23rd September 2009, 2:11 AM
Chewing tobacco isn't hurting anyone but yourself. I'd be against outlawing that.
Smoking does otherwise. I'll be the first to point out that corrolation doesn't equal causation, in one case. But repeated and controlled for it, that's something else.
All the same, I want to see the exact studies listed and the methods they used. There's such a thing as data mining, and lots of other ways to get poor data. It's not that I have any doubts that second hand smoking can hurt one's health, it's just that in the pursuit of science to back it up, one can't get caught up in one's own beliefs, lest you end up, say, with evidence that goes exactly against what you think.
Fitts, it's not about you. Just thought I'd point that out. Think about traffic laws. When do you hear people arguing that they should be able to risk their own lives as they please on the roads? I'd say almost never, because the majority of people recognize that the point is that you can't risk OTHER people's lives at the same time.
For example, if someone owns their own private track, they should be free to drive on it as they want. The second they put someone else in the seat though, they are legally liable, and should be, if that person is hurt as a result of their wreckless driving, even on their own private course.
Whatever one's feelings on gun control may be, I'm sure we can all agree there's no inherit harm in firing on a private firing range into lifeless targets. That's a far cry from firing into targets set up in a suburban backyard, where a miss could kill a neighbor, which is why that's illegal.
Personally, I'd rather smokers all switch to chewing tobacco if they can't muster up the will to quit. Sorry if it makes you "feel opressed" or whatever. It's not you everyone hates, just the smoke. Take that mess all up outta heres and you're golden.
Smoking does otherwise. I'll be the first to point out that corrolation doesn't equal causation, in one case. But repeated and controlled for it, that's something else.
All the same, I want to see the exact studies listed and the methods they used. There's such a thing as data mining, and lots of other ways to get poor data. It's not that I have any doubts that second hand smoking can hurt one's health, it's just that in the pursuit of science to back it up, one can't get caught up in one's own beliefs, lest you end up, say, with evidence that goes exactly against what you think.
Fitts, it's not about you. Just thought I'd point that out. Think about traffic laws. When do you hear people arguing that they should be able to risk their own lives as they please on the roads? I'd say almost never, because the majority of people recognize that the point is that you can't risk OTHER people's lives at the same time.
For example, if someone owns their own private track, they should be free to drive on it as they want. The second they put someone else in the seat though, they are legally liable, and should be, if that person is hurt as a result of their wreckless driving, even on their own private course.
Whatever one's feelings on gun control may be, I'm sure we can all agree there's no inherit harm in firing on a private firing range into lifeless targets. That's a far cry from firing into targets set up in a suburban backyard, where a miss could kill a neighbor, which is why that's illegal.
Personally, I'd rather smokers all switch to chewing tobacco if they can't muster up the will to quit. Sorry if it makes you "feel opressed" or whatever. It's not you everyone hates, just the smoke. Take that mess all up outta heres and you're golden.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)