DescentBB

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:06 pm**

How can it have anything to do with character? The bible plainly says it's not what goes in the body that defiles, but what comes out the mouth. Like judgements that do not belong to you. How could you ever lift someone up while looking down? You can't and that should be first and foremost. I think that's why God chose the foolish and weak things over the wise, they really have no need of Him and trust in their own righteousness. I'd rather be a fool.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:13 pm**

I don't know about "character," per se, but it certainly doesn't speak well of a person's intelligence if they've started smoking recently after we've known for four decades just how harmful it is. Even if you have been smoking for a long time, and I know it's very difficult, but there's no excuse for at least trying to quit.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:55 pm**

I think it is on par with a heroin adiction, especially if you started when I did, which was around 14. Some people didn't have good guidance growing up. It's like I said, there's a good combination of chemistry going on there to make it a hard as possible to quit. That said, I agree. Drinking, I quit in one day, never was much of a drinker anyways. Weed, I could take it or leave it, but I got high praise for it as pain medication. I dropped it a week ago, havn't looked back. Cigarettes, better lock me in a room, I get ill, and I mean an extreme lack of patience

. They effect your physiology. You have to wean yourself of cigarettes, which goes against sound principle.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:24 pm**

I'm not going to belabor the lack of character or weakness of character point. It's what I see. But let me put you on the couch, so to speak, for a moment, Flip. You said you got your start when you were 14. Didn't you know cigarettes were bad for you on some level? I mean if a person goes into it absolutely naively and becomes a victim of the chemical addiction, then you've got something, but if against whatever shred of better judgment they may possess it becomes a matter of character. See, everyone knows that "cigarettes are bad for you", but not everyone will act on that and give attention to the implications of "bad". That's a matter of character.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:50 pm**

Heh, I've had bad character, and still kept myself from most of the degeneration I saw. I was on the street when I was 14. I've slept outside in 20 degree weather with a coat zipped up over my head. Those druggies were the only ones who would feed me or house me. People like you went to the other side of the street. I say they had more character. I learned the hard way and it gave me an immense amount of understanding of people and empathy. 2 things you sorely lack.

EDIT: And before anyone starts talking about my "imaginary friend." He introduced His self to me when I was 6. I see it as pre-emptive.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:13 pm**

I remember the moment it time. Sitting on a vacation bible school bus. I said "I believe that too." I got a Bible that Christmas

EDIT: I'm not trying to be too hard on you Thorne, I just want you to realize you have been sheltered, which is a good thing, but you also lack perspective. So, give other the benefit of the doubt. It will be good for you and for them

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:11 pm**

I don't understand the "second hand smoke isn't bad for you" argument on even the most fundamental level. Surely everyone agrees that first hand smoke is bad for you. For second hand smoke to be harmless, it would have to be the case that a person's lungs perfectly filter every harmful chemical. But even if it were somehow possible to smoke so that your lungs perfectly filtered every harmful chemical, which seems unlikely, the wide degree of variance in which people handle the drag would ensure that this, in general, didn't happen. In fact, my understanding is that with cigarette smoking--unlike with many other drugs--the smoker does not hold the drag in his lungs for a considerable duration to specifically avoid the lungs absorbing the harshness of cigarette smoke.

ST wrote:Bottom line, IMO. If it's a matter of individual liberty, Ferno, however flawed his argument, is in the right. You can't have freedom and control. With so many people stupid enough to light up, freedom may be a stinky business in this case.

What happened to everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't violate anyone else's rights?

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:24 pm**

Exactly. As Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Kind of fitting when we're talking about cigarette smoke.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:32 pm**

My friend's wife is super allergic to cigarette smoke. To her it's not a matter of inconvenience, but of safety.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:54 pm**

Jeff250 wrote:I don't understand the "second hand smoke isn't bad for you" argument on even the most fundamental level. Surely everyone agrees that first hand smoke is bad for you. For second hand smoke to be harmless, it would have to be the case that a person's lungs perfectly filter every harmful chemical. But even if it were somehow possible to smoke so that your lungs perfectly filtered every harmful chemical, which seems unlikely, the wide degree of variance in which people handle the drag would ensure that this, in general, didn't happen. In fact, my understanding is that with cigarette smoking--unlike with many other drugs--the smoker does not hold the drag in his lungs for a considerable duration to specifically avoid the lungs absorbing the harshness of cigarette smoke.

ST wrote:Bottom line, IMO. If it's a matter of individual liberty, Ferno, however flawed his argument, is in the right. You can't have freedom and control. With so many people stupid enough to light up, freedom may be a stinky business in this case.
What happened to everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't violate anyone else's rights?

So does this mean I can walk naked into the junior high girls shower room? As long as I don't touch them everything should be cool...right?

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:24 pm**

woodchip wrote:
Jeff250 wrote:
ST wrote:Bottom line, IMO. If it's a matter of individual liberty, Ferno, however flawed his argument, is in the right. You can't have freedom and control. With so many people stupid enough to light up, freedom may be a stinky business in this case.
What happened to everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't violate anyone else's rights?
So does this mean I can walk naked into the junior high girls shower room? As long as I don't touch them everything should be cool...right?

My point in quoting that guideline was to make the general argument that people can*not* do whatever they want, namely when it harms other people.

In any case, I don't understand why you think you have a counterexample to the guideline. If you ran into the girls' locker room, of course you would be causing them harm, and violating their privacy on top of that. The principle says that you should *not* do that.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:46 am**

First off guys, this isn't intended to be a witch hunt. Remember that.

@Ferno, it's a hypothetical argument, although there is a policy that IS in place.

As for analogies, try to keep them similar. I'm seeing a lot of examples and analogies that are far too different from each other for the sake of a good argument.

I'm also more interested in what other colleges are doing to enforce these rules? What laws forbid such policies or what laws allow them?

Apparently in Kentucky, they have some kind of fine that they are charging and using volunteers to enforce these policies. I've also read however, that positive enforcement seems to work best rather than punishment.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/31/sm ... index.html

Perhaps a policy that simply has the students move a 50 feet from entrances and exits, students to enforce this and then perhaps some kind of a reward system for compliance? Perhaps even a class to help people quit smoking if they so choose?

It seems that no matter what policy you try to push for on this subject though, there are always drawbacks.

Looked into electronic cigs, thinking that maybe a policy that allows electronic cigs within these areas. However, where these use pure nicotine, there hasn't been enough long-term testing to prove or disprove the effects of the long-term effects of e-cigs for second-hand smoke. <---- I found this interesting.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:40 am**

We're more than happy to discuss the topic that you brought up, but we won't do your homework for you.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:33 pm**

Not expecting anyone to DO my homework for me lol. Just looking for some leads for a few good arguments. What I'm seeing here however is a bit of a witch hunt from both parties. Although amusing as it may be, it isn't really helpful to anyone.

Now, for the sake of argument, I'll toss in a couple of counter-arguments for you guys to think about.

First off, for the peeing in the pool analogy, this is an interesting thought, however, peeing in the pool is a lot harder to spot than 20 guys standing in a circle around entrances and exits of a college facility. If the college can spot a car without a parking pass and issue a ticket within 10 minutes of it sitting there, "which does happen", I can't see any reason why they can't have someone walk up to these guys and simply ask them to move a few feet from the building so that people can get in and out without breathing in smoke.'

As for a diesel truck sitting on the side of the road, yes, I would expect it to be my responsibility to move out of the way of the fumes. On the other hand, I can't really get around a group of smokers if they are surrounding every entrance/exit of a building because they are in a sense.... blocking them. It isn't always so easy to just move away from them or to walk around them.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:53 pm**

Related: Saw this USA Today article connecting smoking legislation to lower heat attack and stroke hospitalizations.
Smoking bans cut number of heart attacks, strokes

I was curious, so I tracked down the full text of the study. It's one of those aggregate type studies where they do a bunch of data mining and draw a conclusion. Looks pretty solid.
Association Between Smoke-Free Legislation and Hospitalizations for Cardiac, Cerebrovascular, and Respiratory Diseases

Here is the abstract:

Background—Secondhand smoke causes cardiovascular and respiratory disease. Smoke-free legislation is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization and death from these diseases.
Methods and Results—Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted by law comprehensiveness to determine the relationship between smoke-free legislation and hospital admission or death from cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases. Studies were identified by using a systematic search for studies published before November 30, 2011 with the use of the Science Citation Index, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase and references in identified articles. Change in hospital admissions (or deaths) in the presence of a smoke-free law, duration of follow-up, and law comprehensiveness (workplaces only; workplaces and restaurants; or workplaces, restaurants, and bars) were recorded. Forty-five studies of 33 smoke-free laws with median follow-up of 24 months (range, 2–57 months) were included. Comprehensive smoke-free legislation was associated with significantly lower rates of hospital admissions (or deaths) for all 4 diagnostic groups: coronary events (relative risk, 0.848; 95% confidence interval 0.816–0.881), other heart disease (relative risk, 0.610; 95% confidence interval, 0.440–0.847), cerebrovascular accidents (relative risk, 0.840; 95% confidence interval, 0.753–0.936), and respiratory disease (relative risk, 0.760; 95% confidence interval, 0.682–0.846). The difference in risk following comprehensive smoke-free laws does not change with longer follow-up. More comprehensive laws were associated with larger changes in risk.

Conclusions—Smoke-free legislation was associated with a lower risk of smoking-related cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases, with more comprehensive laws associated with greater changes in risk.

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:38 pm**

I have a solution to the problem.

If the antismokers really want smokers to be outside, provide a downdraft area that's heated. That way both parties win. The antismokers win because they don't have to deal with anyone who's inconsiderate, and the smokers win because they have a comfortable area to go to.

The more studies I viewed, the more I saw that there was a piece of information missing. the dosage, the number of dosages and the duration of each dose that shift from a safe exposure level to a toxic exposure level. Outside, I highly doubt the concentrations of secondhand smoke that are present is enough to warrant a smoking ban.

On the other hand, I can't really get around a group of smokers if they are surrounding every entrance/exit of a building because they are in a sense.... blocking them.

true enough but the chances of this happening is pretty remote. There's always going to be an entrance or two open.

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:58 pm**

Ferno wrote:
On the other hand, I can't really get around a group of smokers if they are surrounding every entrance/exit of a building because they are in a sense.... blocking them.
true enough but the chances of this happening is pretty remote. There's always going to be an entrance or two open.

I don't know where you live, but this is a regular problem for me in public places. There isn't always an alternative entrance/exit, and even if there was we get back into the problem of "why should I have to accommodate their bad habit?"

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:44 pm**

Ferno wrote:I have a solution to the problem.

If the antismokers really want smokers to be outside, provide a downdraft area that's heated. That way both parties win. The antismokers win because they don't have to deal with anyone who's inconsiderate, and the smokers win because they have a comfortable area to go to.

I've seen this in a number of places, actually, particularly in retail areas where keeping both smokers and nonsmokers happy is a priority. They're not universally used, but comfortable-looking areas with either outdoor heaters or misters (or both) seem to be popping up a bit more often, from what I've seen over the last several years.

Posted: **Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:10 am**

The people who live next door to me smoke, every year I dread the time when I must close the windows, because I also know it’s time for the annual irritated sinuses, burning eyes and headaches to begin.

So don’t expect me to be going out of my way anytime soon, to make smokers comfy.

Posted: **Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:59 pm**

Must not have much room between houses.

Posted: **Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:25 pm**

Posted: **Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:57 pm**

vision wrote:I don't know where you live, but this is a regular problem for me in public places. There isn't always an alternative entrance/exit, and even if there was we get back into the problem of "why should I have to accommodate their bad habit?"

I can imagine how annoying that could be.

@foil: nice to see it's actually being used.

DescentBB

Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?

Re: Smoking policies at college campuses?