clear manipulations of scientific evidence for political purpose (not by you Xest but by those that have led in this debate publically). I think exposing that this is happening allows us to see what is really going on and if we are clear about what is happening the democractic process benefits.

So once more this is about the politics of one group being told they can no longer do what they have been doing in certain places. The decision has been taken to protect another group who might well be exposed to dangers (danger here is defined as something they cannot control). Its about the individual choice of people who have to work in such establishments against those who smoke in such establishments. Its about individuality pure and simple.

Get onto that issue and it starts to get really interesting. I have enjoyed the discussion here of course.

[Gandelf]

Smoking in private or in places, so long as it's not in the presence of those who don't smoke, or who are not old enough to buy tobacco is fine. I see no problem with that.

There are no laws that prevent people from breathing fresh air, so the privilege of non-smokers to breath air without cigarette fumes in it is paramount and takes priority over any possible right that smokers' might have to pollute air with smoke.

So, smoking in any place where there are non-smokers present is wrong in my opinion.

Any evidence that smoking kills directly or passively should be taken at face value and given the benefit of the doubt just as a matter of public safety. But, I think the evidence is more in favour of passive smoking causing cancer and is sufficient as it stands and that future evidence will only back this up.

But let's disregard the potential health risks for one moment. Let's concentrate more on the other effects of smoking that non-smokers are subjected to. Smoke makes clothing smell. How many times have you come out of a smokey atmosphere and you can smell smoke on your clothes, in your hair etc? I feel totally annoyed that smokers are allowed to do that to my clothing! It's such a disgusting smell! You may say that it is my choice not to go into that environment, but that's forcing me to give in to smokers, it's forcing me to accept that the smokers' right take precedence over my own. That cannot be acceptable, surely? What if it is a place that I have to go in? What if you're a non-smoker who has to work in such a place? Then you get all those disgusting cigarette ends thrown on the floor as well as chewing-gum that smokers spit out when they light up. Let's not forget the nicotine stained walls etc. too!

The only reason why smoking hasn't been banned is not so much down to personal freedom, but revenue. The amount of money governments get from tax on tobacco is very considerable and I think a lot of politicians turn a blind-eye to this. Eventually, however, I think a ban on all tobacco sales and the use of it is on the cards. It's bound to happen.

[Xest]

Well since you insist...
With Murder & Paedophilia there's the small matter of the victim who is by murder DIRECTLY dead, & by paedophila DIRECTLY sexually-abused. I've never seen anyone fall down directly dead or need psychiatric treatment for the rest of their lives as a result of me smoking a cigarette on my balcony. Time to stop being silly IMO.

Causing people to smoke is a direct attack on their health. However, I'm intrigued, how do you feel about paedophiles who view child porn but have never directly abused in relation to this?

You, me and everyone else knows there is a very big difference between a smoker and a paedophile or murderer. Comparing them is just stupid...

I'm not comparing them as such. OohhoO has claimed that no one should be discriminated against, and that he as a smoker is discriminated against. What I'm getting at is the notion that no one should be discriminated against is wrong - they should, murderers and paedophiles as per my example. I'm also pointing out that whilst yes, he is discriminated against, crying this out doesn't mean he deserves some kind of protection from the discrimination because at the end of the day it's governments and society who decide when a form of discrimination is and isn't acceptable, and society has decided that discrimination against smokers is acceptable, hence no smoking places. Furthermore, some governments have decided discrimination against smokers is acceptable, hence the bans.

I'm not in any way suggesting smokers are in any way as bad as paedophiles or murderers, just using them as an example to demonstrate that they are also discriminated against, but for good reason and hence pointing out that discrimination is acceptable to society in some cases.

[Xest]

Unfortunately however Sharkith, too many people believe that because something isn't 100% proveable, in this case that smoking harms health, too many people assume that this means the opposite - that smoking doesn't harm health. This is precisely why a lot of people treat something that's 99.999999% proven as being 100% proven, because there are those who simply don't understand otherwise. Essentially and rather unfortunately you really do have to dumb down the science for these kind of discussions, particularly when held in public.

Whether politicians should or do use the dumbed down science when discussing amongst each other internally is a different matter indeed. I'd guess that at least in some cases they don't, surely one of the main reasons we don't have the death penalty back in the UK is because even with, say, DNA evidence where we may in some cases be able prove 99.9999% that someone is guilty and give them the death sentence, there's still a 0.0001% chance we've killed someone innocent, which is 0.0001% of people too many.

[Gahn]

But Switzerland is a prime example of why freedom and neutrality aren't always good things when in World War II, Switzerland being a neutral country meant that it sold weapons and ammunition to the Nazi's whilst being unable to supply weapons to the Allies due to obvious supply problems.

Being neutral and allowing absolute freedom isn't always a good thing. Again, in the most extreme examples, what about murderers? What about paedophiles? Do you feel there should be no "discrimination" against these groups?

Fresh air smoking (as you put it ), is acceptable providing the smoker is a far enough distance away from other people for the smoke not to be an issue, unfortunately fresh air doesn't somehow neutralise the chemicals, they spread just the same as they would anywhere else so the issue would be that to smoke outside without any effect on anyone else you'd have to be stood fairly remotely from other people as the spread is still quite far.

It's all good and dandy but ya know, your freedom starts where it ends mine, and viceversa. So u can't really blame smokers out in the wide, move away from em, as u move away from a 200 tons Truck when it starts the engine right in front of yer nose

[Xest]

It's all good and dandy but ya know, your freedom starts where it ends mine, and viceversa. So u can't really blame smokers out in the wide, move away from em, as u move away from a 200 tons Truck when it starts the engine right in front of yer nose

Well, it's about respect really, if someone starts smoking next to me I don't appreciate it which sounds arrogant, but how would the smoker feel if I went and stood by them and sprayed some repulsively smelling, toxic chemical in front their face ?

I really have no problem with smokers if they go and do it out the way tbh and most do to be fair. It's those that don't and those arguing they should be able to do it where they want that frankly ruins it for the smokers who are respectful.

[OohhoO]

Causing people to smoke is a direct attack on their health. However, I'm intrigued, how do you feel about paedophiles who view child porn but have never directly abused in relation to this?

A child has been directly abused to provide the entertainment they crave. It's the same result as if they'd done it themselves.

at the end of the day it's governments and society who decide when a form of discrimination is and isn't acceptable, and society has decided that discrimination against smokers is acceptable, hence no smoking places. Furthermore, some governments have decided discrimination against smokers is acceptable, hence the bans.

Which doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong, especially when seen from a historical viewpoint - a la Nazis & Jews, Christians & Witches, etc etc etc, which is the point I'm trying to make.


& yes... from my viewpoint the defence of freedom of choice (as long as it doesn't directly damage others) is more important than a marginal reduction in average life-expectancy. Criminalising sections of society previously held to be respectable is not a good choice.

[Xest]

But smoking does directly damage others that's just it. Even ignoring the debate about whether it effects people's health, if someone sprayed you in paint or some disgusting odour you'd probably feel that these people need to be discriminated against in some way, you probably feel these people shouldn't have the freedom to do that, so why do you feel smokers have the right to cover people in smoke chemicals and smells?

You've even mentioned that you don't smoke around your daughter, so you obviously accept there's something wrong with forcing other people to suffer your smoking because if there was no effect then it wouldn't matter if you smoked around her. I'm not suggesting that smoking is right or wrong in this instance, I'm pointing out that it's extremely hypocritical, selfish and ignorant to cry discrimination and try and put yourself in the same group of suffering as blacks, jews, homosexuals and so forth when realistically, as discrimination goes you're more in the same boat as people who are discriminated from NHS treatment for getting themselves overweight through their own fault, people who can't drive on public highways 200mph because of the speed limit and so forth. In other words, you're part of a group of people discriminated against because of something they've done, or want to do that society has decided is wrong. You are however absolutely not part of a group who is discriminated against because of your race, sexual orientation, sex etc. as you have thus far tried to compare yourself to.