d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Validation Of The Slippery Slope Argument.
Prev1111213141521Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 59,865
Joined: Feb 19 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 3 2011 06:38pm
Quote (TacoBell @ Feb 3 2011 05:33pm)
You should move because you're the one who suffers from a minor inconvenience that causes no harm. The alternative is to politely ask them to move. 

I believe what many here are getting at, is the idea that there are civil ways of handling such a benign situation instead of imposing rules via the government.  Second hand smoke is bad for you over a period of time. The few seconds it takes to realize that someone is annoying you with a puff of smoke causes no harm, and the solution to the situation takes no effort.

Unless smoking becomes so prevalent that it cannot be avoided, your argument is invalid.

This is just another unnecessary law that appeals to base emotion and distaste for smoking instead of rational thought.


I don't know where you live but no natter where I went before the smoking bans there were junkies smokers everywhere. A single run in with SHS is not going to kill you but repeated exposure very well would. Especially the unfiltered burning of a cigarette which is the most unhealthy and irritating(as in causing an allergic reaction) to people with respiratory problems. Also you try asking a smoker to move and see how many of them ignore you or worse.
Member
Posts: 8,259
Joined: Oct 18 2009
Gold: 0.00
Feb 3 2011 06:39pm
Quote (TacoBell @ Feb 3 2011 07:33pm)
You should move because you're the one who suffers from a minor inconvenience that causes no harm. The alternative is to politely ask them to move. 

I believe what many here are getting at, is the idea that there are civil ways of handling such a benign situation instead of imposing rules via the government.  Second hand smoke is bad for you over a period of time. The few seconds it takes to realize that someone is annoying you with a puff of smoke causes no harm, and the solution to the situation takes no effort.

Unless smoking becomes so prevalent that it cannot be avoided, your argument is invalid.

This is just another unnecessary law that appeals to base emotion and distaste for smoking instead of rational thought.


# Tobacco smoke has been categorized as a class A carcinogen, positioning it alongside asbestos and arsenic.
# Inhaling smoke coming from other people’s gigarettes can lead to irritation of the eye, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea.
# An exposure of merely thirty minutes to cigarette smoke exhaled by other people is considered adequate to diminish the blood flow through the heart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Risk_level
Member
Posts: 2,143
Joined: Jan 11 2006
Gold: 33,999.40
Feb 3 2011 06:45pm
Quote (Cobblestone @ Feb 3 2011 05:39pm)
# Tobacco smoke has been categorized as a class A carcinogen, positioning it alongside asbestos and arsenic.
# Inhaling smoke coming from other people’s gigarettes can lead to irritation of the eye, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea.
# An exposure of merely thirty minutes to cigarette smoke exhaled by other people is considered adequate to diminish the blood flow through the heart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passivesmoking#Risklevel


Thank you for that. So according to this, you have to be exposed to second-hand smoke for THIRTY MINUTES to notice a negative impact on health.

The solution? Move before that thirty minutes is up. Done.

Quote
I don't know where you live but no natter where I went before the smoking bans there were junkies smokers everywhere. A single run in with SHS is not going to kill you but repeated exposure very well would. Especially the unfiltered burning of a cigarette which is the most unhealthy and irritating(as in causing an allergic reaction) to people with respiratory problems. Also you try asking a smoker to move and see how many of them ignore you or worse.


If you have two legs you can avoid second-hand smoke. People with two wheels can avoid it as well. Anyone else is questionable.

This post was edited by TacoBell on Feb 3 2011 06:49pm
Member
Posts: 59,865
Joined: Feb 19 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 3 2011 06:46pm
Quote (TacoBell @ Feb 3 2011 05:45pm)
Thank you for that.  So according to this, you have to be exposed to second-hand smoke for THIRTY MINUTES to notice a relatively immediate negative impact on health.

The solution?  Move before that thirty minutes is up.  Done.


Fixed.

Takes all of 2-3 seconds for me to have an Asthma attack.
Member
Posts: 13,305
Joined: Sep 28 2005
Gold: 4.21
Feb 3 2011 06:51pm
Quote (TeH SaNdMaN @ Feb 4 2011 12:46am)
Fixed.

Takes all of 2-3 seconds for me to have an Asthma attack.


make sure you bring along your inhaler.
Member
Posts: 2,143
Joined: Jan 11 2006
Gold: 33,999.40
Feb 3 2011 06:52pm
Quote (TeH SaNdMaN @ Feb 3 2011 05:46pm)
Fixed.

Takes all of 2-3 seconds for me to have an Asthma attack.


Then ban everything that causes an Asthma attack. Everywhere. Why ban one cause only in a specific area? Or maybe take some personal responsibility.

This post was edited by TacoBell on Feb 3 2011 06:52pm
Member
Posts: 59,865
Joined: Feb 19 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 3 2011 06:54pm
Quote (TacoBell @ Feb 3 2011 05:52pm)
Then ban everything that causes an Asthma attack.  Everywhere.  Why ban one cause only in a specific area?  Or maybe take some personal responsibility.


Because absolutes are idiotic.
Member
Posts: 8,259
Joined: Oct 18 2009
Gold: 0.00
Feb 3 2011 06:54pm
Quote (TacoBell @ Feb 3 2011 07:45pm)
Thank you for that.  So according to this, you have to be exposed to second-hand smoke for THIRTY MINUTES to notice a negative impact on health.

The solution?  Move before that thirty minutes is up.  Done.



If you have two legs you can avoid second-hand smoke.  People with two wheels can avoid it as well.  Anyone else is questionable.


That is only for diminished blood flow to the heart. Regardless, it should be obvious that one of the world's most common and most destructive habits should not be something that is actively avoided within a public setting. If I have to move to another location because of someones destructive actions, why is that not an infringement of personal liberty?

Member
Posts: 13,305
Joined: Sep 28 2005
Gold: 4.21
Feb 3 2011 06:55pm
get the god damn ban hammer out and lets ban everything. and if we cant ban it we will get the nerf hammer out and nerf that son of a bitch.

that way no one can whine about anything.
Member
Posts: 13,578
Joined: Jul 27 2010
Gold: 2,285.00
Feb 3 2011 06:55pm
Quote (TacoBell @ Feb 3 2011 07:52pm)
Then ban everything that causes an Asthma attack.  Everywhere.  Why ban one cause only in a specific area?  Or maybe take some personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility, such as not releasing carcinogens into the atmosphere in public parks and beaches? Good idea.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1111213141521Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll