05 Aug 12
Originally posted by humyThe "Think of the children" argument could be used to instate the most horrific totalitarian regimes imaginable. You'll have to explain to me why it would not be sufficient to ban smoking in homes when children are present, or even ban smoking in homes where children are legal residents (present or not). Why would EVERY home have to be smoke free? How does it help enforce a smoke-free environment in those homes that house children?
But what about parents smoking at their private homes in front of their children thus making their children passively smoke and damage their health?
How else can that problem be prevented other than a complete smoking ban even in none-public places?
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by forkedknightWhy does it matter? It shouldn't matter. You could take the leaves and buds of unmodified weed and with a little kitchen chemistry create a concentrated extract. You could kill yourself by taking a whole bottle of Ambien at once, or even a half-bottle of Tylenol. Leaving people free to do their own thing -- as long as they're doing it only to themselves -- is always the better option. You might show me accounting ledgers that seem to argue otherwise, but you can't put a price on personal choice, and you have to acknowledge the tremendous expense of enforcing ridiculous laws and prohibition policies.
You could argue that the marijuana that is grown today for the purposes of smoking it does not "grow naturally on this planet", since it has been bred and cross-bred specifically to make it as strong as possible.
The same it true for lots of plants that are grown for their chemical components. What we have that "grows naturally" is not good enough, so it is genetically modified or cross-bred in order to increase potency.
05 Aug 12
6 edits
Originally posted by Soothfast
The "Think of the children" argument could be used to instate the most horrific totalitarian regimes imaginable. You'll have to explain to me why it would not be sufficient to ban smoking in homes when children are present, or even ban smoking in homes where children are legal residents (present or not). Why would EVERY home have to be smoke free? How does it help enforce a smoke-free environment in those homes that house children?
You'll have to explain to me why it would not be sufficient to ban smoking in homes when children are present
OK, this is why:
How would that be policed?
If a mother privately smoked in front of her baby and alone with her baby ( so obviously no other witnesses ) in the privacy of her home, how would the police know? The police would have to make sudden random raids on every parent's home without warning just to have any chance of catching the parent out -obviously, this would not be acceptable.
A far more acceptable, practical and simpler way to stop such passive smoking would be a total smoking ban which would mean you could not openly and publicly sell, buy or distribute tobacco products. A ban would probably result in some of it going on the black market, but there are measures that can be taken to minimise that problem and a ban should at least result in a overall reduction in the amount of passive smoking which must be a good thing.
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by humyIn other words punish the many for the potential crimes of the few. You would actually do better just banning morons from procreating, because irresponsible parenting is really the target you're gunning for, not the swinging single taking a puff in his bachelor pad.You'll have to explain to me why it would not be sufficient to ban smoking in homes when children are present
OK, this is why:
How would that be policed?
If a mother privately smoked in front of her baby and alone with her baby ( so obviously no other witnesses ) in the privacy of her home, how would the police know? The police would have ...[text shortened]... ast result in a overall reduction in the amount of passive smoking which must be a good thing.
05 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Soothfast
In other words punish the many for the potential crimes of the few. You would actually do better just banning morons from procreating, because irresponsible parenting is really the target you're gunning for, not the swinging single taking a puff in his bachelor pad.
In other words punish the many for the potential crimes of the few.
No, you got that back-to-back: if there is a smoking ban and thus most smokers quit, it would not be the “many” that would be punished for smoking but rather the “few” than continual to smoke despite the ban and get caught.
Unless you are saying that making smokers quit by banning it is 'punishment' for them? -if so, it isn't 'punishment' but rather a huge benefit to them because they would be less likely to die a grisly painful death.
06 Aug 12
Originally posted by SoothfastActually many of us believe that a similar argument applies with gun control ie it is better to restrict access to guns to all in order to prevent the few dangerous people from committing crimes with them - and the few irresponsible people having accidents with them.
In other words punish the many for the potential crimes of the few. You would actually do better just banning morons from procreating, because irresponsible parenting is really the target you're gunning for, not the swinging single taking a puff in his bachelor pad.
06 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWeed doesn't kill people by the bushel. Guns and recreational drugs are vastly different things. And I'm not in favor of banning guns, either. Firearms should be tightly regulated (hence "well-regulated militia" in the U.S. Constitution), but not outlawed.
Actually many of us believe that a similar argument applies with gun control ie it is better to restrict access to guns to all in order to prevent the few dangerous people from committing crimes with them - and the few irresponsible people having accidents with them.
07 Aug 12
Originally posted by SoothfastSitting in the garden with a bottle of wine , some nice cheese and the odd roll up is one of lifes great pleasures ,18% of Americans smoke yet the life expectancy in the States is lower than in France where 29% of the population smokes. Work kills not smoking , you need more holydays . The murder rate in the states by firearms is very high , ban guns ,take more holydays , drink wine, eat high saturated fat soft cheese and smoke the odd fag and the murder rate will come down.
Weed doesn't kill people by the bushel. Guns and recreational drugs are vastly different things. And I'm not in favor of banning guns, either. Firearms should be tightly regulated (hence "well-regulated militia" in the U.S. Constitution), but not outlawed.