Looks like he has a joint in his fingers.

was my first thought as well. really does look that way.

Once again...anyone arguing that driving a car/inhaling car fumes/etc is some sort of analogy for smoking is wrong. Cars serve a purpose. Yes they're dangerous, but they're also a necessity for some, and such a great benefit to others that the good vastly outweigh the risks associated with them. Thought we established this a couple pages back...but I guess not...just stop using the analogy...it doesn't work.

Conversely, smoking doesn't serve a purpose. It has no utility beyond some very minor pleasure to the user.

You argue that banning smoking in parks infringes on smoker's rights, I say not banning it infringes on non-smokers rights. This "nou" debate is getting tiresome...

And yes, inhaling smoke ("smelling") causes harm...second hand smoke contains carcinogens (already established)...outside, insides...it still causes some level of harm.

Minor harm you argue...but where do you draw the line? How much is too much? How little is safe? It would seem rather arbitrary to designate a certain amount as safe when we know that any amount of known carcinogens contribute to cancer.

Of course fingers have joints.

Ironically, you hint at the point I'm stressing. This type of law arbitrarily targets smokers and smokers only. If I were to accept your reasoning, the logical conclusion would be to ban all carcinogens or at least ban smoking in general. We would not target a specific group (smokers) in a specific area (public parks/beaches). This is a specific law that appeals to emotion and not reason.

The notion that smoking offers "little utility" to the person smoking is irrelevant. What an individual does to his or herself is that individual's business. You make the claim that smoking infringes on the rights of others and I already responded to why it doesn't in post #120.

The notion that "cars don't count" because they have an important use is also irrelevant. The main purpose of law is to protect an individual's rights. When you start making exceptions to the rule, utilitarianism begins to degrade into personal preference aka "act utilitarianism" as Nihlathak distinguished earlier in this thread

Hate to burst your bubble, but it does serve a purpose besides a minor pleasure to the user.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine (inb4 lolwiki, check the sources)

scroll down to theraputic uses.

I can attest for the theraputic uses for alzheimers and parkinsons patients.

This post was edited by Arsenic_Touch on Feb 4 2011 01:28am

Nicotine gum, nicotine patches, smokeless (i.e. chewing) tobacco, etc. You don't need to smoke in order to get nicotine. It's the same with medical marijuana. There are quite a few methods of getting THC that don't require setting a plant on fire. So really, the point stands. Smoking doesn't serve a purpose even if nicotine does.

This post was edited by bentherdonethat on Feb 4 2011 01:43am

its just the easiest way. not the most healthy, not the most effecient.

That's not the point. He said smoking serves no purpose but self pleasure and he is clearly wrong. Not that i'm disagreeing with you.

This post was edited by Arsenic_Touch on Feb 4 2011 01:45am

You don't need to eat twinkies for the nutrients your body needs to survive, we should ban twinkies since they're unhealthy. Good thing we don't live in a country where people can choose how they want to live their lives, just figure out the most efficient way to do things and make it mandatory by law.