BAN ON SMOKING

[DonkeyKongSr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have no way of knowing whether there's jizz on your bed sheets. You have no way of knowing whether the hotel dumps cat urine into their swimming pool. You have no way of knowing whether they've set up hidden cameras in your shower to spy on you. Luckily the government... oh wait, never mind. Free market: Infinity + 1, Government: 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but government health regulations greatly reduce the liklihood [sic] of all of those. You go to USC. There's no way your pansy ass could survive in this unregulated 3rd world country you apparently want the US to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice, when you lose the argument, it's good to know you can still always resort to ad hominem attacks. And thanks for the tremendous insight into the troubles of third world countries. Who knew that if their governments would only enforce a few more arbitrary regulations, they'd be well on their way to unimaginable wealth!

[/ QUOTE ]

I resorted to that because USC sucks, not because I lost some lame argument that we don't need health regulations.

[bbbaddd]

[ QUOTE ]

So your personal feelings have nothing to do with your position on this issue? I doubt that somehow.

This is a subjective issue. It comes down to personal values and feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a non-smoker. But I do not let the fact that I am a non-smoker cloud the objective reality that a ban on smoking is simply the government allowing itself to control what goes on in a private business. When someone supports the government infringing others personal liberties in one sense but not in another (poker, trans fats, alcohol, whatever) it is a clear indicator that they lack objectivity.

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One, it smells awful. If I'm hanging around for a bus, or at a coffee shop, it just sucks to have you stinking up the place for everyone near by.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, and while we're at it, let's ban farting in public too! Oh, and all those foreigners seem to smell pretty bad... let's ban them too!



[/ QUOTE ]

CalmB4theStorm,

You're obviously not very good at solving problems. The correct play is spraying them with fire hoses filled with AXE BODY SPRAY, not bannings.

[rjoefish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its funny that smokers (or defenders of) will admit that cigarettes have many carcinogens but won't admit that cigarettes cause cancer, because well, how do you know for sure that it was the cigarettes?? Maybe it was just an odd weather pattern!! lolz

[/ QUOTE ]

I used the analogy of an Xray machine, i'm not sure what could be more apt.

It's seem obvious that many of you only read the first sentence of my post and stopped there. (Fun fact...)


Ok, all together now, say it with me. EM-FA-ZEE-MA. HART-DUH-ZEES. (<--phonetics)

Nobody is saying smoking is not unhealthy, especially myself. I was simply pointing out the CIG->CANCER link is tenuous pseudo-science, at best.

It's an off topic factoid that doesn't even have much to do with this discussion, the second-hand smoke and outdoor ban, etc, etc.

Lord have mercy.




P.S. Truthfully, even though this is a smoking thread, any discussion of my point is just more and more off topic. It was more about my disdain for people that disrespect science or logic.

Are you familiar with the 'Orange Tshirt tiger analogy'?

It states that I wore an orange Tshirt today, and didn't get attacked by a tiger, therefore orange Tshirts ward off tiger attacks, ldo.

[/ QUOTE ]

My response was in regards to:

[ QUOTE ]
The research isn't published yet, but the article itself doesn't mean much at all. It doesn't say whether a drop in heart attacks makes any sense medically after only one year, or why both smoker and non-smoker rates dropped, or what percentage of both groups were ever exposed to enclosed second hand smoke. The same drop might be attributable to people drinking less, since they don't want to hang out at bars anymore. Or it could be attributable to weather patterns. Who knows. We won't even be able to see if its statistically significant until the paper is published, or what control variables were used, but from the numbers in the article, this paper smells a bit like [censored].


[/ QUOTE ]

and not your fun fact. I thought the weather patterns thing was a funny way out there notion. :P

[calmB4storm]

[ QUOTE ]
How does the free market solve consumer problems that they have no way of knowing about?

[/ QUOTE ]If the demand is great enough, an entrepreneur will fill the gap in knowledge. I would have had no way of knowing whether USC was a good school if it weren't for US News' rankings. I would have no way of knowing if a Toyota Corolla is a reliable car if it weren't for Consumer Reports. Etc., Etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, are you saying that the government had no impact on nutritional labels being started?

[/ QUOTE ]I have no knowledge of the history of nutrition labels. Care to enlighten me?

P.S. I suggest you start a thread in the Politics forum if you want to continue this discussion. I feel like I can hold my own for the most part, but there are quite a few people over there who are much more knowledgeable and articulate than me.

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fun fact:

Cigarette smoking has never been scientifically proven to cause cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]Chump Change - The following is from emedicinehealth.com

[ QUOTE ]
Lung Cancer Causes

Cigarette smoking is the most significant cause of lung cancer. Research as far back as the 1950s clearly established this relationship.

* Cigarette smoke contains more than 4000 chemicals, many of which have been identified as causing cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the "fun" in your fun fact. I personally have known people who died from lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking. It's not much "fun" for them or anyone close to them.

It is simply untrue that smoking has never been scientifically proven to cause cancer. Indeed it has.

Buzz

[/ QUOTE ]

Buzz,


Saying "fun fact" was never meant as any disrespect. It's a popular phrase used on children's cartoons and PBS shows and cereal boxes etc, based on the notion that it's "fun" to learn new things.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]

WTF? Nutrition labels? Let me guess, those wouldn't exist w/o the government either...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they wouldn't, and in most jurisdictions they have no information on trans-fats at the moment anyway. This is a really weak snipe.

Do you support the right of manufacturers to include poison in the food they sell without informed consent or not? If not, how is that different from trans fats?

[ QUOTE ]

That's a nice broad, unsupported assertion. Cite please.

[/ QUOTE ]
here
[ QUOTE ]

LOL, what externalities does this scenario involve? And how exactly will the government succeed where the free market fails? www.mises.org/asc/2003/asc9simpson.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

I was responding to the assertion that markets always produce the best possible solution. This is clearly wrong in the presence of externalities. In the case of smoking, by smoking you are imposing a cost on those around you, since they must either bear the negative impacts of cigarette smoke or relocate to another place which bans smoking; obviously relocation is not positive absent your smoking or they would have done that regardless. This is a classic case of an externality, your choice negatively impacts on my set of choices.

The paper you quote is way outside the economic mainstream and seems to be merely a series of bold assertions. It's central argument appears, from my skimming, to be flawed; he asserts that in certain cases adjustment for externalities would produce negative consequences. That may or may not be true but it does not imply that externalities do not cause market failures. Either could be true, or both, or neither.

[calmB4storm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have no way of knowing whether there's jizz on your bed sheets. You have no way of knowing whether the hotel dumps cat urine into their swimming pool. You have no way of knowing whether they've set up hidden cameras in your shower to spy on you. Luckily the government... oh wait, never mind. Free market: Infinity + 1, Government: 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but government health regulations greatly reduce the liklihood [sic] of all of those. You go to USC. There's no way your pansy ass could survive in this unregulated 3rd world country you apparently want the US to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice, when you lose the argument, it's good to know you can still always resort to ad hominem attacks. And thanks for the tremendous insight into the troubles of third world countries. Who knew that if their governments would only enforce a few more arbitrary regulations, they'd be well on their way to unimaginable wealth!

[/ QUOTE ]

I resorted to that because USC sucks, not because I lost some lame argument that we don't need health regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]
O RLY?

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
My impression is that he is not claiming that smoking does not cause lung cancer, only that there is impossible to prove causation.

[/ QUOTE ]bbbaddd - But it has been proven!

People who claim it has not been proven either have not seen the proof or have looked at the proof and claimed that it is not proof.

The little cells that develop into cancerous cells may always be present, but they don't actually develop into what is diagnosed as cancer until something causes them to do that. What causes them to do that in some individuals? Inhaling materials containing various lung irritants, including cigarette smoke, is what causes them to do that.

If you want to be asinine about it, I suppose there is no "proof" that you and I currently have brains.

Buzz

[bbbaddd]

[ QUOTE ]



As I said in response to another post - [Trans fats] are in some foods and you don't have any way of knowing which ones without a laboratory test. They are poisonous. [Saying they should be allowed] is like saying its OK for food manufacturers to include mercury or cyanide in your food without telling you...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think the government needs to protect the consumer from trans fats? It's easy to avoid, and who are we to impose value judgments on someone who enjoys cheap trans fat food even if they know that they may die from it?