NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's see who stands where on this issue.

Nah (typing while holding a cigarette.)

"A total ban on smoking?"

Good luck w'dat. :rolleyes:

Against.

Ban it in public areas, yes. Ban it in their own private property or other property specifically labeled with smoking signs, no.

Let's see who stands where on this issue.
Define total ban. Would it mean making smoking itself illegal, regardless of where it was done?

Total ban: definitely not
Ban on Additives: yes

And if you are going to tax Tobacco because it is unhealthy you should only be allowed to use that money for the health care of smokers

Now excuse me while I go have a cigar

Sure, I would be all for it - but I don't think that such a thing would be realizable, there are far too much tabac junkies (i.e. smokers) who would scream loudly there if they can't get their drug anymore.

Against.

Ban it in public areas, yes. Ban it in their own private property or other property specifically labeled with smoking signs, no.
Agreed

Though this raises an interesting question ... might need its own thread. If a person smokes around their children can it be considered endangerment (reckless or not)? (I dont know why I thought of it at that time but I did lol)

I don't have a problem with the idea of a total ban, but only done in conjunction with various rehab programs. It's unlikely that a total ban would have this, though, so I'd probably be against the ban.

Though this raises an interesting question ... might need its own thread. If a person smokes around their children can it be considered endangerment (reckless or not)? (I dont know why I thought of it at that time but I did lol)I'd think it would be, yes.

Define total ban. Would it mean making smoking itself illegal, regardless of where it was done?

I think you just defined total ban right there.

I think you just defined total ban right there.
Well, as long as there is an exception for native people:)

No, a total ban is silly.

Partial bans are just fine. We're winning...why enrage the addicts further?:fluffle:

I think a total ban is good and you all know the reasons.

Im an ex-smoker.
Smoked 20 a day for a month to prove a point.
Gave up on day 29.
Never looked back.

Its damn simple and if you pretend you cant your a liar or weakminded.

Well, as long as there is an exception for native people:)

No, a total ban is silly.

Partial bans are just fine. We're winning...why enrage the addicts further?:fluffle:

Ah, but partial bans lead to total bans. And why care about the "addicts?" They're a minority and can do no damage to anyone politically or otherwise.

When people want to ban smoking because it's "icky" and they "don't get why anyone would smoke," well, a total ban is the natural outcome of that thought process. And make no mistake, those are actual reasons people want to ban smoking.

Ah, but partial bans lead to total bans. And why care about the "addicts?" They're a minority and can do no damage to anyone politically or otherwise. Well, partial bans on drinking alcohol haven't led to a total ban. Partial bans on driving haven't led to a total ban. Partial bans on urinating or defecating haven't led to a total ban...so really, I don't buy the slippery slope argument.

When people want to ban smoking because it's "icky" and they "don't get why anyone would smoke," well, a total ban is the natural outcome of that thought process. And make no mistake, those are actual reasons people want to ban smoking.
Regardless of the constant denials about the adverse health effects of smoking, of the existance of global warming, etc, etc, etc, I, and many others, choose to believe that some things are harmful, and not wait another fifty years before we have definative proof that everyone will accept. 'Icky' is a factor, yes, but so is health. However, a total ban is not the natural outcome of that, else we'd axe alcohol, caffeine, fast food, and stupidity. None seem likely to be totally banned in the next seven generations.

Please dear government, take this choice from me, you always know best. Who needs freedom of choice?

I think a total ban is good and you all know the reasons.

Im an ex-smoker.
Smoked 20 a day for a month to prove a point.
Gave up on day 29.
Never looked back.

Its damn simple and if you pretend you cant your a liar or weakminded.
Personally I don't think we should be baning things just cause they are not good for us.
I understand your want and need to not do them again yourself

But I don't think that justifies baning them for people that wish to do it on their own private property.

People have a right to do stupid things as long as they are harming no one else

(and this from a complete non smoker)

Please dear government, take this choice from me, you always know best. Who needs freedom of choice?
Exactly ... people have the right to have the freedom to make stupid choices

I think a total ban is good and you all know the reasons.

Im an ex-smoker.
Smoked 20 a day for a month to prove a point.
Gave up on day 29.
Never looked back.

Its damn simple and if you pretend you cant your a liar or weakminded.
Smoking for a month doesn't exactly make you an ex-smoker. Try heroine for a month, and then quit, THEN I'll be impressed.

When people want to ban smoking because it's "icky" and they "don't get why anyone would smoke," well, a total ban is the natural outcome of that thought process. And make no mistake, those are actual reasons people want to ban smoking.
You need to add several things to that list.
- It costs a fortune in health care costs, whether financial or in terms of the time of health care officials.
- Hundreds of thousands die every year as a direct result of smoking.
- Half of smokers will be killed by the habit.
- Smoking causes about 30% of cancer deaths.
- Smoking has been linked to an increase in mental illness including stress, depression, Schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia, Parkinson’s Disease
- Domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older.

Ban it. It is an historical legal anomaly that should be ended.

I think a total ban is good and you all know the reasons.

Im an ex-smoker.
Smoked 20 a day for a month to prove a point.
Gave up on day 29.
Never looked back.

Its damn simple and if you pretend you cant your a liar or weakminded.
Blegh, it's always the ex-smokers who turn into radicals.
Just because it's bad for you doesn't mean it should be banned.

You need to add several things to that list.
- It costs a fortune in health care costs, whether financial or in terms of the time of health care officials.
- Hundreds of thousands die every year as a direct result of smoking.
- Half of smokers will be killed by the habit.
- Smoking causes about 30% of smoking deaths.
- Smoking has been linked to an increase in mental illness including stress, depression, Schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia, Parkinson’s Disease
- Domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older.

Ban it. It is an historical legal anomaly that should be ended.
I fully support charging more for those that smoke and therefore put themselves at risk.

As such they have every right to do that entire list to themselves (as long as it is just to themselves)

I fully support charging more for those that smoke and therefore put themselves at risk.

As such they have every right to do that entire list to themselves (as long as it is just to themselves)
Ah, but look at the last point - "Domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older."

Even when it's just allowed in private it kills innocents. And those figures are just for the UK.

Ah, but look at the last point - "Domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older."

Even when it's just allowed in private it kills innocents. And those figures are just for the UK.
If you want to start banning things by the number of deaths they cause, you'll never stop.

Restrict these things. Just as there are rules about who can drive, and how, there should be rules about who can smoke, and where.

You know what I'd like to see? A restriction on caffeine, including that found in soft drinks. If parents want to give kids caffeine in their home, fine...but under no circumstances should it be available to them IN SCHOOLS (vending machines), or in stores...so sorry little seven year old...no cafe latte for you. Seriously.

Ah, but look at the last point - "Domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older."

Even when it's just allowed in private it kills innocents. And those figures are just for the UK.
That does not mean they were “innocents” that means they were not smokers. There is a difference, knowingly spending time in a smokers residents while he/she smokes would not qualify as “innocent” in my book

They also had the choice to leave that residence.

Now for whatever percentage did NOT have a choice (such as children) my views I posed before (in the form of a question)
Reckless endangerment.

no total ban...but lets smoke only joints :p

If you want to start banning things by the number of deaths they cause, you'll never stop.

Restrict these things. Just as there are rules about who can drive, and how, there should be rules about who can smoke, and where.
I agree with these things, but I don't think smoking is comparible because it serves no purpose. It is dangerous to other people for no other reason than the fact the smoker is addicted. To compare it to driving you would have to compare it to someone who enjoyed running down people for his own thrills - and that certainly is banned.

didnt they try this with booze once?

bad idea. really bad.

That does not mean they were “innocents” that means they were not smokers. There is a difference, knowingly spending time in a smokers residents while he/she smokes would not qualify as “innocent” in my book

They also had the choice to leave that residence.
Perhaps this is true if you're a guest in that residence, but I hardly think you can say that the partner/parent in need of care etc 'can just leave' if their husband/child is a smoker.

You need to add several things to that list.
- It costs a fortune in health care costs, whether financial or in terms of the time of health care officials.

Oh, boo hoo. Health care costs money. Banning cigarettes won't stop that. You really want to lower costs, privatize the health system.


- Hundreds of thousands die every year as a direct result of smoking.

Oh no they don't! "Smoking" is not listed on the cause of death. It's INDIRECT and the correlation is often just assumed.

Of course, how many people die every year as a direct result of automobile accidents? Yet thats not a reason to ban automobiles.


- Half of smokers will be killed by the habit.

Nice statistic. Or is it a prophecy? Statistics are lies and prophecies are bullshit, so I pee on your statistical prophecy.

- Smoking causes about 30% of smoking deaths.

Smoking death, what does that mean?

- Smoking has been linked to an increase in mental illness including stress, depression, Schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia, Parkinson’s Disease

Stress, you talk to me about stress? Stress isn't a mental illness, and in fact I know that smoking a cigarette is a stress-reliever.

On the other hand, whiny nonsmokers bitching at me constantly for killing their unborns cause stress. I think whiny nonsmokers should be banned because they cause stress.

As for the rest, well I'm skeptical to say the least.

- Domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older.

That would be "domestic." Which means what? Oh, right. Living with a smoker for decade after decade. Here's a tip: Don't live with a smoker if you're so terribly concerned.

Ban it. It is an historical legal anomaly that should be ended.

No one wants to ban cigarettes because of statistics. They want to ban it because it's icky and because they do not smoke nor do they "get" why people would smoke. They want to ban it because they fear - not know, but fear - that they will get the lethal effects described so flavorfully by anti-smoking propaganda campaigns. They want to ban it so they don't have to walk around clumps of smokers anymore - those extra feet really are a pain. They want to ban it because they have to wash their clothes to get rid of the smell.

People have reasons relating to their personal life, not dry statistics that aren't all that reliable anyway.

As for historical legal anomalies, freedom of speech is one of those too.

Smoking death, what does that mean?
Ha! I didn't spot that.

Sorry, my mistake, it should read 'cancer deaths.'

Smoking for a month doesn't exactly make you an ex-smoker. Try heroine for a month, and then quit, THEN I'll be impressed.

Did cannabis for a week once.
I did devolope a bit of a twitch when i gave up. Thats gone now.


Alcohol is my failure.
Teetotal till 15.
"Its fuckin easy not to drink. Watch." (Half-bottle of vodka DOWNED)

"...dude are you ok?"


"...gimme that Absinthe."

Ectect so now im a raging alcoholic but i never get drunk
THANKYOU ireland :)

Perhaps this is true if you're a guest in that residence, but I hardly think you can say that the partner/parent in need of care etc 'can just leave' if their husband/child is a smoker.
Like I said right below where you stopped the quote in a forced care (childcare was an example) then smoking in their presence should be endangerment.

Ha! I didn't spot that.

Sorry, my mistake, it should read 'cancer deaths.'

Ah. Well, I don't think its so simple as that. Cancer isn't exactly one of those cut-and-dried diseases whose causes are fully known and who you can look at a dead victim and go, "Aha! This one died because of random cigarette smokers on the street."

Multi-factoral causes

There are about 200 different types of cancer affecting the different body tissues. What affects one body tissue may not affect another. For example, tobacco smoke that you breathe in may help to cause lung cancer. Over exposing your skin to the sun could give you a melanoma on your leg. But the sun won't give you lung cancer and smoking won't give you melanoma.

Apart from infectious diseases, most illnesses are 'multi-factorial'. And cancer is no exception. Multi-factorial means that there are many factors involved. In other words, there is no single cause for any one cancer.

From http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=119

So I don't think banning smoking is the answer to cancer... any more than banning sunlight is.

You need to add several things to that list.
- It costs a fortune in health care costs, whether financial or in terms of the time of health care officials.
Oh, risky sports do that either. Ban freeclimbing, skiing, skateboarding etc. Its bad for the community!

Oh, boo hoo. Health care costs money. Banning cigarettes won't stop that. You really want to lower costs, privatize the health system.
Actually, the American "we've got a cheap, privatised health care" government pays about 30% more in health care costs than the UK government with universal health care.

Of course, how many people die every year as a direct result of automobile accidents? Yet thats not a reason to ban automobiles.
Automobiles have a purpose.

Nice statistic. Or is it a prophecy? Statistics are lies and prophecies are bullshit, so I pee on your statistical prophecy.

Stress, you talk to me about stress? Stress isn't a mental illness, and in fact I know that smoking a cigarette is a stress-reliever.

On the other hand, whiny nonsmokers bitching at me constantly for killing their unborns cause stress. I think whiny nonsmokers should be banned because they cause stress.

As for the rest, well I'm skeptical to say the least.
So your argument is based on the fact that you refuse to accept the truth? What a strong argument for allowing people to die.

That would be "domestic." Which means what? Oh, right. Living with a smoker for decade after decade. Here's a tip: Don't live with a smoker if you're so terribly concerned.
Oh, so a partner smoking should be grounds for divorce? What if, oh, I don't know, they don't want a divorce? Or what if they are a child who is dependent on their not so terribly concerned parent?

No one wants to ban cigarettes because of statistics. They want to ban it because it's icky and because they do not smoke nor do they "get" why people would smoke. They want to ban it because they fear - not know, but fear - that they will get the lethal effects described so flavorfully by anti-smoking propaganda campaigns. They want to ban it so they don't have to walk around clumps of smokers anymore - those extra feet really are a pain. They want to ban it because they have to wash their clothes to get rid of the smell.

People have reasons relating to their personal life, not dry statistics that aren't all that reliable anyway.
Actually, I've given you many statistics that justify a ban. You've ignored them because you don't like them. This is hardly me 'finding it icky.' Come up with some proof other than "I refuse to accept that as true."

As for historical legal anomalies, freedom of speech is one of those too.
Yep, and the right not to be killed is one as well.

I propose that we let smoking die with those who already smoke.

What we do, is give smokers two months to register for a specific lisence that allows them to buy and smoke cigarettes. After those two months, no more licenses will be issued- never. The license will belong to that person alone. Anyone who doesn't have a license, will not be permitted to buy or smoke cigarettes. They will take the foul practice to their graves.

Cigarette companies will be required to gradually reduce the number of cigarettes produced, until there's no one to sell them to, and eventually ban them from making more.

As tobacco's natural use is for sick cows and bruises, the tobacco farmers can feed their tobacco to cows, and start farming something else.

For a time, kids will be addicted to milk:D *devilish laugh*

Oh, risky sports do that either. Ban freeclimbing, skiing, skateboarding etc. Its bad for the community!
Unless you're consistently falling on my head with your skydiving or crashing into me with your skateboarding, then this is a bad comparison as I am not being harmed.

In addition to this, if 50% of people engaged in these activities are dying as a result of it then yes, it probably should be banned.

Actually, I've given you many statistics that justify a ban. You've ignored them because you don't like them. This is hardly me 'finding it icky.' Come up with some proof other than "I refuse to accept that as true."
Yes, and your statistics are worth shit if i only smoke in the confinement of my home or outdoors with no on else present. But thanks to a total ban my bahaviour would be criminalised. Great job!

Unless you're consistently falling on my head with your skydiving or crashing into me with your skateboarding, then this is a bad comparison as I am not being harmed.
You are harmed by higher healthcare fees. You are harmed by employess taking sick leaves for broken bones. Look, no one needs to go skiing, so why not a total ban on this unhealthy habit?

You are harmed by higher healthcare fees. You are harmed by employess taking sick leaves for broken bones. Look, no one needs to go skiing, so why not a total ban on this unhealthy habit?
Interesting you didn't quote the second part of my statement. I think that answers the question.

They are only destroying themselves. Who am I to tell them they can't do that?
Please just refrain from doing so around me.

Actually, the American "we've got a cheap, privatised health care" government pays about 30% more in health care costs than the UK government with universal health care.

We have a privatized health care system? Wow, news to me. I guess that publically funded hospital a few blocks away from me just doesn't exist.


Automobiles have a purpose.


Uh, so? Cigarettes do too. No one bans things just for being useless, and certainly not for being considered useless by those who don't use them.

So your argument is based on the fact that you refuse to accept the truth? What a strong argument for allowing people to die.


The truth? "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Your statistics don't even have a source, and even if they did, I can find statistics that oppose you statistics. Statistical arguments mean very little.

Oh, so a partner smoking should be grounds for divorce? What if, oh, I don't know, they don't want a divorce? Or what if they are a child who is dependent on their not so terribly concerned parent?

If someone is married to a smoker, and fears getting lung cancer from that, but can't be arsed to either divorce or otherwise find a solution, thats really their problem. If you value marriage more than your lungs, well hey. That's your choice is it not?


Actually, I've given you many statistics that justify a ban. You've ignored them because you don't like them.

Please. I didn't ignore them. I ate them for breakfast, and it caused me heart disease. You think I joke? People like you barking statistics out in an effort to guilt-trip me into changing my baby-murdering ways cause me stress. And stress has been linked to heart disease, which kills more people than cancer. I say we ban you, because that statistic justifies your shutting up.

Unless of course, you can prove that stress has no part in causing heart disease, and make the case that anti-smokers screaming at the top of their lungs what murderers smokers are doesn't cause stress.

This is hardly me 'finding it icky.'

Most people want to ban smoking because they find it icky. I'll stand by that statement. It's the same reason most people don't smoke cigarettes as well. And it's the same reason why most people who don't smoke cigarettes are fine with a ban. It's icky, it smells bad. The statistics are just as you said, "justifications," not actual reasons people use.

Yep, and the right not to be killed is one as well.

Well you know, now we're back to automobiles. They kill via accidents, and by air pollution. Don't I have a right not to be killed? Is that not justification for a ban on cars?

Oh wait... you say "cars have a use." Therefore, I have a right not to be killed... unless the murder weapon "has a use."

Kind of a tricky moralism you weave there.

Ectect so now im a raging alcoholic but i never get drunk
THANKYOU ireland :)

You're welcome :fluffle:

On Topic: A total ban is impractical and illogical. How would you enforce it?

A ban in places of work would suffice.

I agree with these things, but I don't think smoking is comparible because it serves no purpose. It is dangerous to other people for no other reason than the fact the smoker is addicted. To compare it to driving you would have to compare it to someone who enjoyed running down people for his own thrills - and that certainly is banned.
You left out caffeine. What purpose does caffeine serve?

Oh, boo hoo. Health care costs money. Banning cigarettes won't stop that. You really want to lower costs, privatize the health system.
Says the man from the country that has a government spending more on health care than any other nation in the world...WAY TO CUT COSTS, GUYS!

In addition to this, if 50% of people engaged in these activities are dying as a result of it then yes, it probably should be banned.

You make it sound like smoking will kill you straight there and then. If skydiving took a couple years off my life but I enjoyed it like hell, then I think thats fine. Same goes with smoking. As for secound hand smoke, the human lungs are pretty capable of recovering from smoke. Unless you spend a lot of your time with smokers theres really very little risk.

You left out caffeine. What purpose does caffeine serve?

Caffeine helps keep people awake, which makes them better workers.

Actually, cigarettes do the exact same thing. But in addition to that they relieve stress, while caffeine just causes it.

You left out caffeine. What purpose does caffeine serve?

1. Get rid of headaches

2. Keep me awake

3. Give me energy (no matter how much it drops me afterwards)

4. To make you a little loopy (if I didn't have crazy moments to release my inner insanity, I would go completely insane:sniper: )

Caffeine helps keep people awake, which makes them better workers.

Actually, cigarettes do the exact same thing. But in addition to that they relieve stress, while caffeine just causes it.
That's my point exactly...they can both be said to serve some sort of purpose, abuse of either is unhealthy, yet he was only talking about banning one, because it 'served no purpose'. But if it's purpose is about equal to that of drinking caffeine...then that particular argument can go ahead and get back in its grave. It's beginning to decompose.

1. Get rid of headaches

2. Keep me awake

3. Give me energy (no matter how much it drops me afterwards)

4. To make you a little loopy (if I didn't have crazy moments to release my inner insanity, I would go completely insane:sniper: )

So does Ecstacy! :p

The truth? "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Your statistics don't even have a source, and even if they did, I can find statistics that oppose you statistics. Statistical arguments mean very little.




Well they can But not many people here would understand if we start doing VAL p-Val Comparisons

Or even Durban Watson to an extent.

Well, a total ban is a bit drastic, but it definitely would be nice to go out a night without having to change clothes the next day because of the smoke.
Urg, that stuff reeks

So does Ecstacy! :p

Except Mormons can't do that stuff.

Caffine is the only way we get any sort of drug usage. It's the "Mormon Alcohol".:D :p

Well, a total ban is a bit drastic, but it definitely would be nice to go out a night without having to change clothes the next day because of the smoke.
Urg, that stuff reeks

So you're saying you got out to bars and whatnot for a night of drinking and dancing and sweating and god knows what else... but you only change your clothes the next day because of the smoke?

Jesus.

Says the man from the country that has a government spending more on health care than any other nation in the world...WAY TO CUT COSTS, GUYS!

Yeah I know. Unfortunately, cost-cutting is not really on either the Democrats or Republicans agendas, and we're stuck with those two socialist-lite parties because of our lovely system.

At least until we wise up and elect me as Supreme Dictator for Life.

Except Mormons can't do that stuff.

Caffine is the only way we get any sort of drug usage. It's the "Mormon Alcohol".:D :p
Really I had a friend that converted to mormon and she had to give up caffine too (I remember cause she was pissed when she accidentaly bought a rootbeer that had some in it)

Edit

At least until we wise up and elect me as Supreme Dictator for Life.
You can supremely dictator me if you want.

At least until we wise up and elect me as Supreme Dictator for Life.

When will you run?

You'll get my vote (even though we probably disagree on everything):D

Interesting you didn't quote the second part of my statement. I think that answers the question.
No it doesnt. Who sets the fatality rate of smoking? Even in the most radical statisitcs i read no one claimed 50%. It is a ridiculous number. But here is an even worse, 100% of all non-smokers die! Horrible, eh?

Well, would skating be forbidden if only 49.89% of skaters died from their habit?

Really I had a friend that converted to mormon and she had to give up caffine too (I remember cause she was pissed when she bought a rootbeer that accidentaly had some in it)

No, we really don't have to give up caffine. Just Coffee and Tea, which are both high in caffine. Pop doesn't count. Niether does chocolate. Your friend needs to lighten up a little.;)

No, we really don't have to give up caffine. Just Coffee and Tea, which are both high in caffine. Pop doesn't count. Niether does chocolate. Your friend needs to lighten up a little.;)
Hmmm interesting

(and you don't consider some soda high in caffeine? I mean some get right around what coffee is and a lot break the “average” in tea)

The truth? "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Your statistics don't even have a source, and even if they did, I can find statistics that oppose you statistics. Statistical arguments mean very little.
Especially considering that 73.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Hmmm interesting

(and you don't consider some soda high in caffeine? I mean some get right around what coffee is and a lot break the “average” in tea)

Caffine has never been expressly forbidden. Our scriptures DO state that we are not allowed to drink coffee or tea. We don't know why necessarily. We didn't understand no smoking either until the past 20 years. Now we know why. I expect we'll find out someday the reasoning behind no coffee or tea.

I don't think I'd like to ban smoking outright. However, I might want to impose strict regulations. Maybe copious smoking in a house that has a young child is grounds for removing that child from the house for their own safety. Or that public healthcare could be conditional on cutting down on smoking significantly. Or maybe that a smoker can only recieve free healthcare for smoking related diseases once before they are required to quit smoking. I'd probably extend this to alcohol as well.

To this end I'd probably legalise most, if not all, recreational drugs and impose the same regulations on them. I'd also regulate the additives that may be added to such products.

I think that seems fairly reasonable.

Smoking cigars and pipes should be encouraged, but cigarettes are filthy.

Well, as long as there is an exception for native people:)

No, a total ban is silly.

Partial bans are just fine. We're winning...why enrage the addicts further?:fluffle:

A total ban is silly period. Why do I care if someone else wants to smoke? Or dip their hands in boiling oil for that matter?

I do think we should pass a law that all tobacco sold has to be all-natural. I think it's ridiculous that tobacco companies don't have to put a warning that says - This product causes cancer because we made it that way.

Smoking cigars and pipes should be encouraged, but cigarettes are filthy.

Cigars are filthy. Well...they're all filthy, but Cigars top the list.

Not that I don't enjoy a good cigar. :)

didnt they try this with booze once?

bad idea. really bad.

Yeah. If people ever want to see the crime rate jump about 27,000% in one week, all they have to do is make cigarettes illegal.

As Dennis Leary said, "They're a drug...we're addicted. We'll break into your houses to get the fucking cigarettes, OK?"

I see tobacco as a great hypocrisy. It only is legal because there are so many smokers.
Smoking is far more harmful than a lot of other drugs, but you cant go down to the local gas station or 7-11 and pick up some laudanum.

We should no longer be so blatantly hypocritical – if we have a total ban on marijuana then we should have a total ban on tobacco. Until it is perfectly legal for me to go down to the quickemart and pick up some cocaine, it shouldn’t be legal for tobacco either. Likewise, if you want to keep tobacco legal, then marijuana should be just as legal.

As far as the statement that “we didn’t know smoking was harmful until 20 years ago”, that is total bullshit. Early cigarets were often referred to as coffin nails in the 17th century. Anyone who doesn’t think that smoking causes major health problems is either a complete moron or willfully ignorant. Of course a lot of smokers want to believe that it isn’t harmful, but that doesn’t make it true. Trying to say (as your dealer tells you so it must be true) that ecstasy is perfectly safe and it’s just a government conspiracy trying to keep kids from having fun is a laughable position. As such, if someone chooses to smoke (or inject heroin, or snort cocaine, or any other demonstrably harmful activity), smoking related health problems should not be paid for with government funds.

One very unfortunate effect of smoking being banned in the office building in which I work is that there is a cluster of smokers standing right at the doorway, so whenever I come or go I have to walk through this cloud of smoke, which clings to my hair and clothing until I can get a change of clothes and a shower. It’s quite disgusting. I have no problem with your choice to smoke, but please have a little common courtesy. And while I'm on this little rant, it pisses me off to see piles of cigarette butts here and there, especially at stoplights, or in front of buildings, etc. The world is not your ashtray. And before someone goes off on me for just thinking smoking is icky (which it is a disgusting habit but that’s not the point) I get just as pissed off when someone dumps a McDonald’s bag of empty cheeseburger wrappers out their car window or people who spit their gum on the sidewalk. You can do anything you want, just exercise some common f-ing courtesy when you do it.

Let's see who stands where on this issue.

Nope, I don't believe there should be a ban on smoking, however, there should be a ban on people who would attempt to impose their own vision on others. Such people are absolutely no different than religious fanatics who would like nothing more than to dictate how others live life in their own image because they see it as the only way to live. Such people should dispatched in the most expedient manner avaliable, as they are clearly too stupid to realize that when you start screwing with someone elses personal freedoms, at some point your's will follow. Such individuals should never be allowed to reproduce at any cost.

Hitler tried to ban smoking. Do you want to be like Hitler?

Actually, cigarettes do the exact same thing. But in addition to that they relieve stress, while caffeine just causes it.Has nicotine been proven to relieve stress, or do smokers just think it does?

Has nicotine been proven to relieve stress, or do smokers just think it does?

I didn't say nicotine relieves stress, I said smoking does.

And if smokers "just think it does," then it does as far as I'm concerned.

Smoking in public places (ie gov't buildings and PUBLIC owned property) should be put to a vote at the least. I think privately owned businesses should be left alone to make their own policies.

I didn't say nicotine relieves stress, I said smoking does.

And if smokers "just think it does," then it does as far as I'm concerned.
Hey, if you can lower your blood pressure just thinking of a 'happy place', then believing something relieves stress is just as likely to work, no?

Personally, I feel smoking should be banned for these reasons.

Yes, you have a righ to smoke, but we don't have the right to be frced to smoke. Passive smoking causes too many deaths, and so does active smoking. My body, My choice.

Secondly, The enviroment. Yes I know it's the same old same old, but it really would help if you stopped. Not only would you stop killing everyone, you'd stop killing every living thing.

If you really want to smoke, thn I advice you have a look here (http://www.givingupsmoking.co.uk/).

The stink is unbearable. Who wants to go out walking in such foul air?

And last, but not least, do you even know what they can do to your body, cancer, heart disease, clogged arteries, shall I continue?

Just please stop now. There's gum, there's patches, there's tons of stuff you can use to wean yourself off them. Smoking is just as bad as doing drugs.

The truth? "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Your statistics don't even have a source, and even if they did, I can find statistics that oppose you statistics. Statistical arguments mean very little.

I'd like to see those statistics. (EDIT: The ones opposing those statistics) I'm curious.

I'd like to see those statistics. (EDIT: The ones opposing those statistics) I'm curious.

I can't be bothered, to be honest. After a while you find there's a statistic for pretty much any viewpoint.


Yes, you have a righ to smoke, but we don't have the right to be frced to smoke. Passive smoking causes too many deaths, and so does active smoking. My body, My choice.

No one forces you to smoke.

Passive smoking studies are done on people who live in close proximity to smokers for long periods of time in enclosed areas. It doesn't apply to smoking in public, for example.

Secondly, The enviroment. Yes I know it's the same old same old, but it really would help if you stopped. Not only would you stop killing everyone, you'd stop killing every living thing.

It would help if you turned your computer off, right now.

Every minute you spend typing here, you're using electricity that is killing the environment. You're killing everyone and every living thing, you murderer, so you better not reply!


The stink is unbearable. Who wants to go out walking in such foul air?

I rather enjoy the smell. To each his own.

And last, but not least, do you even know what they can do to your body, cancer, heart disease, clogged arteries, shall I continue?

Do tell. Cuz I don't have cancer or heart disease, and if I have clogged arteries it might be due to the fact that I had 40 chicken McNuggets last night.

Just please stop now. There's gum, there's patches, there's tons of stuff you can use to wean yourself off them. Smoking is just as bad as doing drugs.

Doing DRUGS? Holy shit. Well, if thats how bad smoking is... then it should be legal. Same with all drugs.

And anyone can quit smoking just by stopping. If they want to.

Hey, if you can lower your blood pressure just thinking of a 'happy place', then believing something relieves stress is just as likely to work, no?

Yes indeed. And there's a reason perhaps why tobacco was smoked in peace pipes... the experience is relaxing.

It's quite different from all the assholes on the road who cut me off after they've consumed a double mocha frappa cappa cino latte or whatever for breakfast. Caffeine makes people twitchy and irritable, and its really sad how people can go on about what "drug users" smokers are while they guzzle down their methamphetamine-lite every day like a junkie.

Yes indeed. And there's a reason perhaps why tobacco was smoked in peace pipes... the experience is relaxing. Actually no, that's not the reason, but I won't get into the sacred significance of tobacco in this particular thread:)

I didn't say nicotine relieves stress, I said smoking does.

And if smokers "just think it does," then it does as far as I'm concerned.So then a caffeine user "just thought" that caffeine relieved stress, then caffeine could be said be said to relieve stress, too?

Personally, I feel smoking should be banned for these reasons.

Yes, you have a righ to smoke, but we don't have the right to be frced to smoke. Passive smoking causes too many deaths, and so does active smoking. My body, My choice.

Secondly, The enviroment. Yes I know it's the same old same old, but it really would help if you stopped. Not only would you stop killing everyone, you'd stop killing every living thing.

If you really want to smoke, thn I advice you have a look here (http://www.givingupsmoking.co.uk/).

The stink is unbearable. Who wants to go out walking in such foul air?

And last, but not least, do you even know what they can do to your body, cancer, heart disease, clogged arteries, shall I continue?

Just please stop now. There's gum, there's patches, there's tons of stuff you can use to wean yourself off them. Smoking is just as bad as doing drugs.

Why don't we just ban cars too then?
-Passive inhaling of fumes causes even more deaths
-They are bad for the environment
-They cause far more deaths than smoking does
-They stink too
-They cause the same diseases smoking does

So then a caffeine user "just thought" that caffeine relieved stress, then caffeine could be said be said to relieve stress, too?

Find me a caffeine user who really thinks that, though.

Find me a caffeine user who really thinks that, though.

I do. And it does. Caffeine has a different effect on people who have ADHD.

I do. And it does. Caffeine has a different effect on people who have ADHD.
Like Ritalin has on people who don't?

Actually no, that's not the reason, but I won't get into the sacred significance of tobacco in this particular thread:)

Aw, why not? It's the perfect thread for it.

I mean a complete ban on smoking would prevent any ceremonies or rituals that involve smoking tobacco, too... it might be relevant.

Like Ritalin has on people who don't?

Pardon? Stress aggravates my condition. I know ADHD and ADD are over-diagnosed, but I reached a point where I couldn't read a whole paragraph it was describing your naked body. Caffeine made it easier to remain calm and focused and thus reduced my stress. I'm sure you can imagine how stressful not being able to read might be for me and the more stressful it got the more I couldn't read. Caffeine at least made me functional.

Why don't we just ban cars too then?
-Passive inhaling of fumes causes even more deaths
-They are bad for the environment
-They cause far more deaths than smoking does
-They stink too
-They cause the same diseases smoking does
It's too unpopular.
If the alternative fuels that aren't bad for the environment and didn't have such bad fumes where able to replace the others fossil fuel powered cars would be banned.

Aw, why not? It's the perfect thread for it.

I mean a complete ban on smoking would prevent any ceremonies or rituals that involve smoking tobacco, too... it might be relevant.
Tobacco is often offered to people in exchange for something, especially for stories. It is a sign of respect, and reciprocity. It is also considered to be powerful medicine for many ailments, as well as being a sort of stimulant when food was scarce and energy needed for hunting. The smoke from tobacco carries our words to Mâmawi Ohtâwîmâw (the Creator). Agreements are made in the presence of tobacco in order to make them binding. We are always taught that there are consequences for abusing tobacco, though we don't necessarily listen. Banning it would be banning a very important part of our culture and spirituality.

Why don't we just ban cars too then?
-Passive inhaling of fumes causes even more deaths
-They are bad for the environment
-They cause far more deaths than smoking does
-They stink too
-They cause the same diseases smoking does<shrug> When I gave my opinion, I stated that there should be some form of rehab available to smokers, so banning cars would be fine as long as public transit was significantly increased.

Tobacco is often offered to people in exchange for something, especially for stories. It is a sign of respect, and reciprocity. It is also considered to be powerful medicine for many ailments, as well as being a sort of stimulant when food was scarce and energy needed for hunting. The smoke from tobacco carries our words to Mâmawi Ohtâwîmâw (the Creator). Agreements are made in the presence of tobacco in order to make them binding. We are always taught that there are consequences for abusing tobacco, though we don't necessarily listen. Banning it would be banning a very important part of our culture and spirituality.

Thank you for posting that. Very interesting.

Pardon? Stress aggravates my condition. I know ADHD and ADD are over-diagnosed, but I reached a point where I couldn't read a whole paragraph it was describing your naked body. Caffeine made it easier to remain calm and focused and thus reduced my stress. I'm sure you can imagine how stressful not being able to read might be for me and the more stressful it got the more I couldn't read. Caffeine at least made me functional.
You misunderstand. Ritalin, for people who do not have ADHD, acts as a stimulant. For people WITH ADHD, it calms them. For you, caffeine acts as a calmant, while for people without ADHD, it is a stimulant. I was just pointing out that the reaction you have to it might actually be the opposite reaction that most people have, just as Ritalin has the opposite affect on people without ADHD.

You misunderstand. Ritalin, for people who do not have ADHD, acts as a stimulant. For people WITH ADHD, it calms them. For you, caffeine acts as a calmant, while for people without ADHD, it is a stimulant. I was just pointing out that the reaction you have to it might actually be the opposite reaction that most people have, just as Ritalin has the opposite affect on people without ADHD.

That's why I said, pardon? I wasn't sure if you were saying exactly that or implying something else, so I asked what you meant and then explained in case I was wrong in my guess of what you meant.

The first medication I was put on had severe side-effects including the relaxation of my urinary tract (meaning I felt like I had to pee all the time and when I did pee, it basically just dribbled out. This effect was had on all bodily fluids, if you follow), hyperreflexivity, an inability to stay asleep for periods of longer than an hour and a few others. However, the drug made me feel sooooooo much better that I actually considered simply continuing on the drug WITH the side-effects.

Let's see who stands where on this issue.
I don't smoke and I do not support a total ban on smoking. I only support smoking bans that apply to indoor public spaces and indoor workplaces.

Tobacco is often offered to people in exchange for something, especially for stories. It is a sign of respect, and reciprocity. It is also considered to be powerful medicine for many ailments, as well as being a sort of stimulant when food was scarce and energy needed for hunting. The smoke from tobacco carries our words to Mâmawi Ohtâwîmâw (the Creator). Agreements are made in the presence of tobacco in order to make them binding. We are always taught that there are consequences for abusing tobacco, though we don't necessarily listen. Banning it would be banning a very important part of our culture and spirituality.

Hmm... very interesting.

I think tobacco gets a bum rap because of the additives certain companies put in cigarettes. Then people treat all cigarettes as "tobacco" and any effect from their use is ascribed to "tobacco."

It'd be kind of like using polluted water to make judgements about the diseases caused by drinking "water."

Maybe there should be a total ban on smoking, or maybe not. But the stressrelieving thingies inside a cigarrete should be removed or lessened I think. So that people keep their ability to stop smoking and can keep smoking without getting addicted. (atleast, if that is possible in regards of keeping it stress-relieving without addicting chems)

Sure, I would be all for it - but I don't think that such a thing would be realizable, there are far too much tabac junkies (i.e. smokers) who would scream loudly there if they can't get their drug anymore.
What about when I want to smoke a joint? I wouldn't be able to use the guise of smoking tobacco!

Ah, but partial bans lead to total bans.
No they don't. Many places in Europe have had such bans for years, with no moves for further restriction.

Statistics are lies
They're the most reliable way of collecting information. I prefer them to anecdotal evidence.

The truth? "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Mark Twain's opinion is not the basis for a 'factual' argument.

Caffeine helps keep people awake, which makes them better workers.
Not really. Nobody needs caffeine to be a good worker if they get enough sleep and eat a healthy diet. But this is threadjacking.

Hitler tried to ban smoking. Do you want to be like Hitler?
Stop building roads! Hitler built roads! Do you want to be like Hitler?

Nope, I don't believe there should be a ban on smoking, however, there should be a ban on people who would attempt to impose their own vision on others. Such people are absolutely no different than religious fanatics who would like nothing more than to dictate how others live life in their own image because they see it as the only way to live. Such people should dispatched in the most expedient manner avaliable, as they are clearly too stupid to realize that when you start screwing with someone elses personal freedoms, at some point your's will follow. Such individuals should never be allowed to reproduce at any cost.
Was this post made in seriousness? I am also against banning smoking, but you proposals violate the rights to free speech, the right to live and the right to reproduce.

(And as for religious fanatics, don't you also oppose the gay rights and abortion rights movements?)

It's quite different from all the assholes on the road who cut me off after they've consumed a double mocha frappa cappa cino latte or whatever for breakfast. Caffeine makes people twitchy and irritable, and its really sad how people can go on about what "drug users" smokers are while they guzzle down their methamphetamine-lite every day like a junkie.
Well said! :D

No they don't. Many places in Europe have had such bans for years, with no moves for further restriction.

...yet. But I can't predict the future, I admit. Maybe Europe will surprise me, but the US won't.

They're the most reliable way of collecting information. I prefer them to anecdotal evidence.


Mark Twain's opinion is not the basis for a 'factual' argument.


Eh, well. Do you think a statistic with no source given is reliable? Yeah, neither do I. :p

And it's not just Mark Twain's opinion, it's mine too. And come to think of it, all of this is really based in opinion - *should* we ban smoking.

Eh, well. Do you think a statistic with no source given is reliable? Yeah, neither do I. :p
The statistics came from http://www.ash.org.uk/

I'm afraid there is no direct linking so you'll have to find the appropriate pages yourself.

NB: All the stats are found on the ASH website.

You need to add several things to that list.
- It costs a fortune in health care costs, whether financial or in terms of the time of health care officials.

Smokers pay excess tax on their cigarettes, which is a huge source of income for the government and helps prop the NHS up. Also, factor in the reduced amount of social security (pension etc) smokers recieve for dying a lot earlier then smoking saves the government money. As Sir Humprey says, "Smokers are national benefactors, sacrificing themselves for the good of the country."

- Hundreds of thousands die every year as a direct result of smoking.

Really, ASH claims that 120,000 people a year over 35 die from smoking. Even if you include under 35s it is doubtful that you will get over 200,000 (which would allow for the most conservative use of "hundred of thousands".

- Half of smokers will be killed by the habit.

So? Smokers know this.

- Smoking causes about 30% of cancer deaths.

153,397/30,600 =/= c30%

(can someone check this though, I've never been particuarly good at maths. Also the number of cancer deaths is from Cancer Research UK)

- Smoking has been linked to an increase in mental illness including stress, depression, Schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia, Parkinson’s Disease

I am really having a hard time finding back up for this. Can you at least point in the right direction rather thn just giving a homepage.

- Domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older.

Proof, I'm tired of trawling this website.


(btw, I'm an ex-smoker)

The statistics came from http://www.ash.org.uk/

I'm afraid there is no direct linking so you'll have to find the appropriate pages yourself.

The reports and statistic can be directly linked to since they are not hosted by ASH.

eg. http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/07/99/80/04079980.pdf

A government report that is linked from the Ash website (follow the "Stats, Facts and Pics link)

Ah, but partial bans lead to total bans. And why care about the "addicts?" They're a minority and can do no damage to anyone politically or otherwise.

When people want to ban smoking because it's "icky" and they "don't get why anyone would smoke," well, a total ban is the natural outcome of that thought process. And make no mistake, those are actual reasons people want to ban smoking.
Destroy all tobacco plants. Now!!

Then I have to quit!! :D

Really, ASH claims that 120,000 people a year over 35 die from smoking. Even if you include under 35s it is doubtful that you will get over 200,000 (which would allow for the most conservative use of "hundred of thousands".
Ah, but that's only the UK. If it's that many in one country, it is not hard to see it will be many thousands worldwide.

I am really having a hard time finding back up for this. Can you at least point in the right direction rather thn just giving a homepage.
Homepage > Facts, stats & pics > Facts and statistics > Smoking and Mental Health

Banned everwhere. but the banning process should be gradual, so there is not that many complaints.

Ah, but that's only the UK. If it's that many in one country, it is not hard to see it will be many thousands worldwide.

Not really that much when you consider that the world's population is over 6 Billion.

And I think that on an international scale there are more important things to worry about, that kill far more people than cigarettes. Such as Malaria, to give one of many examples.

If you meant it on an international scale why didn't you say. Or are you just shifting the goal posts?

If you meant it on an international scale why didn't you say. Or are you just shifting the goal posts?
No...I didn't realise it was necessary. I thought it was clear where I was confining the statistics to the UK.

Banned everwhere. but the banning process should be gradual, so there is not that many complaints.

Thank you for posting that. You've demonstrated just how there IS a slippery slope, and how limiting smoking is seen by people like you as a tactic, a stepping-stone toward banning smoking entirely.

The reports and statistic can be directly linked to since they are not hosted by ASH.

eg. http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/07/99/80/04079980.pdf

A government report that is linked from the Ash website (follow the "Stats, Facts and Pics link)
I like this part under technical (under the listing of possible diseases) page 22

There is evidence that the “diseases caused in part by smoking” can be caused by smoking. But since
other factors can also cause them, not all deaths from these diseases are caused by smoking.


So they just blindly attribute all the death stats used in the study for any of those diseases to smoking

What reckless horrible statisticians they are

And if they did not do that they hardly stated their predicted percentage or correlation between smoking (with associated tests such as VAL p-val and such)

At least a bad report

I like this part under technical (under the listing of possible diseases) page 22



So they just blindly attribute all the death stats used in the study for any of those diseases to smoking

What reckless horrible statisticians they are


At least a bad report

Just to clear this up. It is not a matter of horrible statistics. It is an intentional tool by law, (for the social good) that doctors list conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause of death, as the actual cause of death. (UK)

In other words: If John Doe died of cerebral toxoplasmosis, as a consequence of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, as a consequence of, human immunodeficiency virus infection. The doctor may list the cause of death as intravenous drug abuse if that is the social ill of the day.

Same goes for smoking. If you die of a heart attack or lung cancer, smoking is the automatic cause of death if they want it to be. Makes the stats look any way you like. Damn the facts, think of the children!

Note: This practice is not legal in the United States.

Just to clear this up. It is not a matter of horrible statistics.
Snip the stuff I agree with
I did not say it was the STATS fault ... rather the Statisticians :)

...yet. But I can't predict the future, I admit. Maybe Europe will surprise me, but the US won't.
If you're going to say that everything goes to extremes in America, then you're wrong on that too.

Eh, well. Do you think a statistic with no source given is reliable? Yeah, neither do I.
Hell no! But stats with source and good collecting method are reliable. They are not lies as you assert.

And it's not just Mark Twain's opinion, it's mine too. And come to think of it, all of this is really based in opinion - *should* we ban smoking.
I wasn't talking about his issue. I was just disagreeing with your "all statistics are lies" statement. In Mark Twain's day that was probably more true than now anyway. We now have improved statistical methods, and laws that regulate bullshit 'statistics'.

Thank you for posting that. You've demonstrated just how there IS a slippery slope, and how limiting smoking is seen by people like you as a tactic, a stepping-stone toward banning smoking entirely.
All Swilatia has demonstrated is that partial smoking bans are a means to a total ban in the mind of Swilatia. Not everyone.

I wasn't talking about his issue. I was just disagreeing with your "all statistics are lies" statement. In Mark Twain's day that was probably more true than now anyway. We now have improved statistical methods, and laws that regulate bullshit 'statistics'.

Too bad they have not shown any of thoes "statistical methods" in any of the data I have read so far

Hell they have not shown some of the tried an true standards... or at least not shown they used them.

Personaly I have seen to many good regressions go bad to trust any source impicitly.

Hell no! But stats with source and good collecting method are reliable. They are not lies as you assert.

Ah but they are. A statistic for example, that's generated from polling 800 people is OFTEN used in the media and in politics to extrapolate what the opinion of 300,000,000 people are. And in internet debates too.

Perhaps the statistic itself is not a lie, but it is used by liars in a way that I describe as lying.


I wasn't talking about his issue. I was just disagreeing with your "all statistics are lies" statement. In Mark Twain's day that was probably more true than now anyway. We now have improved statistical methods, and laws that regulate bullshit 'statistics'.

What laws are those?

All Swilatia has demonstrated is that partial smoking bans are a means to a total ban in the mind of Swilatia. Not everyone.

Yeah, but Swilatia is one of the people who wants to ban smoking. Is Swilatia really so unique that no one else lobbying to ban smoking has considered this tactic?

Ah but they are. A statistic for example, that's generated from polling 800 people is OFTEN used in the media and in politics to extrapolate what the opinion of 300,000,000 people are. And in internet debates too.



Well 800 is on the LOW but resonable side for a survey

With only 300,000,000 people I would go a bit higher maybe 1200

We should only ban things that hurt others, so a ban on smoking in public is fine, and a ban on pregnant women smoking too. unless they are getting abortions anyway. But a total ban would be stupid. you cant go round banning everything that is unhealthy, people hae the right to choose what they do to themselves. Besides its fun and makes people look cool.

Well 800 is on the LOW but resonable side for a survey

With only 300,000,000 people I would go a bit higher maybe 1200

Let me ask you this: If I ask 12 people if they think I'm sexy (and of course they do), is it safe to say that 3,000,000 people must think I'm sexy too?

Let me ask you this: If I ask 12 people if they think I'm sexy (and of course they do), is it safe to say that 3,000,000 people must think I'm sexy too?


No

As the projected population is smaller the sample has to get bigger
12 is not enough to predict 3,000,000 population you need a larger sample size

But lets say you had a sufficient sample size (going through depending on the method 3,000,000 population needs about 5k sample size)

and they were statistically RANDOM and fairly selected then yes it would predict that on average (not for an individual) you would be found sexy more often then not by the population in question

The CHANSE that an individual finds you sexy or not is based on the variation of the line rather then the average.

Edit: you asking them would not be considered a random sampling

and they were statistically RANDOM and fairly selected then yes it would predict that on average (not for an individual) you would be found sexy more often then not by the population in question

It would predict, but then aren't statistics supposed to be facts? Not predictions. Anyone can predict. I predict most statistics are bullshit. :p

The CHANSE that an individual finds you sexy or not is based on the variation of the line rather then the average.

Edit: you asking them would not be considered a random sampling

Why is it my asking them wouldn't be considered random, but Newsweek or Time magazine would be?

It would predict, but then aren't statistics supposed to be facts? Not predictions. Anyone can predict. I predict most statistics are bullshit. :p


No that line of statistics is called regression
Used by actuares our us networking geeks often

Stats are numbers generated from data thats it ... including trend prediction

You are thinking of DISCRIPTIVE statistics
There is a difference


Why is it my asking them wouldn't be considered random, but Newsweek or Time magazine would be?

Because physically talking to someone is not random
It has influence
The type of people you talk to
Your location
Your time

all thoes make it NOT random

THEY use a random number generator (psudo-random but enough that it does not exceed 5% apha) to randomly dial numbers

So an individual has no influence over who is called

(well in theory there is still some bias (such as who has phones or if there is a bias in calling or answering times) but we are shooting for a total survey error of 5% in more cases that is a great study)

Edit going to pull out my books later for the 6 or 7 different ways to get sample sizes

No

As the projected population is smaller the sample has to get bigger
12 is not enough to predict 3,000,000 population you need a larger sample size

But lets say you had a sufficient sample size (going through depending on the method 3,000,000 population needs about 5k sample size)



Well 800 is on the LOW but resonable side for a survey

With only 300,000,000 people I would go a bit higher maybe 1200

Could you explain how it takes a sample of 5k people to give an accurate picture of the opinion of 3m, but it only takes 1200 to illustrate the opinion of 300m? I must be missing something.

I don't think it's necessary; if anything, banning smoking entirely would make the problem worse. Keeping it and its health detriments visible have been enough to pretty much put the habit in to permanent decline in the developed world anyway.

Could you explain how it takes a sample of 5k people to give an accurate picture of the opinion of 3m, but it only takes 1200 to illustrate the opinion of 300m? I must be missing something.
Ill pull out my books later for the formula's (I am still at work and my stats books are at home and I got to run REAL quick)

The theory is because at a certain point you have an increase in variation (each outlier holds a higher leverage value) so with a smaller population you have a lot more people carrying more weight for the slope of the line

That needs to be better accounted for

Such things are smoothed out the bigger the applied population

Of course there is a low and a high point

Same idea applies to adding predictors to a regression


But like I said there are a bunch of ways to determine it and I need my notes lol we are only doing time series regression for my masters now

Yes. I support a ban on tobacco identical to the ban on marijuana.

Yes. I support a ban on tobacco identical to the ban on marijuana.

Because no one's smoked marijuana since 1937...

I know that by banning it, it won't be completly eradicated from the population. However, I do know that at least teens my age would quit whipping one out and smoking it in broad daylight.

Because no one's smoked marijuana since 1937...

Not legally they haven't. I'm spiteful.

Not legally they haven't. I'm spiteful.

That's like, so uncool, maaaan.

That's like, so uncool, maaaan.

Well if I can't smoke a joint in public legally, then you don't get to enjoy your poison of choice either. Like I said, spiteful.

Well if I can't smoke a joint in public legally, then you don't get to enjoy your poison of choice either. Like I said, spiteful.

Let's compromise. We'll keep cigarettes legal, and make marijuana legal too.

Let's compromise. We'll keep cigarettes legal, and make marijuana legal too.

I know you support the legalization of marijuana, but a lot of people aren't that enlightened. If there's any propaganda that's worse than the anti-tobacco propaganda, it's the anti-marijuana stuff. I'd like to see all the tobacco-smoking anti-weed types have their deathsticks revoked so they can see what it's like to have the government decide what's best for them.

Did I mention that I'm really spiteful? :D

I know that by banning it, it won't be completly eradicated from the population. However, I do know that at least teens my age would quit whipping one out and smoking it in broad daylight.

That they would. And long for the day they could become rich and influential like Al Capone or Joe Kennedy. "What do you want to be when you grow up jonny?" , "I want to be a tobacco runner dad. I already hate them damn revenuers!"

I wonder how many will die through the violence associated with obtaining, distributing and confiscating it?

I know you support the legalization of marijuana, but a lot of people aren't that enlightened. If there's any propaganda that's worse than the anti-tobacco propaganda, it's the anti-marijuana stuff. I'd like to see all the tobacco-smoking anti-weed types have their deathsticks revoked so they can see what it's like to have the government decide what's best for them.

Did I mention that I'm really spiteful? :D

You mentioned it, but up til now I really had no idea about the depths and immensity of your spite. :eek: :D

You mentioned it, but up til now I really had no idea about the depths and immensity of your spite. :eek: :D

Damn right. So, until I don't have to hide in my room to smoke my pot, put out your butts.

Damn right. So, until I don't have to hide in my room to smoke my pot, put out your butts.
:upyours: kidding

:upyours: kidding

Deal with it. Why can't I smoke pot legally but you can smoke an equally dangerous poisonous substance?

:upyours: kidding

Should've read the white text. :p

:upyours: kidding

Should've read the white text. :p

Bah. White text, my archnemesis.

My point still stands though, yes?

Yup, but I don't have any problems. In Holland I can do both. :p

Yes. I support a ban on tobacco identical to the ban on marijuana.
Yeah lets make them the same ... both legal much better then letting them be different