AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-06-01, 13:24   Link #221
Sephi
Thinking outside the box
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
There are more and more studies that have arrived that are showing that second hand smoke can be just as bad or worse than actually smoking. However, there are certain conditions that these studies focus on (proximity to smoke, age, genetic predisposition, level of health, etc.,) so a blind analysis isn't really doing the research justice.

It's safe to say that it's at least as bad, if you are in a poorly ventilated area and frequently exposed to it though. If you have any form of breathing problem, you should definitely avoid it (and most other types of carcinogens if possible).
Atleast as bad sounds more credible. I already found it hard to believe that it would be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post

It's been working very well here in Singapore, where smoking has been banned in most public spaces including food shops, restaurants, public halls and function rooms, offices, factories, banks and health premises. The ban was further extended to include entertainment outlets in Jul 2007. Smokers flouting the ban can be fined up to S$200 (US$147). Managers of food outlets who fail to uphold the ban can penalised with an initial fine of S$200, and S$500 for subsequent offences.

To help businesses and smokers adjust to the most recent bans, food outlets that have outdoor seating can mark out 20 per cent of that space as specially designated smoking corners. So, if you happen to sit right next to these corners, you'll still catch your death in second-hand fumes. And you can still be unlucky enough to be walking downwind of an inconsiderate smoker puffing along pedesterian walkways.

But otherwise, Singapore has become largely smoke-free in most public areas. Hooray.
Sounds good. Hooray indeed
__________________

Currently watching: Aria the Origination & Dennou Coil
Sephi: Anime Icons | Signatures & Avatars | Renders
Sephi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-01, 23:46   Link #222
Echoes
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In line to confess his sins.
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
My colleague made a brilliant suggestion today: someone should commission scientific research to "prove" that smoking leads to erectile dysfunction.

Voilą - half the world's smoking problem instantly solved.
They haven't "proved" that smoking leads to impotence yet? Then I must say that I question their right to plaster a warning saying exactly that all over cigarette packages.

It doesn't help that much, though, at least not here. People still smoke, a lot. Neither does heavy taxation, as was suggested earlier in the thread. Cigarettes here are probably the most expensive you'll find anywhere in the world, and people still smoke at high rates. Smoking is also banned in public places.

Of course, I'm not claiming that these measures won't help anywhere else.
__________________
Echoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-03, 06:49   Link #223
Eclipze
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore
I came across this half-an-episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit! on second-hand smoke. There were some fairly interesting points being made, such as the whole "second-hand smoke is more deadly than first-hand" being a complete hoax. Of course, like everything else, it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Spoiler for Penn and Teller's Bullshit!:
__________________
Eclipze is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-03, 09:09   Link #224
Echoes
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In line to confess his sins.
Age: 26
While I do love Penn and Teller's show, they are not always completely right. They're not above admitting it, though, and the second hand smoking episode is an example of just that. They've said that they are "most likely wrong", given the new evidence discovered about second-hand smoking.

Excerpt from wikipedia:
Quote:
At The Amaz!ng Meeting 3 the duo was asked about the evidence for this episode being faulty. Penn Jillette, with Teller sitting at his side, said regarding this episode they were "very likely" wrong and the next season would add a notation. Penn went on to describe "a new study that came out of England, just recently, that seems to have more stuff about it" and "right now, as I sit here, there probably is danger in secondhand smoke." He went on to say that this was a small portion of the program, and their main point was their opposition to "outlawing" smoking in privately-owned businesses, which they still "stand behind 100%.
__________________
Echoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-03, 10:31   Link #225
Eclipze
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echoes View Post
While I do love Penn and Teller's show, they are not always completely right. They're not above admitting it, though, and the second hand smoking episode is an example of just that. They've said that they are "most likely wrong", given the new evidence discovered about second-hand smoking.

Excerpt from wikipedia:
Indeed, more scientific studies are constantly being conducted, so new discoveries can be made over time. Then again, just watching the episodes wasn't enough to convince me that smelling second hand smoke wasn't gonna do any damage to me. Hence why I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclipze View Post
Of course, like everything else, it should be taken with a pinch of salt.
__________________
Eclipze is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-03, 11:20   Link #226
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
I believe Penn & Teller's point is always to think about what the things you hear instead of simply devouring it without a second thought. So, I don't think they're actually arguing that second hand smoking is not harmful, but that the people who say that aren't precisely giving sound reasons for that.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-03, 12:48   Link #227
Eclipze
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
I believe Penn & Teller's point is always to think about what the things you hear instead of simply devouring it without a second thought. So, I don't think they're actually arguing that second hand smoking is not harmful, but that the people who say that aren't precisely giving sound reasons for that.
That particular episode is talking about how the effects of second-hand smoke isn't as significant as the main-stream media makes it seem. But like you've said, most people simply place all their trust on research information (edited or not) provided to them from the media.

I mean, yes, smoking is harmful, second hand smoke is bound to do some damage to your body, but blowing up the issue seems to be pushing it - much like the war on drugs.
__________________
Eclipze is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-03, 17:30   Link #228
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Well, the thing about that episode is that they weren't exactly wrong - the documents they were speaking about were used for exactly the reasons they described. Second hand smoke was being hyped up as being deadly by interest groups using early research before the studies became more conclusive.

The real point of the episode was that health hazards aside, smoking is a free choice (I won't go so far as to say right), and the episode highlighted the clash between freedoms of one group versus another. The second hand smoking bit was just a small portion of the program when they highlighted the bans on public smoking, which for many businesses has completely put them out of business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight
I believe Penn & Teller's point is always to think about what the things you hear instead of simply devouring it without a second thought.
QFT. Penn & Teller, before anything else, champion free thought and personal liberty. The program is designed around asking you to think about the issues after different sides are presented. They give their points, then they end the program with a final point that is intended to emphasize that you should be paying a little more attention to the world instead of just blindly accepting it.

It's never about what they think, it's about what you as the audience come away with to reflect on.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-16, 17:15   Link #229
Kakashi
カカシ
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Send a message via MSN to Kakashi
Found something intresting on PLoS Genetics. Figured it's related to this thread. Here's the link:

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/...l.pgen.1000125

Basically a set of genes which can turn teenage smokers into lifelong addicts have been discovered. They make those who experiment with tobacco before the age of 17 up to 5 times more likely than normal to become heavy smokers in adulthood. Up to two in five people have the 'high risk' versions of the genes, which affect the brain's sensitivity to nicotine.

This suggests genetic influences expressed during adolescence contribute to the risk of lifetime addiction. So kids...don't even experiment...
Kakashi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-17, 10:55   Link #230
Nightbat®
Deadpan Snarker
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 37
No kids, don't try to use your brain and think "this isn't worth it" I mean: it's in your genes
which obviously replaces sane logical thinking


...now excuse me, I've heard I may have killer genes, so I'm out to murder a few peeps
__________________
Nightbat® is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-17, 12:59   Link #231
tenken627
what Yagi said
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephi View Post
Pardon me for somewhat interrupting this already going discussion but as many know quite a lot of Europe countries already have a smoking ban. And The Netherlands is one of the last countries that is putting the ban in action, starting 1 Juli 2008 (today) \o/

Of course i will find this out sooner or later. But how have most of the countries that already have a smoking ban been handling it? Does it actually help? Are pubs/clubs actually enforcing the rule? Has smoking people in public really become a rarity and do smokers actually abide by the rule to only smoke in allowed smoke zones?

I don't smoke myself and haven't even been tempted to try it either. Mainly because of my Astma. So i hope i don't smell like a cigarette every time i get back from clubs after the smoking ban. And that I can stop with the rituals of taking a shower at 5AM and trowing all my cloth in the laundry after a night of hitting the clubs. Worse thing is, even after taking a shower there is still a smell of cigarettes oO

So to sum it up. How has your country that has a smoking ban been handling with it?
I live in Washington D.C., and there has been a public smoking ban here for a while.

I'm a smoker, and sometimes it sucks to have to go outside if its freezing cold, but it's not that bad, and people get used to it.

The pubs (bars) and clubs all enforce the ban as there is a severe penalty for allowing patrons to smoke inside, and a penalty for the smoker. So everyone abides by it.

So don't worry about going to the club and coming back smelling like cigarettes, unless you like to stand around in front of the entrance with all the other smokers or on the rooftop if they have a designated smoking place up there.
__________________
tenken627 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-17, 21:09   Link #232
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 24
All I really have to say on the subject is I find the suggestion that cigarettes be banned to be ridiculous. Likewise, I also think most drugs should be legalized - when was it the position of the government to tell people what they can put in their own bodies, anyways?

Drugs can certainly be detrimental to one's health, but it should be an individual's choice if they want to be concerned with their health or not. There are a myriad of activities people partake in that are unhealthy every day, anyways; I'm sure there'd be an outroar if someone suggested banning McDonald's. (I know it isn't a strong comparison, that isn't really relevant. In the end, if you're banning things based on health, where does one draw the line?)

Rather than my government waste money on this useless "War on Drugs" campaign, focusing on educating the public on what risks they take when they light up (tobacco, weed, whatever) would be a more meaningful approach.

Personally, I smoke a cigar every once in a while, but I'd rather smoke cannabis. Though I've recently quit both altogether in an attempt to get in shape =O.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-17, 22:15   Link #233
Reckoner
Bittersweet Distractor
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
All I really have to say on the subject is I find the suggestion that cigarettes be banned to be ridiculous. Likewise, I also think most drugs should be legalized - when was it the position of the government to tell people what they can put in their own bodies, anyways?
You see though, the problem with this viewpoint in my opinion is that smoking purposely has addictive substances put in them. Once someone starts it is hard to quit because the cigarettes companies want you as long life customers. This is why it is not just a simple comparison to McDonalds. They don't put nicotine in their hamburgers or any crap like that. Also eating yourself to death doesn't have a second hand eat factor.

Let me ask you something... Why does law exist in the first place? Why is there government? Do you think people would be such angels if we didn't have law in this world? This is how I view smoking. If one can ban it and enforce it, we'd protect people from themselves. Of course as with all other abused substance people will go around the law, but it should cut down on it.

I personally do not think it is okay to let people kill themselves. It is not like I respect obesity either, but that is something less controllable as there isn't anything really tangible to attack. In the case of obesity, education is the only thing that can help combat it. That and having society shunning it.
Reckoner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-17, 22:50   Link #234
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
All I really have to say on the subject is I find the suggestion that cigarettes be banned to be ridiculous. Likewise, I also think most drugs should be legalized - when was it the position of the government to tell people what they can put in their own bodies, anyways?
I don't think anyone suggested banning cigarettes... what is usually done is banning smoking in public places. You know, because it's bad for the health of people other than the smoker.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-17, 22:55   Link #235
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 24
My idea of law is that it should create the order to allow people to live as freely as possible. This means that the law is in place only to restrict individuals from enforcing their will on others. True freedom is unachievable; if I were free to kill another man I would be taking away his freedom to live. The law should only exist to place boundaries in such areas.

You bring up the fact that cigarettes are purposely made addictive. Indeed, but that is only once the individual has chosen to use them. Being educated is a near necessity in a free society; if one is educated on the risks in the first place they can exercise their will not to use the cigarettes. Freedom comes with the price of one needing to know how to look after themselves, and I sure as hell would rather be an educated individual who is allowed to do what I want so long as I am not imposing on others than be ignorant, safe, but restricted by law.

I know that our society isn't perfect - some people never get the chance to be educated. I'm not willing to give up my freedoms so these individuals are made safe. Instead, I would gladly contribute my tax money towards initiatives that would ensure these individuals are educated.

EDIT: WanderingKnight, I have not accused anyone on these forums of suggesting they should be banned. I was merely expressing my opinion on the subject at large. (Though it appears Reckoner does feel they should be banned.) I fully support banning public smoking, as making others unhealthy for your own sake goes against the entire idea of law I described in this post.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-18, 00:14   Link #236
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
You bring up the fact that cigarettes are purposely made addictive. Indeed, but that is only once the individual has chosen to use them. Being educated is a near necessity in a free society; if one is educated on the risks in the first place they can exercise their will not to use the cigarettes. Freedom comes with the price of one needing to know how to look after themselves, and I sure as hell would rather be an educated individual who is allowed to do what I want so long as I am not imposing on others than be ignorant, safe, but restricted by law.

I know that our society isn't perfect - some people never get the chance to be educated. I'm not willing to give up my freedoms so these individuals are made safe. Instead, I would gladly contribute my tax money towards initiatives that would ensure these individuals are educated.
I think you're making one mistake. The problem doesn't arise because our society is imperfect, but rather that people are imperfect. Public education campaigns are effective, but they're far less effective than they probably should be. People know that there's a risk associated with smoking and they know that they might be addicted. They either don't care or they downplay both. And why shouldn't they? If you've never truly been addicted to anything in your life, how can you know what it feels like to have your body violently request something? If you've never had cancer, how can you know what it's like to wish you were dead each time you received chemotherapy? None of us can. The problem is that once you do know, once you understand the gravity of the issue from experience, it's too late.

Let me ask you this, instead: why should cigarettes be allowed to be sold in society? Is that right to you? Let's forget the fact that cigarettes are harmful to you, for a moment. Is it OK if I sell a product to people knowing full well that they won't be able to stop using it because of addiction? Even if an education campaign pops up, does that still make it OK for me to essentially be preying on people? Buy my product once and you'll have to walk through fire to stop buying it for the rest of your life?

That's my issue with cigarettes. If it were a simple matter of people killing themselves slowly, then I agree with you: that's their business. The trouble is that there are plenty of people who want to quit, but can't. Whether you want to call these people uneducated or stupid is not the point. The point is that these people have a hard time quitting. They are unwillingly buying and using the product because to do otherwise would be extremely painful. Is it OK with you that we allow people to be preyed upon like that in our society?

I've said it a few times already, and I'll restate it: Coca Cola used to put trace amounts of cocaine into their soda. The idea was that the cocaine, which is a highly addictive substance, would create an addiction in people, who would associate the addiction with Coca Cola. Bam, instant sales - now everyone is buying your soda and they don't even know why, but they're craving it. The government ruled against this practice, and I believe this was also one of the reasons why all food vendors must list every ingredient that goes into their products. Do you think that the government was wrong to tell Coca Cola to stop putting cocaine into their drinks?

If you don't think Coca Cola was in the wrong, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree. I think that whoever came up with that idea was a brilliant businessman, but had absolutely no ethics. That's a disservice to society. Cigarettes take a lot of flak for being bad for one's health (and because they stink up the area), but at the end of the day it's yet another product being marketed with an addictive substance. That's what makes it wrong. Either remove the addictive substance or get rid of it.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-18, 00:35   Link #237
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
All I really have to say on the subject is I find the suggestion that cigarettes be banned to be ridiculous. Likewise, I also think most drugs should be legalized - when was it the position of the government to tell people what they can put in their own bodies, anyways?
It's not that simple for two reasons:
- Secondary smoke. When you light up, you put things in the bodies of everyone around you, not just your own.
- Socialized healthcare. We like to have it, but is it fair to put an extra burden on everyone because of lousy, stupid life choices?
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-18, 00:42   Link #238
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 24
Ledgem, I think you make some great points and you make me doubt my opinions. Perhaps the idea of addictive substances being banned is one worth backing, as it does, in some ways, strip one of their freedom to choose.

However, I am not thoroughly convinced. I understand that, from an ethical viewpoint, selling these products is pretty unjustified and callous. I have trouble separating what I think is "wrong" with my idea of liberty and law, so you've pushed me closer towards 'undecided,' but I still feel unwilling to accept that people can be told they cannot use a substance on their own bodies'. I have and always will agree with what you said about the unethical aspect to the situation, I just struggle with the idea that a freedom is being taken away, even if it is a cruddy freedom in the first place.

Part of me wants to say that if people aren't willing to listen when they are told, it is their own fault. I do realize the faultiness of such a mentality, partially thanks to your post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
It's not that simple for two reasons:
- Secondary smoke. When you light up, you put things in the bodies of everyone around you, not just your own.
- Socialized healthcare. We like to have it, but is it fair to put an extra burden on everyone because of lousy, stupid life choices?
I see your points as well, but I think secondary smoke can be addressed by restricting smoking-permitted zones to private property, or smoking bars of some sort. I like the idea of socialized healthcare, but I am not really sure if it is a practical thing. I think the current American healthcare industry is pretty terrible, though.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-18, 01:13   Link #239
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
However, I am not thoroughly convinced. I understand that, from an ethical viewpoint, selling these products is pretty unjustified and callous. I have trouble separating what I think is "wrong" with my idea of liberty and law, so you've pushed me closer towards 'undecided,' but I still feel unwilling to accept that people can be told they cannot use a substance on their own bodies'. I have and always will agree with what you said about the unethical aspect to the situation, I just struggle with the idea that a freedom is being taken away, even if it is a cruddy freedom in the first place.

Part of me wants to say that if people aren't willing to listen when they are told, it is their own fault. I do realize the faultiness of such a mentality, partially thanks to your post.
You've earned my respect for openly questioning your previous stance. Even if you don't end up agreeing with me, it's a sign of intellectual honesty on your part, and that's a very important trait to have. Good on you.

I also understand where you're coming from. Even if a substance is addictive, why shouldn't we be free to addict ourselves if we so please? In many ways, that'd a valid question. Of course, by addicting yourself you're already giving up certain freedoms and enslaving yourself. Whether that seems right or wrong to you will probably depend very strongly on how you view responsibility and how accountable people should be held.

Do recognize that everyone experiences times of weakness and times of vulnerability. Even I, an avid anti-smoker who knows full well what the consequences of smoking are, was once extremely tempted to smoke just for a bit (I was 19 at the time, but no less an anti-smoker than I am today). I didn't end up smoking. I am not a weak person, nor do I feel pressure and stress from my day-to-day life, yet I realized from that experience that it is all too easy to succumb to these things at one point or another. Making mistakes, doing stupid things - that's human. Sometimes those mistakes will have lasting consequences, and that's life. I don't see why we should litter our society with more of those sorts of obstacles in the form of chemical addictions.

It's also helpful to think about other substances and hypothetical products aside from just cigarettes. Would it be OK with you if cocaine were legalized? Would you feel that it was permissable for food and drink companies to begin adding in addictive substances - even if they advertised it? On one hand you could argue that if you know and decide to do it anyway, it's your business and you'll live with the consequences. I understand it, but feel a greater emphasis on the fact that companies are trying to alter people's body chemistries for their own financial gain. That bothers me a lot more than the idea of blocking the sale of any product that makes use of a chemical that has a good chance of inducing an addiction. Of course, that's just my personal take on it.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-07-20, 11:48   Link #240
DunRz
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
I don't know what's the reason for making Cig but their just killing more and more people and not to mention alot of people are suffering from lung cancer because of that [?] but i did try smoking when i was 5 years old because it was a bet from my cousins.It taste horrible that i almost suffocate.And what i've heard is that it can be helpful to forget stuff or something?

Anyways,they should ban cigarettes for people's own good.
DunRz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
debate

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.