Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    Have a look at the added punctuation and compare it with the original - the inference is in the original, even without the addition of extra punctutation to aid proper sytax. :rolleyes:

    Anyway, here's something to be going on with - highlights of the report promised by The Royal College of Physicians.

    The economy stands to gain from an extra £4billion pounds because of increased producation from smokers who at the moment take 'ciggie' breaks! And the evidence that has proved that banning smoking in public leads to a reduction in smoking at home. All good news.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4672005.stm
    Offline

    13
    Recommendations of the Royal College of Physicians report "Going smoke-free"

    http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/books/goingsmokefree/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Thanks for the neg rep - I thought you were too mature to indulge in repping! :rolleyes:
    I didnt know appropriate use of the reputation system was immature? Or is this yet another off topic smear?

    As I said before - "No-one has an ultimate right when it impinges on the rights of an individual to protect their own health"

    Do you disagree with that statement? Yes or no.
    No. But smoking in a bar doesnt impinge on the right of the individual to protect their own health. You again suggest that the individual has no choice as to whether they enter into the bar or not. You throw rights and freedoms around when it suits, despite them being two-way concepts. You have the right to protect your health. Thats the right not to enter the bar, and because you do not acknowledge this freedom of choice, you are happy to remove everyone elses choice because, like most of what ive read, you believe that its the STATE's RESPONSIBILITY to protect your health and not that of the INDIVIDUAL.

    Its thus slightly amusing to see you refer to individual rights in your question, when your stance is one of their erosion, in favour of 'the majority'.

    Now, if you'll kindly answer my question:

    Do you believe that the state should maintain control over private property?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Look again at what you said - you deliberately attempted to attribute the comments made to me.
    I deliberately tried to catch the message you appeared to be delivering.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Have a look at the added punctuation and compare it with the original - the inference is in the original, even without the addition of extra punctutation to aid proper sytax. :rolleyes:
    So thats not verbatim then is it. Neither is it a quote. I dont know what your cause is, but im sure it would be aided if it wasnt founded on rather obvious fallacy.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    So thats not verbatim then is it. Neither is it a quote. I dont know what your cause is, but im sure it would be aided if it wasnt founded on rather obvious fallacy.
    For heavens sake Vienna, why don't you just give up, roll over and admit you are chasing a losing battle?

    It is not good trying to go 'off track' - the evidence all points to passive smoking being very dangerous. Therefore smokers have no right to inflict this danger in places where the public go.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    So thats not verbatim then is it. Neither is it a quote. I dont know what your cause is, but im sure it would be aided if it wasnt founded on rather obvious fallacy.
    I'm not going to wend my weary way down this 'no exit' passage you are trying to construct.

    You are wrong - I am right!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    You are wrong - I am right!
    This sums up the majority of your posts im afraid. I post an argument or rather my point of view of your opinion, and you again fail to address it. I post a rather obvious rebuttal of your accusations, you ignore them. What do you post? "You are wrong - I am right!". This should be point-driven discussion, not point scoring gamesmanship. Like your opinion on smoking, you dont want to read my posts, so believe I should be the one to stop posting. Why dont you exercise your right not to read them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Have a look at the added punctuation and compare it with the original - the inference is in the original
    Then why did you change it?

    Anyway, here's something to be going on with - highlights of the report promised by The Royal College of Physicians.

    The economy stands to gain from an extra £4billion pounds because of increased producation from smokers who at the moment take 'ciggie' breaks! And the evidence that has proved that banning smoking in public leads to a reduction in smoking at home. All good news.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4672005.stm
    You promised "new, irrefutable evidence." The report in fact contains no new evidence on passive smoking. Instead, it offers only (according to your link) a statement that the Board has "reviewed research into passive smoking" (the same research that is a subject of controversy in the medical community, as I have been documenting here).
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    This sums up the majority of your posts im afraid. I post an argument or rather my point of view of your opinion, and you again fail to address it. I post a rather obvious rebuttal of your accusations, you ignore them. What do you post? "You are wrong - I am right!". This should be point-driven discussion, not point scoring gamesmanship. Like your opinion on smoking, you dont want to read my posts, so believe I should be the one to stop posting. Why dont you exercise your right not to read them?

    That which you accuse me of is that which you do yourself!

    You have tried to steer this post onto a discusssion about communism and tyranny! I have not seen such nonsense for quite some time, expecially from one who I have some modicum of respect for - having taken up the 'cudgels' in your defence from time to time on other threads.

    There is no question that passive smoking, inflicted on the non-smoker by the smoker is deleterious to the health of the non-smoker. The smoker has the freedom to harm their own health - they should not have the same freeom to impose harm on the health of others.

    This surely is the only consideration when we talk of risk to life - eh?

    You exercise your right to challenge me to some silly game of semantics - I exercise my right to respond to them in the way they deserve.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)



    You promised "new, irrefutable evidence." The report in fact contains no new evidence on passive smoking. Instead, it offers only (according to your link) a statement that the Board has "reviewed research into passive smoking" (the same research that is a subject of controversy in the medical community, as I have been documenting here).
    Have you purchased the report then? You must have put your hands in your pocket to dig out the cash as the full report is not free, as evidenced by the link I provided. Cost to you is £18.00. See this;

    https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/booking/...tionorders.asp


    Smokers, because of their addiction, will refute any research that shows their habit is harmful to both themselves and others they inflict it upon.

    Now, if health professionals who are dealing with the results of smoking-inflicted diseases all day, every day say that smoking is harmful to one's health then I am far more inclined to believe them than reports paid for by advocates of cigarettes, such as fag manufacturers et al.

    You ignore such overwhelming evidence at your peril.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Have you purchased the report then?
    No, I looked at the link you posted. And I read what the spokesman said. Are you suggesting that there's new, irrefutable research & the spokesman was just being bashful about it?


    Smokers, because of their addiction, will refute any research that shows their habit is harmful to both themselves and others they inflict it upon.
    That's as may be, but I've been careful in my posts to cite health professionals who agree with me---many of them anti-smokers who have attacked the tobacco industry their entire careers. They are not smokers, so what do you have to say about them?

    I've given sound arguments for my views, and backed them up with hard numbers from scholarly journals and statements from eminent physicians, scientists, and researchers. Your only response has been that I'm an addict & therefore bound to think what I think. It's pretty pathetic.

    Now, if health professionals who are dealing with the results of smoking-inflicted diseases all day, every day say that smoking is harmful to one's health then I am far more inclined to believe them than reports paid for by advocates of cigarettes, such as fag manufacturers et al.

    You ignore such overwhelming evidence at your peril.
    But I never denied that "smoking is harmful to one's health."
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    No, I looked at the link you posted. And I read what the spokesman said. Are you suggesting that there's new, irrefutable research & the spokesman was just being bashful about it?




    That's as may be, but I've been careful in my posts to cite health professionals who agree with me---many of them anti-smokers who have attacked the tobacco industry their entire careers. They are not smokers, so what do you have to say about them?

    I've given sound arguments for my views, and backed them up with hard numbers from scholarly journals and statements from eminent physicians, scientists, and researchers. Your only response has been that I'm an addict & therefore bound to think what I think. It's pretty pathetic.



    But I never denied that "smoking is harmful to one's health."
    One has to examine the reasons for people taking particualr stances and attitudes to everything.

    And the reasons for dismissing the evidence on the dangers of smoking is because one is addicted and the threat of having the substance denied to them is what causes them to defend it. I don't consider that reasoning to be pathetic - on the contrary, it is at the nub of the matter.

    I have seen no 'sound' arguments from you to support your contention that smoking is not harmful - and indeed your last sentence says you have never denied that "smoking is harmful to one's health".

    So what exactly is your argument then, against a total ban on smoking in public places?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    You have tried to steer this post onto a discusssion about communism and tyranny! I have not seen such nonsense for quite some time
    Does erosion of individual freedom having nothing to do with tyranny? Does state control of private property not suggest statist and communist principles?

    There is no question that passive smoking, inflicted on the non-smoker by the smoker is deleterious to the health of the non-smoker. The smoker has the freedom to harm their own health - they should not have the same freeom to impose harm on the health of others.
    Again, you fail to address the point.

    smoking in a bar doesnt impinge on the right of the individual to protect their own health. You again suggest that the individual has no choice as to whether they enter into the bar or not. You throw rights and freedoms around when it suits, despite them being two-way concepts. You have the right to protect your health. Thats the right not to enter the bar, and because you do not acknowledge this freedom of choice, you are happy to remove everyone elses choice because, like most of what ive read, you believe that its the STATE's RESPONSIBILITY to protect your health and not that of the INDIVIDUAL.

    Its thus slightly amusing to see you refer to individual rights in your question, when your stance is one of their erosion, in favour of 'the majority'.

    Now, if you'll kindly answer my question:

    Do you believe that the state should maintain control over private property?

    You exercise your right to challenge me to some silly game of semantics
    Smoking in a bar doesnt impinge on the right of the individual to protect their own health. You again suggest that the individual has no choice as to whether they enter into the bar or not. You throw rights and freedoms around when it suits, despite them being two-way concepts. You have the right to protect your health. Thats the right not to enter the bar, and because you do not acknowledge this freedom of choice, you are happy to remove everyone elses choice because, like most of what ive read, you believe that its the STATE's RESPONSIBILITY to protect your health and not that of the INDIVIDUAL.

    Its thus slightly amusing to see you refer to individual rights in your question, when your stance is one of their erosion, in favour of 'the majority'.

    Now, if you'll kindly answer my question:

    Do you believe that the state should maintain control over private property?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i think a full ban should be enforced evntually, but i wouldnt expect in to come in suddenly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Vienna, where is the state "maintaining" control over private property? Even a smoking ban is only exerting control of the actions of individuals on private property. If that is what you mean by your question, then I believe absolutely that the state should maintain control over private property. The laws which forbid murder exert control over private property insofar as it remains illegal to murder someone on private property. I doubt anyone would have it any other way.

    Just as the state constricts the actions of the individual to prevent harm from others with GBH and murder laws applicable on private property, I believe it should do the same with regards to smoking.

    I don't see it as a liberty issue particularly - more as a matter of public health. It is not only non-smokers who suffer because of second-hand smoke. A collection of smokers in a pub are in effect constantly smoking, even if some of them only smoke ten a day.

    If we do cast it as a question of individual liberty however, I still believe a liberal will fall in in defence of a smoking ban. You make the argument that the individual has the choice to go to the place where someone is smoking or not, which is all very well, but is this liberty or is this the constriction of liberty by the actions of another individual? There is, admittedly, no clear answer - the liberty argument here is too complex to be the root cause of an individual's commitment or opposition to a smoking ban.

    I think the fact that we have to make the choice between going to a place and being harmed by the actions of others and not going to that place shows that our liberty is already constricted. The option of going to the place, where we may have friends or be meeting associates, without suffering the effects of smoking there is unavailable. The question then arises whether it is better to accept this limit on the choice of the individual or to be rid of it at the cost of the choice of another individual. The benefits of doing the latter however seem enormous, at the least for public health, but perhaps also in combatting Britain's undesirable drink culture.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    One has to examine the reasons for people taking particualr stances and attitudes to everything.

    And the reasons for dismissing the evidence on the dangers of smoking is because one is addicted and the threat of having the substance denied to them is what causes them to defend it. I don't consider that reasoning to be pathetic - on the contrary, it is at the nub of the matter.

    I have seen no 'sound' arguments from you to support your contention that smoking is not harmful - and indeed your last sentence says you have never denied that "smoking is harmful to one's health".

    So what exactly is your argument then, against a total ban on smoking in public places?
    My point has been straightforward all along: the danger of "passive smoking" is alarmist and probably fraudulent, & hyped beyond belief. Without passive smoke, the total ban argument wouldn't work: Like the God of philosophy, if cancer-causing ETS didn't exist it would be necessary to invent it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    My point has been straightforward all along: the danger of "passive smoking" is alarmist and probably fraudulent, & hyped beyond belief. Without passive smoke, the total ban argument wouldn't work: Like the God of philosophy, if cancer-causing ETS didn't exist it would be necessary to invent it.
    go one step further.

    a logical progression to your argument would be that smoking isnt harmful at all.

    fraudulent? dont be an idiot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    go one step further.

    a logical progression to your argument would be that smoking isnt harmful at all.
    Why would that be logical? Medicine has always maintained that "the poison is in the dose," and that there is a threshold for any substance below which it is safe. Any substance at all: we eat and drink traces of arsenic, etc., regularly. With cigarettes the danger threshold seems to be around 10 smokes per day.

    OSHA and others have conducted studies regarding the "dose" in smokey air: the numbers are very low (something like, you'd have to sit in an unventillated 10' by 10' room, with 10 smokers, for 270 hours before you inhaled the equivalent of one cigarette).

    But common sense can tell you this: the cycle of tobacco-related disease is, first smoking, then addiction, then increased tolerance/craving, then (after years) disease. Has any "passive smoker" even entered the addiction stage? Have you heard of anyone clamoring for their secondhand-smoke fix? Obviously they're not inhaling enough tobacco to even get a habit---and have you ever heard of a smoker without a habit getting lung cancer?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Why would that be logical? Medicine has always maintain that "the poison is in the dose," and that there is a threshold for any substance below which it is safe. Any substance at all: we eat and drink traces of arsenic, etc., regularly. With cigarettes the danger threshold seems to be around 10 smokes per day.

    OSHA and others have conducted studies regarding the "dose" in smokey air: the numbers are very low (something like, you'd have to sit in an unventillated 10' by 10' room, with 10 smokers, for 270 hours before you inhaled the equivalent of one cigarette).

    But common sense can tell you this: the cycle of tobacco-related disease is, first smoking, then addiction, then increased tolerance/craving, then (after years) disease. Has any "passive smoker" even entered the addiction stage? Have you heard of anyone clamoring for their secondhand-smoke fix? Obviously they're not inhaling enough tobacco to even get a habit---and have you ever heard of a smoker without a habit getting lung cancer?
    you were doing so very well until the last part of your last sentence.

    oh dear.
 
 
 

3,076

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.