Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[23_Tauri]

Addiction is pretty well-defined. If you experience withdrawal, then you are chemically addicted to something. It's possible you are not addicted to nicotine, though I can't say for sure. I don't believe marijuana is addictive and I know sugar isn't.

Oh rly? Sugar's not addictive? There's no withdrawal in sugar addicts? Although there isn't consensus on the matter (and in science I don't think it's healthy to have consensus, so hurrah to that) there are plenty of scientists working in the field that completely disagree with you.

Even wikipedia cites studies and theories on sugar addiction:

In 1998, Kathleen DesMaisons[2] outlined the concept of sugar addiction as a measurable physiological state caused by activation of mu opioid receptors in the brain. Her work extracted data from studies done by Blass[3] showing that sugar acted as an analgesic drug whose effects could be blocked by a morphine blocker. Acting on years of anecdotal evidence from her work in the field of addiction, DesMaisons noted that dependence on sugar followed the same track outlined in the DSM IV for other drugs of abuse.

Since that time, a growing body of laboratory evidence[4][5] has corroborated DesMaisons' hypothesis. Bart Hoebel at Princeton began showing the neurochemical effects of sugar, noting that sugar might serve as a gate drug for other drugs.

Honestly, I perhaps should have avoided the whole addiction thing. That makes something WORSE, but it isn't a core part of what I am talking about.

I'm glad you did, because I find it a fascinating topic, but it is a bit of a de-rail here. How about we take it over to the thread that Eddie Dane's recently started called My Jihad on Sugar?

Just saying, it seems like making something annoying to do rather than banning it works better.

So if simply being annoying didn't 'work' and make people behave in a way that you find acceptable, you'd be a prohibitionist instead?

The cheap ones, of course (like the aforementioned ramen noodles). The most cost-effective stuff for caloric intake IS cheaper than healthy stuff and not good for you in significant quantities.

This is sounding like straw, let's leave it at that.

If you have to alter your neural chemistry to unwind or have fun or hurt yourself to unwind or have fun, I politely suggest that something is wrong with your brain or your life. I don't think this is an unreasonable stance to have.

Human history puts me in the majority, here. That could be construed as an argumentum ad populum but it demonstrates that people like getting off their ****. Animals do too, in fact. There was a thread about drunk wild animals on here only a few days ago.

For the record, no I don't need to take a substance to enjoy myself, I can do that perfectly well without. And there is nothing wrong with my life, thank you very much. But you seem to want to deny consenting adults from the choice of intoxication, if they so choose to imbibe something that alters their neural chemistry. Why is that?

And what of other behaviours that change neural chemistry that people indulge in because it makes them feel good? Like exercise? Or bungee jumping? Would you ban those too if making them difficult to participate in wasn't 'working' as you put it?

 

[Drachasor]

Oh rly? Sugar's not addictive? There's no withdrawal in sugar addicts? Although there isn't consensus on the matter (and in science I don't think it's healthy to have consensus, so hurrah to that) there are plenty of scientists working in the field that completely disagree with you.

Even wikipedia cites studies and theories on sugar addiction:

I'll look into that. If my understanding is wrong, then I'll change it. That said, from what you have provided such a conclusion seems premature.

I'm glad you did, because I find it a fascinating topic, but it is a bit of a de-rail here. How about we take it over to the thread that Eddie Dane's recently started called My Jihad on Sugar?

Might not be a very long discussion.

So if simply being annoying didn't 'work' and make people behave in a way that you find acceptable, you'd be a prohibitionist instead?

If by "find acceptable" you mean "minimize injury to themselves and others" then yes. If prohibition worked and it stopped all alcohol related fatalities, I'd consider it a really good thing.

Human history puts me in the majority, here. That could be construed as an argumentum ad populum but it demonstrates that people like getting off their ****. Animals do too, in fact. There was a thread about drunk wild animals on here only a few days ago.

It IS indeed an appeal to popularity.

For the record, no I don't need to take a substance to enjoy myself, I can do that perfectly well without. And there is nothing wrong with my life, thank you very much. But you seem to want to deny consenting adults from the choice of intoxication, if they so choose to imbibe something that alters their neural chemistry. Why is that?

Alcohol causes a lot of deaths every year. Illegal drugs in general do a lot of damage in a lot of ways both to users and to the people they effect.

 

[jiggeryqua]

If you have to alter your neural chemistry to unwind or have fun or hurt yourself to unwind or have fun, I politely suggest that something is wrong with your brain or your life. I don't think this is an unreasonable stance to have.

Smoking, and kinky sex. The same threads, the same arguments, round and round and round.

1) I don't like it
2) I don't like the idea of it
3) I particularly don't like the idea of other people liking it
4) They're wrong (see 1).

 

[23_Tauri]

If by "find acceptable" you mean "minimize injury to themselves and others" then yes. If prohibition worked and it stopped all alcohol related fatalities, I'd consider it a really good thing.

That's where we differ, isn't it? I'm not a prohibitionist. You can ban things and even bring in draconian punishments for people who transgress those laws, but people still wanna get high. Ever wondered why?

It IS indeed an appeal to popularity.

I'll mention that to the pen tailed shrew who likes a tipple.

Alcohol causes a lot of deaths every year. Illegal drugs in general do a lot of damage in a lot of ways both to users and to the people they effect.

Indeed, but why penalise the people who drink sensibly because some moron gets drunk on Stella and goes home to beat up his wife? Or kids binge-drinking on a Saturday night and vomiting all over my town centre. Why does that only happen in the UK and not other European countries when we have the same rules on availability of alcohol? Maybe it's not the substance that's the problem....

Sorry, you missed my ETA. What about other activities that people do because it affects their neural chemistry in ways that feel nice? Even though they might be dangerous? Like dangerous sports, for example. Can we have fun doing those things?

 

[23_Tauri]

Smoking, and kinky sex. The same threads, the same arguments, round and round and round.

1) I don't like it
2) I don't like the idea of it
3) I particularly don't like the idea of other people liking it
4) They're wrong (see 1).

You're making me dizzy. This thread is intoxicating!

 

[23_Tauri]

I'll look into that. If my understanding is wrong, then I'll change it. That said, from what you have provided such a conclusion seems premature.

I didn't want to go on a massive de-rail, so just provided an introduction to the current scientific debate on sugar and addiction, so you could see that there's isn't a consensus on the matter. Happy reading.

 

[Drachasor]

That's where we differ, isn't it? I'm not a prohibitionist. You can ban things and even bring in draconian punishments for people who transgress those laws, but people still wanna get high. Ever wondered why?

You proposed in a hypothetical world where merely banning something would work. You didn't say there was any need for draconian punishments. I'd say if it required that, then it probably wasn't working.

Given addiction, no, I haven't really wondered why. I think it has been adequately explained.

I'll mention that to the pen tailed shrew who likes a tipple.

Your point? Remember, you are trying to make a valid argument here about why this is good behavior. I don't see how saying "well, other animals DO IT TOO!" does that.

Indeed, but why penalise the people who drink sensibly because some moron gets drunk on Stella and goes home to beat up his wife? Or kids binge-drinking on a Saturday night and vomiting all over my town centre. Why does that only happen in the UK and not other European countries when we have the same rules on availability of alcohol? Maybe it's not the substance that's the problem....

Err, what makes you think those things only happen in the UK?

Secondly, do you have another method that would curb the problematic behavior that results in death?

Third, would this also handle the other potential problems like liver damage and the like?

Sorry, you missed my ETA. What about other activities that people do because it affects their neural chemistry in ways that feel nice? Even though they might be dangerous? Like dangerous sports, for example. Can we have fun doing those things?

Give an example. Gladiatorial combat with lethality? I'd say "no." Rock climbing done properly? Sure, why not?

Are you saying no concern should be given regarding safety, public health, or the like?

 

[Drachasor]

Smoking, and kinky sex. The same threads, the same arguments, round and round and round.

1) I don't like it
2) I don't like the idea of it
3) I particularly don't like the idea of other people liking it
4) They're wrong (see 1).

What's wrong with kinky sex? Is there some health problem there I am not aware of?

 

[jiggeryqua]

What's wrong with kinky sex? Is there some health problem there I am not aware of?

If you have to [...] hurt yourself to unwind or have fun, I politely suggest that something is wrong with your brain or your life. I don't think this is an unreasonable stance to have.

Oh, are you just being pedantic? Nothing wrong with 'kinky sex', as such, just with 'the brains or lives of people who enjoy pain as part of their sex life'.

There are plenty of health issues ('problems' is such a judgemental word, don't you think?) around kinky sex, as I'm sure you actually are aware if you take a moment to check.

There are health issues in all areas of life - economic growth hurts people, sports hurt people, everything hurts people. I don't know why smoking is the current cause, nor why "I don't like it, you shouldn't do it!" has come to stand for reason (even here). What truly motivates you, Drachasor?

 

[23_Tauri]

You proposed in a hypothetical world where merely banning something would work. You didn't say there was any need for draconian punishments. I'd say if it required that, then it probably wasn't working.

It was you that proposed the hypothetical world where 'making things annoying' was better than banning, not me. You implied that banning might work too, but the annoying thing was even better. Me, I think both suggestions suck.

Given addiction, no, I haven't really wondered why. I think it has been adequately explained.

What has been adequately explained? How some people can just smoke occasionally and be ok with that, whilst others have a 40 a day habit? Has that been 'adequately explained'? Or coke. Why do some people get addicted to coke and other people try it and think "ugh, that's nasty" and don't do it again, or maybe just like to do it on birthdays and other special occasions?

Your point? Remember, you are trying to make a valid argument here about why this is good behavior. I don't see how saying "well, other animals DO IT TOO!" does that.

My point was that if there's something 'wrong with me' because I like to smoke tobacco socially and even (shock horror ) a pint of intoxicating ale, then I'm in very good company, and you're in the minority.

Err, what makes you think those things only happen in the UK?

I guess you're not from the UK. We have a HUGE problem with drunken disorder that is on an scale and character inconceivable to our European neighbours.

Ach, gorra post this:
Welcome to binge Britain: Polish photographer documents four years of drunken revelry in Cardiff
Yes, I know it's the Daily Fail, but just try and look past that for a second

Secondly, do you have another method that would curb the problematic behavior that results in death?

Sorry, whose death? The battered housewife? More money for public services that help people in abusive relationships, like safe houses and such like, that would be good.

Third, would this also handle the other potential problems like liver damage and the like?

We're back to the subject of taxation and health care costs here. I don't know the figures for alcohol, but smokers pay for their health care, and then subsidise everyone else's on top because they're such generous folk.

Give an example. Gladiatorial combat with lethality? I'd say "no." Rock climbing done properly? Sure, why not?

Are you saying no concern should be given regarding safety, public health, or the like?

Everything carries a risk. That bungee cord might snap and an innocent passer-by get squashed! What level of risk is acceptable in life? What if the risk is just to yourself, e.g. when smoking in the company of other smokers? Or rock climbing alone? Accidents can always happen, y'know.

What if the gladiators in your scenario both accept it's a fight to the death? Just because that offends your sensibilities you want to stop them. That's totally unreasonable in my book.

 

[dafydd]

Of course they are. My dear departed father smoked a pipe as long as I knew him. He was a fine member of the community. The problem was he used to stuff it with something like 'Old Dark Shag' which stank the house out. It perhaps was in an attempt to counteract the odours of my (Austrian) mother cooking up home-brewed sauerkraut. I'm surprised I still have any olfactory capability.

I haven't smoked a cigarette in almost 20 years, and wouldn't be averse to a complete ban. The problem would be that a number of my friends still do that, and it's getting harder to find a place where we can socialize. I dislike the stench, but I'll put up with it.

If there was a ban, maybe we'd just hang out under the freeway bridges, where the good folks go.

V.

Even the non smokers here in Belgium are complaining about the ban on smoking in bars. The problem is that a bunch of people will be having an interesting conversation at the bar and then the smokers nip outside for a smoke,ruining the flow of the conversation. The result is that even the non-smokers are going outside now and the bars are almost empty,no atmosphere. I was in my local watering hole yesterday and a couple of non-smokers told me that the place wasn't the same without a bit of smoke. Another problem is that fines have have been dished out to bar owners because of noise outside their bars during anti social hours. The anti-smoking brigade have forced the smokers out on to the street and then they are surprised when they talk to each other. The ban is to provide a safe working environment for employees. Nobody was ever forced to go and work behind a bar.

 

[Drachasor]

It was you that proposed the hypothetical world where 'making things annoying' was better than banning, not me. You implied that banning might work too, but the annoying thing was even better. Me, I think both suggestions suck.

It's not a hypothetical. I said it because prohibition was a massive failure. Smoking laws that ban it in public areas and otherwise make smoking annoying but not illegal seem to work well at discouraging smoking.

What has been adequately explained? How some people can just smoke occasionally and be ok with that, whilst others have a 40 a day habit? Has that been 'adequately explained'? Or coke. Why do some people get addicted to coke and other people try it and think "ugh, that's nasty" and don't do it again, or maybe just like to do it on birthdays and other special occasions?

Some people are more vulnerable than others, certainly. What's your point?

My point was that if there's something 'wrong with me' because I like to smoke tobacco socially and even (shock horror ) a pint of intoxicating ale, then I'm in very good company, and you're in the minority.

Again, appeal to popularity where "good company" is random animals for some reason.

Given smoking laws, I am certainly not in the minority, btw.

I guess you're not from the UK. We have a HUGE problem with drunken disorder that is on an scale and character inconceivable to our European neighbours.

The USA also has problems. Europe might have less problems in that particular area, but that doesn't mean they don't have the other problems associated with alcohol.

Sorry, whose death? The battered housewife? More money for public services that help people in abusive relationships, like safe houses and such like, that would be good.

Drunk driving. Wives murdered by drunken husbands. Alcohol poisoning.

I'd generally say that alcohol isn't a root factor in domestic abuse (though it certainly can lower inhibitions and make things worse).

We're back to the subject of taxation and health care costs here. I don't know the figures for alcohol, but smokers pay for their health care, and then subsidise everyone else's on top because they're such generous folk.

Smokers inflict injury on others. Second-hand smoke.

Everything carries a risk. That bungee cord might snap and an innocent passer-by get squashed! What level of risk is acceptable in life? What if the risk is just to yourself, e.g. when smoking in the company of other smokers? Or rock climbing alone? Accidents can always happen, y'know.

That's why you aren't supposed to rock climb alone and bungees are supposed to be carefully checked.

Nothing wrong with reasonably minimizing the risk of death.

What if the gladiators in your scenario both accept it's a fight to the death? Just because that offends your sensibilities you want to stop them. That's totally unreasonable in my book.

Well, be my guest at being offended. I'd be against people killing each other in the streets even if they agreed to do so. Same with doing it in other places. Life matters.

 

[Drachasor]

Oh, are you just being pedantic? Nothing wrong with 'kinky sex', as such, just with 'the brains or lives of people who enjoy pain as part of their sex life'.

There are plenty of health issues ('problems' is such a judgemental word, don't you think?) around kinky sex, as I'm sure you actually are aware if you take a moment to check.

The vast, vast, vast majority of kinky sex has no significant health issues whatsoever. I'm not arguing against pain, I'm arguing against injury and death. There's a difference.

There are health issues in all areas of life - economic growth hurts people, sports hurt people, everything hurts people. I don't know why smoking is the current cause, nor why "I don't like it, you shouldn't do it!" has come to stand for reason (even here). What truly motivates you, Drachasor?

Maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering in the short and long run.

 

[dafydd]

Or kids binge-drinking on a Saturday night and vomiting all over my town centre. Why does that only happen in the UK and not other European countries when we have the same rules on availability of alcohol? Maybe it's not the substance that's the problem....

You have hit the nail on the head, Here in Belgium people go to bars to socialize,not to get hammered in a short a time as possible and then fall out into the streets en masse to cause mayhem. You do see drunks in bars but they don't cause problems. You won't believe this,but I have been living here since 1975 and I have never seen a fight in a bar and I've been in a quite a few. It's a cultural difference,there is something aggressive in the British character. Scenes like the photos in the link below never happen over here. I wouldn't live in Britain again for all the tea in China.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-turned-Britain-laughing-stock.html?ITO=1490

 

[dafydd]

Smokers inflict injury on others. Second-hand smoke.{/QUOTE]

The dangers of passive smoking may have been overrated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/637758.stm

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...-out-truth-over-passive-health-name_page.html

http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm

 

[dafydd]

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.-H. L. Mencken

 

[Drachasor]

You have hit the nail on the head, Here in Belgium people go to bars to socialize,not to get hammered in a short a time as possible and then fall out into the streets en masse to cause mayhem. You do see drunks in bars but they don't cause problems. You won't believe this,but I have been living here since 1975 and I have never seen a fight in a bar and I've been in a quite a few. It's a cultural difference,there is something aggressive in the British character. Scenes like the photos in the link below never happen over here. I wouldn't live in Britain again for all the tea in China.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-turned-Britain-laughing-stock.html?ITO=1490

Though, from what I've read with a search, they've been struggling a bit with deaths due to drunk driving.

All I am saying is that if there was a law that made drinking a little more difficult and saved 500 lives per year in Belgium from drunk driving, it would seem like a good idea to me. Efficacy is important here, of course, a law that produced no significant effect wouldn't be worth it.

Deaths seem like a bigger issue than some drunken disorderliness.

 

[Drachasor]

Smokers inflict injury on others. Second-hand smoke.

The dangers of passive smoking may have been overrated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/637758.stm

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...-out-truth-over-passive-health-name_page.html

http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm

""All credible scientific evidence shows that passive smoking irritates in the short term and is a major cause of illness in the long term."

ASH say that passive smoking is responsible for 600 cases of lung cancer and 12,000 cases of heart disease a year."

You're not exactly convincing me that it isn't a concern. The risk being a bit less than was thought is a LOT different from no risk at all.

 

[23_Tauri]

It's not a hypothetical. I said it because prohibition was a massive failure.

Ah. That's not what you said. You said that making something annoying was "better than" banning it, which implies that you see at least some merit in the banning option. I misunderstood you.

Smoking laws that ban it in public areas and otherwise make smoking annoying but not illegal seem to work well at discouraging smoking.

So you are coming from the angle that no-one should smoke anywhere because you don't like it? Even if it's their choice, no, make it really difficult for them to make them stop altogether because you think cigarettes are nasty, dirty, horrible, smelly things.

Some people are more vulnerable than others, certainly. What's your point?

That addiction and how it works isn't fully explained.

Again, appeal to popularity where "good company" is random animals for some reason.

No, good company is most of the human population, that bit that likes to get together and have a pint and a chin-wag.

Given smoking laws, I am certainly not in the minority, btw.

Appeal to popularity.

Oh, and although I don't think there's been any surveys done on numbers, there are plenty of people in the UK that support an amendment to the current blanket ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces.

The USA also has problems. Europe might have less problems in that particular area, but that doesn't mean they don't have the other problems associated with alcohol.

No, you really don't know what it's like over here on Friday and Saturday nights.

Drunk driving. Wives murdered by drunken husbands. Alcohol poisoning.

Most people who drink don't a) batter their nearest and dearest; or b) die of alcohol poisoning.

I'd generally say that alcohol isn't a root factor in domestic abuse (though it certainly can lower inhibitions and make things worse).

So why blame the alcohol? "It wasn't me, the Stella made me do it, Officer"

Smokers inflict injury on others. Second-hand smoke.

Well, possibly, but not proven, but we'll get onto that. And if the smokers are outside, away from you sensitive non-smokers, or happily enscounced in their seedy private smoking clubs? Are we inflicting our SHS on you then?

That's why you aren't supposed to rock climb alone and bungees are supposed to be carefully checked.

Nothing wrong with reasonably minimizing the risk of death.

Agreed.

Well, be my guest at being offended. I'd be against people killing each other in the streets even if they agreed to do so. Same with doing it in other places. Life matters.

Liberty matters. No, I don't support fighting to the death either, and definitely not as a public spectacle (I didn't mention anything about our two Fightclub members being in public) but it's a question of how much we think the State has a right to intervere in the private realm, aka what we do with our bodies and our lives as consenting adults. Not innocent by-standers, us.

 

[23_Tauri]

You have hit the nail on the head, Here in Belgium people go to bars to socialize,not to get hammered in a short a time as possible and then fall out into the streets en masse to cause mayhem. You do see drunks in bars but they don't cause problems. You won't believe this,but I have been living here since 1975 and I have never seen a fight in a bar and I've been in a quite a few. It's a cultural difference,there is something aggressive in the British character. Scenes like the photos in the link below never happen over here. I wouldn't live in Britain again for all the tea in China.

I would believe it, Dafydd. I used to holiday in Belgium and the Netherlands quite a bit with my ex-husband. He was a bit of a beer aficionado so we'd go over to learn about beer and drink it too. Not once did I see anyone acting roudy on the streets of either country, despite the fact the locals were drinking the strongest beer this side of Alpha Centauri. Being obviously drunk in public is just not socially acceptable, and people don't do it.

I love Belgium.