should menthol cigarettes be banned

[Flying Dog]

it is interesting for you to declare something "the worst argument this forum has ever seen" (paraphrase) when I can't quite remember you ever making an argument.  instead, as is above, you state opinions as if they are facts and infer some sort of knowledge without really saying much of anything.

Can you not form opinions of your own? It seems that you quote other people's opinions as your own a lot of the time.

[Albus Dumbledore]

I only do it when they say it better than I could. Also, why do you care so much about it? Silly populist always meddling.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you must hurl personal attacks at people, you should probably think up some of your own rather than reheat those used by others.

In any case, what, exactly, do you think that "consent" means?

[© tweed]

just because others have put it previously or more eloquently does not make it untrue.

I tend to define 'consent' as 'agree to' in most context.  now that we're in question time, could you explain to me how my argument earlier in this thread is "one of the worst arguments this forum has ever seen?"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

just because others have put it previously or more eloquently does not make it untrue.

I wasn't complaining about your use of that attack because it happens not to be true.

Btw, don't you think it a little odd that you criticise me for not making "real" arguments and for stating opinion as if it were fact when that's exactly what you're doing here?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh good, that's a workable definition. But I'm not quite sure how it squares with some of your more ludicrous claims on this thread. Unless you have a funny definition of the word "agree", of course.

Do you, for instance, think that Jews who stayed in Germany after 1933 consented to being murdered? Or that people who live in rough neighbourhoods consent to being mugged? Or that rape-victims consented to being raped because they were wearing a short skirt and were walking through a park at night?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, this is what you wrote:

"yes, you do consent to it by putting yourself in situations where cigarettes may well be present.  the same way a driver doesn't try to get into car accidents but goes a long way towards increasing his risk by getting behind the wheel."

Sort of an open-and-shut case, don't you think?

[© tweed]

Btw, don't you think it a little odd that you criticise me for not making "real" arguments and for stating opinion as if it were fact when that's exactly what you're doing here?

I suppose in a certain sense that's what debate is, although I tend to add qualifiers and defense after my thesis while you often don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the situations aren't applicable as the people in the above situations have no opportunity to leave.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

not quite sure what that means

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suppose in a certain sense that's what debate is, although I tend to add qualifiers and defense after my thesis while you often don't.

I see very little in the way of qualifiers and defense here...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true actually. Try again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That it verges on being self-evident.

[© tweed]

Not true actually. Try again.

once the event is/was in process, the people in question have no ability to leave.  a Jew would have a very difficult time leaving Germany during the Holocaust and a rape victim would have difficulty escaping a rapist in a park at midnight.  someone encountering second-hand smoke in a restaurant most certainly does not face this predicament.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

here we go again

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

One could compare it to that awful argument for DC disenfranchisement that if residents of DC don't like it they can leave.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

once the event is/was in process, the people in question have no ability to leave.

Wait, are you actually trying to argue that unless people explicitly opt out of something (if it is possible to do so), then they have consented to it? Quite a dangerous line to take, potentially. The sort of thing that you'd expect from an especially reactionary Judge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Holocaust didn't start until the invasion of the Soviet Union. I was thinking of the period between the Nazi takeover and then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but she could easily have turned back before going too far through the park, couldn't she?  And so on and so forth.

I've chosen extreme examples on purpose, btw (although that's probably quite obvious).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet they cannot prevent smoke from entering their lungs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and again. and again.

[© tweed]

One could compare it to that awful argument for DC disenfranchisement that if residents of DC don't like it they can leave.

no, as a majority (or large minority) of DC residents are far too poor to just up and leave.  the same predicament does not apply to people at a restaurant.

[© tweed]

Al, there is a key difference between all of your examples and second-hand smoke in a restaurant that you seem to be ignoring; while it may be unwise to walk through Central Park at midnight or for Jews to stay in Germany in 1938 (and the US didn't do a great job of allowing them to immigrate here but that's a different story), once their ultimate events were underway they had no escape.  the rape victim probably can't stop from being raped and the Jew probably can't get out of Germany.  but if you smell cigarette smoke in a restaurant, nothing on Earth prevents you from leaving.  nobody is going to stop you and nobody is going to physically restrain you and no government is going to prevent you.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Computer eat just my post. Bastard. Will reply later.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, there is a key difference between all of your examples and second-hand smoke in a restaurant that you seem to be ignoring;

There are plenty of differences between those examples and I'm ignoring all of them. The only thing of relevance is the use of a loose (so lose as to basically rob the word of all meaning) definition of consent, just to show where that sort of argument heads off to.

Another question; would you be happy to see this very lose definition of consent used formally in the legal system?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, that's not true. Social pressure can be a lot stronger than you seem to realise. Rules and assumptions operating at a very low-key level determine how people act to a great extent (certainly more than legislation). Of course, Americans are much more assertive than we are over here, so maybe (in this specific example) it's not quite so important.

[Platypus]

that's an extremely dangerous mindset to hold.  that is mob rule, pure and simple.  by that logic, we could easily ban automobiles, perhaps tap water, public restrooms, sexual intercourse, etc.

if you don't want to inhale secondhand smoke, don't.  it's that easy.  nobody is forcing you to enter establishments where smoking is permitted.  nobody is forcing you!  you have choice.  you must feel so free.

Well, the difference is consent. People consent to those things, 2nd hand smokers don't or at least shouldn't have to.

Smoking killed an estimated 100 million people in the 20th century, according to the WHO.
As for your argument about voluntary inhalation:
What about the people who have to put up with smoking at the workplace? What are you going to say to them? "Sorry if your family goes hungry or the heat goes out in your house, I just can't have the rights of smokers infringed."
What about the children who have to live with their parents or sibling that smoke. What choice do they have? Analysis have said that 2nd hand smoke leads to 20-30% higher chance of lung cancer , but it's all about the smokers rights, right?

How about this, just go to a "smokeasy" place. If you don't want to put up with a smoking ban, then just stay home or go there. Nobody is forcing you to go to the establishments that ban smoking.

No, but unlike you, I have no choice as to whether I can smoke or not if I got into ANY establishment.

I understand the need for individual businesses to ban smoking. I also think smoking bans in places like office buildings, schools etc make sense-people have no chice really but to be there. Counter-argument is bar staff, but I consider that more or less invalid considering the high turnover of staff in that field, who enter the occupation and the establishment at which they work fully aware that smoking takes place. Smoking in restaurants irritates me and I never smoke arond people who are eating, and i'm unsure of my support for the ban in restaurants but I certainly don't oppose it.

But bars, pubs and clubs should have the choice. If there are enough people who are concerned enough about second-hand smoke, then non-smoking establishments should be financially viable, and in the long-term, if your arguments are correct that only 1/5 of people smoke (which is a suspiciously low figure, especially considering 'social smokers', those who smoke when they are at a bar/club/pub) it'd be economically unreasonable to expect that more than half the places would allow smoking. Unless, of course, almost everyone who doesnt smoke at all either likes to hate their surroundings or doesnt really give a damn.

[Earth]

Prohibition doesn't solve anything. It'll only add fuel to the black market, and it really comes down to a personal choice.

[TeePee4Prez]

No- I smoke them!

[specific_name]

RACISM

hey! I wanted to scream that first. Too bad I was late by three months.

Anyway, we need to ban clove cigarettes and PBR in New York. 

[© tweed]

Anyway, we need to ban clove cigarettes and PBR in New York. 

what's with the avatar?  presuming you actually believe that.

[specific_name]

Anyway, we need to ban clove cigarettes and PBR in New York. 

what's with the avatar?  presuming you actually believe that.

maybe I just like yellow. ; ) I smoke cloves... and I'm drinking cheap beer as we post. just BS-ing

[perdedor]

How about we don't ban any cigs and get the government out of regulating tobacco.