Current Events Thread

[Rotinaj]

If any drug were found to be more harmful than previously thought, I doubt the result would be exposing it to more people, even if it lessens the effects on the user. I don't see how you find being able to smoke publicly is more of a personal right than mine to not be exposed to something that can jeopardize my health.

[worbat]

So in fact outdoors and in public spaces is the healthiest place for other people to smoke, rather than in their own homes?

Windows, gardens, anywhere you arn't around other people.

[TheCze]

If any drug were found to be more harmful than previously thought, I doubt the result would be exposing it to more people, even if it lessens the effects on the user. I don't see how you find being able to smoke publicly is more of a personal right than mine to not be exposed to something that can jeopardize my health.

cars also expose you to toxic things that can jeopardize your health.

[Scrap.est]

Bananas contain radiation

[Rotinaj]

cars also expose you to toxic things that can jeopardize your health.

So? That's more of an argument against cars than for smoking. It's not like you can drive around without a catalytic converter.

[Scrap.est]

I think theCze was pointing out the world is fucked anyway. People like to go for the fast, cheap, it works now methods. That's why we have cheap meat while cows fart off the ozone layer. People using a transport variety that has almost drained the fuel source,huge waste dumps in waters and on land and people making more babies while having no clean water or food (I'm looking at you Africa). Face it we are stupid and using stuff that makes us happy on the hindsight of our own health (smoking, drinking etc) won't go away.

[Shadow_Archmagi]

cars also expose you to toxic things that can jeopardize your health.

are you suggesting that we outlaw driving cars inside public buildings and on sidewalks

[TheCze]

Especially inside public buildings!

I just wanted to point out that living in a city that is crammed full with humans is generally bad for your health. I think it's okay to ban smoking inside off public buildings but I really think it' madness if you want to ban it outside of buildings.

[Rotinaj]

Something being bad already is not an excuse to make it worse.

[TheCze]

Tobacco is older then cars, so cars made it worse thus cars must be banned.

Perfect logic!

[Nel]

Tobacco is older then cars, so cars made it worse thus cars must be banned.

Perfect logic!

Because a mode of transport is totally comparable to something people do for fun!

[sulkdodds]

If any drug were found to be more harmful than previously thought, I doubt the result would be exposing it to more people, even if it lessens the effects on the user. I don't see how you find being able to smoke publicly is more of a personal right than mine to not be exposed to something that can jeopardize my health.

I don't think your health is being sufficiently jeopardized by someone smoking in the middle of a public square. The idea of requiring people to not smoke near building entrances makes sense, but nowhere in a public space? Not alone on a bench, in an island in the middle of a duck pond, or on the beach? Okay, so how about banning smoking in crowds or near other people? A woman has to put out her cigarette when someone else walks over near her? Legislation on this kind of micro level becomes really hard to manage.

Again, I can't remember a situation where I was forced by circumstances I couldn't take reasonable measures to avoid to inhale somebody's smoke. And the idea that Al's link is relevant in outdoor spaces (when it actually specifies "indoor spaces") seems to me unlikely.

If second hand smoking works like 'every single time you inhale any smoke whatsoever, there's a 1% chance you catch cancer', then okay, it starts to make a bit more sense...but I don't think that's how it works.

[worbat]

You've never got stuck walking behind a bunch of smokers?

[sulkdodds]

No? I certainly don't remember any such occasion. If it did happen, I probably slowed down, walked ahead, walked round them, or crossed the street. And if you find that problematic, you're kind of moving from "x right should be restricted because it might endanger my life" to "x right should be restricted because I might be mildly inconvenienced."

[eeny]

No? I certainly don't remember any such occasion. If it did happen, I probably slowed down, walked ahead, walked round them, or crossed the street. And if you find that problematic, you're kind of moving from "x right should be restricted because it might endanger my life" to "x right should be restricted because I might be mildly inconvenienced."

Before I grew out of my asthma, being mildly inconvenienced, and having my life endangered by smokers was the same thing.

[worbat]

Amusingly it was either walk behind smokers on a busy street or walk into busy road, first time in london |:

Before I grew out of my asthma, being mildly inconvenienced, and having my life endangered by smokers was the same thing.

Also this, but I haven't grown out of it

[Joest]

You've never got stuck walking behind a bunch of smokers?

Have you ever got stuck behind a truck or bus that spews fumes at you?

You fucking move away from it.

[worbat]

Aparently you are blind as well as an idiot and can't understand the word stuck.

[Al_Ka_Pwn]

Anyways new topic, oakland OWS dudes are involved in a riot ish thing. Police say that they started it, and OWS guys say the police started it. It happened b/c the city had told them to leave from just about everywhere and they tried to take over a building that had been abandoned for almost 6 years and the police said no.

[Nel]

If they city said no, they they don't do it.  Unless the protest is okayed by the city, I'm pretty sure they can be arrested for it.