Internal conflict
-
I largely agree - personal responsibility seems to be a thing of the past
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
Probably because most people ignore the "responsibility" part and focus on "personal". Take mobile phone use when driving, or DUI: People who do it don't think about the effect on others just their own wants and needs. Coercion is required because personal responsibility isn't even considered. Smoking is the same: my parents both smoked, and sometimes it was difficult to see out the window on the other side of the car due to the smoke level. To protect the children it's now illegal in many places - but you still see people doing it!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Hello Codepojectens, it's been a while! So here are two conflicting views on smoking: 1) If you want to smoke, that's your business and not for others to tell you whether you can or can't (as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else), and 2) Smoking should be banned, for the good of society and also for the good of the poor victims of an addictive drug. As I get older, I'm able to think back to freer times when people really were genuinely freer to do what they want, like the teachers who used to smoke in my classrooms. They were also free to use physical violence in the case of bad behaviour. Happy days! I suppose we have 'progressed' more from 1) above to 2) or are at least heading there. The problem is, to my mind, these mutually exclusive ideas about smoking are both valid and worth defending to the hilt, which also means I don't have a valid standpoint on the subject - the logic is broken. It's fairly rare for me to be not able to reach some conclusion, even if the conclusion is flawed or just wholly incorrect. Tricky, and for context I've dithered in and out of nicotine addiction (mostly in) for the last 25 years. Vape time.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
Smoking is a very strong addiction. Stronger than alcohol and in the same league with hard drugs. So, any measures to prevent young people from getting into this habit are justified. With that said the stigma against smokers is absurd. Smokers should have every amenity to get along with their habit. For example, those smoking boots in the European airports are like gas chambers. Whoever invented and approved these should be ashamed.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Hello Codepojectens, it's been a while! So here are two conflicting views on smoking: 1) If you want to smoke, that's your business and not for others to tell you whether you can or can't (as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else), and 2) Smoking should be banned, for the good of society and also for the good of the poor victims of an addictive drug. As I get older, I'm able to think back to freer times when people really were genuinely freer to do what they want, like the teachers who used to smoke in my classrooms. They were also free to use physical violence in the case of bad behaviour. Happy days! I suppose we have 'progressed' more from 1) above to 2) or are at least heading there. The problem is, to my mind, these mutually exclusive ideas about smoking are both valid and worth defending to the hilt, which also means I don't have a valid standpoint on the subject - the logic is broken. It's fairly rare for me to be not able to reach some conclusion, even if the conclusion is flawed or just wholly incorrect. Tricky, and for context I've dithered in and out of nicotine addiction (mostly in) for the last 25 years. Vape time.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
Smoking is disgusting (both tobacco and the herb). Secondhand smoke is real problem. You can get a secondhand high too from the herb. If you want to destroy yourself, that's fine. People do it all the time with their diet. It's your right. But, your right to do that stops at my right to breathe clean air. It's not victimless. I have to breathe your crap if I'm around you. Back in the day, before the herb was made easier to obtain, you could have a neighbor that smoked cigarettes and they'd be stinky, but you woudln't get a buzz... unless maybe you went right up to them and barely with even that. These days, stoners who lit up right before going grocery shopping, their stank will give you a buzz just from standing next to them. This should not be acceptable (and no intelligent person would buy the medicinal argument). What if I have kids standing next to that stoner in line? Am I not supposed to care about their health? The problem is you cannot legislate decency or morality. These people are filthy but try making "don't be a nasty arse" a law. It's absolutely abhorrent that humanity is as such a stupid state right now that people cannot figure out how to at least keep their vice to themselves and care little enough of others to do something about it (generally speaking here btw... not targeted at you directly). Anyone who thinks that weed stank is acceptable needs to live in Vegas for a year... not as a tourist. It'll fix you, assuming you like to think and are a decent person.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Hello Codepojectens, it's been a while! So here are two conflicting views on smoking: 1) If you want to smoke, that's your business and not for others to tell you whether you can or can't (as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else), and 2) Smoking should be banned, for the good of society and also for the good of the poor victims of an addictive drug. As I get older, I'm able to think back to freer times when people really were genuinely freer to do what they want, like the teachers who used to smoke in my classrooms. They were also free to use physical violence in the case of bad behaviour. Happy days! I suppose we have 'progressed' more from 1) above to 2) or are at least heading there. The problem is, to my mind, these mutually exclusive ideas about smoking are both valid and worth defending to the hilt, which also means I don't have a valid standpoint on the subject - the logic is broken. It's fairly rare for me to be not able to reach some conclusion, even if the conclusion is flawed or just wholly incorrect. Tricky, and for context I've dithered in and out of nicotine addiction (mostly in) for the last 25 years. Vape time.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
(For the general question of what to forbid, not smoking in particular:) One dilemma if you select alternative 2: Who is to decide what is "for the good of society"? We have lots of laws that forbids actions or whatever simply because "You ain't supposed to!" Not because there is any obvious logical reason for it, beyond "You ain't supposed to!". Most of this has to do with socalled "morals", which usually translates to either the human body or religion. Lots of the regulations are not laws in the legal sense, but "moral laws". There are lots of words I can't speak, if I am to follow the commandments of church people, even if I do not belong to their faith. There are parts of my body I must keep hidden, according to some people even for my own children. There are things I can see, but I can't preserve a memory of what I saw, using a camera. Maybe not even using a sketchpad and a pencil; that depends. Lots of things I am not allowed to seem, even if I am allowed to know that it exists. Those defending such laws claim that society would suffer if people did the forbidden thing; that's why it is forbidden. The problem with moral laws is that other cultures without such laws display none of the claimed suffering. In Thailand, if you display your foot soles to the king, you might be thrown in jail for years. That makes no sense to us: What is wrong by letting the king see your foot soles? Here, we rather throw you in jail if you display your "private parts"; that is just so terrible - think of the children! Take our attitudes to non-Westernized cultures where nude bodies can be seen anywhere. Or even go to a nudist resort searching for the terrible suffering of the kids (and adults) there! Age limits for various knowledge varies greatly around the world. What can be told by school books varies greatly around the world. What is allowed to exist in images/movies, art, literature and so on varies a lot. If I were to move to the land of the free, USA, I would have to leave a couple dozen books behind, as they would be forbidden (depending on the state). I would have to teach my kids to build serious emotional conflicts if they see my body, or I see theirs. In some states I would tell then to keep secret that we know that two people of the same sex truly and honestly love each other. And so on. Also, there is a great variation from one country/state to another regarding who is allowed to enjoy different kinds of food, drink and other pleasures (often, but not always, determined by age). Again
-
Hello Codepojectens, it's been a while! So here are two conflicting views on smoking: 1) If you want to smoke, that's your business and not for others to tell you whether you can or can't (as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else), and 2) Smoking should be banned, for the good of society and also for the good of the poor victims of an addictive drug. As I get older, I'm able to think back to freer times when people really were genuinely freer to do what they want, like the teachers who used to smoke in my classrooms. They were also free to use physical violence in the case of bad behaviour. Happy days! I suppose we have 'progressed' more from 1) above to 2) or are at least heading there. The problem is, to my mind, these mutually exclusive ideas about smoking are both valid and worth defending to the hilt, which also means I don't have a valid standpoint on the subject - the logic is broken. It's fairly rare for me to be not able to reach some conclusion, even if the conclusion is flawed or just wholly incorrect. Tricky, and for context I've dithered in and out of nicotine addiction (mostly in) for the last 25 years. Vape time.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
No, those viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. If you do it such that if affects no-one else, you're not a member of society. ;-) Smoking affects my Insurance policy/Tax, so it isn't just about secondary smoking.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
(For the general question of what to forbid, not smoking in particular:) One dilemma if you select alternative 2: Who is to decide what is "for the good of society"? We have lots of laws that forbids actions or whatever simply because "You ain't supposed to!" Not because there is any obvious logical reason for it, beyond "You ain't supposed to!". Most of this has to do with socalled "morals", which usually translates to either the human body or religion. Lots of the regulations are not laws in the legal sense, but "moral laws". There are lots of words I can't speak, if I am to follow the commandments of church people, even if I do not belong to their faith. There are parts of my body I must keep hidden, according to some people even for my own children. There are things I can see, but I can't preserve a memory of what I saw, using a camera. Maybe not even using a sketchpad and a pencil; that depends. Lots of things I am not allowed to seem, even if I am allowed to know that it exists. Those defending such laws claim that society would suffer if people did the forbidden thing; that's why it is forbidden. The problem with moral laws is that other cultures without such laws display none of the claimed suffering. In Thailand, if you display your foot soles to the king, you might be thrown in jail for years. That makes no sense to us: What is wrong by letting the king see your foot soles? Here, we rather throw you in jail if you display your "private parts"; that is just so terrible - think of the children! Take our attitudes to non-Westernized cultures where nude bodies can be seen anywhere. Or even go to a nudist resort searching for the terrible suffering of the kids (and adults) there! Age limits for various knowledge varies greatly around the world. What can be told by school books varies greatly around the world. What is allowed to exist in images/movies, art, literature and so on varies a lot. If I were to move to the land of the free, USA, I would have to leave a couple dozen books behind, as they would be forbidden (depending on the state). I would have to teach my kids to build serious emotional conflicts if they see my body, or I see theirs. In some states I would tell then to keep secret that we know that two people of the same sex truly and honestly love each other. And so on. Also, there is a great variation from one country/state to another regarding who is allowed to enjoy different kinds of food, drink and other pleasures (often, but not always, determined by age). Again
trønderen wrote:
If I were to move to the land of the free, USA, I would have to leave a couple dozen books behind, as they would be forbidden (depending on the state).
Out of curiosity can you give me an example?
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
No, those viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. If you do it such that if affects no-one else, you're not a member of society. ;-) Smoking affects my Insurance policy/Tax, so it isn't just about secondary smoking.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Yes, some insurance companies have surcharge (significant one) for smokers. I know because I had a friend in my previous company that smokes (hardly anybody still smokes in the US). I wonder in this case why they don't have the same penalty for fat people, or alcoholics? Because they vastly outnumber the smokers and are bigger burden for the health system.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
(For the general question of what to forbid, not smoking in particular:) One dilemma if you select alternative 2: Who is to decide what is "for the good of society"? We have lots of laws that forbids actions or whatever simply because "You ain't supposed to!" Not because there is any obvious logical reason for it, beyond "You ain't supposed to!". Most of this has to do with socalled "morals", which usually translates to either the human body or religion. Lots of the regulations are not laws in the legal sense, but "moral laws". There are lots of words I can't speak, if I am to follow the commandments of church people, even if I do not belong to their faith. There are parts of my body I must keep hidden, according to some people even for my own children. There are things I can see, but I can't preserve a memory of what I saw, using a camera. Maybe not even using a sketchpad and a pencil; that depends. Lots of things I am not allowed to seem, even if I am allowed to know that it exists. Those defending such laws claim that society would suffer if people did the forbidden thing; that's why it is forbidden. The problem with moral laws is that other cultures without such laws display none of the claimed suffering. In Thailand, if you display your foot soles to the king, you might be thrown in jail for years. That makes no sense to us: What is wrong by letting the king see your foot soles? Here, we rather throw you in jail if you display your "private parts"; that is just so terrible - think of the children! Take our attitudes to non-Westernized cultures where nude bodies can be seen anywhere. Or even go to a nudist resort searching for the terrible suffering of the kids (and adults) there! Age limits for various knowledge varies greatly around the world. What can be told by school books varies greatly around the world. What is allowed to exist in images/movies, art, literature and so on varies a lot. If I were to move to the land of the free, USA, I would have to leave a couple dozen books behind, as they would be forbidden (depending on the state). I would have to teach my kids to build serious emotional conflicts if they see my body, or I see theirs. In some states I would tell then to keep secret that we know that two people of the same sex truly and honestly love each other. And so on. Also, there is a great variation from one country/state to another regarding who is allowed to enjoy different kinds of food, drink and other pleasures (often, but not always, determined by age). Again
trønderen wrote:
I do not consider a ban on public smoking a "moral" law, but a way to protect myself (and others) from harm.
While I do believe in freedom, I gotta agree with this too. If it were victimless that would be one thing... it's not though.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Hello Codepojectens, it's been a while! So here are two conflicting views on smoking: 1) If you want to smoke, that's your business and not for others to tell you whether you can or can't (as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else), and 2) Smoking should be banned, for the good of society and also for the good of the poor victims of an addictive drug. As I get older, I'm able to think back to freer times when people really were genuinely freer to do what they want, like the teachers who used to smoke in my classrooms. They were also free to use physical violence in the case of bad behaviour. Happy days! I suppose we have 'progressed' more from 1) above to 2) or are at least heading there. The problem is, to my mind, these mutually exclusive ideas about smoking are both valid and worth defending to the hilt, which also means I don't have a valid standpoint on the subject - the logic is broken. It's fairly rare for me to be not able to reach some conclusion, even if the conclusion is flawed or just wholly incorrect. Tricky, and for context I've dithered in and out of nicotine addiction (mostly in) for the last 25 years. Vape time.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
Rob Philpott wrote:
f you want to smoke, that's your business and not for others to tell you whether you can or can't (as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else),
... provided you sign a waiver that you will not be treated in any hospital paid by my tax dollars by any doctor affiliated with a public health system funded by me. In general, I see it as a continuum between a society that has very few rules and provides very few services and a society with lots of rules but also lots of services. Different cultures sit/stood in different places going from the Old Testament where the 10 commandments were quite enough but, if something bad happened to you, you had only your immediate family to count on. Nowadays in complicated social-democratic countries with tons of rules there are also myriad support systems from social services to ambulances, police, coast guard and whatnot. Unfortunately you cannot have one without the other: if you want to be free to do whatever you want, don't ask for public services to come help you when things go south. Looks like most people would rather have a social safety net and are willing to accept certain limitations in their lifestyle (like not smoking in public places). As most social compromises, this is a pendulum that might well swing the other way.
Mircea
-
trønderen wrote:
If I were to move to the land of the free, USA, I would have to leave a couple dozen books behind, as they would be forbidden (depending on the state).
Out of curiosity can you give me an example?
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Most of them are in Norwegian, and probably not published in the US of A. One that I know is published is a photo book, aimed at preschoolers, for teaching them the difference between boys and girls: "Show Me!". I've got a couple more in the same group - in the 1980s, using photos for such teaching purposes were fully accepted. I don't know the legal status of the pocket edition of "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung" (or "The little red book"). Even if it isn't forbidden, you will be treated as a suspected communist by owing it, which would strongly affect both your social life and your professional opportunities. (I didn't buy it because of any sympathy with those ideas, but to try to see what they are. The little red book made no sense at all to me!) I've been collecting photo art books for four decades. Some of the photos in "Was ist der Mench? Eine Antwort in 1509 Photos", from the first three world exhibitions of photography, are definitely illegal in the US of A (and maybe even in Norway, but I bought the book in a Norwegian bookstore). The photo books by Sally Mann have definitely been banned from a large number of libraries and other public collections in the US of A, but I guess at least some states permit private ownership (I have bought the books through Amazon). Some of my private writings are such that even in Norway, I keep the text files encrypted. Like after Nine Eleven, I started contemplating what could be the next attack against The American Way. I frequently develop my ideas about various issues as imaginary scenarios, as a novel or script, to see what situations it would create, and which of the actors' reactions I could morally and legally defend. 9/11 led to two of those, and if they got out, I'd be arrested for planning terrorist actions (probably even in Norway). Before you ask: No, they are not, and will never be, published. Book banning is mostly a state level matter in the US of A; few books are banned by federal authorities. So it could be that for every one of my books, there is at least one state who would not ban its contents. But I am convinced that even in the most liberal state I would risk that visiting neighbors might back off in horror when they discover what is in my bookshelf. Later they might reject any invitation from me, and even be unwilling to talk to me. (Even my Norwegian photography friends are reluctant to discuss Sally Mann photos.)
-
Hello Codepojectens, it's been a while! So here are two conflicting views on smoking: 1) If you want to smoke, that's your business and not for others to tell you whether you can or can't (as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else), and 2) Smoking should be banned, for the good of society and also for the good of the poor victims of an addictive drug. As I get older, I'm able to think back to freer times when people really were genuinely freer to do what they want, like the teachers who used to smoke in my classrooms. They were also free to use physical violence in the case of bad behaviour. Happy days! I suppose we have 'progressed' more from 1) above to 2) or are at least heading there. The problem is, to my mind, these mutually exclusive ideas about smoking are both valid and worth defending to the hilt, which also means I don't have a valid standpoint on the subject - the logic is broken. It's fairly rare for me to be not able to reach some conclusion, even if the conclusion is flawed or just wholly incorrect. Tricky, and for context I've dithered in and out of nicotine addiction (mostly in) for the last 25 years. Vape time.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
I mostly agree with view 1, but maybe view 2 is necessary for some people. E.g. my neighbour will smoke even when he's sick and I hear him nearly coughing his lungs out every day. I understand it's an addiction and maybe some people need to be forced to quit, for their own health.
-
Objectively, the tobacco industry paid professional to bury the long term effects of smoking and 2nd hand smoke. It is only in recent times that the truth that smoking is carcinogenic is taken seriously. Smoking would be banned today if it was not for the revenue that it still generates for Governments. As an asthmatic growing up in a home of 2 smokers, I can tell you that the smoke triggered me many times. I had no rights. Propaganda back then convinced them it was not the smoke. It wasn't until the truth started coming out, they realized the impact that it was having on their children. They then moved to smoking outside, then stop smoking. Whilst you are worried about your rights as a smoker, you're being ignorant of the impact on those around you. Why should we have no rights and be forced to inhale your by-product of smoking?
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
Playing devils advocate, while I agree with what you said, start extending that thought, and things may get out of hand fairly quickly.
Quote:
Whilst you are worried about your rights as a [insert your objectionable behavior here] , you're being ignorant of the impact on those around you.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
Playing devils advocate, while I agree with what you said, start extending that thought, and things may get out of hand fairly quickly.
Quote:
Whilst you are worried about your rights as a [insert your objectionable behavior here] , you're being ignorant of the impact on those around you.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
jeron1 wrote:
Playing devils advocate, while I agree with what you said, start extending that thought, and things may get out of hand fairly quickly.
Without consideration for others, it is exactly that.
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
-
Smoking is a very strong addiction. Stronger than alcohol and in the same league with hard drugs. So, any measures to prevent young people from getting into this habit are justified. With that said the stigma against smokers is absurd. Smokers should have every amenity to get along with their habit. For example, those smoking boots in the European airports are like gas chambers. Whoever invented and approved these should be ashamed.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
I disagree. It's easy to quick smoking. I did it thousands of times
"Mistakes are prevented by Experience. Experience is gained by making mistakes."
-
I disagree. It's easy to quick smoking. I did it thousands of times
"Mistakes are prevented by Experience. Experience is gained by making mistakes."
Mark Twain? :)
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Most of them are in Norwegian, and probably not published in the US of A. One that I know is published is a photo book, aimed at preschoolers, for teaching them the difference between boys and girls: "Show Me!". I've got a couple more in the same group - in the 1980s, using photos for such teaching purposes were fully accepted. I don't know the legal status of the pocket edition of "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung" (or "The little red book"). Even if it isn't forbidden, you will be treated as a suspected communist by owing it, which would strongly affect both your social life and your professional opportunities. (I didn't buy it because of any sympathy with those ideas, but to try to see what they are. The little red book made no sense at all to me!) I've been collecting photo art books for four decades. Some of the photos in "Was ist der Mench? Eine Antwort in 1509 Photos", from the first three world exhibitions of photography, are definitely illegal in the US of A (and maybe even in Norway, but I bought the book in a Norwegian bookstore). The photo books by Sally Mann have definitely been banned from a large number of libraries and other public collections in the US of A, but I guess at least some states permit private ownership (I have bought the books through Amazon). Some of my private writings are such that even in Norway, I keep the text files encrypted. Like after Nine Eleven, I started contemplating what could be the next attack against The American Way. I frequently develop my ideas about various issues as imaginary scenarios, as a novel or script, to see what situations it would create, and which of the actors' reactions I could morally and legally defend. 9/11 led to two of those, and if they got out, I'd be arrested for planning terrorist actions (probably even in Norway). Before you ask: No, they are not, and will never be, published. Book banning is mostly a state level matter in the US of A; few books are banned by federal authorities. So it could be that for every one of my books, there is at least one state who would not ban its contents. But I am convinced that even in the most liberal state I would risk that visiting neighbors might back off in horror when they discover what is in my bookshelf. Later they might reject any invitation from me, and even be unwilling to talk to me. (Even my Norwegian photography friends are reluctant to discuss Sally Mann photos.)
Thanks. Not to make a comparison, but I'm a military history buff and my browsing history can make a Guantanamo resident to blush.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Hello Codepojectens, it's been a while! So here are two conflicting views on smoking: 1) If you want to smoke, that's your business and not for others to tell you whether you can or can't (as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else), and 2) Smoking should be banned, for the good of society and also for the good of the poor victims of an addictive drug. As I get older, I'm able to think back to freer times when people really were genuinely freer to do what they want, like the teachers who used to smoke in my classrooms. They were also free to use physical violence in the case of bad behaviour. Happy days! I suppose we have 'progressed' more from 1) above to 2) or are at least heading there. The problem is, to my mind, these mutually exclusive ideas about smoking are both valid and worth defending to the hilt, which also means I don't have a valid standpoint on the subject - the logic is broken. It's fairly rare for me to be not able to reach some conclusion, even if the conclusion is flawed or just wholly incorrect. Tricky, and for context I've dithered in and out of nicotine addiction (mostly in) for the last 25 years. Vape time.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
This is what smokers get to look forward too: Emphysema[^]. As a lifetime asthmatic, I can tell you, from experience, that not being able to breathe is no fun at all. So my choice is not to breathe second hand smoke. That is my personal right. I am not interested in emphysema on top of my asthma.
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
-
Hello Codepojectens, it's been a while! So here are two conflicting views on smoking: 1) If you want to smoke, that's your business and not for others to tell you whether you can or can't (as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else), and 2) Smoking should be banned, for the good of society and also for the good of the poor victims of an addictive drug. As I get older, I'm able to think back to freer times when people really were genuinely freer to do what they want, like the teachers who used to smoke in my classrooms. They were also free to use physical violence in the case of bad behaviour. Happy days! I suppose we have 'progressed' more from 1) above to 2) or are at least heading there. The problem is, to my mind, these mutually exclusive ideas about smoking are both valid and worth defending to the hilt, which also means I don't have a valid standpoint on the subject - the logic is broken. It's fairly rare for me to be not able to reach some conclusion, even if the conclusion is flawed or just wholly incorrect. Tricky, and for context I've dithered in and out of nicotine addiction (mostly in) for the last 25 years. Vape time.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
There's bad habits ... and then there are enablers of bad habits; creating addictions.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
Playing devils advocate, while I agree with what you said, start extending that thought, and things may get out of hand fairly quickly.
Quote:
Whilst you are worried about your rights as a [insert your objectionable behavior here] , you're being ignorant of the impact on those around you.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
I re-read your comment about being the "devils advocate" and it's ignorant of addressing the medically proven negative impact that second hand smoke has on bystanders. Going back to the mid-nineties, when smoking inside the workplace was prohibited, it was after hours and I could smell cigarette some. It turned out it was a guy over 100 metres away on the other side of the building. It turned out he felt it was his right to smoke at his desk because it was after hours, so the rules did not apply. The issue was his desk was directly under the air conditioning intake and it was sucking up the smoke and distributing it to both floors of the building. I approached him and explained what was happening. He told me it was his right. I saw his briefcase on the floor. I said to him, if he feels it is okay to flagrantly smoke indoors against policy, then I am free to whip it out and fill his briefcase. He put it out and HR was informed the next day. They had to spend money professionally cleaning the air conditioning system. Do smokers really think that they have rights beyond those of others who choose not to? We have public toilets. I think that we should have public smoke boxes where all the smokers can go and puff to their heart's desire, sharing second hand smoke with each other. The building should prevent smoke from leaking into the public space. They get what they want, and we're free to breathe fresh air. Governments suckle on the tax revenue that cigarette sales generate, so they have plenty of money to invest in this type of scheme.
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
-
Smoking is disgusting (both tobacco and the herb). Secondhand smoke is real problem. You can get a secondhand high too from the herb. If you want to destroy yourself, that's fine. People do it all the time with their diet. It's your right. But, your right to do that stops at my right to breathe clean air. It's not victimless. I have to breathe your crap if I'm around you. Back in the day, before the herb was made easier to obtain, you could have a neighbor that smoked cigarettes and they'd be stinky, but you woudln't get a buzz... unless maybe you went right up to them and barely with even that. These days, stoners who lit up right before going grocery shopping, their stank will give you a buzz just from standing next to them. This should not be acceptable (and no intelligent person would buy the medicinal argument). What if I have kids standing next to that stoner in line? Am I not supposed to care about their health? The problem is you cannot legislate decency or morality. These people are filthy but try making "don't be a nasty arse" a law. It's absolutely abhorrent that humanity is as such a stupid state right now that people cannot figure out how to at least keep their vice to themselves and care little enough of others to do something about it (generally speaking here btw... not targeted at you directly). Anyone who thinks that weed stank is acceptable needs to live in Vegas for a year... not as a tourist. It'll fix you, assuming you like to think and are a decent person.
Jeremy Falcon
Do you find yourself stood next door to people smoking 'herb' often then? That's a very rare occurrence in my life, and I don't think I've heard of getting second-hand smoke buzzes. Not disputing it mind, just very eye opening.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
