Legal age for smoking
Posted by: winkyincanada on 20 May 2010
I saw what I thought to be a great suggestion the other day. Start raising the legal age for smoking/buying cigarettes by 1 year, each year.
Current (legal) smokers could continue to puff away, but no new smokers could legally begin the habit. The recipients of economic benefits (tobacco companies and government coffers
) would be weaned gradually from their addiction to the revenue as the existing smokers died off.
After all the existing smokers have died, we'd be free of the habit and its net economic cost.
Too simple? Discriminatory? Too slow? Please discuss...
Current (legal) smokers could continue to puff away, but no new smokers could legally begin the habit. The recipients of economic benefits (tobacco companies and government coffers
) would be weaned gradually from their addiction to the revenue as the existing smokers died off.After all the existing smokers have died, we'd be free of the habit and its net economic cost.
Too simple? Discriminatory? Too slow? Please discuss...
Posted on: 24 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
Good night and God Bless!
Posted on: 24 May 2010 by Mike Hughes
Far be it from me to suggest the sense of humour loss here is unintebtionally hilarious. Christ smokers take themselves seriously!
Might also be an apposite moment to go back to some facts.
Whilst passive smoking by passing smokers in a doorway may carry a minimal risk (and if you bothered to look there is actually NO research that specifically addresses the issue) the average person in work will do that a minimum of four times a day (it's called lunch) and will often be obligated to conversation with one or more of the smokers as colleagues.
That aside, the practice of loitering in doorways to public buildings is just downright ignorant, rude and arrogant presenting an unprofessional and uncaring impression.
Mike
Might also be an apposite moment to go back to some facts.
Whilst passive smoking by passing smokers in a doorway may carry a minimal risk (and if you bothered to look there is actually NO research that specifically addresses the issue) the average person in work will do that a minimum of four times a day (it's called lunch) and will often be obligated to conversation with one or more of the smokers as colleagues.
That aside, the practice of loitering in doorways to public buildings is just downright ignorant, rude and arrogant presenting an unprofessional and uncaring impression.
Mike
Posted on: 24 May 2010 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dobranoc! [Polish: Look it up].
nv-wa-do-hi-ya-da
(Cherokee. Look it up.)
Posted on: 24 May 2010 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by Mike Hughes:
Far be it from me to suggest the sense of humour loss here is unintebtionally hilarious. Christ smokers take themselves seriously!
Might also be an apposite moment to go back to some facts.
Whilst passive smoking by passing smokers in a doorway may carry a minimal risk (and if you bothered to look there is actually NO research that specifically addresses the issue) the average person in work will do that a minimum of four times a day (it's called lunch) and will often be obligated to conversation with one or more of the smokers as colleagues.
That aside, the practice of loitering in doorways to public buildings is just downright ignorant, rude and arrogant presenting an unprofessional and uncaring impression.
Mike
Honestly, I'm with you. If it was possible for smokers to completely isolate themselves and their ill effects from the rest of us, I'd be all for them doing whatever they want to their own bodies, but I don't see how it can happen, unless GFFJ and the other guy who's confused about his identity have solutions they haven't shared yet. One of my main concerns is for the health of children in a smoker's household/influence, many of whom end up smokers by proxy with no say in the matter. It isn't right.
Posted on: 24 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
unintebtionally hilarious.
Sorry to ask for clarification over the spelling.
This may be as funny as the last few posts as well!
ATB from George
Sorry to ask for clarification over the spelling.
This may be as funny as the last few posts as well!
ATB from George
Posted on: 24 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
quote:nv-wa-do-hi-ya-da (Cherokee. Look it up.)
It might be rude, so I have no intention of looking it up. Mine [edited away for ease of comprehension for you], replaced with something in English with much the same meaning.
You can write it in English if you like ...
Posted on: 24 May 2010 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:quote:nv-wa-do-hi-ya-da (Cherokee. Look it up.)
It might be rude, so I have no intention of looking it up. Mine [edited away for ease of comprehension for you], replaced with something in English with much the same meaning.
You can write it in English if you like ...
"harmony to you"
(By modern standards, Tsalagi is pretty short in its capacity for rudeness.)
Posted on: 24 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
I accept and reciprocate your blessing!
And now it's lights out for me!
Maybe we return to this again, or maybe not, but apart from you potentially refering to me [by inference] as a pig we have done quite well in the personal rudeness stakes, by recent standards!
ATB from George
And now it's lights out for me!
Maybe we return to this again, or maybe not, but apart from you potentially refering to me [by inference] as a pig we have done quite well in the personal rudeness stakes, by recent standards!
ATB from George
Posted on: 24 May 2010 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
I accept and reciprocate your blessing!
And now it's lights out for me!
Maybe we return to this again, or maybe not, but apart from you potentially refering to me [by inference] as a pig we have done quite well in the personal rudeness stakes, by recent standards!
ATB from George
To complete the circle of edification:
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig."
Robert Heinlein
So, you see, it wasn't a matter of name calling, it was... crap, I'm doing it again.
May you dream of Virginia (the state, not the lady, unless the latter image pleases you more than the former) and her fertile fields.
Posted on: 24 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
Hey jayd,
Just hopped through the bath!
PAX!
ATB from George
Just hopped through the bath!
PAX!
ATB from George
Posted on: 24 May 2010 by David Scott
Mike,
Ho-hum.
I'm not a smoker.
I found one thing that Jayd said offensive. It's tiresome of you to pretend that anyone who ever finds anything offensive can't take a joke. You get offended sometimes. Does that make you someone who 'takes himself too seriously'?
I couldn't find any research on smoking outside either. I wonder why that is? Some of the passive smoking effects arising from much greater exposure are small and hard to measure. Hmmm. No clues there then. I expect once you've explained this 'lunch' thing to the boffins they'll check it out though. Especially when you tell them about the four times a day and everything...
David
Ho-hum.
I'm not a smoker.
I found one thing that Jayd said offensive. It's tiresome of you to pretend that anyone who ever finds anything offensive can't take a joke. You get offended sometimes. Does that make you someone who 'takes himself too seriously'?
I couldn't find any research on smoking outside either. I wonder why that is? Some of the passive smoking effects arising from much greater exposure are small and hard to measure. Hmmm. No clues there then. I expect once you've explained this 'lunch' thing to the boffins they'll check it out though. Especially when you tell them about the four times a day and everything...
David
Posted on: 24 May 2010 by bornwina
quote:Originally posted by jayd:quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
I am not a pharisee!
Of course not - I actually find you quite Sadducee.
Sadducee - that did make me chortle, bravo
Posted on: 25 May 2010 by Mike Hughes
David,
Perhaps you'd like to take a step back.
1) I found what jayd posted to be mildly offensive but also funny. I accept without question that others will always view it differently.
2) Sadly, your inference that I was suggesting that everyone who takes offence has had a humour bypass is a sweeping generalisation about something I did not actually say. Your swiftness on the attack on this does rather push you into that category though although doubtless unintended, which is probably just as funny as the other stuff on here.
3) You cannot prove a negative. The lack of research doesn't support or reinforce anything. My point was merely that those who suggest passive smoking is no or negligible risk are making an assertion backed up by nothing. Those who assert the contrary also have problems but at least there is a connection already made between inhalation and illness.
4)George - you have let yourself down here and badly so. As an aside, thank you for correcting my spelling. It was of course equally unintebtionally hilarious. I'm glad you found it so funny. I have a number of lifelong eye conditions. They are especially bad at present AND I only post from an iPhone. Still, I'm glad your personal attacks make you feel better about yourself and on the side of the libertarian righteous!!!
Perhaps you'd like to take a step back.
1) I found what jayd posted to be mildly offensive but also funny. I accept without question that others will always view it differently.
2) Sadly, your inference that I was suggesting that everyone who takes offence has had a humour bypass is a sweeping generalisation about something I did not actually say. Your swiftness on the attack on this does rather push you into that category though although doubtless unintended, which is probably just as funny as the other stuff on here.
3) You cannot prove a negative. The lack of research doesn't support or reinforce anything. My point was merely that those who suggest passive smoking is no or negligible risk are making an assertion backed up by nothing. Those who assert the contrary also have problems but at least there is a connection already made between inhalation and illness.
4)George - you have let yourself down here and badly so. As an aside, thank you for correcting my spelling. It was of course equally unintebtionally hilarious. I'm glad you found it so funny. I have a number of lifelong eye conditions. They are especially bad at present AND I only post from an iPhone. Still, I'm glad your personal attacks make you feel better about yourself and on the side of the libertarian righteous!!!
Posted on: 25 May 2010 by David Scott
Mike,
If you look back at what you wrote, I think you'll see that it's hard to avoid the inference that I was counted among the 'smokers' who had suffered a sense of humour failure. My reply follows naturally from that. You may have intended to say something different - that happens - but it's interesting that having denied making such an accusation you immediately went on to make it.
It might help if you expressed yourself more carefully all round. No-one suggested passive smoking was a negligible risk. I suggested passive smoke inhalation from walking past smokers gathered outside in doorways was a negligible risk. My argument is not that there is no research, so it must be OK. It's that some of the recorded effects of passive smoking are very small and hard to measure, when the subject is exposed to far, far more smoke. As it's very clear that risk varies directly with exposure, my belief is that there's enough data on passive smoking available for people to make rough extrapolations of the effects of degrees of exposure that haven't been directly researched. I've never heard any researcher suggest that doorway smokers were a danger to others. Of course this is hardly proof, but it's not 'nothing'.
I can't see where proving a negative comes. Sorry.
If you look back at what you wrote, I think you'll see that it's hard to avoid the inference that I was counted among the 'smokers' who had suffered a sense of humour failure. My reply follows naturally from that. You may have intended to say something different - that happens - but it's interesting that having denied making such an accusation you immediately went on to make it.
It might help if you expressed yourself more carefully all round. No-one suggested passive smoking was a negligible risk. I suggested passive smoke inhalation from walking past smokers gathered outside in doorways was a negligible risk. My argument is not that there is no research, so it must be OK. It's that some of the recorded effects of passive smoking are very small and hard to measure, when the subject is exposed to far, far more smoke. As it's very clear that risk varies directly with exposure, my belief is that there's enough data on passive smoking available for people to make rough extrapolations of the effects of degrees of exposure that haven't been directly researched. I've never heard any researcher suggest that doorway smokers were a danger to others. Of course this is hardly proof, but it's not 'nothing'.
I can't see where proving a negative comes. Sorry.
Posted on: 25 May 2010 by Mike Hughes
David,
I can do no more than state you were not originally implicated. Your subsequent responses suggest perhaps you ought to be.
Your comments re extrapolation from existing data suggest a fundamental misunderstanding as to how science and research works.
1) The data us no harder to gather than anything else.
2) My reference to proving a negative was diectly related to your post re being able to deduce.
3) You simply can't extrapolate as you suggest. For years, appropriately enough, it was assumed that nicotine was addictive because the overwhelming nos of heavy smokers with lung cancer suggested it was. This was extrapolated to worldwide public health campaigns suggesting that just one puff could be dangerous. Unfortunately, research of light smokers proved conclusively that nicotine was not addictive until consumed at high levels and, even then, other factors come into play. So, no, you simply cannot one conclusion from another without evidence. I recommend Malcolm Gladwell and Ben Goldacre on the subject.
Mike
PS: my favw joke of the moment.
"Darling come to bed!"
"I can't. Someone on the Internet is wrong!!!"
I can do no more than state you were not originally implicated. Your subsequent responses suggest perhaps you ought to be.
Your comments re extrapolation from existing data suggest a fundamental misunderstanding as to how science and research works.
1) The data us no harder to gather than anything else.
2) My reference to proving a negative was diectly related to your post re being able to deduce.
3) You simply can't extrapolate as you suggest. For years, appropriately enough, it was assumed that nicotine was addictive because the overwhelming nos of heavy smokers with lung cancer suggested it was. This was extrapolated to worldwide public health campaigns suggesting that just one puff could be dangerous. Unfortunately, research of light smokers proved conclusively that nicotine was not addictive until consumed at high levels and, even then, other factors come into play. So, no, you simply cannot one conclusion from another without evidence. I recommend Malcolm Gladwell and Ben Goldacre on the subject.
Mike
PS: my favw joke of the moment.
"Darling come to bed!"
"I can't. Someone on the Internet is wrong!!!"
Posted on: 25 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
quote:Originally posted by Mike Hughes:
George - you have let yourself down here and badly so. As an aside, thank you for correcting my spelling. It was of course equally unintebtionally hilarious. I'm glad you found it so funny. I have a number of lifelong eye conditions. They are especially bad at present AND I only post from an iPhone. Still, I'm glad your personal attacks make you feel better about yourself and on the side of the libertarian righteous!!!
Dear Mike,
I did not correct your spelling as I was not sure of your meaning. I see that you may have meant "unintentionally" by now, but never mind. I was not taking a swipe at you, but if you think I was then there it is. If you continue to think that was the intention, after this explanation, then there is nothing more I can do.
You are not the only person with long term eye disease. I have had Central Serous Retinopathy since 1994 - though only officially diagnosed in 2003. It is progressive and incurable. I am sure that you will comprehend that I fully understand your predicament.
George
Posted on: 25 May 2010 by David Scott
Mike,
I wasn't aware we were doing science. I thought we were just having a conversation on an internet forum. I'm well aware that my opinion is a hypothesis at best and that it could turn out that the threshold dose for passive smoking is exceptionally low. It could even be that beneath a certain very tiny level it becomes more dangerous than smoking 60 a day. It's strongly counter intuitive, but until you do the research, who knows? Perhaps the smoking ban will cost billions of lives by reducing non-smokers' intake of other peoples smoke to dangerously low levels.
Surely your point about proving a negative's pretty irrelevant though? Public health advice is always based on probabilities. You can't prove anything will never happen, but you can establish fairly easily that certain risks are negligible. My expectation is that if someone did the research they'd find that passive smoking outdoors is a negligible risk. I'd be really interested to find out if I was right.
I couldn't find a source that backs up what you say about nicotine addiction. Could you point me towards one - preferably online? Thanks.
I notice your first sentence simply restates your position. I could do the same, but...
David
I wasn't aware we were doing science. I thought we were just having a conversation on an internet forum. I'm well aware that my opinion is a hypothesis at best and that it could turn out that the threshold dose for passive smoking is exceptionally low. It could even be that beneath a certain very tiny level it becomes more dangerous than smoking 60 a day. It's strongly counter intuitive, but until you do the research, who knows? Perhaps the smoking ban will cost billions of lives by reducing non-smokers' intake of other peoples smoke to dangerously low levels.
Surely your point about proving a negative's pretty irrelevant though? Public health advice is always based on probabilities. You can't prove anything will never happen, but you can establish fairly easily that certain risks are negligible. My expectation is that if someone did the research they'd find that passive smoking outdoors is a negligible risk. I'd be really interested to find out if I was right.
I couldn't find a source that backs up what you say about nicotine addiction. Could you point me towards one - preferably online? Thanks.
I notice your first sentence simply restates your position. I could do the same, but...
David
Posted on: 25 May 2010 by Mike Hughes
George,
Comments noted and of course accepted.
David,
There are numerous sources online but a good summary with references can be found in The Tipping Point (I think) by Gladwell.
Mike
Comments noted and of course accepted.
David,
There are numerous sources online but a good summary with references can be found in The Tipping Point (I think) by Gladwell.
Mike
Posted on: 26 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
Dear Mike,
I was quite riled by the thread up to that point, but certainly not having a personal dig at you. I was certainly much too abrupt in my post to you for which I say an unreserved, "sorry."
As I wasn't having trying to have a go at you, I was surprised to see you take it that way. Perhaps we can resume normal robust debating - we are never going to align in our viewpoints, I am sure - and put this misapprehension behind us?
George
I was quite riled by the thread up to that point, but certainly not having a personal dig at you. I was certainly much too abrupt in my post to you for which I say an unreserved, "sorry."
As I wasn't having trying to have a go at you, I was surprised to see you take it that way. Perhaps we can resume normal robust debating - we are never going to align in our viewpoints, I am sure - and put this misapprehension behind us?
George