We youth at EvC are in Moral Decline

quote:

---

As long as the stated main purpose of the place is to smoke there, I don't care.

​

However, what you are describing is different from a movie theater, the main purpose of which is to show movies, which also allows smoking.

---

So... let me see if I have this straight... If a local Hoyts theater allows smoking you have a problem? But if it changes its name to "Hoyts Smoking Lounge" you don't have a problem? Even if it's the exact same business?Okay, fine. Call it Hoyt's Smoking Lounge. No skin off my nose, and I won't have to duck outside for a smoke during "Return of the King". It sounds like semantics to me, though.

And as all new businesses developed across America, they would also be subjugate to this bill, upon opening to the public. Although they(business owners) may feel they should have the right to change their minds, at least proposed bill would play a democratic part in giving them a choice (at all). To punish the whole class(American business owners) because of the folly and disregard of a handful of people(smokers with no regard) seems moderately communist. Actually seems very similar to a few of my grammer school teachers who were too lazy or intimidated to punish only those who should've been.------------------
"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."

quote:

---

So... let me see if I have this straight... If a local Hoyts theater allows smoking you have a problem? But if it changes its name to "Hoyts Smoking Lounge" you don't have a problem? Even if it's the exact same business?

---

As long as the main thing people are meant to do there is lounge and smoke, not watch movies, then no, I don't have a problem.I doubt that they would be able to afford to screen "Return of the King" if they allowed smoking except maybe in a couple of years when it goes to second run theaters.I don't think they would get enough people there because of the smoke.

I bet people wouldn't really give a dang as long as you hooked it up. Marketing goes a long way. You build a nice cinaplex with some balconies in each theater, like the one near my house. Smokers gotta be seated within the balcony section, while non-smokers get comfortable on the first floor. Then you get some nice clean air ventilation units, a big lobby w/ some video games for the kids, a slushie machine, and a one size popcorn with free refills...bam - everybody's gonna be there.------------------

As long as I can't smell it, I wouldn't care.

gotta love compromise...------------------

Frankly this is what I figured it was about all along. As long as laws are crafted to suit your bigotry that's just fine by you, who cares what effect it has on other people's rights.How about once in a while applying the same level of intelligence and rationality you nearly always exhibit towards evolution/creation topics to those of ethics and morality... or at least to laws and the political process.In the case of smoking you first have to figure out what your real problem is. Is it the smell or is it the cancer causing chemicals? They are not one and the same.I mean from what you just said above, as long as people wore poison emitting suits that didn't stink... or smoked tobacco that didn't stink... you wouldn't care. Did you really mean that?In reality you can get cancer from substances whether you smell them or not, and be annoyed by substances that have no ability to cause cancer. What are we really dealing with in the case of smoking tobacco?I believe for most anti-smoking bigots aesthetic quality IS the main problem . If there was no research linking disease to tobacco smoke, we'd still be having this debate, only it would run along the lines of regulating noise pollution.For nonsmokers, of which I am most definitely one, most smoke is just plain annoying. In worst case scenarios it is actually irritating (eyes watering etc etc) and when you get back from a smoke filled room your clothes stink.But even I can admit the second hand smoke argument is such obvious crap unless you are stuck living or working in unventilated rooms for long periods of time.You don't just get a whiff of smoke, or spend some of your weekends in bars, and come down with cancer.In fact you are probably more at risk by exhaust fumes if you live within a major industrial city, or spend a good deal of time stuck in traffic.For real, what if there was no evidence for cancer at all (even to primary smokers) are you honestly saying smoking would suddenly be no problem for you?From your statement above, I think that is unlikely.Smoke stinks and you don't like it. That is the issue. Admit it. I sure as hell can.Now with that monkey off our backs we can start addressing the "problem" logically.1) Places that have recycled (i.e. self-contained) airsystems, or where open flames may cause explosions, smoking ought to be banned outright. This is purely for immediate safety reasons.2) In public areas, if smoking is desired by the owners, then adequate ventilation must be installed. No hysteria here. The villagers don't have to run out with torches to burn down the offenders' buildings. Just make sure owners install adequate ventilation. Presto-magico both cancer and annoyance factor are removed.3) In areas which cannot be properly ventilated, due to technical reasons like inability to house ventilation on the rooftop, the owner must decide to make the area a private one (ie a members only bar) or don't allow smoking. In the mean time if you don't like smoke, then don't go to places where the ambience includes smoke.4) In outside areas, suck it up sister. I cannot fathom what situation you would find yourself in (while outside) where you are forced to endure smoke to such an extent that it bothers you aesthetically or physically. So you catch a whiff of someone smoking and you don't like it? It's freaking outdoors, move two or three feet to the side.I have lived by the sea (horrid smells of rotting fish), in the country (horrid smells of manure), and in a city (sewers) which happens to have plenty of horse carriages in my neighborhood (more manure and horsepiss if you are stuck walking next to one). In the first two cases, it is area wide and so I moved far enough away. In the other two it is local and so moved a few steps here or there. It works for smoke too.There is no reason to be so bigoted towards smokers, just because you don't like smoking. They are not more jerky or careless about others' feelings than are nonsmoking jerks who hassle people in other ways. The only difference is you want to see them that way.Just like some racist jerk can always have anecdotes about how bad blacks are.So get a grip, it's arguments like yours that undercut rational solutions to real problems, resulting in the stock dilemma approach to lawmaking our "zero tolerance" society is now embracing.If you can't tell by now, I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance. Let's find ways to coexist.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Frankly this is what I figured it was about all along. As long as laws are crafted to suit your bigotry that's just fine by you, who cares what effect it has on other people's rights.

---

Oh, bite me.As long as you can find something to nitpick so you can feel superior and reassure yourself that your views are unassailable, at least in your own head, you will beat someone over the head endlessly.

quote:

---

How about once in a while applying the same level of intelligence and rationality you nearly always exhibit towards evolution/creation topics to those of ethics and morality... or at least to laws and the political process.

---

Oh, I suppose that means that, if I do that, I will therefore agree with all of your views, right?It certainly seems that you have decided that your views on ethics and morality are, by definition, always rational and intelligent, therefore anyone who disagrees with your views is unintelligent and irrational.

quote:

---

In the case of smoking you first have to figure out what your real problem is. Is it the smell or is it the cancer causing chemicals? They are not one and the same.

---

No shit? Thanks for pointing that out to me. You sure are smart.

quote:

---

I mean from what you just said above, as long as people wore poison emitting suits that didn't stink... or smoked tobacco that didn't stink... you wouldn't care. Did you really mean that?

---

If I can smell it, I logically conclude that I am inhaling smoke, therefore I am also inhaling cancer-causing chemicals.I also don't like the smell and if I am around enough tobacco smoke for long enough, my eyes, nose, and throat are irritated for hours after leaving the smoke.

quote:

---

In reality you can get cancer from substances whether you smell them or not, and be annoyed by substances that have no ability to cause cancer. What are we really dealing with in the case of smoking tobacco?

---

Second hand smoke is a known cause of cancer. I can post the research papers here if you like, just let me know.

quote:

---

I believe for most anti-smoking bigots aesthetic quality IS the main problem . If there was no research linking disease to tobacco smoke, we'd still be having this debate, only it would run along the lines of regulating noise pollution.

---

Well, there is research linking second hand smoke to cancer in non-smokers, so your "what if" scenario is rather beside the point, don't you think?

quote:

---

For nonsmokers, of which I am most definitely one, most smoke is just plain annoying. In worst case scenarios it is actually irritating (eyes watering etc etc) and when you get back from a smoke filled room your clothes stink.

​

But even I can admit the second hand smoke argument is such obvious crap unless you are stuck living or working in unventilated rooms for long periods of time.

​

You don't just get a whiff of smoke, or spend some of your weekends in bars, and come down with cancer.

​

In fact you are probably more at risk by exhaust fumes if you live within a major industrial city, or spend a good deal of time stuck in traffic.

---

Right. So what?

quote:

---

For real, what if there was no evidence for cancer at all (even to primary smokers) are you honestly saying smoking would suddenly be no problem for you?

---

It would be about as much of a problem to me as people who wear too much perfume or cologne.

quote:

---

From your statement above, I think that is unlikely.

---

Whatever. You will think what you want to think, obviously.

quote:

---

Smoke stinks and you don't like it. That is the issue. Admit it. I sure as hell can.

​

Now with that monkey off our backs we can start addressing the "problem" logically.

​

1) Places that have recycled (i.e. self-contained) airsystems, or where open flames may cause explosions, smoking ought to be banned outright. This is purely for immediate safety reasons.

​

2) In public areas, if smoking is desired by the owners, then adequate ventilation must be installed. No hysteria here. The villagers don't have to run out with torches to burn down the offenders' buildings. Just make sure owners install adequate ventilation. Presto-magico both cancer and annoyance factor are removed.

​

3) In areas which cannot be properly ventilated, due to technical reasons like inability to house ventilation on the rooftop, the owner must decide to make the area a private one (ie a members only bar) or don't allow smoking. In the mean time if you don't like smoke, then don't go to places where the ambience includes smoke.

​

4) In outside areas, suck it up sister. I cannot fathom what situation you would find yourself in (while outside) where you are forced to endure smoke to such an extent that it bothers you aesthetically or physically. So you catch a whiff of someone smoking and you don't like it? It's freaking outdoors, move two or three feet to the side.

​

I have lived by the sea (horrid smells of rotting fish), in the country (horrid smells of manure), and in a city (sewers) which happens to have plenty of horse carriages in my neighborhood (more manure and horsepiss if you are stuck walking next to one). In the first two cases, it is area wide and so I moved far enough away. In the other two it is local and so moved a few steps here or there. It works for smoke too.

---

Really? That's great information, holmes. Thanks for explaining that to me. Honestly, I wouldn't know how to get out of the midst of a smell if you hadn't explained it to me!

quote:

---

There is no reason to be so bigoted towards smokers, just because you don't like smoking. They are not more jerky or careless about others' feelings than are nonsmoking jerks who hassle people in other ways. The only difference is you want to see them that way.

---

Oh, really? Well, I suppose you know my life and my experiences best.

quote:

---

Just like some racist jerk can always have anecdotes about how bad blacks are.

​

So get a grip, it's arguments like yours that undercut rational solutions to real problems, resulting in the stock dilemma approach to lawmaking our "zero tolerance" society is now embracing.

​

If you can't tell by now, I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance. Let's find ways to coexist.

---

Once again, it seems like you have decided to present my views in caricature form in lieu of actually reading what I write.

Don't like it do you? So why do you practice this on those whose views you disagree with?I HAVE read what you wrote. I got sick of reading your asinine caricatures of smokers as insidious drug fiends out to hurt other people, and wrote up a response in kind. If you don't believe you did so, I'll cite your posts.Bite me? You sure like to dish it out to smokers, gun advocates, hedonists, as well as bible boppers, but you can't seem to take it in kind.But that's beside the point, PLEASE cite studies which show that catching a whiff of second hand smoke causes cancer. I am anxious to see them. As far as I've seen the only studies done involve more than casual and inconstant exposure to smoke. This makes sense of course because smoke does not do damage like a virus or bacteria or chemical poisons like mustard gas. It takes a wearing down of a body's natural defenses and healing processes to cause damage.Sure second hand smoke can cause cancer, but not through the casual contact people who choose to live a smokefree lifestyle are exposed to.I am saying that as a nonsmoker who agrees with you that being in a smoke filled environment can be irritating (as in really physically painful). That's why I don't hang out in such places for long. And you know I never found that I ever HAD to suffer if I chose not to. That includes in Europe where smoking is everywhere.But maybe that's why I don't caricature smokers as you have. In Europe smoking is not treated as irrationally by the public as it is in the US. It is true that gov'ts in Europe are jumping on the legal bandwagon to legislate smoking, but smokers themselves are not ridiculed and caricatured by the populace as they are here.And I guess I should say while I did caricature YOU, I don't think I caricatured your position at all. Tell me where I got it wrong... you think laws should be passed to ban smoking in public areas, or at least make it so you don't have to smell it (which has nothing to do with cancer)?For future reference, you will only get caricatured when I see you caricaturing others. That's my form of censure for someone I know should know better. Or at least one that demands better from others, before dishing out the hate speech.------------------
holmes

Hmmmm, actually I take specific offense to your "once again" remark.At this point in time there are two or three totally uncaricatured arguments you have left dangling with me.Admittedly I may have caricatured your position more than once, but not all the time. And when I've bothered stripping things down to nuts and bolts, leaving only pure evidence and logic to discuss, you have consistently cut and run.That is not a caricature.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Don't like it do you? So why do you practice this on those whose views you disagree with?

---

I don't think I do.

quote:

---

I HAVE read what you wrote. I got sick of reading your asinine caricatures of smokers as insidious drug fiends out to hurt other people, and wrote up a response in kind. If you don't believe you did so, I'll cite your posts.

---

I do not think of smokers as "insidious drug fiends out to hurt other people".Go ahead. Cite me.I contend that this is a misrepresentation of my views and something you tend to do in your posts.

quote:

---

Bite me? You sure like to dish it out to smokers, gun advocates, hedonists, as well as bible boppers, but you can't seem to take it in kind.

---

I don't tend to caricature people's views so I can tear down a strawman.

quote:

---

But that's beside the point, PLEASE cite studies which show that catching a whiff of second hand smoke causes cancer.

---

Where did I EVER say that "catching a whiff" of second hand smoke causes lung cancer?More caricature.What I ACTUALLY said was that there are studies that support the idea that second hand smoke causes lung cancer.Why don't you respond to what I write instead of what you would like to argue against?

quote:

---

I am anxious to see them. As far as I've seen the only studies done involve more than casual and inconstant exposure to smoke. This makes sense of course because smoke does not do damage like a virus or bacteria or chemical poisons like mustard gas. It takes a wearing down of a body's natural defenses and healing processes to cause damage.

​

Sure second hand smoke can cause cancer, but not through the casual contact people who choose to live a smokefree lifestyle are exposed to.

---

Done arguing with that caricature of my views? Hope you had fun.

quote:

---

I am saying that as a nonsmoker who agrees with you that being in a smoke filled environment can be irritating (as in really physically painful). That's why I don't hang out in such places for long. And you know I never found that I ever HAD to suffer if I chose not to. That includes in Europe where smoking is everywhere.

​

But maybe that's why I don't caricature smokers as you have. In Europe smoking is not treated as irrationally by the public as it is in the US. It is true that gov'ts in Europe are jumping on the legal bandwagon to legislate smoking, but smokers themselves are not ridiculed and caricatured by the populace as they are here.

​

And I guess I should say while I did caricature YOU, I don't think I caricatured your position at all. Tell me where I got it wrong... you think laws should be passed to ban smoking in public areas, or at least make it so you don't have to smell it (which has nothing to do with cancer)?

---

Hey, I get it that smelling and cancer risk are not the same thing. I knew that before you decided to educate me. What part of "No shit?" don't you understand?Look, you took a single sentence reply of mine and made believe that my entire argument was based upon only the smell of tobacco smoke. This would mean that you would have had to ignore everything else in this thread that I have written.That sentence was simply shorthand for everything else I had written.

quote:

---

For future reference, you will only get caricatured when I see you caricaturing others. That's my form of censure for someone I know should know better. Or at least one that demands better from others, before dishing out the hate speech.

---

Whatever (like I said before).You are not the arbiter of all that is moral and ethical.

quote:

---

How about once in a while applying the same level of intelligence and rationality you nearly always exhibit towards evolution/creation topics to those of ethics and morality... or at least to laws and the political process.

---

quote:

---

Oh, I suppose that means that, if I do that, I will therefore agree with all of your views, right?

​

It certainly seems that you have decided that your views on ethics and morality are, by definition, always rational and intelligent, therefore anyone who disagrees with your views is unintelligent and irrational.

---

quote:

---

Hmmmm, actually I take specific offense to your "once again" remark.

​

At this point in time there are two or three totally uncaricatured arguments you have left dangling with me.

---

Which two or three? I can only think of one.

quote:

---

Admittedly I may have caricatured your position more than once, but not all the time. And when I've bothered stripping things down to nuts and bolts, leaving only pure evidence and logic to discuss, you have consistently cut and run.

---

Yes, you did eventually stop the epic-lenth, caricature-filled tirades, but you had to be asked to stop several times.Truthfully, I don't trust you to leave them out of your posts, and this most recent exchange in this thread simply confirms that you will engage in such tactics at the drop of a hat.You're a smart guy. I shouldn't have to demand that you not misrepresent what I write when we debate.The truth is, the fact that your strong tendency is to misrepresent me, while also displaying the attitude of someone who is morally and ethically superior, really bothers me.I do not enjoy debating with someone who has to be repeatedly asked to do so in good faith.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-02-2003]

You didn't portray cigarette smokers as drug fiends etc etc... If this was your writing and it is not accusation by anecdote, please explain it to me. It sounds exactly like what I compared it to... the anecdotal rantings of racist bigots.You may notice I never came into this thread until you made these statements. That "as history shows" comment is what really got me bent out of shape. Sounds just like racists. That's when I went to work on you in the same manner you have ripped into racists and homophobes.Smokers are not how you depict. Calm rational examination would undermine the anecdotal experiences you have had. Just as I'm sure you would argue to a racist, that just because (s)he was always beaten up or mugged by blacks, does not mean that all blacks are that way.You didn't say a whiff will cause cancer? Again, please explain what the proper implication of this statement was, if not that smelling could indeed lead to cancer. Smelling, while logically entailing the potential and perhaps in some cases actual inhalation of cancer-causing chemicals (depends on what the cause of the smell is), inhaling cancer-causing chemicals does not logically entail the possibility of getting cancer from those chemicals.The problem with cancer causing chemicals is level of exposure. That means concentration and it means exposure time. It is highly unlikely that just because you smell smoke you are at any risk of getting cancer from it.I find it interesting that you ignored my request to bring on evidence, including what your real position was (if I was wrong about it), and concentrated on claims that I always make strawmen. Why didn't you just present the evidence for either issue?Anyhow, for kicks I went out and perused the "major report" on second hand smoke put out by the IRCA and used as the source quote for anti-smoking fanatics.Having read it in more detail, it said pretty much what I figured it would (from years of working in chemical labs and so familiar with what exposure and toxicity mean).But since I always create strawmen why don't you find the quotes from the IRCA document (or any other study) and show me where anything less than persistant exposure to smoke (ala living with a smoker or working in a smoking workplace) increases your risk of cancer. That goes double for anything along the lines of smelling smoke allows you to logically conclude anything... I'll clue you in, the mixture studies debunk that theory.On other issues, I should have said you left 2-3 THREADS dangling. I realize 2 are the same argument. I just couldn't remember if gun control was left dangling or not. Certainly your claim that guns increase suicide rates was left dangling, and I saw you restate it somewhere else more recently even though you still have not accurately addressed the criticism.Let me conclude by tearing apart your strawman of me. I do not feel morally or ethically superior to you, neither have I ever said that. In fact, I am a subjectivist so I don't really think there is such a thing.You will note in all cases I have only berated you to apply better logic and understanding to ethical/moral/legal issues. Where you have not used them (for whatever meta-psychological reason) you have fallen for the same bigotry you have recognized and chastised others for. If you had not shown your ability to recognize it in others, I probably wouldn't have said anything to you at all.So what I do feel is that on such issues I am--- for the most part--- LOGICALLY and RATIONALLY superior to you. This "superiority" best being defined as "more consistent." I don't let personal and anecdotal experiences drive my ultimate conclusions on such topics, or about whole classes of people. Anecdotes can help one see different sides, but not make the conclusions.That said, I do not like the legalislation of bigotry, mainly because it goes against the idea of personal freedoms our country was presumably founded on, and personally the only way I believe true peace can be achieved. This has nothing to do with ethical superiority, just proper management (balance) of all the ethical systems out there.Zero tolerance based legislation (ie banning) is the legislation of bigotry. It is the stock dilemma made concrete. Therefore, whether I agree with someone's morality or not, wherever I see someone supporting legislation along these lines I will fight it vociferously (I can't believe I actually used that word).------------------
holmes