Quote (Santara @ Feb 2 2011 07:47pm)

Smoking is an otherwise wholly legal activity, and unless you can provide evidence that outdoor smoking is detrimental to the public health any more than standard pollution, mind your ow business.



Don't think smoking is useful? Try banning it and see how violent the public becomes.

Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Feb 2 2011 06:39pm)

I'll state this right now...I'm arguing from a utilitarian perspective.

The amount of utility gained from smoking a cigarette in a public place is arguably negative...insomuch as it creates more harm than good.

They damage your health, they damage other people's health, they create a mess, they may deter people from using public places.

The only benefit (and a small one I may add) is the amount of pleasure it gives the smoker...which is fairly minimal. Even if the pleasure gained was something a long the lines of an orgasm, the bad effects would still outweigh the good.

To use cars as an analogy (going over the others is just time consuming) is pretty weak. Why?

Cars serve a much higher level of utility...they get people around faster, in greater comfort, they save time, they allow access to places, etc

Disutilities include pollution and a danger to oneself an others.

This may seem like a poor argument because cigarettes have the same disutilities...but at a much higher rate.

You smoke a cigarette...you will damage your health. You get in a car, you may or may not damage yourself. I've been driving for 7 years now and I have not once suffered an injury from driving a car. Yet, if I had been smoking an average amount for the past 7 years, I would have undoubtedly caused irreversible damage to my body.

Furthermore, the car serves a very high level of positive utility, much greater than smoking a cigarette does.

Quote (general_patton @ Feb 2 2011 06:40pm)

I suppose if we're going the utilitarian route, we should find lower class citizens to harvest for lungs so we can keep the elite smokers functioning, since they produce a lot for society.

Quote (TeH SaNdMaN @ Feb 2 2011 06:41pm)

Santara where do you draw the line if at all? Would a straight up ban on smoking be acceptable? If not what are your stances on other bans like nudity? Is the legality the only issue with nudity? What about other recreational drugs that are currently illegal? Should they be legal? If they should be then should a person be able to use them in public as they please?

Quote (Santara @ Feb 2 2011 07:53pm)

ROFL.

Quote (ArcticWolf6 @ Feb 2 2011 06:49pm)

I have serious problems with that ideology.

5 people are dying in the hospital. One needs a liver, one needs a heart, one needs a kidney, one needs a pancreas, and one needs a lung. A healthy man walks into the clinic and takes a nap. By utilitarian logic, you should kill the man and save the five.

I don't feel like basing arguments around utilitarianism is ultimately useful.

Quote (Santara @ Feb 2 2011 07:47pm)

Smoking is an otherwise wholly legal activity, and unless you can provide evidence that outdoor smoking is detrimental to the public health any more than standard pollution, mind your ow business.

Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Feb 2 2011 07:57pm)

Unfortunately that's not how utilitarianism works.

If you like you can start a thread on it or pm me for an explanation, I don't want to derail this thread.

Quote (bentherdonethat @ Feb 2 2011 07:58pm)

You already acknowledged that SHS is detrimental to the health of asthmatics and dismissed it by saying "Bring your inhaler." Would you advocate the freedom to shine strobe lights in the eyes of people who suffer from seizures, telling them to keep their meds on them at all times?

Quote (Santara @ Feb 2 2011 07:52pm)

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/02/nyc-expected-to-ban-smoking-in-parks-beaches/

New York City has banned smoking OUTSIDE in the wind in parks and on beaches. This is what happens when you give ground on a seemingly innocent law (ban smoking in bars).

You fucking anti-smoking Nazis need to find something useful to do with your time.

Quote (Santara @ Feb 2 2011 05:53pm)

I don't argue from a utilitarian standpoint, I argue from a civil rights standpoint.

So long as smoking remains a legal activity, I will not condone treating them as second-class citizens.



ROFL.



I wouldn't draw a line at all, people can decide for themselves. No, because it would only escalate crime and people would still do it, much the same as drugs do now. You can't be nude ANYWHERE in public, so it's a moot point and not comparable. Yes, recreational drugs should be legal. Yes.

Quote (general_patton @ Feb 2 2011 07:58pm)

Yeah, it is. "Benefit the most at the expense of as few as possible". By this logic, you saved five people and sacrificed only one.

Quote (general_patton @ Feb 2 2011 08:55pm)

There's serious merit to this from a utilitarian standpoint. If Einstein needed a pancreas while he was writing his paper on the photoelectric effect, he should have been able to make a selection from many pancreases for the plumpest and most delightful organ.