NY State Dept of Health is in the process of running a long series of anti-smoking TV commercials and have set up a dedicated smokers quit line.
I've never been a smoker, but I have to think that those commercials are brutally effective in getting people to at least think about quitting.
In the first series last year, they focused on not being around to see your children grow up. Now they're turning towards the suffering from the diseases. The latest one has 25 seconds of a guy with an oxygen tube in his nose suffering terribly as he labors for breath and hacks at his kitchen table and then the last 5 seconds says something like "Death from smoking isn't quick... it's slow and extremely painful" and a few miscellaneous stats about emphysema.
All that being said, I think the state goes too far when it prohibits smoking around one's own children. People still have the right to do what they like in their own homes and vehicles and I don't think there's a certain enough link to harming the children to warrant interference with the right to privacy.
Originally posted by utherpendragon I equate stats such as these with man made global warming stats. Its the same ol same ol. The liberals pick something to demonize and then run with it. More laws, more laws, give more and more power to the government and less and less freedom for the people.
Originally posted by utherpendragon No I dont.
And I am not a cigarette smoker.
I do believe Government intrusion is harmful.
But granted that cigarette smoke is harmful, and that some people choose to expose their innocent children to that harm, is it not right that the state should attempt to protect them?
Originally posted by avalanchethecat But granted that cigarette smoke is harmful, and that some people choose to expose their innocent children to that harm, is it not right that the state should attempt to protect them?
Here's the problem with your argument, it doesn't go far enough. If the state believes that people are willfully harming their children by smoking around them, shouldn't they take them away? Should the state intervene if children don't get enough vegetables in their diet? What about if infants sleep on their bellies instead of their backs (as recommended by pediatricians)?
Originally posted by dryhump Here's the problem with your argument, it doesn't go far enough. If the state believes that people are willfully harming their children by smoking around them, shouldn't they take them away? Should the state intervene if children don't get enough vegetables in their diet? What about if infants sleep on their bellies instead of their backs (as recommended by pediatricians)?
I don't see a problem. Yes, you're right, a responsible state probably ought to classify tobacco as a controlled substance, as I previously suggested. A responsible state probably should take steps to ensure a nutritious and balanced diet is provided to all of its citizens' children (perhaps via free school dinners paid for by taxation of foods that are scientifically proven to be harmful in excess). As to the position in which infants sleep, this I would consider to be something that is (a) not proven as harmful/beneficial, (b) beyond the remit of even a responsible state inasmuch as it is not something that is imposed upon the child, and (c) entirely impossible to police anyway.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat But granted that cigarette smoke is harmful, and that some people choose to expose their innocent children to that harm, is it not right that the state should attempt to protect them?
You are attempting to create a stawman.
You asked "Do you dispute that smoking is harmful?" I said No.
You come back with "...granted that cigarette smoke is harmful". Two entirely different things.
Smoking is harmful. Thats why you got to be 18 yrs old to purchase tobacco. The stats on "passive" or "second hand smoke" are suspect to say the least. You even agreed to that.
Originally posted by utherpendragon You are attempting to create a stawman.
You asked "Do you dispute that smoking is harmful?" I said No.
You come back with "...granted that cigarette smoke is harmful". Two entirely different things.
Smoking is harmful. Thats why you got to be 18 yrs old to purchase tobacco. The stats on "passive" or "second hand smoke" are suspect to say the least. You even agreed to that.
It's really not intentionally a strawman. Perhaps I missed a step due to an unwarranted assumption however - do you dispute that the passive ingestion of mainstream and sidestream cigarette smoke by children in a confined environment is harmful?
I didn't really agree already that the stats were suspect. They probably are inaccurate to a certain degree - that's the nature of these kinds of statistics - although I think it's clear from a large number of studies that passive smoking can be extremely damaging.
I think people who drive cars and contionusly pollute the air are cretinous and grotesue....hehe... second hand smoke is trivial compared to other problems.. nothing like ex smokers ranting on about how terrible smoking is but had no problem smoking for 20 plus years... You gonna apologize to every bloke you smoked in front of for the last 2 decades..I doubt it.
Originally posted by mochiron I think people who drive cars and contionusly pollute the air are cretinous and grotesue....hehe... second hand smoke is trivial compared to other problems.. nothing like ex smokers ranting on about how terrible smoking is but had no problem smoking for 20 plus years... You gonna apologize to every bloke you smoked in front of for the last 2 decades..I doubt it.
Agreed, there are many other problems which ought to be addressed. This is a pretty simple step however isn't it? And if it prevents the infliction of smoking-related illnesses on non-smokers in the future, isn't that a good thing? And you know what? I do feel sorry for the smoke I inflicted on people around me for 20 plus years. Am I going to track them all down and apologise? Of course not! What a ridiculous idea. Wanna know something else? Even 30 years ago I never smoked in front of children and if somebody asked me not to smoke I acceded to their wishes.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat Agreed, there are many other problems which ought to be addressed. This is a pretty simple step however isn't it? And if it prevents the infliction of smoking-related illnesses on non-smokers in the future, isn't that a good thing? And you know what? I do feel sorry for the smoke I inflicted on people around me for 20 plus years. Am I going to track ...[text shortened]... r smoked in front of children and if somebody asked me not to smoke I acceded to their wishes.
well good on you for being aware of it..... Yes...smoking in front of children is a bit too much..but I reckon the state should not be involved at that leve. I smoke maybe one or tmw times a year and like tobacco...but it aint a daily thing for me... Arkansas..... the center of the Earth....
Originally posted by mochiron well good on you for being aware of it..... Yes...smoking in front of children is a bit too much..but I reckon the state should not be involved at that leve. I smoke maybe one or tmw times a year and like tobacco...but it aint a daily thing for me... Arkansas..... the center of the Earth....
I loved smoking tobacco. Still love the smell of other people's smoke, especially a good cigar. But that's how addiction works isn't it? I guess if you can do it that infrequently then you're not really an addict.
I like the anonymous quote on your profile btw. Makes me feel better about my game!
Originally posted by dryhump I think their statistics suck. 50000 to 300000? 200000 to 1000000? With such a wide range they might as well say we don't know, but we think it's bad. That would be closer to the truth.
Confidence intervals, most likely, or perhaps a range of statistics based on different studies. It's hard to be precise with observational studies, anyway.
Arkansas Bans Smoking in Cars With Children
04 Aug '11 13:07
Back to Top