Drugs, smoking and the right to post opinions.
So I was debating on QC forums and the thread got locked before I posted even half of what I think on the subject.
The subject was stupid laws, someone claimed not being able to smoke indoors or to do drugs fell under this category. The thread is here. It was locked by Trollstormur when he claimed it had "degenerated into shit slinging, it most certainly is not civil discourse." I hope he wasn't implying me in that statement.
Mostly for my own sake, I am posting here my rebuttals on the issue. You would need to read the thread to understand some of it, I think. It is cut for length and probably disinterest, but I don't care.
To be honest, that's not a very good example. For one, when you're outside, smoke dissipates very quickly and widely -
unless you are standing right beside someone and they breathe in your face, there is little effect.
My flail is quite short. Unless you're standing right beside me it's not going to hit you.
Second, most smokers I know are polite enough to think of non-smokers.
And most smokers I know aren't. We can't really debate whether more smokers are polite or impolite, so how about I amend it
to there are always going to be some smokers (flail flingers) who don't give a rats.
And third, passive smoking is significantly less dangerous than a flail.
Do you mean you're more likely to be hit by a flail than to get cancer from passive smoke inhalation? I'm sure I'm
more likely to be kicked by an emu than I am to have a coconut fall on my head, but still, I'd rather neither happened.
Or do you mean cancer is a less significant injury than being hit by a flail? I'm pretty sure a bruise and some cuts,
although nasty, would be easier to fix than cancer. You can see it, you can get to it, you don't have to rely on cures that
only sometimes work to fix it.
Or do you mean that death by flail is worse than death by cancer? My grandaddy died of lung cancer, and I know
which he would have preferred. Lung cancer is a cruel, painful death which tries to see how much of your dignity it can steal
before it lets you go.
As for taxing, to the best of my knowledge the tax on drink and cigarettes pays for most of the Irish health service.
Read this : http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html Especially the box near the bottom. Smoking costs in fires, cigarette breaks, lost working days, passive smoking complications, cleaning costs and more. I especially like this bit: "17,000 under-5s are hospitalised each year as a result of respiratory conditions caused by their parents smoking." I suppose these under fives should just leave the house.
Do you condemn cars when people die of speeding?
There's a law against that, yes? We are talking about laws, yes?
Do you scream ban cigarettes! when someone fucks up their lungs?
I am saying ban cigarettes, yes. Not all at once, because they are addictive, but it is most government's mission to eventually get rid of tobacco use and I agree with that.
Do you hate knives because people cut themselves while preparing food?
It is a fact people need to prepare food. They do not need to take drugs, they merely want to. Calculated risks are a part of life. Also, I've never seen anyone accidentally cut anyone else while preparing food.
Lawmakers justify infringing on people's rights like this by quoting studies that purport to show that second-hand smoke causes cancer or other health problems. The fact is that this is utter bullshit. There was only one study that clainmed this several years back and it was shown to be a flat out lie... they altered the data.
Plenty of health problems related to passive smoking are pointed out and backed up by studies conducted all around the world here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke
The tobacco industry and its supporters have argued that improved ventilation is the answer to the problem of passive smoking. The best air-cleaning systems, if properly operated and maintained, can remove some of the toxic components found in tobacco smoke. However, air-conditioning systems merely circulate the air and do not adequately remove tobacco smoke from the indoor atmosphere. In practice, mechanical ventilation systems alone are not a satisfactory alternative to banning or restricting smoking. - http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact14.html
Is it illegal to drink alcohol while pregnant?
It ought to be.
No.
A compelling argument. I can see this definitely needs a rebuttal. Or not.
If you can't see the difference between recreational drug use that is not proven to harm people, and swinging a dangerous weapon around other people for no reason, there is something wrong with you.
It IS proven to harm people. And I am swinging the dangerous weapon for my own recreational reasons. You're not questioning my motives or trying to take away my right to do whatever I want, be damned of the consequences, are you? :O
So what you're saying is that the law should infringe upon personal freedom because you're too stupid to go somewhere else?
Why do you automatically assume I should go somewhere else and not you? You're the one who wants to smoke, so go somewhere you can smoke. How about we put it to majority vote? More people do not smoke than do. The minority should go somewhere else and stop ruining things for the majority.
Drug users would continue to buy from dodgy dealers? Do you seriously think this? When was the last time you saw a dealer standing on a street corner offering alcohol and cigarettes?
I was referring to illegal drugs, but now that you mention it, both alcohol and cigarettes are imported illegally to avoid taxes. They don't stand on street corners though, no.
Not that I think a government approved drugs would be any safer. Did you know a single cigarette can contain 4000 chemicals, more than half of which are untested or even undefined?
So?
You're not even being properly informed of what you're consuming, but you don't care? Is this apathy? Stupidity? Something else?
If someone's driving is dangerous, they should be stopped by police, whether they are under the influence of drugs or not.
Absolutely. Did you read my arguments about there not being enough manpower to police this? There is not a cop on every road, heck, there isn't even a cop in every suburb. Shall we just wait and hope that everyone doing drugs gets caught eventually? That's what we're doing with speeding and drink driving, and it's not working very well."
The subject was stupid laws, someone claimed not being able to smoke indoors or to do drugs fell under this category. The thread is here. It was locked by Trollstormur when he claimed it had "degenerated into shit slinging, it most certainly is not civil discourse." I hope he wasn't implying me in that statement.
Mostly for my own sake, I am posting here my rebuttals on the issue. You would need to read the thread to understand some of it, I think. It is cut for length and probably disinterest, but I don't care.
To be honest, that's not a very good example. For one, when you're outside, smoke dissipates very quickly and widely -
unless you are standing right beside someone and they breathe in your face, there is little effect.
My flail is quite short. Unless you're standing right beside me it's not going to hit you.
Second, most smokers I know are polite enough to think of non-smokers.
And most smokers I know aren't. We can't really debate whether more smokers are polite or impolite, so how about I amend it
to there are always going to be some smokers (flail flingers) who don't give a rats.
And third, passive smoking is significantly less dangerous than a flail.
Do you mean you're more likely to be hit by a flail than to get cancer from passive smoke inhalation? I'm sure I'm
more likely to be kicked by an emu than I am to have a coconut fall on my head, but still, I'd rather neither happened.
Or do you mean cancer is a less significant injury than being hit by a flail? I'm pretty sure a bruise and some cuts,
although nasty, would be easier to fix than cancer. You can see it, you can get to it, you don't have to rely on cures that
only sometimes work to fix it.
Or do you mean that death by flail is worse than death by cancer? My grandaddy died of lung cancer, and I know
which he would have preferred. Lung cancer is a cruel, painful death which tries to see how much of your dignity it can steal
before it lets you go.
As for taxing, to the best of my knowledge the tax on drink and cigarettes pays for most of the Irish health service.
Read this : http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html Especially the box near the bottom. Smoking costs in fires, cigarette breaks, lost working days, passive smoking complications, cleaning costs and more. I especially like this bit: "17,000 under-5s are hospitalised each year as a result of respiratory conditions caused by their parents smoking." I suppose these under fives should just leave the house.
Do you condemn cars when people die of speeding?
There's a law against that, yes? We are talking about laws, yes?
Do you scream ban cigarettes! when someone fucks up their lungs?
I am saying ban cigarettes, yes. Not all at once, because they are addictive, but it is most government's mission to eventually get rid of tobacco use and I agree with that.
Do you hate knives because people cut themselves while preparing food?
It is a fact people need to prepare food. They do not need to take drugs, they merely want to. Calculated risks are a part of life. Also, I've never seen anyone accidentally cut anyone else while preparing food.
Lawmakers justify infringing on people's rights like this by quoting studies that purport to show that second-hand smoke causes cancer or other health problems. The fact is that this is utter bullshit. There was only one study that clainmed this several years back and it was shown to be a flat out lie... they altered the data.
Plenty of health problems related to passive smoking are pointed out and backed up by studies conducted all around the world here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke
The tobacco industry and its supporters have argued that improved ventilation is the answer to the problem of passive smoking. The best air-cleaning systems, if properly operated and maintained, can remove some of the toxic components found in tobacco smoke. However, air-conditioning systems merely circulate the air and do not adequately remove tobacco smoke from the indoor atmosphere. In practice, mechanical ventilation systems alone are not a satisfactory alternative to banning or restricting smoking. - http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact14.html
Is it illegal to drink alcohol while pregnant?
It ought to be.
No.
A compelling argument. I can see this definitely needs a rebuttal. Or not.
If you can't see the difference between recreational drug use that is not proven to harm people, and swinging a dangerous weapon around other people for no reason, there is something wrong with you.
It IS proven to harm people. And I am swinging the dangerous weapon for my own recreational reasons. You're not questioning my motives or trying to take away my right to do whatever I want, be damned of the consequences, are you? :O
So what you're saying is that the law should infringe upon personal freedom because you're too stupid to go somewhere else?
Why do you automatically assume I should go somewhere else and not you? You're the one who wants to smoke, so go somewhere you can smoke. How about we put it to majority vote? More people do not smoke than do. The minority should go somewhere else and stop ruining things for the majority.
Drug users would continue to buy from dodgy dealers? Do you seriously think this? When was the last time you saw a dealer standing on a street corner offering alcohol and cigarettes?
I was referring to illegal drugs, but now that you mention it, both alcohol and cigarettes are imported illegally to avoid taxes. They don't stand on street corners though, no.
Not that I think a government approved drugs would be any safer. Did you know a single cigarette can contain 4000 chemicals, more than half of which are untested or even undefined?
So?
You're not even being properly informed of what you're consuming, but you don't care? Is this apathy? Stupidity? Something else?
If someone's driving is dangerous, they should be stopped by police, whether they are under the influence of drugs or not.
Absolutely. Did you read my arguments about there not being enough manpower to police this? There is not a cop on every road, heck, there isn't even a cop in every suburb. Shall we just wait and hope that everyone doing drugs gets caught eventually? That's what we're doing with speeding and drink driving, and it's not working very well."