Planning a smoking area?

[Xest]

The thing is, there are some dangerous things we can't change or avoid, some things we should be able to change but can't (because the powers that be wont let us for example), some things have already been changed to be less dangerous. Unfortunately smoking fits into the final category, things that can be changed. It's really no surprise therefore that it is picked on because it is one of those things that can (and will in many countries) be changed.

[Xest]

If you can't differentiate between paedophilia, murder & smoking or see the obvious differences between them then you seriously have a problem which I'm not qualified to treat. Fortunately I'm sure you can, so you're just trolling, which is OK

Avoiding the question again? Shall I assume from that therefore it's that you do think discrimination is okay but only when it doesn't bother you? You clearly understand that discrimination is acceptable in some circumstances in that you accept that murder and paedophilia are things society doesn't need, so why do you cry discrimination in the smoking case? would you expect a paedophile to cry discrimination and people to turn round and say "Yeah fair enough mate, sorry we discriminated against you come out of jail"? I think not.

[Quinlan]

The thing is, there are some dangerous things we can't change or avoid, some things we should be able to change but can't (because the powers that be wont let us for example), some things have already been changed to be less dangerous. Unfortunately smoking fits into the final category, things that can be changed. It's really no surprise therefore that it is picked on because it is one of those things that can (and will in many countries) be changed.

And i dont think there are many people complaining about not being able to smoke in pubs anymore. I actually like it myself and i am a smoker.

But you seem to put it to an extreme. If you wanna avoid it there is a really simple way (once it is banned in pubs etc) dont go to places where smokers are. Live and let live.

The public transportation you use creates alot more pollution and is more likely to kill you then the odd passive smoke

[Sharkith]

Your real problem is your lack of understanding of what constitutes proof Sharkith, it's much the same as the previous religious debate where you demonstrated you were convinced Darwinism is a big conspiracy theory and refused to acknowledge the fact we can view some aspects of evolution first hand and hence suggested that there was no proof for evolution, that it's just something that's taught and handed down. If you can't accept the ability to view and experience something in an environment where no outside factors are an issue as first hand proof then I'd say it's extremely questionable as to your ability to derive proof from a single website. If indeed you believe a single website is proof enough, then this article alone would be enough to prove that you're wrong - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2925633.stm.

Furthermore, you justify your point by suggesting a website from a university (which even at least supports studies pointing out smoking can cause harm to some extent) web server yet refute examples provided by Wikipedia which, as stated includes links to off-site studies which are as equally valid as the link you provide, and in some cases even more so. Furthermore, whilst Wikipedia is prone to short term vandalism (a day or so), in the long term it is a very well set up system that is reviewed by people with experience in the field, where counter-arguments can and will be protected by moderators who have shown years of unbiased moderation. It's arguable how you define unbiased of course, but if the moderation were to be biased, with the amount of subjects covered there would always be a time where their bias would conflict with their supporters opinions. Of course you could fake a wikipedia article, if you don't include citations it will be deleted however, if you create your own off-site citation you maybe able to get it to stay up but in this case you only have to look at the domain names for a demonstration of their authenticity.

The most obvious point therefore is that as the article is well established, in that it hasn't been modified in a while which is a sign that the article is acceptable as is because there have been no requests for modification from opposing parties, the same applies to this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_eff ... co_smoking

So unfortunately, whilst the smokers here might like to believe Sharkith is right, and whilst they're welcome to that view, the evidence that they're incorrect is overwhelming. I realise it would be nice to believe, that if you do smoke, that you can smoke freely forever and not suffer any health effects and if you do believe that that's okay, however don't subject the rest of us to it.

Don't like being nagged at for smoking? Stop smoking - it's your choice.

Once more Xest your model of evidence and proof is about 3 Centurys out of date. We dropped the notion of experience as sufficient proof after Hume suggested it and we have moved through several long standing debates between empiricism and rationalism since then. Your almost completely out of kilter with most of these debates. I can accept there is an increased risk but I do not think it qualifies as a cause. To accept that smoking 'causes' cancer is to drop my notion of science and scientific burden of proof. Some things just cannot be proved for ethical reasons and we should not do some things like smoke in someones face for ethical reasons. Thats a better and more positive way to have the argument.

I don't think you gain anything by trying to argue that passive smoking kills. In fact I find that argument unscientific and counterproductive. Al you end up with are the debates that you have managed to generate here.

Given that your not really clear on what science is I do think you should leave it and maybe go read some Popper or the logical positivists like Hempel. Even better read Lakatos and Musgrave "Criticism and the growth of knowledge" or Kuhn's 'Structure of scientific Revolutions'. Once you have done that basic reading we can talk about falsificationism and the burden of proof. Until then I think there is very little point in engaging with you on this subject because your are too uninformed to be able to carry the discussion appropriately.

I think Quin has it spot on for some smoking is a risk for others it is a danger and the difference leads to hot debates like the one we are having now. Thankfully science continues along on its merry way trying to establish what if any truth is behind both claims.

[Quinlan]

Avoiding the question again? Shall I assume from that therefore it's that you do think discrimination is okay but only when it doesn't bother you? You clearly understand that discrimination is acceptable in some circumstances in that you accept that murder and paedophilia are things society doesn't need, so why do you cry discrimination in the smoking case? would you expect a paedophile to cry discrimination and people to turn round and say "Yeah fair enough mate, sorry we discriminated against you come out of jail"? I think not.

Now your just being silly and get stuck in proving yourself right.

You, me and everyone else knows there is a very big difference between a smoker and a paedophile or murderer. Comparing them is just stupid...

[Sharkith]

Xest if your so into this why not come down to the following Public Lecture at the University and we can chat about it? You don't live far from me we could have a nice pint and a good barny at the same time.

'Whose risk? Whose choice? Whose health?'

by Professor Sir John Krebs, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford

in Firth Hall, Firth Court, Western Bank
on Wednesday 28 March 2007 at 6pm

We all make choices about risks that affect our health, whether it's the
food we eat, the amount of exercise we take, or choosing whether to
smoke or drink. To what extent, and when, should these kinds of risks
be managed on our behalf by others, or should it always be up to us as
individuals? How well informed are our choices and do we really have
options? Or are the so-called choices really constructed for us by
others? If it is up to us to choose, should we also be prepared to take
responsibility for the consequences? How does the notion of individual
choice and autonomy square with notions of reducing inequalities? I
will explore these and related questions, drawing on examples from diet
and health, and other aspects of public health policy.

[OohhoO]

Avoiding the question again? Shall I assume from that therefore it's that you do think discrimination is okay but only when it doesn't bother you? You clearly understand that discrimination is acceptable in some circumstances in that you accept that murder and paedophilia are things society doesn't need, so why do you cry discrimination in the smoking case? would you expect a paedophile to cry discrimination and people to turn round and say "Yeah fair enough mate, sorry we discriminated against you come out of jail"? I think not.

Well since you insist...
With Murder & Paedophilia there's the small matter of the victim who is by murder DIRECTLY dead, & by paedophila DIRECTLY sexually-abused. I've never seen anyone fall down directly dead or need psychiatric treatment for the rest of their lives as a result of me smoking a cigarette on my balcony. Time to stop being silly IMO.

[OohhoO]

I don't think you are honest tbh, then you could aswell say that you don't care if you'r dead, because there is a big chance that those smoking end up so, even though that aint always the case.

I don't care to turn anyone with my words or anything like that, Im just saying what I think, also I aint perfect myself, but there is no point in lying to yourself, noone belives they will get sick and thats about it, when and if you do, well you wont be so tuff then.

I've already been through that experience.
I survived it <shrug>
You live as long as you're alive & once you're dead you're dead.
Worrying about it or trying to change it seems pointless to me.
Maybe some other form of existance comes afterwards maybe not.
So yes, I think I can safely say I probably won't care if I'm dead.

& ... "there is a big chance that those smoking end up (dead), even though that aint always the case."
Actually it IS always the case
& the chance that those not smoking end up dead is exactly equally big
<runs away & hides>

[Lieva]

I am curious.

Why do people enjoy smoking anyway?
After all everyone enjoys a drink but they dont become alcoholics..
So what is different between smoking and drinking?

To say smoking calms you down is wrong as it is proven to increase heart rate etc.
To say its a social thing is also nul and void because alot of people wont go where smoke is...
To say you enjoy being addicted is kinda odd also as surely if you knew you couldnt live without something, you would try to stop it?

Is it like an extreme habbit? The kinda thrill that each time you are cheating death?

I really am curious so please answer nicely

[Lieva]

I've already been through that experience.
I survived it <shrug>

kinda different.
You couldnt prevent the accident you had.
smoking diseases you can...

(edit)

or at lease lesson the chances