Passive smoking - another of the Nanny State's big lies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

What about the people that do judge it to be a risk? All the other things you've mentioned don't directly affect people not partaking in those activities, whereas smoking does.

---

Don't enter the property where it is allowed then.

What don't you undertand about that simple principle of voluntary co-operation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I also wanted to point out the how bias and flawed your original article is...

It quotes the doctors as saying

It fails to mention the other half of the quote which is

I guess they just forgot to add that bit in?

---

That's just added on as a passing thought - he states his main aim is to change society via force of the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

What's more likely, that 90% of scientists are perpetuating a lie that takes a massive chunk out of the economy and threaten growth and progression of society as a whole for no legitimate reason or big oil companies have bribed 10% of scientists so that they can solidify their position and massive profits against potentially more profitable, down the line, renewable or alternative energy sources?

---

How have you reached these figures? I'd certainly be interested in reading a survey of all the scientists in the world which concludes somehow that 10% are anti-AGW and 90% are pro-AGW. But as Climategate I and II proved, even the scientists saying it's real agree with me that the temperature has cooled over the past decade... of course they didn't publically say this and we only know because of Russian hackers exposed it, but still that tells me all I need to know.

And anyway, often science has been about breaking the old concensus that existed beforehand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

You thinking that inhaling smoke isn't unhealthy doesn't make it so, and the difference between that and your examples are that fizzy drinks and gay relations don't affect anyone outside of those involved. When one freedom comes at the expense of another (ie freedom to smoke infringing on freedom to not be placed in harm simply by being somewhere, or freedom to stab people infringing on freedom to stay alive) then clearly the harm principle needs to come into effect or you have 100% anarchy which inevitably leads to tyranny of whoever has the biggest guns

---

I never said it was 100% healthy, just that it has been blown up to be much more dangerous than it actually is. If the state had such a concern for public health, then why does it not ban gay sex for the reason that although it's illegal to not tell somebody you have HIV - many people don't and therefore a blanket ban should be implemented for the sake of society as well as 'saving the NHS money' like we always hear with the smoking ban argument? I could easily make the harm principle fit into an argument for banning gay sex.

But even if second hand smoking was very dangerous, why should this triumph over property rights? If you aren't willing to take the risk then do not enter the premises. The same for gay bathhouses which are incredibly risky if you enter them and engage in those activites, why not ban them as they spread a lot of disease?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

That's just added on as a passing thought - he states his main aim is to change society via force of the state.

---

It's not a passing thought because his whole argument relies on the notion that second hand smoke is a myth and doesn't cause damage, he's then taken a quote out of context to meet his agenda which makes one question the credibility of the rest of the article.

Quote:

---

How have you reached these figures? I'd certainly be interested in reading a survey of all the scientists in the world which concludes somehow that 10% are anti-AGW and 90% are pro-AGW. But as Climategate I and II proved, even the scientists saying it's real agree with me that the temperature has cooled over the past decade... of course they didn't publically say this and we only know because of Russian hackers exposed it, but still that tells me all I need to know.

---

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_opinion2.png

A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

But even if second hand smoking was very dangerous, why should this triumph over property rights? If you aren't willing to take the risk then do not enter the premises. The same for gay bathhouses which are incredibly risky if you enter them and engage in those activites, why not ban them as they spread a lot of disease?

---

I may be misinterpreting you, but I'm assuming you wish to revoke the smoking ban put on public places, right? So how on earth are people meant to not "enter" public spaces (like train stations, hospitals etc.)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If the state had such a concern for public health, then why does it not ban gay sex for the reason that although it's illegal to not tell somebody you have HIV - many people don't and therefore a blanket ban should be implemented for the sake of society as well as 'saving the NHS money' like we always hear with the smoking ban argument? I could easily make the harm principle fit into an argument for banning gay sex.

---

No you can't, not if you understand what the harm principle actually is... Note once again that people choose to engage in gay sex and it affects no-one other than those taking part. If gay sex involved going to public places and forcibly injecting your blood into passers-by then sure it'd be a good comparison but to my understanding that is not how it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

But even if second hand smoking was very dangerous, why should this triumph over property rights? If you aren't willing to take the risk then do not enter the premises. The same for gay bathhouses which are incredibly risky if you enter them and engage in those activites, why not ban them as they spread a lot of disease?

---

Why do you not get the point even when you say it yourself? Entering a premises designed for potentially dangerous specific purposes and performing them there is not the same thing as entering a premises designed for harmless specific purposes and being exposed to dangers you don't want to be exposed to just because someone wants to do that there and not in its appropriate private setting

Smoking is vile and coming home from a fam party where everyone smokes, my eyes literally feel on fire and go bloodshot lol.. Don't try and tell me its not harmful. Smoking ban was the best thing ever.