I'd buy you dinner to see that. :lol:
Partly true, but a huge factor has been cracking down on people who sell cigarrettes to minors. Most of the people I know who smoke (myself included) became addicted to them when they were quite young at a time when health risks were'nt something that they had any real understandign of (I was 11 when I first started smoking, by 13 I was a regular smoker). Back then (and it isn't all that long ago. It was the late 80's early 90's) I was able to walk into a gas station and buy cigarrettes with money I got from mowing lawns and such. It was disturbiungly easy to get them. Now, if someone were to sell cigarrettes to an 11 year old they can receive massive fines and even lose their business license.
This is the kind of government regulation that I fully support.
And more people are quitting now than ever, and that is in no small part due to the increased resources available to assist them in quitting. Patches, e-cigarrettes, gum, pills, etc have all made it so that quitting is easier today than it was 20-30 years ago, but it is still a very difficult thing to do. Anyone who has battled with an addiction can understand that it is an ongoing process and that relapes will occur.
One of the things that non-smokers tend to say is that "smoking is a choice, smokers only have themselves to blame for their problems" and that's true to a point. Ultimately I made the decision to become a smoker when I was a kid and I have control over quitting now. But the fact that the decision to become a smoker, and subsequent addiction that I developped came about because of a choice made when I was very young, and very, very stupid, is something to take into consideration. I'm not in the minority. Most smokers today became smokers because of stupid choices they made when they were young and stupid and considered themselves invincible.
This is why most smokers support most the types of government regulations that are effective in preventing underage smoking. It's why I personally don't have as much of a problem with the extremely high taxes on cigarrettes that exist (because the high prices are also a factor in preventing children from smoking).
But one thing I disagree with is the demonization of smokers that exists today. I think that can be counter-productive to the ultimate goal of preventing kids from smoking. Kids are naturally rebellious. They do things specifically to piss off their parents. I believe treating smokers like they are a scourge on society adds an apeal to smoking for the rebelious child.
But treating smokers as if they are sick (and addiction is a form of sickness) and require help and treatment would not create this "rebel" aura for smoking. It would accurately give it the appearance of a personal weakness that smokers have (which it is). It's a weakness that stems from childhood stupidity in many, many cases.
Personally, I would support making some parks and beaches smoke-free environments while having some where smoking was allowed. But the anti-smoking agenda has taken on a stance of demonizing the smoker and has shown itself to be unwilling to make such compromises based on a ack compassion for the plight of the addicted.
Yes, all true. Of course, the same could be said of a lot of addictions, couldn't it?
That's how it is, isn't it? Are all parks and beaches smoke free now?
Really, the only problem with allowing smoking in outdoor areas is the propensity for some smokers to toss their butts on the ground and leave them there. That is the same problem with anything that produces garbage, as there will be the trashy people who leave their trash everywhere.
My position is still that adults should be allowed to smoke anything they like, so long as it is outdoors and downwind.
The difference between smoking and cars is that cars increase our standard of living and provide many benefits and because of that we accept a certain amount of risk to drive them. Cigarettes do not increase our standard of living and there is no valid reason we should accept their risk.
A car from 60 years ago, brand new and well maintained, produced many times the level of pollution at that time as a new well maintained car does today. Cars today produce less pollution than cars did half a century ago, due to improved technology. Of course, a well maintained ten year old car will do better than a poorly maintained newer car. A 1960 model can't be made to produce less pollution without adding modern improvements.
Fewer people smoke today than 50 years ago, due to our understanding of the health risks. That doesn't do a thing to improve the pollution coming from those who still do smoke. A burning cigarette produces the same level of pollution that it did 50 years ago.
Nor you.
If someone wants to sit for hours and watch soaps, let them. If they want to smoke in their own homes, with no innocent children inhaling their poisons, let them. Not all six hour a day soap opera watchers have health problems from inactivity, either, but most do.
True, and if anyone wanted to leave their car ideling in my favorite restaurant, I'd object to that too.
While this is true any gains in pollution reduction has been easily nullified by the shear amount of cars on the road today. So....what point were you trying to make?
Which is around 9.41 and 14.9 micrograms in an enclosed area in a 24hr period. A car will produce enough carbon monoxide to kill a person in an enclosed area in a very short period of time. Even today's cars.
I haven't stated any misinformation yet.
Again comes the double standard. It's ok to let people do something unhealthy...unless it directly affects you. Then it's a no no.
Ah but this thread is not about indoor toxins. It is about NY attempting to ban smoking outside. We might be using indoor statistics in this thread but that is not what this thread is about. Using indoor statistics is all that we really have to go by atm so it's what we have to use. So, is it ok to let someone let their car idle outside your favorite restaurant?
Cars, on the other hand, replaced a much mor polluting and less satisfactory transportation system, the horse and buggy.
the fully electric car that is plugged into a wind generator could replace the internal combustion engine and is headed in that direction quickly.You are comparing apples and oranges.
There is no benefit to smoking cigarettes, none, zero.
Cars, on the other hand, replaced a much mor polluting and less satisfactory transportation system, the horse and buggy.
We could replace smoking with not smoking, and save a pile of money in health care costs, not to mention the cost of producing tobacco. What would replace the internal combustion engine?
How is the horse and buggy more polluting? The byproducts are all organic and can be useful?
the fully electric car that is plugged into a wind generator could replace the internal combustion engine and is headed in that direction quickly.
That would be wonderful, if it ever happens. It isn't going to happen any time soon, however.
Maybe we'll invent cold fusion.
it's currently happening where have you been the last couple of years.That would be wonderful, if it ever happens. It isn't going to happen any time soon, however.
Maybe we'll invent cold fusion.
it's currently happening where have you been the last couple of years.
apparently the NEW nissan leaf is ALL electric which could be plugged into a wind generator. it seems to be happening to me.Really? I have heard of a Ford Fusion, but never a fusion ford. Where can I get one?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?