New York Bans Smoking Outdoors

[ManxTaxPayer]

In this case to improve the health of the cities population, which so far has turned out to be effective.

Indeed. according to the same article 350,000 fewer smokers during Bloomberg's time. A great result. In my opinion.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

[/size][/font]It gets tedious because your boundaries of normality are so much different from everyone else. I'm not interested in a political or idealogical debate, I'm just attempting to show what I've read about the reasons behind the health initiatives in New York. You don't think anyone should be told what to do. A cigarette ban is really the least of your worries in this regard surely?

 

I am surprised that someone who shows some intelligence in other posts (in other threads) is still incapable of recognising what is political. And also who seems to think that I am talking up irrelevant arguments.

 

All opinions on this matter are political Slim. And although you profess to not be interested by it, it would be assumed that your reference to the success of such schemes in reducing smoking is explained in justification of them.

 

There is no need to discuss whether the State ought to exist and the justification for its authority in talking about this. All that is needed is to know what justification it has for this policy. If it is poor because it is simply based on reducing smoking, partly based on removing the sight of other people smoking so that they will not have awful ideas put in their tender minds, then it shouldn't exist. As most people have a concern for their freedoms, this would not be a just law. In the grand scheme of things, the law wouldn't be such a big thing. But then, why is there a thread on it?

[ManxTaxPayer]

Lol @ Grant Wankshaft's* pseudo-intellectual bollocks.......... ; ))

 

 

* That's LDV by the way...........: ))

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Hmm, I suspect by use of the word pseudo-intellectual you mean you don't understand what I have posted?

[ManxTaxPayer]

I rarely do. You post beyond your abilities and your poor grasp of English renders your contributions nonsensical a lot of the time.

[Slim]

I am surprised that someone who shows some intelligence in other posts (in other threads) is still incapable of recognising what is political. And also who seems to think that I am talking up irrelevant arguments.

 

All opinions on this matter are political Slim. And although you profess to not be interested by it, it would be assumed that your reference to the success of such schemes in reducing smoking is explained in justification of them.

 

There is no need to discuss whether the State ought to exist and the justification for its authority in talking about this. All that is needed is to know what justification it has for this policy. If it is poor because it is simply based on reducing smoking, partly based on removing the sight of other people smoking so that they will not have awful ideas put in their tender minds, then it shouldn't exist. As most people have a concern for their freedoms, this would not be a just law. In the grand scheme of things, the law wouldn't be such a big thing. But then, why is there a thread on it?

 

See?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What do you expect, you make a dumb argument, I reply, and then you imply that my posts are irrelevant and the topic not political.

 

I rarely do. You post beyond your abilities and your poor grasp of English renders your contributions nonsensical a lot of the time.

To make you understand? Most likely, if you think they are pseudo-intellectual.

[ManxTaxPayer]

I rarely do. You post beyond your abilities and your poor grasp of English renders your contributions nonsensical a lot of the time.

To make you understand? Most likely, if you think they are pseudo-intellectual.

Ok, here's a couple of recent examples.

 

You'd do better to give actually put some effort, as you have with previous drugs debate

Besides, I think it's fair to say that do not run any simply comparatives in justifying your position.

What the fuck are you on about here? I mean, it's like English. Only different. I challenge anyone to decipher this bollocks. You may be quite clever. (But I doubt it) You may even have quite good points to make. But even if so, you lack the ability to convey them.

[Slim]

What do you expect, you make a dumb argument, I reply, and then you imply that my posts are irrelevant and the topic not political.

 

Are you talking to me? What have I argued?

 

 

You seem to want to drag this onto the ethics of the laws. I'm fine with that, but only if we can keep the scope to within what most governments are already doing. You start off with a baseline that this stuffs already wrong, making any further debate over details like this pointless to me. Sorry.

 

 

 

[Evil Goblin]

According to the studies, smoking in these public places does cause harm to others even if it's just to influence their behavour, but this is about the health of the smoker also.

What studies and how reliable are the statistics which emerged from them -lies, damned lies, etc. Who conducted these studies and who financed them? How were they conducted - which segment of the population was targeted? Without all this information the figures are meaningless. I guess the answer will be the health mafia or people/organisations in thrall to them - plus the usual load of busybodies who are never happy unless they are buggering people's lives up. As for banning things because they might influence the behaviour of others, this really opens the doors to the Thought Police and the brainwashing of populations by the power groups of the day. As for the health of smokers - as with health generally the proper responsibility of the State/Health professionals is to make the facts known and leave the decisions up to the individuals concerned.

 

nekkid, etc. This isn't just about passive smoke.

It took me a minute before I realised you can't spell. You are right on one thing - it isn't just about smoking, it's about the creeping domination of people's lives by authoritarian special interest groups and inveterate meddlers, happily acquiesced in by dimwits such as you, it seems.

[Evil Goblin]

What article?

Ben Varrey - you have to realise that with MTP's rather limited abilities at comprehension you need to spell out in words of one syllable (or as near as possible thereoto) your exact question. i.e. "Please supply the links on Google to articles which you claim support your view".

[Evil Goblin]

In this case to improve the health of the cities population, which so far has turned out to be effective.

Indeed. according to the same article 350,000 fewer smokers during Bloomberg's time. A great result. In my opinion.

See my response to Slim on the subject of studies and statistics. As for your opinion - without the back-up details of studies, etc. it is truly worthless.

[Evil Goblin]

I am surprised that someone who shows some intelligence in other posts (in other threads) is still incapable of recognising what is political. And also who seems to think that I am talking up irrelevant arguments.

 

All opinions on this matter are political Slim. And although you profess to not be interested by it, it would be assumed that your reference to the success of such schemes in reducing smoking is explained in justification of them.

 

There is no need to discuss whether the State ought to exist and the justification for its authority in talking about this. All that is needed is to know what justification it has for this policy. If it is poor because it is simply based on reducing smoking, partly based on removing the sight of other people smoking so that they will not have awful ideas put in their tender minds, then it shouldn't exist. As most people have a concern for their freedoms, this would not be a just law. In the grand scheme of things, the law wouldn't be such a big thing. But then, why is there a thread on it?

 

See?

Slim/MTP - LDV was perfectly clear in this posting. There's nothing wrong with his English - just that he has strange ideas (although I agree with him on this).

[Slim]

I've not commented on LDV's English, have I? I understand him perfectly, I just don't want to get drawn into another Citizen Smith style pro anarchy discussion with him.

What studies and how reliable are the statistics which emerged from them -lies, damned lies, etc. Who conducted these studies and who financed them? How were they conducted - which segment of the population was targeted? Without all this information the figures are meaningless. I guess the answer will be the health mafia or people/organisations in thrall to them - plus the usual load of busybodies who are never happy unless they are buggering people's lives up. As for banning things because they might influence the behaviour of others, this really opens the doors to the Thought Police and the brainwashing of populations by the power groups of the day. As for the health of smokers - as with health generally the proper responsibility of the State/Health professionals is to make the facts known and leave the decisions up to the individuals concerned.

 

I'm guessing from the tone of your emails that it wouldn't matter where the studies came from? Do you need studies to tell you that this kind of thing reduces the number of smokers? The authorities are trying to reduce the acceptability of smoking, it's been going on for years. Advertising bans, point of sale displays, place of employment bans and now the beginning of public space bans. These aren't popular with voters and authorities would only consider them if they were actually effective at improving public health. Smoking is harmful, and these measures reduce smoking.

 

 

It took me a minute before I realised you can't spell. You are right on one thing - it isn't just about smoking, it's about the creeping domination of people's lives by authoritarian special interest groups and inveterate meddlers, happily acquiesced in by dimwits such as you, it seems.

 

Oh behave, that miss-spelling is intentional. As for 'happily acquiesced', I don't believe I've supported the ban or made any opinion about it at all, I've just answered the questions about it's justification by those imposing it from what I understood reading the press.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I've not commented on LDV's English, have I? I understand him perfectly, I just don't want to get drawn into another Citizen Smith style pro anarchy discussion with him.

Nothing has been mentioned about anarchism.

 

You seem to want to drag this onto the ethics of the laws. I'm fine with that, but only if we can keep the scope to within what most governments are already doing. You start off with a baseline that this stuffs already wrong, making any further debate over details like this pointless to me. Sorry.

And this demonstrates your self-righteousness. Because this is more than just a recognition by you that government's do such things, you actually AGREE with them. You have a set of assumptions about what the role of government is and your own appreciation of the value of things. Your outlook is just as political as everyone elses.

In any case, I don't need to start from any baseline about the law. Someone tells you to do something-->You question who they are and ask why they want you to do it-->If the justification isn't good enough then it is ignore/challenge them and think they're wrong. It's that simple.

 

I say that the simple facts of "It reduces smoking" do not necessarily warrant such a law. I am derailing a thread, because you think this explanation is all we need and the justification required. I think you just want to limit conversation to whether it will or will not reduce smoking. That I think pointless. If the matter of freedom is irrelevant then who gives a fuck.