Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Ban on smoking in cars

POST REPLY

Ban smoking in cars?

Yes
12
40%
No
16
53%
Other
2
7%
 
Total votes : 30
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 05 Dec 2011, 08:17
Mabool wrote:
Who says that a decline of the consumption of harmful substance is even enforceable this way?
Well I didn't say anything like that, preferring to ask you a question instead. I'm just sceptical that legalizing these things will lead to any improvements in these problems.

One of the stronger arguments against drug criminalization is that it will take it out of the hands of the black market. While this may be somewhat true, it doesn't really support the idea that this will lead to the eradication of their usage.

The situation with tobacco is that it has been legal for many years and if it was discovered today there is almost no way that most countries would allow it to be legally available.
Mabool wrote:
I think that if the state was serious about fighting its use, it could simply ban the stuff. The fact that tobacco remains legal despite all the repression smokers face, makes all of these half-measures look a bit ridiculous because it reveals their strict obedience to the industry.
The tobacco lobby is a very rich and influential force and the governments become incredibly reliant on the revenue which tobacco generates. It barely takes any time for governments to develop this reliance and for the lobby groups to emerge..

The rest of what you said I'd have to agree with though. These sorts of things can never be solved by simply banning specific chemicals. The problem is that governments are reluctant to put their rich and powerful friends out of business, particularly when they can justify it by saying they are preserving freedom (i.e. witness the gun issue in the US or the gambling problems that have emerged in Australia).
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 05 Dec 2011, 12:54
Quote:
Other things that could be considered poison are alcohol, fast food, many pharmaceuticals, and air (it contains 33 toxins found in tobacco smoke). Unless you propose banning these other poisons and products that produce them, declaring tobacco poisonous is not a rational justification for banning it.

Your argument is an obvious fallacy. This is the most obvious and glaring one, but there are others, such as blanket generalizations.
Back in white
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 05 Dec 2011, 15:01
No,it's fragging retarded.Smokers get nervous and anxious some time after the last cigarette,and this proposed ban would,i'd say,significantly increase traffic accidents.
People should simply have the right to smoke in their own car.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 05 Dec 2011, 15:03
Loz wrote:
No,it's fragging retarded.Smokers get nervous and anxious some time after the last cigarette,and this proposed ban would,i'd say,significantly increase traffic accidents.
People should simply have the right to smoke in their own car.


That's in fact a pretty good argument.

But then again people who have children should have the decency to quit smoking as soon as they learn of the pregnancy...
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 7
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Nov 2011, 06:19
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 05 Dec 2011, 19:51
Krasniy_Volk wrote:
Your argument is an obvious fallacy. This is the most obvious and glaring one, but there are others, such as blanket generalizations.


Well I assumed you would take the time to discuss my argument instead of resorting to wikipedia in an attempt to dismiss it, apologies.

Let me be clearer. Tobacco is a poison. Alcohol is a poison. You apparently support banning one but not the other. Elaborate.
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 06 Dec 2011, 03:43
purge wrote:
Well I assumed you would take the time to discuss my argument instead of resorting to wikipedia in an attempt to dismiss it, apologies.


There's nothing to discuss because you didn't make an argument. It is ridden by fallacies from beggining to end. Take it as a constructive criticism.

First you pulled a slippery slope//nirvana fallacy. You said that since there are other known health hazards besides tobacco, they should all be addressed, or none. This is a mixed slippery slope//nirvana fallacy. Following your reasoning, since smokers are already at health risk due to tobacco, they might as well take a cocaine habit, and wrestle saltwater crocodriles for a living.
Tobbacco is the biggest known health risk factor. That there are other potential ones (alcohol, car exahusts, whatnot) does nothing to address this fact. Adding more carcinogenics on top of it does not lessen it's effect (in some cases, they synergize: the risk of getting throat cancer amid smoking drinkers is greater than the expected sum of smokers and drinkers). That's not all of it, though, you also make a false analogy between tobacco and the other potential carcinogens, when they're not the same at all, neither in risk, use, nor feasability of a ban.

Quote:
Let me be clearer. Tobacco is a poison. Alcohol is a poison. You apparently support banning one but not the other. Elaborate.

Notice that I never said anything about alcohol at any of my previous posts, for or against banning it. This is in itself a false attribution. But nevermind. The gist of the matter is that, as I said above, alcohol and tobacco are not the same. Alcohol's detrimental effects are lesser than those of tobacco, and largely dose dependent (to the extent that in small ammounts it can provide a benefit in older people), and whereas there is a somewhat increased risk of various types of cancer, at small dosages it's relatively small. With tobacco, in contrast, you'd be hard pressed to find situations in which it isn't harmful (there ARE some, but quite rare), and pretty much any ammount of smoking is harmful.

That being said, however, overall people WOULD benefit from drinking less.


(on to other things)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loz wrote:
No,it's fragging retarded.Smokers get nervous and anxious some time after the last cigarette,and this proposed ban would,i'd say,significantly increase traffic accidents.
People should simply have the right to smoke in their own car.


I'm not too sure as to this. Distractions (such as lighting a cigarette) have been shown to increase the risk of car accidents
Back in white
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 7
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Nov 2011, 06:19
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 06 Dec 2011, 04:53
Krasniy_Volk wrote:

There's nothing to discuss because you didn't make an argument. It is ridden by fallacies from beggining to end. Take it as a constructive criticism.

First you pulled a slippery slope//nirvana fallacy. You said that since there are other known health hazards besides tobacco, they should all be addressed, or none. This is a mixed slippery slope//nirvana fallacy. Following your reasoning, since smokers are already at health risk due to tobacco, they might as well take a cocaine habit, and wrestle saltwater crocodriles for a living.
Tobbacco is the biggest known health risk factor. That there are other potential ones (alcohol, car exahusts, whatnot) does nothing to address this fact. Adding more carcinogenics on top of it does not lessen it's effect (in some cases, they synergize: the risk of getting throat cancer amid smoking drinkers is greater than the expected sum of smokers and drinkers). That's not all of it, though, you also make a false analogy between tobacco and the other potential carcinogens, when they're not the same at all, neither in risk, use, nor feasability of a ban.

Notice that I never said anything about alcohol at any of my previous posts, for or against banning it. This is in itself a false attribution. But nevermind. The gist of the matter is that, as I said above, alcohol and tobacco are not the same. Alcohol's detrimental effects are lesser than those of tobacco, and largely dose dependent (to the extent that in small ammounts it can provide a benefit in older people), and whereas there is a somewhat increased risk of various types of cancer, at small dosages it's relatively small. With tobacco, in contrast, you'd be hard pressed to find situations in which it isn't harmful (there ARE some, but quite rare), and pretty much any ammount of smoking is harmful.

That being said, however, overall people WOULD benefit from drinking less.


Your discussion of the nirvana fallacy is all very interesting but you're just using it to put words into my mouth. You labelled tobacco as a poison and cited this as the reason for banning it without further explanation and I questioned this and the fact that such a simplistic position was unsupportable seems to perturb you.

On the comparison of alcohol to tobacco the health benefits of alcohol hardly matter any more than the fact that smoking reduces one's chances of getting Parkinson's. Alcohol consumption causes tens of thousands of deaths every year and is a risk factor for many diseases. Alcohol has been shown to have far greater detrimental effects on society as a whole. To say tobacco's detrimental effects in general are greater than alcohol is therefore inaccurate. The most you could say is that tobacco poses more of a threat to individuals' health but it would take some awfully backwards reasoning to justify banning it on that basis while being fine with alcohol damaging society as a whole.

Of course there's the issue of feasibility, your argument might make sense if there was any evidence that banning tobacco would be anymore effective than banning alcohol. However excise taxes on cigarettes have already created a black market in many nations while smoking bans fuel the creation of 'smokeasys' to defy them. A tobacco ban has already proven unfeasible before coming into existence.
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 06 Dec 2011, 05:34
Quote:
On the comparison of alcohol to tobacco the health benefits of alcohol hardly matter any more than the fact that smoking reduces one's chances of getting Parkinson's.

Yes they do. Because the detrimental effects are lower, and the benefittial effects are higher. I did comment that there are some conditions in which tobacco is not harmful (Ulcerous colitis, idiopathic lung fibrosis...). But overall, the mild benefit that they provide in that area does not outweight the damage it causes elsewhere.
Quote:
The most you could say is that tobacco poses more of a threat to individuals' health but it would take some awfully backwards reasoning to justify banning it on that basis while being fine with alcohol damaging society as a whole.

As I said before, that other substances are also harmful doesn't mean that we shouldn't act against tobacco.

Quote:
Alcohol has been shown to have far greater detrimental effects on society as a whole. To say tobacco's detrimental effects in general are greater than alcohol is therefore inaccurate.

I disagree. Tobacco is regarded overall as a greater health hazard. You raise a good point with secondary societal damage, but googling it around, it does not seem that the overall damage is greater than that of tobacco's (for instance: there are about 10.000 car fatalities attributable to alcohol in the US each year, and 24000 due to alcohol-related disease,whereas in contrast, nearly half a million people die due to tobacco related diseases. Tobacco is clearly more harmful overall.
Quote:
Of course there's the issue of feasibility, your argument might make sense if there was any evidence that banning tobacco would be anymore effective than banning alcohol. However excise taxes on cigarettes have already created a black market in many nations while smoking bans fuel the creation of 'smokeasys' to defy them. A tobacco ban has already proven unfeasible before coming into existence.

and yet the rate of smokers keeps going down in developed countres with education and anti-tobacco measures.
Back in white
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 06 Dec 2011, 05:53
Quote:
Yes they do. Because the detrimental effects are lower, and the benefittial effects are higher. I did comment that there are some conditions in which tobacco is not harmful (Ulcerous colitis, idiopathic lung fibrosis...). But overall, the mild benefit that they provide in that area does not outweight the damage it causes elsewhere.

How many families were ruined by cigarettes?

Quote:
Tobacco is clearly more harmful overall.

Only if your only measure of "harmfulness" is the number of deaths directly caused by some substance.

Plus there's many other alcohol-related fatalities outside the category of traffic accidents.

Quote:
and yet the rate of smokers keeps going down in developed countres with education and anti-tobacco measures.

That's good and well,and that's how it should be,but please leave smokers alone.Education is of course necessary but people shouldn't be terrorised for smoking.There's many more even graver ills to address right now anyway...
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 06 Dec 2011, 06:09
Quote:
Only if your only measure of "harmfulness" is the number of deaths directly caused by some substance.
Plus there's many other alcohol-related fatalities outside the category of traffic accidents.

Yes, there's other alcohol related fatalities outside traffic accidents. About 24000, due to disease and poisoning. That's what the second link covered. Then there's alcohol homicides, which I did not find data about (but CAN'T ammount to much, since there were 16000 homicides overall according to the cdc pdf, and obviously most of them wont be alcohol-related). The total is still much lesser than tobacco related deaths.

Quote:
That's good and well,and that's how it should be,but please leave smokers alone.Education is of course necessary but people shouldn't be terrorised for smoking.There's many more even graver ills to address right now anyway...

I don't want to terrorize anyone, but it's really, really harmful, and it's important to address it. Sure, there are other things wrong in the world, many of them very dramatic. That doesn't mean that this particular one shouldn't be addressed. Important bad things don't substract from each other's importance.

For the record, I'm not advocating sending smokers to Syberia, or anything like that. For that matter, I'm against the policy of the US practice of jailing people for possesion. I think education and progressive policies are likely to produce better long-term results. For that matter, we need those about alcohol too: many people take the statement about how moderate ammounts of alcohol can provide some CV benefits and use it to justify the intake of non-moderate at all ammounts. In fact, IIRC as of late epidemiologists have taken to recommend that the lesser alcohol, the better, as a blanket statement, precisely to avoid this.
Back in white
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 06 Dec 2011, 06:17
To say that tobacco should be fought against because it kills people is pretty stupid.

Fact of life: People die. For an infinite number of reasons. There is nothing you can do to change this. What is the point of removing one of an infinite amount of causes of death? Fighting something because it's deadly actually means that you're trying to fight death. That's futile. Death wins. Always. By the same logic, you could try to ban cardiac arrest...

Taking away a person's cigarettes might actually shorten their life. Suppose somebody goes out for a smoke every night at 10 pm. Then you ban tobacco. One night, at 10 pm, a gas explosion kills the person. Had they been allowed their cigarette, they'd have survived. That's a stupid example, you say? That's a totally unpredictable, random occurence? Yeah, I agree. That's how death happens.

If you want to ban tobacco because it kills people do you actually think that will prevent them from dying? If not, what's the point? They chose to die earlier. People who smoke have decided to die from lung cancer rather than, say, a car crash. I can't see a rational reason to deny them this right.

Not to mention that the vast majority of smokers are just fine if you disregard non-permanent issues like lower stamina and shortness of breath, which are easily reversable by quitting cigarettes. People who prefer no stamina and shortness of breath over nicotine withdrawal have made an informed choice. If that offends you, you're an idiot.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 7
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Nov 2011, 06:19
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 06 Dec 2011, 06:18
Krasniy_Volk wrote:
Yes they do. Because the detrimental effects are lower, and the benefittial effects are higher. I did comment that there are some conditions in which tobacco is not harmful (Ulcerous colitis, idiopathic lung fibrosis...). But overall, the mild benefit that they provide in that area does not outweight the damage it causes elsewhere.


Which is precisely the point I make with alcohol. I don't see what you're arguing here.

Quote:
The most you could say is that tobacco poses more of a threat to individuals' health but it would take some awfully backwards reasoning to justify banning it on that basis while being fine with alcohol damaging society as a whole. I said before, that other substances are also harmful doesn't mean that we shouldn't act against tobacco.


The fact that tobacco is harmful does not mean we should target it disproportionately.


Quote:
I disagree. Tobacco is regarded overall as a greater health hazard. You raise a good point with secondary societal damage, but googling it around, it does not seem that the overall damage is greater than that of tobacco's (for instance: there are about 10.000 car fatalities attributable to alcohol in the US each year, and 24000 due to alcohol-related disease,whereas in contrast, nearly half a million people die due to tobacco related diseases. Tobacco is clearly more harmful overall.


You don't include in your alcohol statistics the 75,000 annual deaths associated with alcohol abuse. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/alcoholdrug/index.htm

Taking only possible deaths into account oversimplifies the issue in any case. A British study took several factors including crime and economic cost which sought to gauge how much harm certain drugs caused to the user and how much harm they caused to society. Alcohol harms society more than tobacco by far. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210

Quote:
and yet the rate of smokers keeps going down in developed countres with education and anti-tobacco measures.


And prohibition reduced alcohol consumption. That doesn't mean it was effective.
Last edited by Purge on 06 Dec 2011, 06:34, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 06 Dec 2011, 06:30
Quote:

You don't include in your alcohol statistics the 75,000 annual deaths associated with alcohol abuse. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/alcoholdrug/index.htm

Actually, I did: the cdc pdf breaks down deaths by cause in 2007: 24000 anual deahts related to alcohol abuse, not including accidents or homicides. Accidents at least we can get from here:13000, that year. The only thing missing are homicides.

This doesn't mean that the cipher of what you linked is wrong per se, but if you notice, it's source is a study from 2001. The trend is that these things are going downwards, luckily.
Back in white
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 06 Dec 2011, 06:34
How about banning smoking because it sustains a billion dollar industry directly living off the addictions of its "customers" ?
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 10 Dec 2011, 02:00
Just one last observation on this topic:

How many accidents have been caused by children jumping around and misbehaving in cars?
From a safety point of view, they probably should be banned from cars before smoking.
Soviet cogitations: 105
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Nov 2011, 04:24
Pioneer
Post 10 Dec 2011, 07:36
Shigalyov wrote:
How many accidents have been caused by children jumping around and misbehaving in cars?
From a safety point of view, they probably should be banned from cars before smoking.

Sounds like a seatbelt law has been broken
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 24 Dec 2011, 17:56
Quote:
The fact that you don't like cigarettes, alcohol, and health products being sold side by side is not a justification for banning such a practice.

No, but it's barbaric to sell products that cause harm in a business/location focusing on healthy living.
Quote:
All these products have health warnings to make people aware of their health effects. Their proximity to each other does not change that.

Actually, it's been shown that health warnings do not just do enough. I don't want to come off as the culture police as I hold firm that if someone is stupid enough to do something stupid with prior knowledge of its stupidity they have whats coming. However, using Canada as an example, alcohol consumption is statistically higher in provinces with less regulation and regular viewing of products than those where it is central to government institutes, the same goes for hiding and restricting tobacco sales.
Quote:
Further I'm surprised that someone who I assume supports the working class would support sin taxes. These taxes act as a regressive tax and force workers to consume more of their income relative to those wealthier than them. Supporting such a policy can only rest on the assumption that workers are too stupid to make decisions regarding their personal lives.

Yep, in the present situation of social development it is a requirement. Until we all have the proper education and knowledge directly in front of us in plain view not being obstructed by loose dressed women in beer adverts, bravado men and slimmed women in cigarette adverts, and high class society offering a means of emulation we will require the idea that sin taxes are needed, and some workers are not only stupid, but fragging stupid.

To return to the point at hand though, this issue around smoking bans in transport has long been enforced in certain workplaces(movers for example). What this is doing is enforcing at the end of the day health protection to youths that under the eyes of the law CANNOT LEGALLY act on their own behalf in all circumstances, which includes the consumption of tobacco products. I know im stretching this pretty far but it is a matter of consent: A Youth technically cannot give consent for sex at a certain age, operations, purchase of tobacco, alcohol, or firearms, and so on, and this simply adds to a list of legal no-no's adults cannot do around children and youth.

We can argue until the cows come home on individual rights or collective rights, but this goes beyond that as the risk of child endangerment DOES take place.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 29 Dec 2011, 00:18
I voted yes of course. Children are human persons, and we can't let them die because of irresponsible parents. Moreover, I know that it's really difficult to stop smoking unless you are forced to.

Quote:
We can argue until the cows come home on individual rights or collective rights

As a non-smoker, I can also argue on individual rights, and especially my right to life. What can you do when you don't smoke ? Stop speaking to your friends ? Ask them to go away ? Of course you will prefer to let them smoke, because most of the time they can't do without smoking. So they have to be forced. In fact, this is not about rights, but about struggle.

A liberal would say : workers have a right to life. They need good wages. People have a right to life, they must be protected from smoke.

A communist would say : workers need power. They take it. Non-smoker need health. They just have to get rid of smoking people.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 989
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Jul 2004, 01:47
Komsomol
Post 27 Feb 2012, 10:22
I voted No. I don't like smoking, but I think we have enough petty laws already. There are bigger fish to fry in modern society than people smoking in (their own) cars. So instead of proposing ever more nannying laws, I would like to see the thorough enforcement of existing laws against corrupt officials, rapists, murderers, dealers and all those other people who make life a misery for the masses.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 7
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Nov 2011, 06:19
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 28 Feb 2012, 21:36
Quote:
No, but it's barbaric to sell products that cause harm in a business/location focusing on healthy living.


That's your opinion and you are by no means required to frequent such establishments.

Quote:
Actually, it's been shown that health warnings do not just do enough.


They warn. That is all they are for.

Quote:
I don't want to come off as the culture police


Too late.

Quote:
as I hold firm that if someone is stupid enough to do something stupid with prior knowledge of its stupidity they have whats coming.


Then you should have no problem with people making these decisions.

Quote:
However, using Canada as an example, alcohol consumption is statistically higher in provinces with less regulation and regular viewing of products than those where it is central to government institutes, the same goes for hiding and restricting tobacco sales.


Could you provide your source for this?

Quote:
Yep, in the present situation of social development it is a requirement. Until we all have the proper education and knowledge directly in front of us in plain view not being obstructed by loose dressed women in beer adverts, bravado men and slimmed women in cigarette adverts, and high class society offering a means of emulation we will require the idea that sin taxes are needed, and some workers are not only stupid, but fragging stupid.


If you have a problem with advertising clouding the issue then you should be proposing regulation of advertising, what sin taxes have to do with this I don't know. What you're advocating is coercion because you've apparently decided that you know better than everyone else about the utility gained from smoking and the associated risks. Calling them stupid for coming to different conclusions is just insulting.

Quote:
To return to the point at hand though, this issue around smoking bans in transport has long been enforced in certain workplaces(movers for example). What this is doing is enforcing at the end of the day health protection to youths that under the eyes of the law CANNOT LEGALLY act on their own behalf in all circumstances, which includes the consumption of tobacco products.


ETS is not the consumption of tobacco products.

Quote:
I know im stretching this pretty far but it is a matter of consent: A Youth technically cannot give consent for sex at a certain age, operations, purchase of tobacco, alcohol, or firearms, and so on, and this simply adds to a list of legal no-no's adults cannot do around children and youth.


These issues are fundamentally different.

Quote:
We can argue until the cows come home on individual rights or collective rights, but this goes beyond that as the risk of child endangerment DOES take place.


Ok, show me one study that says ETS exposure in cars is even remotely harmful.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.