Tobacco Free
Florida State University (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
While I teach at Florida A&M University, I regularly run through the Florida State University campus. In December, I noticed that the campus had been plastered with signs announcing that on January 1, 2014 the entire campus would be tobacco free (presumably enforced by killer drones). I was impressed by the extent of the plastering—there were plastic signs adhered to the sidewalks and many surfaces to ensure that all knew of the new decree.
While running does sometimes cause flashbacks, seeing those signs flashed me back to my freshman English class at Marietta College. For one writing assignment I argued in favor of various anti-smoking proposals, including some very draconian ones. I did include area bans on smoking. My motivation was, to be honest, somewhat selfish: I hate the smell of tobacco smoke (except certain pipe tobacco and certain cigars) and react rather badly to it (my eyelids swell and I have trouble breathing). As such, like a properly political person of any leaning, I thought it good and just to recast the rest of the world according to my desires and beliefs.
I thought the paper was well argued and rational. However, the professor (an avowed liberal) assigned it a grade of .62 (I am still not sure if that was out of 1, 4 or 100…). She also put a frowning face on it. And she called me a fascist. Interestingly, almost all that I proposed in the paper has come to pass (the campus wide ban being the latest). On the one hand, I do feel vindicated—if only in regards to my prophetic powers. On the other hand, I wobbled between anarchism and fascism in those days and that paper was clearly written during a fascist swing. Now that I am older and marginally wiser, I think it is worth reconsidering the ethics of the area ban.
While there are various grounds used to warrant area bans on certain behavior, three common justifications include claiming that the behavior is unpleasant, offensive or harmful. Or some combination of the three. In terms of how the justification works, the typical model is to ban behavior based on its impact on the rights others. That is, the behavior is unpleasant, offensive or harmful to others and thus violates their rights to not be exposed to unpleasant, offensive or harmful behavior.
While I have no desire to observe behavior that is unpleasant I do question the idea that I have a right to not be exposed to the merely unpleasant. After all, what is unpleasant is highly subjective and area bans on the merely unpleasant could easily result in absurdity. For example, I would find someone wearing a puke green sweater with neon pink goats unpleasant to view, but it would be rather unreasonable to have an area ban on unpleasant fashion. Roughly put, the merely unpleasant does not impose enough on others to warrant banning it (providing that the unpleasant acts do not cross over into harassment, etc.). As such, the mere fact that many people find smoking unpleasant would not warrant an area ban on smoking,
Obviously, I have no desire to be exposed to behavior that I find offensive. However, I also question the idea that I have a right to not be exposed to what is merely offensive. Even it is very offensive. While the offensive might be a bit less subjective than the unpleasant, it still is very much a subjective matter. As such, as with the merely unpleasant, an area ban on merely offensive behavior would seem to lead to absurdity. For example, if the neon goats on the sweater mentioned above spelled out the words “philosophers are goat f@ckers”, I would find the sweater both unpleasant and offensive. However, the merely offensive does not seem to impose enough on my rights to warrant imposing on the right of the offender. Naturally, offensive behavior can cross over into an actual violation of my rights and that would warrant imposing on the offender. For example, if the sweater wearer insisted on following me and screaming “goat f@cker” into my face all day, then that would go from being merely offensive to harassment. Thus, there mere fact that many people find smoking offensive would not warrant an area ban on smoking. Interestingly, it would also not warrant bans on public nudity.
Obviously, I have no desire to be harmed by the behavior of others. Equally obviously, I do believe that I have a right to not be harmed (although there are cases in which I can be justly harmed). For those who prefer to not talk of rights, I am also fine with the idea that it would be wrong to harm me (at least in most cases). As such, it should be no surprise that I would find area bans on behavior that harms others to be acceptable. The grounds would be Mill’s argument about liberty: what concerns only me and does not harm others is my own business and not their business. But, actions that harm others become the business of those that are harmed.
While the basic idea that it is acceptable to limit behavior that harms others is appealing, one clear challenge is sorting out the sort of harm that warrants imposing on others. Going back to offensive behavior, it could be claimed that offensive behavior does cause harm. For example, someone might believe that his children would be terribly harmed if they saw an unmarried couple kissing in public and thus claim that this should be banned from all public areas. As another example, a person might contend that seeing people catching fish would damage him emotionally because of the suffering of the fish and thus fishing should be banned from public areas. While these two examples are a bit silly, there are clearly some legitimate grey areas between the offensive and the clearly harmful.
Fortunately, the situation with smoking is clear cut. Tobacco smoke is known to be physically harmful to those who breathe it in (whether they are smoking or not). As such, when someone is smoking in a public area, she is imposing an unchosen health risk on everyone else in the area of effect. Since the area is public, she clearly has no right to do this. To use analogy, while a person has a right to wear the “goat f@cker” sweater mentioned above, she does not have a right to wear one that sprays out poison or has been powdered with uranium. To use a less silly analogy, a person in a public area does not have the right to spit on people who get close to her. While they could avoid this by staying away from her, she has no right to “control” the space around her with something that can harm others (spit can, obviously, transmit disease). As such, it is morally acceptable to impose an area ban on smoking.
I would, however, contend that behavior that does not harm others should not be subject to such bans. For example, drinking alcohol in public. Provided that the person is not engaging in otherwise harmful behavior, there seems to be no compelling moral reason to impose such a ban. After all, drinking a beer near people in public causes them no harm. Likewise, campus dress codes would also seem to lack a moral justification—provided that the attire does not actually inflict harm. Merely being offensive or even distracting does not seem enough to warrant an area ban on moral grounds.
A Philosopher's Blog 
I agree that we ought to distinguish, as Mill does in On Liberty between self regarding and other regarding acts. If someone smokes in their own home or in the home of another (with their consent) then this ought to be construed as a self regarding act. However if that same person stands at a bus stop, blowing smoke into my face this is, clearly an other regarding act as the smoker is endangering my health. In the UK it is illegal to smoke in a public place but the restriction is limited to workplaces, pubs, restaurants etc. It does not encompass bus stops which, ideally it should. Having said that it would be extremely difficult given the limited resources available to enforce a prohibition on smoking at bus stops and other similar places so, in the interests of practicality perhaps such an extension of the law should not occur. I would widen the debate to encompass prostitution. If sex workers ply their trade in a public place this is an other regarding act and ought to be discouraged. However what consenting adults do in private is a self regarding act and the law ought not to intervene. Having said that if the arrival of customers is causing a genuine nuisance (for example slamming doors and the throwing of contraceptives outside the property) then this, clearly crosses a line and becomes an other regarding act.
“However if that same person stands at a bus stop, blowing smoke into my face this is, clearly an other regarding act as the smoker is endangering my health.”
I would be willing to bet that the bus is endangering your health more than the smoker.
Have you seen the recent studies that show secondhand smoke is not the death certificate that liberals claim it is?
Studies are done by people looking for the results they want to see. Pro or con they are mostly BS unless under the scrutiny of a very wide audience. That said, common sense should enable one to deduce that being trapped in an enclosed space with a large amount of cigarette smoke is bad for the health of non-smokers. Children especially. I recall as a child once a week or so being driven half an hour each way to swim practice by a mother (not mine) who kept all the windows rolled up with 8 kids in a station wagon (none wearing seat belts) whilst she chain smoked like it was going out of style (which it was). That was not good for young lungs. On the other hand, encountering the concessional whiff of whatever, and let’s face it, it’s becoming rarer even in Europe these days, is no reason to annoy the f*k out of the rest of society with self-righteous/self-serving rants and laws. Especially in regard to open air arenas and such.
But thanks to “education”, common sense and thinking for one’s self is going out of style faster than smoking.
occasional not concessional..damn spell checker…but you get the idea.
“Liberal”: Just Another Buzz-Word In Satanic Empire-Of-Lies
Magus: I’ve seen the “study” which shows “liberals” are a bunch of morons, “liberal” just a buzz-word nowadays for fascist or modern-day Pharisee, advocating dictatorship, ALWAYS of course, upon some goody-goody, trendy, politically-correct pretext.
Actually, “liberal” is not all that bad as one is young and idealistic, but after a few years (at the most) when u see the homosexuals and other scum working so hard to monopolize the term, u begin to see the interesting irony that “liberal” is used TOTALLY opposite to it’s original meaning, it being literal, actual pretext for fascism, no less than communism and socialism are mere pretexts, in all truth, for bloody dictatorship and satanist genocide, as we see now quite plainly.
And when u stop to actually think about it all in fullest context, u see dictatorship and tyranny always need a pretext, typically it being “good-intentions”–and now u see the real “modern” meaning and use of the buzz-word, “liberal,” in the raging empire-of-lies and “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler.
It’s now gotten so far that this “liberal” mentality is excuse/pretext for poisoning (slow-kill) genocide of the population (by vaccinations and GMO foods, etc.), on-going even as we speak, this in way of “green,” “environmentalism” “AGENDA-21” and gross, idiotic “global-warming” lies pushed and pushed and pushed by satanic liars and sustained only by the most utterly stupid scum of the society–aside fm the poor, apathetic fools who don’t so much advocate or even believe the lies, but who keep themselves rather distracted by such as the moronic foot-ball games on TV, etc.
Rights Of Citizens Within Constitutional Republic Is Serious Thing Demanding Serious Attention
Since u invite the “widening” of the debate, let me take opportunity to put in my 2 cents worth. I think I like ur general thesis, but regarding prostitution it ought to be mere matter of prop. rights whether prostitutes could work. Prostitutes have rights, and their business is certainly within rational ethics, it being non-violent offer of genuine svcs. Prostitutes generally know if they’re working right areas at right times, etc.
Democracy (majority-rule) is legitimate principle, long as it’s within proper, rational, republican, constitutional frame-work–just as I pt. out in below essay on smoking on University grounds. It’s okay to ban smoking in some places, but not all places.
“Other regarding” is pretentious-sounding phrase, I’d say, the real issue being human freedom and rights according to right-reason and constitutional basis.
Well this is interesting. A professor of a freshman English class gave you a poor grade based on your reasoning being what she considered “fascist”. Given your writing after nearly an extra decade of education and 3 decades of experience would probably garner a similar grade, this woman was still out of line to call you fascist. Assuming she’s still among the vertically abled, it wouldn’t surprise me if she’s of the opposite position today. Such is how unthinking and reactionary western civilization has become.
Not that to some degree your point wasn’t fascist but as much as I disagree with the goose stepping blanket bans on smoking, there is some justification in regard to the degree to which public smoking is put upon others. But note the twist in the comment above:
However if that same person stands at a bus stop, blowing smoke into my face this is, clearly an other regarding act as the smoker is endangering my health.
Were someone truly blowing smoke into someone’s face, yes. But the casual, open air exposure to even the most foul cigarette smoke is easily addressed by moving up wind. Really, buck up sunshine. I mean where does this nonsense stop where even the slightest inconvenience becomes a full blown assault and civil rights case. Do we mandate that people bathe regularly? Are smelly perfumes to be regulated? Annoyingly offensive speech? Ugly art? Offensive music that drifts out onto the street (as opposed to exceptionally loud music, which is another issue). And again, buck up a little. Passive smoke at an open air bus stop is far less likely to impact your health than what comes belching out of said bus.
That America has come to a point where a man can’t enjoy a cigar at a baseball game yet is actually in danger of drunken fools falling off upper decks onto them is absurd.
I should have read your post before responding, WTP. You made the same point before I did.
It is quite the tell, isn’t it? That grown, educated people would think that their health is somehow endangered by the rare whiff of smoke in an open environment. One probably does more damage to ones health even worrying about such a thing. Certainly damages the mental health.
Pharisaic “Good”: Destroyer Of Truth, Reason, And Humanity
First thing I’d say is it’s pretty totalitarian thing to totally ban smoking anywhere and everywhere–there ought to be some designated spots where folks could smoke if they want to. It’s the proper democratic thing to do by providing these designated smoking places, I’d say. Self-righteousness for this kind of “health” kick is NOT a good sign. Forcing people to be “healthy” is a bad, sad sign too. Having no compassion for those poor, nervous folks who HAVE to smoke is not a good sign either.
And I DO think smokers would have a legitimate case to sue the school for this idiot totalitarian policy.
Reductio-ad-absurdum is Mayor Bloomberg of NYC issuing the edicts about salt & the size of soft-drinks. Smokers are tax-payers too, don’t forget.
See, the problem is dictatorship and tyranny ALWAYS start w. “good-intentions” as the pretext. But then the POWER is established, along w. the excuse for it, and it always seems to grow and get out of hand–like it has now w. the EPA giving an entire town of 10,000 people in Wyoming to an Indian tribe.
EPA has also effectively removed the last lead smelter for manufacture of ammunition in USA, this driving prices up, aside fm US gov. buying up insane amounts of ammo–ho ho ho–what are the scum afraid of, I wonder?–ho ho ho ho ho.
“Carbon foot-print” taxes are also another satanically idiotic pretext for destruction of coal-fire power plants and the removal of industry fm the USA.
So we see once again the pretext of good (Pharisaism) is the excuse of not merely dictatorship, but outright SATANISM, purpose being GENOCIDE.
“Agenda-21” is the ultimate satanist worship of earth or “environment” over and against humanity which is pretext for the “chem-trail” poisoning of atmosphere and ground-soil, poison vaccines, GMO foods, poisonous food additives like bis-phenol A, not to mention other power-grabs by gov. and oligarchs against citizens and property rights.
And observe corrupt judges FORCING little kids to be drugged w. such harmful drugs as Ritalin and other drugs; hospitals and other entities (like US military too) forcing dangerous vaccinations. Not drugging and vaccinating kids have even been used as excuses to take kids fm their parents.
So Prof. Mike, as philosopher–one who extrapolates and looks at things in large perspective–it seems to me u can take a lesson here for the Pharisaist pretext of “good” and its use as justification for tyrannical power working for not merely nefarious purposes, but outright satanic genocide of humanity in general.
“Good” SUCKS–there is no “good-evil” in an objective (Aristotelian) reality, hence determined universe–and it’s why the Bible teaches that eating of the Tree of Knowledge of such false “good & evil” was the downfall of mankind.
What many do not consider when it comes to making rules, is what happens when all these rules are piled up. An individual rule can look good in itself, but when you add one more rule to the thousands of other existing ones, it can have a very different meaning.
Forbes magazine. We’ve reached a point where virtually all science is a political tool. My skepticism about everything continues to grow.
With smoking as with almost anything, the key factor appears to be the dose. I’ve seen other studies that show two cigarettes a day have no measurable impact on health. None. Is this radical thinking? I don’t think so.
Problems with the study? Sure. But I’m skeptical about the mania about second hand smoke.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/
Satanism: It’s Built Upon (Fictional) “Good Intentions”
Exactly Magus: for note in the “Good” society, there is no truth–only what serves the purpose–which is always “good,” of course. Such then is “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, the culture of death within empire-of-lies. AGENDA-21 genocide and “population-reduction” is “good” as it’s “for the earth,” after all. The “green” “environment” is everything, heck w. mere humanity, hence reason, justice, law, logic, etc.
Remember Kant, who said all philosophy and world-view ought to be founded and oriented upon “good,” Kant then insisting this was thus a matter of “duty”–he didn’t say why, the obvious implication being, “BECAUSE, stupid, it’s good good good, the end-all and be-all for all of reality.
Observe then the amazing circular reasoning–so what’s “good”?–there’s no answer, as it’s subjective. And so why then should be feel “duty-bound”?–no answer, but it’s justified upon the pretended “good” which is never understood, “intention” and “motivation” is everything–a perfect system for psychopaths, ho hoo ho ho ho.
I remember how Ayn Rand would go off ventilating at length about Kant–who was just a clever con-artist, when all was said and done, and extremely successful Kant was, indubitably, we must admit.
And just because Kant was soooooooooooo difficult to read and understand didn’t hurt his popularity in the least–he actually thereupon inspired Hegel who much emulated Kant and his incomprehensibility for reading and understanding.
What bothers me is the lack of respect for the truth demonstrated by so many “researchers.”
From the Forbes article:
One researcher in the article said the most important effect of indoor-smoking bans may be on smokers.
“The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm,” said Dr. Jyoti Patel of Northwestern University School of Medicine.
No doubt this same “researcher” claimed that smoking bans should be enforced due to second hand smoke health concerns.
Researchers should care only about the truth. Changing societal behavior should not be their concern.
TJ, Remember me ranting about how science is now in many respects a dogma? This is rampant and very, very dangerous. More dangerous in my opinion than many of the other things we worry about. Even I worry about government, but what we see is that this type of thing is used to control government itself. This is the root of our growing loss of liberty by rational means.
“This is the root of our growing loss of liberty by rational means.”
Don’t follow u on this one, as it seems the society is falling to irrationality, esp. on premise of “good” (Pharisaism) which destroys (Christian) TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH, hence reason, logic, science, and not least, justice.
What is rational at the tactical level, can be irrational at the strategic level.
Uh, ok, but can u be more specific? I know for example, the Boston Marathon “bombing” of last April was totally staged and even now has been actually analyzed in detail, even for the blast simulator which looks like a mortar, filled w. sawdust, etc.–see http://memoryholeblog.com/2014/01/16/video-boston-marathon-bomb-simulators-exposed/.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a massive tactical and operational victory, and thus rational when viewed only from that standpoint. But, strategically it was a blunder as it brought the US into the war which resulted in Japan’s defeat. Rules and regulations cannot merely be judged by their own individual merits, but how they interact and compound with other rules. I am quite familiar with what rational rule-making with thousands of rules will do, because I’m in the military. Each rule usually has a basically good argument behind it, but all the rules put together make life difficult to live.
Well, at Pearl, the Japs failed to knock-out any aircraft-carriers of the Americans, and indeed, as we know now, Japs were suckered into “firing the first shot” of a war w. USA that they didn’t really want, but FDR (Roosevelt) desperately wanted. Interesting pt. u bring up, in any case.
I think I see what u’re getting at regarding “losing liberty by rational means,” though (if u’re same as “Magus”). ZOG has only succeeded, however, as the people are still mostly dis-organized and distracted by “bread & circuses,” and such as the idiot football games on TV. People are getting evermore wise to the consistent inroads upon their freedom and rights, I think, not to mention the steady economic deterioration. And the people see the politicians are so horribly corrupt, paid-off by the money printed-up by the Federal Reserve Bank COUNTERFEITING scam.
People are also getting wise to idea it wasn’t Arabs or Muslims who did 9/11, and that all the “terrorism” is actually production of CIA, MOSSAD, MI6, etc. So these items may indeed have something of a “rational” style to them, but under-handed, covert violence and treachery of the top powers for purpose of world-dictatorship doesn’t really seem to be too “rational.”
Given the number of studies, why select that particular study as being right and hold that the others are in error? That is, what is superior about that study?
Also, the study you refer to states that the cancer risk is lower than previously believed, but the article still notes that second hand smoke is dangerous in other ways. So, if the study is accurate, people won’t get cancer from the smoke, but they still have an increased risk of emphysema.
You mean like all the studies that showed fat increases blood cholesterol? People have an increased chance of dying from driving. At what point does trying to control every possibility of evil become evil itself?Increased chance of emphysema? By how much? Why don’t you apply the same logic to these things that you do to terrorism?
But why pick that particular study as being right? It certainly could be dead on, but what makes it superior to the studies which concluded that second hand smoke has a causal role in cancer? A study should be believed because it is likely to be right. It should not be judged likely to be right because it is believed.
True-people do increase their risk of dying when they drive. That is one reason I drive as little as possible. While the chance of death is low, why risk my life when I do not need to?
I do apply the same logic as I do to terrorism. I hold that the response should be proportional to the damage. According to the CDC smoking is far more dangerous than terrorism:
More than 440,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
269,655 deaths annually among men (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
173,940 deaths annually among women (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
Source: CDC
Smoking kills far more people than terrorist attacks and is thus a greater danger to public health. As such, it seems reasonable to respond with an area ban. I also support area bans on terrorism.
Also, the area ban is cheap-print up some signs, pass a law, brief the cops. Done. Now, if we were dumping billions into tracking smokers, waterboarding suspected smokers, and so on, then I would have concerns about this approach. Smokers can still smoke at home-and kill themselves and those they live with. Not an ideal situation, but I do support the right to self-abuse. However, if adults are killing their kids this way, that is a problem.
So, to recap:
1. Smoking kills 440,000 Americans a year. Terrorism kills a few Americans.
2. Area bans are cheap. The “war on terror” costs billions.
3.Smoking bans prevent smokers from smoking in public, but does not violate their right of self-abuse. They are just denied the “right” to harm other people. The war on terror involves clear violations of rights (some of the NSA activity is unconstitutional, for example).
Mike: ALL the “terrorism” is done by CIA, MOSSAD, MI6, and satellites, like the Saudis, and this includes the Sandy Hook hoax and the Boston Marathon bombing too. Purpose is world dictatorship by Bilderbergers and Trilateralists.
It’s NOT a matter of “studies”–if the people take a democratic vote, then that’s quite enough, regardless of any ‘studies,” long as they’re reasonable and provide for rights of smokers for their places too.
1. Smoking kills 440,000 Americans a year. Terrorism kills a few Americans. – People die from smoking due to their own choice/decision to smoke. No one willingly subjects themselves to terrorism except those such as Magus and such who are actively engaged in protecting the rest of us. Not that it’s relevant, but those attempting to “protect” us from our own behavior assume no such personal risk.
2. Area bans are cheap. The “war on terror” costs billions. – You refuse to acknowledge that fighting terrorism reduces opportunities for terrorism. Again, Wilde “The cynic is one who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing”.
3. Smoking bans prevent smokers from smoking in public, but does not violate their right of self-abuse. Smoking bans violate the right of people to engage in an activity that causes so little harm it is absurd to even discuss it. Again, the stress and irrational reaction to smoking is likely to cause about the same harm. Use your brain to think. Otherwise you’re nothing more than a parrot. The war on terror involves clear violations of rights The nannystate war on smoking and other societal “ills” are themselves a clear violation of rights. Your quoting the NSA activity but you have repeatedly demonstrated, time and time again, that you do not understand the extent or the means of the activity. Not that it’s a clear cut problem, but you show no interest in even trying to understand the principles involved.
“You refuse to acknowledge that fighting terrorism reduces opportunities for terrorism.”
Yes, I’ve made the same argument. I heard all the complaints, as a cop. When crime is low, cops are not seen as necessary. When crime is high, cops are viewed as not doing their job or inadequate. The peace enjoyed by many can quite easily go away. It does not take many terrorists or criminals to destroy peace utterly if they are unchecked. Klebold and Harris represented a very small percentage of Columbine High School. As pointed out in Brave New War, terrorism can do millions of dollars (or more, in the case of 9-11) in damage by very cheap means. Russia will already lose million because of the mere threat of terrorism in the Sochi Olympics. This is a good example that islamists are not simply going away. They actually continually up the ante as their methods continue to prove effective. They are now demanding that Russian civilians revolt against the Kremlin or face a stream of terror attacks. Of course, we enjoy a geographic advantage that Russia does not.
We should reduce our costs, mostly by massively cutting back on things that have no effect in the war on terror, or in fact empower terrorism–like nation building in Afghanistan. Up to 40% of all money for the Taliban in eastern Afghanistan comes from US aid money. Even the effects of things like drones are vastly overstated. Special Forces and small contingents of conventional forces are sufficient. But we do need to keep fighting,because this is not going away, and ignoring it will not work. We need plausible deniability, small footprint, and unconventional methods. A large footprint and a long stay empowers jihadists.
Terrorism Is Manufactured By Criminal Oligarchs Of West & Israel
Magus: u gotta cut the crap and get real–THERE IS NO “TERRORISM” (but for that done by MOSSAD, CIA, and FBI, etc)–this is just lies. Magus: U’RE THE TERRORIST, trying to scare and psych people, including urself, pretending Arabs, or Iranians, or Muslims are capable of any substantial attacks.
In the first place, there’s more people killed by toddlers than “terrorists.” See http://www.infowars.com/youre-much-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-lightning-than-by-a-terrorist/
Second, it’s essentially proven fact, “terrorism” is manufactured by West, CIA, MOSSAD: see http://www.infowars.com/lawyer-u-s-intel-agencies-perpetuating-fake-war-on-terror/
The Saudi-backed terror allegedly aimed at Russia is manufactured by the West which backs and under-writes the Saudis. The world leaders, even fm Russia and China all co-operate w. oligarchs in West upon this terrorism, all this to terrorize the people of USA and West to keep the present Israel-allied criminals and oligarchs in office. MOSSAD and elements of USA gov. were the perpetrators of 9/11, the Arabs mere patsies.
Magus: here’s DEFINITIVE expo for Israeli/MOSSAD involvement for 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6VLFdWJ4I
This is the perfect world the libs want us to live in. The perfect world in which no one can be happy.
Again, I’m not saying it’s good for people, but the dangers of smoking are overstated to the point people actually think it’s dangerous to smoke one cigarette.
H.L. Mencken once described Puritanism as that nagging fear that someone, somewhere might be happy. Funny how those considered “Puritans” in that day were more likely to be religious “conservatives” and yet today those trying to enforce puritanical behavior are now what they called “liberals”. Also interesting that those who to profess little or no religion are the ones now most fanatical in the imposition of their beliefs upon others. As I’ve quoted here before, you don’t need a God/god to have a religion. All you need is a devil and some dogma.
Yes, that has always been my goal-the extermination of happiness.
One cigarette will not kill you-but it won’t do you any good. A few more and you’ll start suffering medical consequences. Likewise for pot. Or cocaine.
And again you obfuscate the point. But to take you at your word, yea, one cigarette will not kill you. Nor will second hand smoke. For God’s sakes man, admit what you just basically admitted. Second hand smoke is NOT a threat to others, and especially not in an open air environment. You even refuse to admit what you admit. Do you not see where such damages your credibility? Undermines your ability to be taken seriously? Do you understand the meaning of the phrase “self awareness”?
So you’d ban Frodo and Gandalf for smoking outside in the Shire? Ok, Sauron.
Not at all. Cure disease will fix all those problems-just need to find a cleric or paladin. Or be one.
The dose makes the poison. It is one thing to be married to a heavy smoker, and quite another to get a whiff of smoke at a bus stop. The two should not be equated.
Well, I don’t want someone pissing on my leg even a little bit. Likewise, I’d rather not be sucking in even a little bit of tobacco smoke. If someone needs to piss, they can go to a bathroom. If someone needs to smoke, they can go home or to a place where smoking is okay.
I do favor having private businesses with smoking permitted-after all, people have that right of self abuse. Likewise, I’d be fine with people smoking pot at home or in a private business. Just not around me in public. After all, people don’t have the right to subject me to their poor choices in regards to using drugs.
What about the bus belching smoke? Another terrible thing is the loud noises air brakes make. Did you ever walk by a truck and have your hearing assaulted?
Yes, a whiff of smoke is just like someone peeing on your leg. No shame.
Yesterday I conducted training for analysts on using a form of the scientific method in intelligence analysis, called Analysis of Competing Hypothesis. It’s a basic idea that perhaps some on here are familiar with. As part of the training, we reviewed cognitive bias. I noted that we all form biases, many which are correct. I also noted that the strength of a bias is often directly related to a certain phenomenon’s impact on Safety and Physical Welfare in Maslow’s Heirarchy of needs. The scenario I provided to prove my point: I asked one soldier what his reaction would be if a particular person punched him in the face 1 out of every 100 times they met. He agreed that he would flinch or avoid that person (bias) even though the chances of being hit were only 1%. We also agreed that other habits from people could manifest much more often, and never even be noted, thus no bias would form. We know we have almost no chance of getting cancer or sick at all from intermittent exposure to cigarette smoke. And it is not uncommon for exposure to occur. On the other hand it is very rare to encounter a terrorist, at least in America. But there’s a good chance meeting one could be lethal. Thus we form strong biases about terrorism. Bias and the laws it produces are not only formed by time and frequency of exposure, but by the intensity felt during a possible exposure. Progressives, in an attempt to eradicate smoking, not only had to magnify the effects on the smoker, they had to get non-smokers worried, too. I don’t recommend smoking, but I’m not for sweeping, draconian laws about it, either.
Does anyone else find this amusing? Mike making the “selective studies” argument. Mike has done entire posts based on just one study using highly suspect sources, poor controls, etc. whilst simultaneously ignoring any studies, many far more rigorous, which conflict with the conclusion he wishes to draw.
Again, I ask you. At what point does sophistry give way to not-so thinly veiled lying? Or do you consider them one/the same?
This is fair argument, but I DON’T think Mike is lying. Issue regarding banning of smoking is not properly matter of “studies”; rather, it’s simply issue of democratic voting while protecting rights of smokers who ought to have some place for themselves.
Status of “sophistry” depends on world-view, grasp of reality. Remember, at base of everything in logic is choice of assumptions btwn the Aristotelian objective reality and the Platonist subjective. If one chooses subjectivism then sophistry is the going and necessary currency of thought and thinking.
If the Platonic/Kantian “good” is the end-all and be-all for ur system, sophistry is necessary method–anything goes. Dictatorship is ALWAYS justified upon “good intentions.”
In a subjectivist (hence Pharisaic, Talmudic) system, anything goes; there is no “truth” or “lies,” as it’s all arbitrary. Only w. objectivity is there truth, logic, and science.
Article of the day: Who Goes Nazi? Harper’s Magazine, 1941.
The saturnine man over there talking with a lovely French emigree is already a Nazi. Mr. C is a brilliant and embittered intellectual. He was a poor white-trash Southern boy, a scholarship student at two universities where he took all the scholastic honors but was never invited to join a fraternity. His brilliant gifts won for him successively government positions, partnership in a prominent law firm, and eventually a highly paid job as a Wall Street adviser. He has always moved among important people and always been socially on the periphery. His colleagues have admired his brains and exploited them, but they have seldom invited him—or his wife—to dinner.
He is a snob, loathing his own snobbery. He despises the men about him—he despises, for instance, Mr. B—because he knows that what he has had to achieve by relentless work men like B have won by knowing the right people. But his contempt is inextricably mingled with envy. Even more than he hates the class into which he has insecurely risen, does he hate the people from whom he came. He hates his mother and his father for being his parents. He loathes everything that reminds him of his origins and his humiliations. He is bitterly anti-Semitic because the social insecurity of the Jews reminds him of his own psychological insecurity.
Pity he has utterly erased from his nature, and joy he has never known. He has an ambition, bitter and burning. It is to rise to such an eminence that no one can ever again humiliate him. Not to rule but to be the secret ruler, pulling the strings of puppets created by his brains. Already some of them are talking his language—though they have never met him.
There he sits: he talks awkwardly rather than glibly; he is courteous. He commands a distant and cold respect. But he is a very dangerous man. Were he primitive and brutal he would be a criminal—a murderer. But he is subtle and cruel. He would rise high in a Nazi regime. It would need men just like him—intellectual and ruthless. But Mr. C is not a born Nazi. He is the product of a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery. He is a sensitive, gifted man who has been humiliated into nihilism. He would laugh to see heads roll.
I think young D over there is the only born Nazi in the room. Young D is the spoiled only son of a doting mother. He has never been crossed in his life. He spends his time at the game of seeing what he can get away with. He is constantly arrested for speeding and his mother pays the fines. He has been ruthless toward two wives and his mother pays the alimony. His life is spent in sensation-seeking and theatricality. He is utterly inconsiderate of everybody. He is very good-looking, in a vacuous, cavalier way, and inordinately vain. He would certainly fancy himself in a uniform that gave him a chance to swagger and lord it over others.
http://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
Well, remember: Nazis (the originals of Hitler) were (a) socialists, (b) patriots who wanted to defend Germany, which had lost WWI, fm the Bolsheviks, these bolshies who were PROVEN mass-murderers. So the article fm Harpers is quite over-stated for its over-blown and pretended psychologic analysis, just to begin with, I’d say.
You are a mystery, apollonian. It is very hard to get a read on you. Magus, WTP? Any thoughts about where apollonian is coming from?
Good article:
“He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected.”
And there’s your answer right there TJ. When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.
though additionally, paraphrasing A.C. Clarke:
Any sufficiently advanced and fair social system is indistinguishable from conspiracy. For some people.
TJB: I’m real Christian–and I KNOW, this is likely to be mystery for such as u and ur buddy, WTP who seem to think Jews are the new royalty over the peasants of USA–but that’s ur problem, not mine.
I see nazis as heroic patriots and defenders of Western civilization–like MANY if not most other of my fellow gentiles, never doubt.
We notice also, TJB, u introduce a TOTALLY foreign and off-topic item in comments here, purpose being to get an interesting response, no doubt. I didn’t want to disappoint u.
Why write “u” instead or you, and “fm” instead of from? This only serves to make us think you are unhinged.
TJB: how do u know how anyone else but urself “thinks”? Ho ho ho–u’re really all over the place now, eh? Why not try to keep to the topic at hand?
“[U]nhinged”?–ho ho ho–tell us what ur “Nazi” column was in ref. to, ho ho ho ho ho
Mike’s teacher called him a fascist.
Ok, that makes some sense, but “fascist” in the sense of Mike’s teacher was used, I suspect, in sense of “fascist’ as a knee-jerk doctrinaire, this flippantly asserted by the teach. The column u pasted was more stream-of-conscious Jew-type production, quite a bit more elaborate, Jews automatically considering Nazis as uniformly psycho, the column a complexified compilation.
Note fascist just means statist, violent action without law, emphasis on the without-law, as I understand. Jew Bolsheviks, for example, are known as “red fascists.” So fascist would be a totalitarian statist condition prior to communist or Nazi, communist or Nazi then being mere styles of fascist/statist. Mussolini’s fascism was more corporatist-favoring designed to curb/restrain the socialist/Bolshevik element, Mussolini’s specifically designed to preserve some distinct form of private prop.
I simply reacted to ur column based on the “nazi” psychologic characterization–which I found quite fanciful and inaccurate, esp. in view of the general political theory, a form of socialism, but not internationalist.
Am I the only one here crazy enough to think the 50,000 deaths a year from second hand smoke stat sounds like bullshit? Can anyone tell me the process to get that stat?
That’s worthwhile question u have for researching. I guess u’d just enter the phrase in the search engine, “number of deaths from second hand cigarette smoking.”
–Or “danger of second hand cigarette smoke.”
No, I mean, how the heck can you actually tell if someone died from second hand smoke?
Ho ho ho–u’re right–and now that I think about it, it seems so absurd. And since no one explains how 2nd hand smoke actually kills, it’s surely most likely to be TOTAL BS
Go to the CDC site and check their sources. The CDC might be in error or…for the conspiracy folks…engaged in an anti-smoking plot to fabricate data.
That smoking kills people seems consistent with the known medical effects of tobacco. Interestingly, the nicotine is not the bad part-it is sucking in all those chemicals produced in the combustion. Smoke inhalation seems like a generally bad idea.
Appeal to authority. You have to think for yourself. You have to honestly assess the reality of the situation, consider what the possibilities are, ask how someone could possibly even know such a thing given all the variables and the lack of any realistic control group. That said, there is nothing wrong with doing the limited kind of research that is doable so long as you put large caveats around your results.
And yet again you obfuscate with “smoking kills people”. No one here is arguing that it doesn’t. The issue is does the passive, limited inhalation of the exceptionally rare incidence (for the vast majority of people) of second hand smoke justify the hysteria surrounding such? smoke inhalation seems like a bad idea. So does hang gliding.
The CDC does not strictly follow science.
Last week the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) noted with alarm that most Americans say they have never discussed alcohol consumption with a health professional. Physicians’ reluctance to broach the subject is especially troubling, the CDC said, because “at least 38 million adults in the U.S. drink too much.”
Most news outlets reported the latter claim as a fact, failing to notice the value judgments embedded in it. Contrary to what the CDC wants you to believe, the question of what it means to drink too much is a matter of moral and medical dispute.
According to the CDC, “problem drinkers” consist mainly of “binge drinkers,” which does not mean what you might think: people who spend days in a drunken stupor, devoting themselves to intoxication in a way that seriously disrupts their lives. No, according to the CDC, a man is a binge drinker if at any point in the last month he has consumed five or more drinks “on an occasion”; for a woman, the cutoff is four drinks.
This definition is based on the amounts typically needed to reach a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent, which corresponds to the legal per se standard for driving while intoxicated (DWI). What if you do not plan to drive? It does not matter. The CDC has decreed that no one should ever drink this much, no matter the circumstances.
Note that the CDC’s definition of a binge is determined legally rather than scientifically. When the DWI standard was 0.10 percent, many of today’s binge drinkers would not have qualified as such. If Congress lowers the cutoff to 0.05 percent, will the number of binge drinkers skyrocket overnight?
The government’s notion of a binge encompasses patterns of consumption that do not cause measurable harm to anything except the CDC’s sensibilities. If a man at a dinner party drinks a cocktail before the meal, a few glasses of wine during it, and a little bourbon afterward, he is drinking too much, according to the CDC, even if he takes a cab home.
Even if you never binge in this manner, that does not necessarily mean your drinking meets with the government’s approval. The CDC also worries about men who have more than 14 drinks per week and women who have more than seven.
Science (an analysis of 34 studies) says that a man can have 4 drinks per day and a woman 2 drinks per day without harm.
So pardon me if I think the CDC is likely to just make up numbers if they have a social agenda to advance. Their mission is to reduce smoking, and if they have to lie a little to achieve this are probably OK with that.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/01/15/uncle-sams-drinking-game
Not that this pertains to the subject if the CDC, but the psychologists had (still have?) that number at 3 drinks in any one day constituting a binge. At 6-4 220+ I could be binge drinking yet not legally impaired.
I talked about this issue for years, too. More dogma from science. I rarely have more than 3 beers in a day, and I don’t drink hard liquor. Yet, technically, the CDC would find me at risk. Yet, they would have severe problems trying to measure the risk because all my tests are good. Remember I had this argument with biomass years ago.
I know what the CDC says, but can you think of a good, scientific experiment that would test the hypothesis that second hand smoke is or is not a menace in America? These tests are epidemiological, and they always have big issues. This is exactly what got us in to trouble with food and diet decades ago. Just because American vegetarians live longer and are healthier than people who eat meat does not tell me much. It doesn’t tell me if meat is bad for me, because it doesn’t tell me what else these people eat. As you know, there is a wide spectrum of possible inputs, and they can generally be called “lifestyle”. Vegetarians are less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, etc. Also, the same issue arose with global warming. So CO2 is a greenhouse gas…this does not tell us much. As the models show: “Science” was wrong. The models did not predict what happened. Why? As I stated in the past: The system is too complex to make such dire predictions, too many inputs and variables and unknowns.
You repeatedly appeal to authority on these issues. Personally, I have no problem referring to people who know more about an issue than I do, but if I see a fundamental flaw in their thinking, I can no longer merely say “Well, the experts say…”. If the experts tell me that the earth will warm at a certain rate in the next two decades, and it doesn’t happen, am I insane to believe that something in their formula is not right?
All of the issues with second hand smoke came up with obesity, too. What we see when we look closely at overweight people, is that it is not quite the danger made out by the government. Like smoking and second hand smoke, it could never be classified as good for us, but it’s not catastrophic. This is also why preventative medicine is such a failure, and has been at the root of my criticism of science as it now stands: There are limits to what we can know from the small slivers of data we are capable of collecting.
“The Nurses’ Health Study is the most influential of these cohort studies, and in the six years since the Davey Smith and Ebrahim editorial, a series of new trials have chipped away at its credibility. The Women’s Health Initiative hormone-therapy trial failed to confirm the proposition that H.R.T. prevented heart disease; a W.H.I. diet trial with 49,000 women failed to confirm the notion that fruits and vegetables protected against heart disease; a 40,000-woman trial failed to confirm that a daily regimen of low-dose aspirin prevented colorectal cancer and heart attacks in women under 65. And this June, yet another clinical trial — this one of 1,000 men and women with a high risk of colon cancer — contradicted the inference from the Nurses’s study that folic acid supplements reduced the risk of colon cancer. Rather, if anything, they appear to increase risk.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
CDC: Satanist Instrument Of Genocide In Culture Of Death, Empire-Of-Lies
Mike: get a clue–the US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) is a criminal enterprise, consisting literally of (legalized) COUNTERFEITING. I’ve already given u numerous citations/references; indeed, this thesis is that of Ron Paul. The Fed controls everything in USA culture–everything, without exception–it prints-up money and thus rules and affects everything, esp. politics and economics. We’re steadily going down the drain due to the Fed and its demonstrably criminal policies.
Second, the CDC, no less than the FDA (food & drug) is a POLITICAL entity–it lies and falsifies information daily, as matter of course–and this is actually quite well-known. Thus the FDA approved aspartame, for just one example, a known and proven POISON as food additive and sugar substitute, this while Donald Rumsfeld was the CEO of Searle corp., the main producer at the time. See http://www.infowars.com/the-worst-drug-fraud-in-history-do-you-still-trust-them-with-your-life/
The CDC has approved vaccines, I understand, which are deadly, poisonous, and un-tested, this as matter-of-course for politics. See http://www.infowars.com/cdc-h1n1-forced-quarantine-docs-leak/
Public edjumacation, as u ought to know, is PRIMARILY a political enterprise, “education” mere window-dressing for lies, propaganda, indoctrination of fallacious ideas, thought-control, and general dis-info.
Socialism and gov. bureaucracy, whence gov. grasps for hegemonic power, is mere predicate for necessarily following and ensuing SATANIST genocide and mass-murder, as we see now w. AGENDA-21 and ObamaCare death-panels–“liberalism” is the Orwellian window-dressing for it, “progressivism” (ho ho ho), yet another idiotic buzz-word.
It’s simply dumbass leftist logic based on foolish inability to assess risk. There’s no reason to it. Just look to the actions of America’s greatest socialist state:
On the very same day that California made the bold and necessary step of outlawing the free and excessive distribution of plastic bags, they passed a law that many within the service industry feel is reactionary, ridiculous, wasteful and smacks of a blatant lack of consultation with the affected businesses.
AB 1252 is a new law that states that all ’employees [must] wear single-use gloves, as specified, when contacting food and food-contact surfaces’, and is one of the most hotly debated changes in the industry at the moment.
– See more at: http://www.thesavory.com/drink/cali-bartenders-furious-about-wearing-rubber.html#sthash.iUKUg7ie.dpuf
They’re simply control freaks, regardless of their rhetoric otherwise. So perhaps it’s not lying. Perhaps it’s a mental disorder. Perhaps someone should do a study on leftist behavior. But who would pay for it?
WTP: observe the US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) just LITERALLY prints-up (and digitalizes) money at will (practically–the only limit comes when they do it toooo much, which isn’t always easy to foresee, and HYPER-inflation happens, and only then the game is up).
So u see?–the ENTIRE system is gamed and rigged. Aside fm the fraudulent electronic voting, the only people who can buy the air-time and ads are the ones getting this money fm the Fed, through the various agents, of course.
Naturally, the only ones even considered for this funding fm Fed sources and agents will be those already known to be susceptible to bribery and influence, etc. The larger the election market, state-wide and nationally, the more it favors the big-money. Did u hear, the other day, Hitlary Clinton just got one of the largest PACs to back her for the 2016 election?–already now, early in 2014?–ho ho ho ho.
“Leftism” is mere pretext and window-dressing for satanism and gross criminality which is necessary agenda of these topmost criminals behind the Fed, now pushing ObamaCare death-panels and AGENDA-21 genocide. Same goes for the “neo-cons” behind the “Judeo-Christian” “rightists.”
http://whentreesattack.blogspot.com
One thing I have learned over the years is that only a small minority of people care about truth for its own sake. Most people have an agenda, and if truth is on their side that is fine, but if truth goes against them they are perfectly wiling to lie and distort to advance their cause.
Mike, you seem to buy into a lot of these distortions proffered by the Dems. This business about the emergency room use Is just the latest.
Truth, Ultimate Christian Ideal, Overthrown By “Good” (Pharisaism)
This is significant insight and observation by TJB, truly, and I will take the opportunity here and now to pt. out that Christianity is literal worship of TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH, for its own sake. Christ is mere allegory; Christ is truth (Gosp. JOHN 14:6), the ONLY way to Godly happiness.
Thus the fools and scum who say Christianity is anti-reason are belied by the obvious historical fact: Christianity was the necessary predicate and condition for the rise of modern science along w. Constitutional rights, and Western prosperity.
It was necessary for the satanists and anti-Christs to taking control of the culture, esp. by means of the phony “prosperity,” and the Fed money-manufacturing machine, to now taking control, as we see, of establishment Christianity, pretending and insisting that “faith” primarily means “believing,” even against reason (hence the Holy Spirit).
For “faith” only properly means LOYALTY, not “believing,” and a good God would NEVER demand one “believe” against one’s reason, the very thing God gives us to grasp reality and plan our actions (ethics).
And u’re right TJB, Mike does seem to suffer treating “ethics” as something to be worshipped as some kind of end-in-itself, a la Kant and Plato, rather than to properly seeing ethics as A MEANS to any given end, an end conceivably being anything.
And the greatest destroyer of TRUTH, hence real, true, and proper virtue, is “Good” (Pharisaism), and the “noble lie,” as of Leo Strauss.
“Most men are satisfied with appearances as though they were realities.” ~Machiavelli
Yes, but do you consider this statement to be more or less true when the scope is narrowed to modern philosophers? Or women…
More controversy along same lines: The effects of sunscreen on rates of skin cancer. We’ve been told for decades that sun exposure is bad and to avoid it. “They’ may have been wrong all along. I only use sunscreen if I think I’ll burn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_health_risks_of_sunscreen
Here’s more hysteria, but since it dovetails nicely with the NYC ban in large soft drinks, we can ignore all the qualifiers and such to further our TRUTHTRUTHTRUTH.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/01/23/shock-study-some-soft-drinks-contain-cancer-causing-chemical/
Or, in the opposite direction, the belief that multivitamins were beneficial. Only problem is, no study has ever shown they help anything.
http://www.ivillage.com/case-closed-experts-decide-multivitamins-are-useless/4-a-555476
Despite his shortcomings, Woody Allen was quite prescient in several instances. Ever seen Sleeper?
Hilarious. Wait until the government proffers the truly rational argument, that because of Obamacare, the government has the right and interest in controlling what we eat.
Socialism begets socialism.
Socialism is dictatorship, but it’s more than that–it’s window-dressing pretext for satanism and genocide.
Magus, another great source for 9/11 being much Israeli/MOSSAD and Zionist handiwork, ck Bollyn.com
Yeah, that’s a slippery slope argument you’re making, Magus. Us intellectualized thinking folks knows there’s nos such thing.
Just taking the next rational leap. Mike has already supported such arguments by making them himself in other areas. If I remember, it may been in regard to seat belt laws.
Wow. This is a good find, I think. Michael Crichton seems to have had the exact same arguments I do. At 4:25 he talks about second hand smoke. Before that, global warming. Ever hear or read someone’s thoughts and find it astounding there is someone else who thinks the way you do?
Crichton: “Second hand smoke does not cause cancer”.
But why accept him as the definitive expert on the matter? While he did have an MD, I did not see that he had been involved in extensive medical studies of smoking and cancer. I did see that he embraced psychic phenomena such as aura reading, astral projection and apparently even spoon bending. This does not entail that he is wrong, but it does raise legitimate concerns about his credibility.
Also, suppose that second hand smoke does not cause cancer. There are still numerous harms that it does cause and these seem to suffice to support the claim that second hand smoke is harmful. To use an analogy:
Bob: “Don’t go in that cage-we have a mountain lion in there. It bites and claws people, plus we think it has rabies.”
Sam: “Oh, the test just came back. It doesn’t have rabies.”
Bob: “Oh, in that case it is perfectly safe. Go on in.”
All the time. Before the internet? Hardly ever. There’s a hive mentality in society that academia was supposed to be above. But once “publish or perish” entered the culture, and ironically tenure, the costs, opportunity and otherwise, of thinking for ones self far outweighed the benifits. Few have the guts to stand out from the crowd unless the crowd itself can form its own hive of eccentricity. Then otherwise normal people with common sense get ostracized from the new hive.
However, you will notice Crichton never expressed an opinion on the dangers of having one’s leg pissed on.
“Science itself is going to be enormously injured.”