The "Right" to smoke versus the "right" to smoke-free air.

Discussion in 'Debate Corner' started by Boy Wonder, Sep 25, 2011.

  1. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    Loud and crappy music coming from a concert in my street while I' d rather sleep cannot be unheard, and yet the law expects all of us to deal with others freedom trespassing on ours as reasonable adults. Some people live near airports or freeways, for example, whose loud noises have an impact on their health. In such a situation would you propose to close the airport or try to go live elsewhere ? Freedom is about compromise, if we don' t like it where we are because someone else' s freedom is trespassing on ours (which is bound to happen if we don' t restrict freedom drastically) we' re free to move out, try to reach a compromise between adults, or suck it up.

    If we were to forbid people to smoke outdoors then we should also make a shitstorm of laws about pollution to avoid setting a double standard, and I bet most people wouldn' t want that, smokers or not. I know that our polluting and wasting consumer societies suck, but that' s neither here nor there. In a society where everyone is allowed to pollute copiously in public areas I expect to be allowed to smoke, that' s it.
     
  2. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    Not comparable. If music got loud enough to harm you physically, then the law would get involved. If smoking was just something as simple as the smell, then you might have a point. But it decreases life expectancies. Freedom is about compromise, correct. Taking the path that causes the least harm to both parties is what I call a compromise. Not exercising a 'right' to cause other people problems and having them put up with it because you do not do it full time.
    I did not suggest anything regarding laws. I only suggest that you stop harming other people. A store has every 'right' to turn down smokers, and I endorse that. I have every 'right' to buy from a company that does not put as much smoke into the atmosphere and avoid pollution. And then I have every right to look down on you. I do not have to make a law to ridicule you for your stupidity.
     
  3. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    Am I to understand that you' ve never ever polluted for futile reasons and never will ?

    Fine, please go on.
     
  4. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    Not now I will not. Please read earlier in the thread where I said that that this argument had just occurred to me.
    I do not work on cue. My arguments do that job for me.
     
  5. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    Just go on looking down on me then.
    A simple yes or no would do. What you said about that didn' t make much sense to me.
    You said you would berate people for polluting if you could sense that the air was not clean. Whether the air seems clean or not is irrelevant, smoke (amongst other things) will act as a poison regardless. I live in a small country town, the air seems perfectly clean to me here, and I don' t own a car, does that redeem my smoking habit ?
    You also suggested to download stuff, which implies to buy a computer and use electricity, which pollutes.
    Pollution always have consequences. Either polluting for futile reasons is acceptable or it' s not.

    In a nutshell if you want people to keep the world as healthy as humanly possible for you you might wanna start doing the same for them first. If you already do and intend to keep it that way then colour me genuinely impressed. Otherwise ... kettle calling pot.
     
  6. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    I never used the word pollution, and I did not speak of it in a general sense. I am going to sound like a pseudo-intellectual, but I will call you on it anyway. What you have done is take my position, twist it a bit, and then argue against this other position as if it were my own. This is similar to a boxer challenging the world champion to a match, putting up a straw doll looking him him, and beating the hell out of it. It does not count as the real thing. This is known as the straw man fallacy.

    It does not redeem your smoking habit because a car is worth something. It is a tool for profit. Cigarettes and other forms of smoking serve you no profit and only bring detriment to you and those around you. It is one thing to weigh the profits against the losses, but there are no profits for the users in the cigarette industry, either monetary or in standards of living.

    If someone directly affects the quality of my breathing simply for recreation or to destroy something, then I will have no problem insulting them for it. All production 'pollutes', but not all production affects my standard of living and the expectancy on my life. More, much of production makes up for it by increasing my standard of living, while cigarette users and companies cannot make this claim.
    I want to keep the world a place ruled by losses and gains. If staying healthy impedes progress in other areas then I may sacrifice it, but there is no such progress as a result of cigarette smoking. In this scenario, the losses outweigh the gains because the gains are at zero, no matter how small the loss is. It is an inefficient addition to any logical way of living.
     
  7. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    I still don' t see what your subjective evaluation of the air quality has to do with this, it would poison someone regardless.

    Cigarettes are higly taxed, much more in France than in the US, if anything cigarettes highly reduce no-smokers taxes. They also give me pleasure. I know that it' s mostly an artificial pleasure, but it' s pleasure nonetheless.

    As long as the loss in using something outweighs the gains then using it is still stupid. Personally in that regard I would classify a huge chunk of our production and consumer behaviors as stupid.
     
  8. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    You are honestly arguing that because it causes more loss to smokers, it somehow brings gain to non smokers by comparison...? What a third party decides to do to a smoker and a non smoker has no relevance on the profit of smoking itself. This is like arguing that if someone started handing out money to smokers, then smoking would become profitable. This is not the case.

    Ah, I have to take that back. They would be profiting. But that is not what is happening in the example that you gave. Stealing less from one group and making up for it by stealing more from another group does not change the level of profit for all. Stealing less from the entire body would.

    I look down on people who harm others for pleasure alone. That is what smokers are doing.
    I agree. Why would we have so many smokers in our society, as an obvious and relevant example, and not other stupid things? The ratio of smoking to non smoking should be stunning given the lack of logic behind the practice. If people are stupid in this case, then they are bound to be in others as well.
     
  9. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    Not exactly, I just thought it was worth mentioning that smokers are a huge tax scapegoat. Qualify that however it pleases you, I wouldn' t call it a gain per say but it' s something. If cigarettes were suddenly prohibited no-smokers taxes would probably increase drastically, but then I suppose you wouldn' t mind.

    You can even caution some pretty stupid practices without even knowing it. I suspect very few people could claim that their consumer behaviors aren' t stupid at all. I don' t mind being called stupid for smoking but it always leaves me wondering if the accuser is really that justified to act holier-than-me about it. Fine, I' m stupid. Who isn' t ? I' m addicted, what' s your excuse ?

    Anyway, I think I'm done on that subject. The initial point I wanted to convey was that whatever you want to obtain from people asking nicely never hurts your chances.
     
  10. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    I would mind greatly, but it would have nothing to do with either smoking or not smoking. Another discussion for another time.
    I do it when there is no way other alternative to better my life. There is a clear alternative with cigarettes, because a non-smoker is free of the self-destructive 'pleasure' of a chemical addiction and is better off living smoke free in general. With other means of production, the choice is often starve or consume things. Not all products can be made green. At some point the consumption stops keeping you from dying and starts causing it again, as with cigarette smoking. That is where I draw the line. Show me where I am hurting my profits with something, and I will change my actions to profit me.
    True, usually. That does not change the ethical implications of declining.