 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
In terms of licensing issues, if you create a smoking room license and allow it to be mixed with a liquor license, there would be huge competition
A good thing.
and likely a lot of corruption around the issue.
Pure speculation. No more likely than the level of corruption possible ANYTIME the government gets involved in anything.
As for the idea that many people only smoke when they are drnking, well, isn;t then banning the combination of the two one of the BETTER ways to get people to stop smoking?
Why are you so intensely interested in seeing that the government get into the behavior modification business? If you do not wish to smoke, that's cool. If you want to segregate the smoking population on account of the "health issues" surrounding second hand smoke (which are negligible, but that's a whole nother ball of wax), I suppose that's cool too. Just this side of silly, given how quickly the particulate levels drop in just a foot or two, but *shrug* smokers are used to being shunted off to the back room.
I just don't understand why the big push to rid smoking in any building where a non-smoker MIGHT wander close to. a) it's not that injurious, and b) it's not exactly a hot button political potato(e, for dan quayle fans).
Why the control fetish?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
So show me the money.
It should be easy. I mean, since you're the one touting these vast savings in health care.
How much?
How much on average did each person in America "save" on their health care thanks to this selfless law banning smoking? |
If banning smoking costs 300 Million dollars a year, that means the cost to each American is $1.
Oh, how evil! Its money we could be spending on porno! Gambling! Drugs! Tabacco!!!
Care to explain how less people inhaling extra carcinogens is a bad thing?
quote:
And this is the government's responsibility? To teach self control? To segregate?
Intriguing.
-=Vel=- |
Government has no responsiblity. What a silly notion. Government is a system of distributing power. Any "responsibility" government has is the function of those things government must do to maintain the status quo vis a vi the distribution of power.
Government does whatever those in power deem necessary, justified, acceptable, beneficial, and self-sustaining.
If one justifies government under the rubric of popular power and the soverignty of the masses, then the government must do what the masses see as necessary, justified, acceptable, beneficial and self-sustaining.
Controlling the stupid seems justified, acceptable, and beneficial.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
If banning smoking costs 300 Million dollars a year, that means the cost to each American is $1.
Oh, how evil! Its money we could be spending on porno! Gambling! Drugs! Tabacco!!!
Care to explain how less people inhaling extra carcinogens is a bad thing?
I don't need to. You are the one defending the law. I'm asking YOU what business of yours it is if people choose to smoke? If you want to limit WHERE they can smoke...okay. They seem to have adapted to that. But why the need to continue throwing money at trying to stamp out all smoking, everywhere. Especially in light of the fact that there are already plenty of places that non-smokers can go without having to be "endangered" by the insidiousness of second hand smoke. (the vast majority of places, in fact).
Government has no responsiblity. What a silly notion. Government is a system of distributing power. Any "responsibility" government has is the function of those things government must do to maintain the status quo vis a vi the distribution of power.
Government does whatever those in power deem necessary, justified, acceptable, beneficial, and self-sustaining.
If one justifies government under the rubric of popular power and the soverignty of the masses, then the government must do what the masses see as necessary, justified, acceptable, beneficial and self-sustaining.
Controlling the stupid seems justified, acceptable, and beneficial.
 But thanks for the "lesson" in civics.
Actually, government has whatever responsibility the people behind the government grant it....my question is....why should we grant it the ability to control and modify people's behavior in this fashion? You seem quite in favor of this approach, and I do not.
That's all.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
I don't need to. You are the one defending the law. I'm asking YOU what business of yours it is if people choose to smoke? If you want to limit WHERE they can smoke...okay. They seem to have adapted to that. But why the need to continue throwing money at trying to stamp out all smoking, everywhere. Especially in light of the fact that there are already plenty of places that non-smokers can go without having to be "endangered" by the insidiousness of second hand smoke. (the vast majority of places, in fact). |
I don;t ban smoking, democratically elected legislators do. I support those democratically elected legislators who want to, because smoking is no no consequence, more importantly, of no benefit to anyone except those that make money growing the noxious and toxic tabacco plant, and they can always find money elsewhere. No longer having to pay for people who made thier lives worse by smoking, or having ot bear more smoke than I already have to deal with is fine by me, if all it means is taking away someone's unhealthy oral fixation.
License is not Liberty. There is a vast difference.
quote:
Actually, government has whatever responsibility the people behind the government grant it....my question is....why should we grant it the ability to control and modify people's behavior in this fashion? You seem quite in favor of this approach, and I do not.
That's all.
-=Vel=- |
The polity has every right to limit license if it finds an activity more trouble than its worth.
Take ALL THE GOOD smoking has ever done. Compare it to all the unnecessary pain, death, and annoyance. That is a pretty uneven scale. So the polity decides the licence to smoke is not worth the trouble. Good for the polity. Now society can spend its limited resources on something else.
And that is the basic point- we all have limited resources to do everything and anything with. If in order to better and more effectively spend those limited resources we have entail modifying people's behavior for the better, then GOOD.. lets do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
Good. Now we're getting somewhere.
And I'm glad you mentioned the notion of limited resources, because that's important.
And...you're right.
Even the government (tho it likes to pretend otherwise) HAS limited resources.
Then there's the concept of diminishing marginal utility.
At some point, it becomes more trouble than it is worth to continue fighting pollution, the high cost of health care....anything, really. Including stamping out the last few remaining places that smokers can go.
Places that can be clearly marked so non-smokers won't unwittingly expose themselves to a stray particulate that the dreaded smoke contains.
Now...we *could* ply our limited resources to stamping out every last of those vestiges, and then go even further, and start searching people and private residences in sting operations, bring out the dogs....all the juicy stuff we save for harder drugs.....but why?
At this point...limited smoking areas and all that jazz, we've already gotten 90%+ of the "gains" (those vast savings to health care and such) that we're gonna get, so plying yet MORE resources into something that's already pretty much a dead horse seems.....well, actually it seems pretty typical of government waste. They've never really been known for their efficiency.
And, for all the danger that second hand smoke causes (especially being as limited as it is in the here and now), I can't help but wonder when the anti-flatulence law will come up....I mean...let's face it, those "silent but deadly" green gassers are WAY more menacing than a ciggarette or two, and the stench is way worse to boot.
Think of all the money we'd save in health care if we weren't inhaling each other's anal gasses all day? And the dramatic reduction in pollution.
But then...that's rather silly.
And so's this.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
Is that what you call a serious examination of cost/benefit?
Its simpler than that:
What benefit is gained from smoking for society? As far as I can tell, NONE.
What cost does society bear from smoking? Increased rates of illness.
So, what is the point of allowing individuals the license of smoking when the benefits to society are none and yet there are costs to society?
To me the answer seems simple. There is no point to allowing smoking. The only point is ideological, not economical or medical. The ideological point is the fetish with license, ie, LET ME DO WHAT I WANT!
People who hold this fetish call banning smoking part of the "nanny state". Of course, maybe if these people grew up and saw the falacy of the license fetish they would not need to be nannied. People need to be responsible for their actions- and they need to be cognizant of the fact that since men live in a society, one's actions have consequence not only for the individual, but for other individuals, and you need to be responsible not only for yourself, but for the ways you impact others.
Smoking serves no purpose, nor does it even give us any benefit whatsoever (things that are not true of most other drugs, even many of the more powerful narcotics). Society should not be made to bear the cost of this habit simply because some whinners need to feel in control, thought of course they aren't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
Then we must, by that line of thinking, ban any and everything that offers no gains and increases societal costs.
That list is frighteningly long, and one day, it just might butt up against something YOU enjoy.
I wonder how quickly your opinion will change when it does.
It is not the state's function (at least not in a democratic society) to decide for us.
Smoking in places where non-smokers do not go, carries no societal cost.
Drug screening techniques can pick up nicotene concentrations just as easily as they can pick up cocaine, so the costs in health care CAN BE easily contained to the smoking population only, but that's not good enough for you, is it?
And in the end, the last bit of the veil falls away, and the truth is revealed.
It's not about forcing people to bear the costs and consequences of their actions...we could do that right now (as mentioned above).
It's about control.
I believe that the less say a government (any government) has in our day to day lives, the better off we are.
You are, of course, free to disagree, but no argument you can make will change my mind.
And...I don't really expect to change yours.
You've created for yourself the perfect little internal logic puzzle, and you're so comfortable in its confines that you cannot see out of it.
That's fine, and I understand.
Your abrasiveness and your condescension only serve to underscore your extreme defensiveness whenever anyone comes along to challenge the intricately interwoven worldview you've created.
You've got it all figured out and already have all the answers, so everyone else MUST BE off their rockers.
If that's the way you see it, that's cool.
And you're lucky in this instance that a lot of people agree with you about banning the insidious habit called smoking.
But the day will come when you find yourself on the opposite side of that fence.
I only hope the powers that be are more charitible to you, than you wish to be to the smokers.
And with that, I'm going to bed.
G'nite.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
Go on with your license fetish all you want.
As for the most obvious logical mistake you made:
quote:
Then we must, by that line of thinking, ban any and everything that offers no gains and increases societal costs.
That list is frighteningly long, and one day, it just might butt up against something YOU enjoy. |
This, of course, is wrong. We are under no compulsion to ban anything, since there is nothing forcing the polity to do anything.
So the polity can pick and chose what it wants to ban that serves no societal purpose whatsoever.
As to what happens is something I like doing is banned? I will be an adult, accept it, and find another thing to do. I will not be happy for about a while, but then life will continue, and who knows, I may actually be happier spending my energy elsewhere.
That of course, is being adult.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
Okay...I fibbed. Couldn't sleep, so came back up here for one more round.
And as usual, you didn't disappoint.
Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But it wasn't a logical mistake on my part. My argument is ENTIRELY logically consistent.
Here are YOUR words:
What benefit is gained from smoking for society? As far as I can tell, NONE.
What cost does society bear from smoking? Increased rates of illness.
So, what is the point of allowing individuals the license of smoking when the benefits to society are none and yet there are costs to society?
To me the answer seems simple. There is no point to allowing smoking. The only point is ideological, not economical or medical. The ideological point is the fetish with license, ie, LET ME DO WHAT I WANT!
Take out smoking and insert any of the following (just off the top of my head):
Computer Games (more documented deaths directly linked to the playing of computer games than second hand smoke inhalation), Drinking, Sex (couples could petition a government sanctioned agency and grow their children in a test tube...negates the risk of STD's, and a whole host of other socially expensive items), Religion (used to be dominant, now a social liability), fiction (or at the very least, romance novels, westerns, mysteries, sci-fi, and horror), role playing games (hell, games in general), gambling, music (or, at a minimum rap, death metal, and heavy metal....or any other genre prone to promote violence against society)...plenty more, but you get the idea.
All of the above bear societal costs (most of them bear costs greater than that of smoking), so if the argument above is your justification for banning smoking, then it must also be the right and proper justification for banning all the items I just named.
No appreciable social value, clearly defined social cost.
If YOU disagree, then it is YOUR argument that fails, logically, because it becomes inconsistent with itself.
So...let's get started, shall we?
Or, we could let the grownups decide for themselves what they want to do, as individuals.
That is, after all, being an adult.
-=Vel=-
PS: And because I know you'll go kicking and screaming down the proverbial hall to avoid conceding to this point, I'll do the first one for you...it's not so hard:
What benefit is gained from playing computer games for society? As far as I can tell, NONE.
What cost does society bear from playing computer games? Increased rates of illness (death).
So, what is the point of allowing individuals the license of playing computer games when the benefits to society are none and yet there are costs to society?
To me the answer seems simple. There is no point to allowing playing computer games. The only point is ideological, not economical or medical. The ideological point is the fetish with license, ie, LET ME DO WHAT I WANT!
-v.
Last edited by Velociryx on 02-09-2005 at 15:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Go on with your license fetish all you want.
As for the most obvious logical mistake you made:
quote:
Then we must, by that line of thinking, ban any and everything that offers no gains and increases societal costs.
That list is frighteningly long, and one day, it just might butt up against something YOU enjoy. |
This, of course, is wrong. We are under no compulsion to ban anything, since there is nothing forcing the polity to do anything.
So the polity can pick and chose what it wants to ban that serves no societal purpose whatsoever.
As to what happens is something I like doing is banned? I will be an adult, accept it, and find another thing to do. I will not be happy for about a while, but then life will continue, and who knows, I may actually be happier spending my energy elsewhere.
That of course, is being adult. |
It sounds surprisingly like being a puss to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Take out smoking and insert any of the following (just off the top of my head):
Computer Games (more documented deaths directly linked to the playing of computer games than second hand smoke inhalation), Drinking, Sex (couples could petition a government sanctioned agency and grow their children in a test tube...negates the risk of STD's, and a whole host of other socially expensive items), Religion (used to be dominant, now a social liability), fiction (or at the very least, romance novels, westerns, mysteries, sci-fi, and horror), role playing games (hell, games in general), gambling, music (or, at a minimum rap, death metal, and heavy metal....or any other genre prone to promote violence against society)...plenty more, but you get the idea.
All of the above bear societal costs (most of them bear costs greater than that of smoking), so if the argument above is your justification for banning smoking, then it must also be the right and proper justification for banning all the items I just named. |
What a dumb list. Yes, dumb list. Why is it dumb? Well, for one,it includes sex, which happens to be essentially the whole basis for human existance and the only method of continuing human existance. That you would in any way call one of the very basic biological functions of humanity "useless" shows the ignorance with which that list was drawn up. Why sould anyone then take it seriously, if that is the level of arguement you decide to bring to the table??
quote:
If YOU disagree, then it is YOUR argument that fails, logically, because it becomes inconsistent with itself.
So...let's get started, shall we?
Or, we could let the grownups decide for themselves what they want to do, as individuals.
That is, after all, being an adult.
-=Vel=- |
And of course you continue your low level of debate with this gem.
I will try to make you understand, as hard as that obviously IS.
Smoking serves no purpose, and has clear costs to society. It is not only an inefficient way of spending resources, but in fact uses up extra resources down the line. It is therefore not only inefficient (which many things and human behaviors are) but in fact lowers efficiency further.
That fact means that the polity has every justification to ban it in order to better use our scarce resources. The polity can always chose to ignore the problem, but if at any point it decides that it no longer wants to simply let things be but seeks imporving the situation, then banning smoking is fully justified for the benefit of society.
The fact that other activities (though few if any of the ones in your sad little list) can also be banned under the same justification does not mean that they must be banned, The argument is not that things that are inefficient MUST be banned. Its that things that are inefficient CAN be banned with 0 harm to society (most of the time with benefits actually) and that Liberty remains unchanged.
There is no inconsistency because only a fool would make the false claim that because a choice exists it must be taken. Of course, if you actually believe that, I hope you don;t go up any large buildings, because you are liable to throw yourself off, given the choice is there... (wait, or maybe you should go up a large building...)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
Like a drunk, over-the-hill, has-been prize fighter, GePap continues to throw blind punches in hopes of landing one or two good ones that might be of sufficient force to make the other guys leave him alone.
Trouble is...it's not workin' out for you.
I love the debate style, though.
I ask the question "How much money, on average, have Americans saved on the cost of their health care because of the banning" and GePap answers with:
If banning smoking costs 300 Million dollars a year, that means the cost to each American is $1.
Not only is the average cost wrong (you yourself have STRONGLY admonished me for claiming that the US has 300 Million people in it...tsk, tsk), but I don't see the first THING about savings in the response. Interesting.
Of course, the *reason* for that is simply that there is no savings to be found, and thus, the only reason you listed in favor OF the ban is suddenly without its legs.
And then of course, comes the personal attacks on intelligence again, a staple of the GePap debate style. When you have no argument that can hold water, try your best to make the other guy look stupid.
But see...that doesn't work either.
Nowhere in my post do I say we should outlaw reproduction. In fact, I pointed out that by banning the physical act of sex but providing alternate means of reproduction, we provide a way to continue the species, but without all the possibility of disease and societal problems that arise from sexual relationships.
This then, is perfectly logically consistent with the argument that YOU made (and if you go back and read your own words, you will find that you were NOT discussing "the polity" but rather YOUR own positions "as far as *I* can see..." "to ME..." NOT, specifically NOT "the polity" (and you are good at making such distinctions elsewhere in your posts, so do not even TRY to weasel your way around it now....won't work).
So...let me hunker down to your level for a minute and try and explain a couple of the basics to YOU, 'k bright boy?
* Given the paragraph above, it is clear that YOUR argument fails even to be consistent with itself. Again, remember, this is YOU, not "the polity" (you musta heard that on the radio recently too, and I note that you took my fetish word and ran with it....further proof that you're REALLY GOOD at parrotinig.....not so good at thinking for yourself tho...but we'll work on that! 
* Lots of times, people do things because they ENJOY doing them. It's got nothing to do with logic, although you are desperately trying to turn this into a logic based discussion, and losing badly while you're at it.
* Enjoyment has nothing to do with logic. I used to, when I smoked, ENJOY it very much. I quit, cold turkey, in a single day. The addiction argument is meaningless TO ME (not talking about society in general, just as you weren't earlier...'k? Just so we're clear...we're two people expressing our opinions).
* The technology exists today, RIGHT NOW, that would allow smokers to continue smoking, periodic drug screenings (which most places of employment already perform) can be made to pick up nicotene in the sample, and health insurance rates can be adjusted accordingly. Since the infrastructure is already in place, and all the computer is doing is looking for one extra marker, there's no additional cost to doing it this way.
* Given the fact that the "ban" on smoking as it is implemented now is not really a ban, but rather, a ban on smoking in public places, it is FALSE to say that the ban is reducing the number of smokers. The ban is reducing the amount of smoking in public places, but that's hardly the same thing. Thus, your sad notion that the ban is in some way effecting savings for the masses by reducing medical costs by "limiting the number of people putting nicotene into their bodies" is misguided and erroneus. There may be some reduction, but that's a) not the primary thrust of the legislation, and b) not a touted benefit OF the legislation, even by those who are pushing it (and I'll wager that they know a fair bit more about it than you do, sunshine )
* Given that there's a real no-cost alternative to the $300M per year smoking ban (drug screening and let the smokers bear the added health costs themselves), then we arrive at the truth. The smoking ban is $300M more expensive than forgetting the smoking ban. Thus, the legislation provides no benefits to society, but carries a (pricey) cost. By your own argument then, it too, should be ditched.
Have a nice day.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Not only is the average cost wrong (you yourself have STRONGLY admonished me for claiming that the US has 300 Million people in it...tsk, tsk), but I don't see the first THING about savings in the response. Interesting. |
Given that the census of 2000 placed the number of Americans at around 290 Million, and given that I am very well aware of said census, I have to call this claim of yours ntohing but a lie.
quote:
Of course, the *reason* for that is simply that there is no savings to be found, and thus, the only reason you listed in favor OF the ban is suddenly without its legs. |
http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/n...on/12158380.htm
quote:
Smoking’s cost
NEW DATA FROM the federal Centers for Disease Control underline the need for South Carolina to start getting serious about at least discouraging kids from smoking — if not offering a hand to those who want to quit.
A report issued last month found that smoking cost the nation $92 billion in lost productivity in 1997-2001, up 12 percent from the annual rate for 1995-1999. Added to smoking-related medical costs, that brings the total financial cost of smoking to $167 billion a year.
CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding noted that the cost is increasing even as smoking rates slowly decline (in most states, at least). “If we want to significantly reduce the toll in this decade, we must provide the 32 million smokers who say they want to quit with the tools and support to do so successfully,” she said.
Despite the staggering amount of money smokers force the rest of us to spend on our health insurance and in taxes, the idea of the government doing anything to help people stop smoking in South Carolina is a non-starter. But at the least, our politicians should be willing to take a few simple steps to save a new generation from addiction — making it illegal for kids to smoke and increasing cigarette taxes to price the smokes out of their reach, for example. Until they do, our costs will continue to ris |
If you were at all honest about your intentions, you yourself would have done the two seconds worth of internet searching needed to find figures. Go figure you wouldn't. Of course, I guess you will claim that enforcing anti-smoking laws cost the US 200 Billion.....
quote:
And then of course, comes the personal attacks on intelligence again, a staple of the GePap debate style. When you have no argument that can hold water, try your best to make the other guy look stupid.
But see...that doesn't work either. |
Do I really have to try, Vel? You do the job so well.
quote:
Nowhere in my post do I say we should outlaw reproduction. In fact, I pointed out that by banning the physical act of sex but providing alternate means of reproduction, we provide a way to continue the species, but without all the possibility of disease and societal problems that arise from sexual relationships. |
A suggestion so utterly absurd and moronic that it falls within the same rubirck of idiocy. Yes, of course Vel, we will now only reproduce invitro.  Care for a lollipop?
quote:
* Given the fact that the "ban" on smoking as it is implemented now is not really a ban, but rather, a ban on smoking in public places, it is FALSE to say that the ban is reducing the number of smokers. The ban is reducing the amount of smoking in public places, but that's hardly the same thing. Thus, your sad notion that the ban is in some way effecting savings for the masses by reducing medical costs by "limiting the number of people putting nicotene into their bodies" is misguided and erroneus. There may be some reduction, but that's a) not the primary thrust of the legislation, and b) not a touted benefit OF the legislation, even by those who are pushing it (and I'll wager that they know a fair bit more about it than you do, sunshine ) |
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r020516.htm
Its funny when just the most minor of searches brings up hard data to undermine what you say.
quote:
* Given that there's a real no-cost alternative to the $300M per year smoking ban (drug screening and let the smokers bear the added health costs themselves), then we arrive at the truth. The smoking ban is $300M more expensive than forgetting the smoking ban. Thus, the legislation provides no benefits to society, but carries a (pricey) cost. By your own argument then, it too, should be ditched.
Have a nice day.
-=Vel=- |
Except that the two nice pieces of actual data that anyone can find online by just the most basic of searches shows that you are utterly wrong about the numbers. Funny, though predictable.
And to address the larger part of your post, which I feel no need to handle bit by bit:
People gain enjoyment from all sorts of things, wholesome or not. In fact, the ways people have to enjoy themselves are vast and varried. Because there are so many ways for people to enjoy themselves, it is prfectly logical for the polity to ban those forms of enjoyment that are actually dangerous and costly. We can do this because the alternatives are so many. I am willing to bet that your life did not end when you stopped smoking. In fact, you will probably live longer because you stopped smoking, meaning that in the end, your net enjoyment of life will be greater sans smoking than with. While you are under the dellusion that everyone should have every license to damage their lives in the serah for immidiate fixes, I understand that such activities are not part and parcel of Liberty, and thus, if society feels like curtailing self-destructive behavior, behavior that in fact also endangers others, society has every right to do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
Keep shooting til you hit something, is that how it goes?
Funny that the article you posted during your "research" does not mention the savings in HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS, which was the crux of your argument in support.
I'm glad you found "savings" somewhere, but the fact remains, you did not find them where you initially claimed, which was, after all, the point.
But I suppose there's no use in expecting that you'll be big enough to admit that you're wrong.
92B in lost productivity, which is slightly less than the size of the economic contribution of tobacco and related industries to the economy. Slight net gain.
Health costs need not be factored in because they could be passed directly onto the smoking population (per the methodology I mentioned earlier). 1.8 million jobs, and a slight net economic gain, with the added health care costs being borne by the people who choose to smoke. And then of course, there's the annual cost of continuing the campaign, which has not yet been factored in, but only makes the numbers look worse for your side.
You were saying?
And as to my intentions....my intentions are to state my opinion. What are yours?
The reproduction example was an example designed to show you the sheer rediculousness of the flawed and inconsistent nature of your position which you regard as "logical." That you find it absurd is good. It means I made my point. Yes, it IS absurd. And so is the rest of your position, but I'm having fun watching you flounder about, so please, carry on.
As to the rest of your comments....*sigh* I know you dearly wish I'd just go away, so you wouldn't feel the compulsion to come back here and try desperately NOT to be wrong, but...it's kina like picking at a scab, isn't it?
Carry on. I'll be watching with glee for your next post.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Keep shooting til you hit something, is that how it goes?
Funny that the article you posted during your "research" does not mention the savings in HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS, which was the crux of your argument in support.
I'm glad you found "savings" somewhere, but the fact remains, you did not find them where you initially claimed, which was, after all, the point. |
Quote me when I say anything about health-insurance premiums. Have the decency to actually know what other people are arguing. I care about health care costs, not insurance premiums.
quote:
Health costs need not be factored in because they could be passed directly onto the smoking population (per the methodology I mentioned earlier). 1.8 million jobs, and a slight net economic gain, with the added health care costs being borne by the people who choose to smoke. And then of course, there's the annual cost of continuing the campaign, which has not yet been factored in, but only makes the numbers look worse for your side.
You were saying? |
Of course, if health care costs were fully passed on to the backs of smokers, then we would not have much smoking. But the fact is Vel that those cost won't be passed fully on to smokers.
Come back to reality once in a while. It might do you som good.
quote:
The reproduction example was an example designed to show you the sheer rediculousness of the flawed and inconsistent nature of your position which you regard as "logical." That you find it absurd is good. It means I made my point. Yes, it IS absurd. And so is the rest of your position, but I'm having fun watching you flounder about, so please, carry on. |
What is sad, or a sign of pathology, is that in your mind anything not directly related to economic production becomes worthless. As a rounded, urbane human being I happen to understand the intrinsic value of artistic impression, and in no way compare artistic impression to rolling up weeds and setting them on fire to puff in the smoke.
Therefore your list is still worthless because it is not based on a realistic accounting of the good to humanity of those activities, but purely based on your delusion that somehow I believe like you do in the myth of eocnomic man.
Unlike you I see value in things other than money, like music and literature, and would never state thay they are worthless. Like you implied.
I said before I would not waste my time arguing with you. I broke my word, and I don;t care to continue breaking it.
Since it is obvious that you have yet to figure out what my position in (your continuing fetish with insurance premiums and second hand smoke, both things which are of no consequence or importance to my argument show this), why should I waste more time?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
Yep...that was indeed my bad. I should have written "health care costs" rather than "health care premiums" - oops. Caught me in a typo. I was wrong and should have checked the post better before submitting.
And a good dodge, by the way, as I note you neatly sidestepped the question in any case, focusing attention instead on the typo.
Of course, if health care costs were fully passed on to the backs of smokers, then we would not have much smoking. But the fact is Vel that those cost won't be passed fully on to smokers.
And in that case, it would be the fault and failing of the government, because it (the costs) certainly COULD be, and in fact, this would be less costly to administer than the 300M we're spending now per year on the "ban." Thanks for pointing that out tho...making my job easier when you score points for the other team. Having you on the other team in any given debate is about the best ace a fellow could have!
What is sad, or a sign of pathology, is that in your mind anything not directly related to economic production becomes worthless.
I never said that, but feel free to quote me. YOUR initial assumption was that a) laws are passed on the basis of cost/benefit analysis, and b) an activity that you personally don't like contributes "nothing" of value (again, as you state, "in your opinion") to society, and bears a social cost. It therefore is right to ban such activity.
In order to MAKE a cost/benefit analysis, you must first reduce the thing on the table to an apples to apples comparison. The generally accepted methodology for doing so is to convert things into dollar cost figure and make a comparison (as you have done repeatedly in this thread both woth smoking and the seat belt thing, only backing away from it when the numbers don't work out the way you want them to).
You can call yourself a "rounded, urbane human being" if you like, but I suspect that this impression of yourself is as delusional as the rest of your posts here so far.
At the end of the day, your opinion is that DESPITE there being a better alternative to an outright ban, the ban should still stand. No matter that the ban is less cost effective than the other alternative. No matter that the law creates yet another in a growing parade of examples of the government stepping into our lives and telling us what we can and can't do...doesn't matter. GePap's right, everybody who disagrees is full of batshit....does that about sum it up?
My list was designed as rediculously as possible on purpose, to demonstrate to you the sheer stupidity of your own fatally flawed "logical" position.
I'm glad to see that it worked.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
You seem to be saying that smoking offers no value to society... So therefore, it's ok to make whatever rules/restrictions/bans as you see fit. Yet booze falls in the same class... and also is a menance to health care and is the cause of more deaths due to drunk driving than second hand smoke And there is still not ONE single proven case of second hand smoke ever causing a death because of all the other pollution that you seem to think is acceptable when people go beyond just basic transportation. |
Well, getting drunk is not a sufficient condition for drunk driving. It is a necessary condition, but being drunk alone is not enough. OTOH, smoking is a sufficient condition for environmental smoke ("second-hand smoke"). Once you light up, you automatically release toxic fumes containing numerous chemicals into the environment, many of those are carcinogens. Besides cancer, smoking and environmental smoke induce a large number of disorders, such as hypertension, heart diseases, lung diseases, etc.
The dangers of environmental smoke is well known and it is a concensus in the medical field. Although science does not work by concensus, there is also a large body of research all pointing in the same direction.
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
Yet you have no problem with other excessive forms of pollution that pose a greater risk, and your answer to booze was it was tried and didn't work.... |
I am all for clamping down on SUV drivers and such...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Without a total ban there may not be any non-smoking bars - many bar owners are concerned a loss of business to the smoking ones.
|
It's not a concern, it's a fact. Here in Delaware, bar and restaurant business is way down due to the public smoking ban. Smokers are going the short distance over the state line to Pennsylvania and Maryland to satisfy their smoking jones.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2005 06:47
|