Why must people try to assume a position of moral authority based on the silliest things?

[Private Custard]

Just had a search and my figures were out. For the same year the figures for tobacco were

tax earned - £10bn
cost to state - £5bn

So that means that after expenses, the country is £5bn better off because of us smokers. No matter how you look at it, a £5bn profit is a £5bn profit. It's not our fault that successive governments haven't a clue how to allocate the money earned. We're paying our way fair and square.

This is one of the reasons why I'm against an all out ban. You can't argue against £5bn profit, especially when smoking isn't considered morally wrong. Still, there has to be a line somewhere, if drugs and prostitution etc were legalized and taxed that'd be another £5bn added. But is that necessarily a good thing too?

Hasn't harmed things in Amsterdam. The prostitutes even have a union, along with regular health checks and somewhere safe to do business. And the weed is kept off the streets and in pretty nice establishments.

Think of the savings in terms of policing if things were to become legitimate and safer.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Hasn't harmed things in Amsterdam. The prostitutes even have a union, along with regular health checks and somewhere safe to do business. And the weed is kept off the streets and in pretty nice establishments.

Think of the savings in terms of policing if things were to become legitimate and safer.

Well prostitution is one of those things, some people don't have a problem with it, some do. I'm in the latter catagory. I just don't trust that every prostitute would be treated properly, as it stands, most don't...

Weed isn't exactly a hard drug and wasn't really what I was talking about...

Hard drugs almost always go hand in hand with crime. If they were ever legalized, the criminals who trade them will be suddenly legitimised... We don't want that trust me...

 

[Private Custard]

Hasn't harmed things in Amsterdam. The prostitutes even have a union, along with regular health checks and somewhere safe to do business. And the weed is kept off the streets and in pretty nice establishments.

Think of the savings in terms of policing if things were to become legitimate and safer.

Well prostitution is one of those things, some people don't have a problem with it, some do. I'm in the latter catagory. I just don't trust that every prostitute would be treated properly, as it stands, most don't...

Weed isn't exactly a hard drug and wasn't really what I was talking about...

Hard drugs almost always go hand in hand with crime. If they were ever legalized, the criminals who trade them will be suddenly legitimised... We don't want that trust me...

Everything goes hand in hand with crime. Even with tobacco being legal, you still get illegal importers trying to beat the tax.

The only way to beat the criminals with a legalization of hard drugs is to make them of a higher quality (such as not cutting them with baking powder, Ajax or any number of industrial cleaners amongst other things). Then lower the cost and add some tax. The tax will go towards paying for care for the addicts in the future, whereas at the moment, the NHS pays and the government gets nothing.

The criminals won't be able to compete with the quality. If the whole thing was given some decent thought, it could be pulled of pretty well. But it's socially unacceptable, so that decent amount of though just never happens......and things stay grubby and crime-ridden.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Everything goes hand in hand with crime. Even with tobacco being legal, you still get illegal importers trying to beat the tax.

The only way to beat the criminals with a legalization of hard drugs is to make them of a higher quality (such as not cutting them with baking powder, Ajax or any number of industrial cleaners amongst other things). Then lower the cost and add some tax. The tax will go towards paying for care for the addicts in the future, whereas at the moment, the NHS pays and the government gets nothing.

The criminals won't be able to compete with the quality. If the whole thing was given some decent thought, it could be pulled of pretty well. But it's socially unacceptable, so that decent amount of though just never happens......and things stay grubby and crime-ridden.

You have a fair viewpoint but I believe it is naïve...

Upping the quality and branding drugs like cocaine and heroin will make the celebrities and rich folk happy. But in all honesty that's about it. The problematic drug users will still by from dealers who will always be cheaper. An even more ruthless black market will arise to meet the demand for cheaper drugs and serious crime will increase as a result. It is this demographic of drug users that people see as a problem and a main reason why hard drugs are not tolerated by society.

Even legalizing cannabis will take it's toll on an already "broken Britain". Youth crime always rises when cannabis is present. Making it more avaliable is not terribly smart, the promise of more resources to fight increasing crime is not an ideal one. As it stands, drug related crime is starting to curb as the Police are starting to deal with problem areas and suppliers more effectively. We shouldnt be looking to increase that problem just to satisfy a minority who do use drugs responsibly, it simply isn't worth it.

 

[IS0lat1ON]

Where do you people live, that smoking inside of ANY PUBLIC PLACE isn't against about 4 different civic statutes? If I smoke inside an open-air bus shelter, I can get a ticket for smoking in a public building, which is a $500 dollar fine, and charged with public mischief, which starts at a $250 fine, and requires a court appearance, and the possibility of a criminal record.

Seriously, all the smokers have been chased outside, in 99% of the industrialized countries.

Well, I was thinking more on the outside of a restaurant, you know, where they have the tables covered with umbrellas sometimes.

But regardless of my wording on that, I hope you got my point; neither one of you are in the better moral ground here. The problem is that you're vehemently trying to justify your own habits with strawmen/ad homenims and disregarding any valid points that the "high horses" are making.

No, around here, you can't smoke within 15' of a public access, or any patio, so that's still not a plausible situation. Anyways, you're telling me that my smoking is a greater pollution producer that a car? What, not a valid argument? It's not a straw-man argument, it's entirely valid.

I may have some small negative second-hand health impact on some people, if I choose to be impolite when I smoke.
Cars are an indiscriminate source of pollution, as are coal-burning power plants.

Which is a greater second-hand health risk?

Yes it could be considered a valid argument between cars and smokers, however the differentiating feature is that cars have a monetary gain to the local economy and has been determined by the government of the region to be an acceptable trade off for better transportation. Smoking however is a personal habit with no monetary gain to the economy beyond the money that goes to the tobacco companies and its subsequent flow on effects to workers mostly outsourced internationally (it can also be considered that the personal habit has the "potential" to have health risks to people around you) the problem arises from those "non-smokers" disliking that you are forcing that the SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE potential risk on them knowing that the monetary gains go to support the companies perpetuating the problem.

Cars have the same potential risk as smokers (clearly more cars therefore more risk), however the risk has been deemed SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE based on the monetary gains that cars pose.

Yes i know it is very hypocritical however as individuals I nor the next guy/gal made it this way, we collectively did.

Put simply it is down to:

Monetary gains and Potential Health Risk to society has created a "social standard"

 

[Terminate421]

This is the silliest assumption of authority:

http://www.cephas-library.com/save_our_children_pokemon_booklet.html

 

[Pariah87]

I don't see that he said anything particularly loony. In fact, he's got a point: everybody worries about all sorts of trivial shit like my smoking, when there are greater moral crusades they could pursue.

"Fuck vegetarians, religion, people who care about foreign countries, and people who care about the environment." I would call being against any and all of those things utterly loony, though I might give the thing about religion a slide. That you wouldn't is baffling to me.

Sigh, I had written a really long and detailed reply to this but then the bloody laptop crashed and I lost it, so I shall try to be more concise this time round.

Firstly, quote me correctly, I never said "Fuck x or Y". Shit, I am relegious myself and I give money to charities whenever I can. What I object to are the extremists of any given cause who feel it is there place to push into other peoples lives and try and get them to change their viewpoints. I don't tell people to NOT be vegetarian, or to either be or not be relegious. This is because it is my choice either to do, or not to do something, just as it is everyone elses.

You come across as exactly the kind of person I love winding up for that exact reason. You see viewpoints not in line with your own, so you look down your nose at the individual and refer to them as "loony". Nevermind the fact you twisted what I said to validate yourself.

So just to clarify, I dislike the preachers and the snobs, not the causes. I even agree with anti-smoking laws to a degree, especially around food. Pubs, I feel should be at the discretion of the liscencee. If I'm following the laws and minding my own business and someone still feels the need to come up to me and tell me I'm wrong in a "holier than thou" manner, do you think I should be annoyed, or should I stub my cigarette out immediately and say "yessir boss, I knows I been bad, I'll never put the demon sticks to my lips again, you've saved me!".

 

[Chipperz]

...Discussion value?

I love seeing this as the first post of an eight page thread. The amount it happens should have diminished the hilarity, but it never does!

OT - I find that most smokers are considerate people who are notably not dicks about their chosen vice, asking people in the group if they mind and generally staying to well ventilated areas. There are some smokers who will happily light up unannounced around small children and then start ranting about how everyone else should move away and let them enjoy their habit, but that small group of arseholes pales in comparison with the legions of non-smokers who will jump at someone on the other side of the street if they light up.

I've almost picked up smoking a few times, just so I'm not part of the same group as these people...

 

[Del-Toro]

Pinned to the shoulder of your shirt? Don't be so optimistic, the anti smoking crowd will probably brand the "S" into your forehead.

My parents smoke, and they make a big deal about not smoking near me, but I don't mind it, so I keep telling them that I'm not a retarded 8 year old and if it bothered me I would say something. Seriously, the whales aren't going to get nuked because Aerodynamic has a cigarrette.

Also, I don't smoke but sometimes, when I'm feeling rather stressed, I really want a cigarette for some reason. Or a Cigar, a cuban one (you can get those in Canada, eh?). I just don't want to pay for it (they are fucking expensive as hell, I game, yes, but I find ways of making it cheaper), so I make do.

So, without further ado, onto the THE LIST

I'm learning to drive, so I do, in fact drive.

I buy things, typically cheap things because I'm a cheapo like that (they last me pretty well though, but I take care of them), and they usually come in big rigs. I can usually track my purchases by the trail of scenes straight of a metal album the truck leaves behind.

I don't get this one. I thought paying taxes to keep the infrastructure going was a good thing? I guess I do that as well, with the Harmonized sales tax (go Canada!) being attached to all of my destructive purchases.

I probably get my power from a nuclear plant, given Ontario's love affair with those. Of course, Nuclear power could turn us into Chernobyl (at least that's what you believe if you are a particularly stupid liberal, or if you take the Simpsons too seriously), so is that really any better (then again, the Atom is fucking awesome)

I use both Paper and plastic, I am a bad person. I also don't have a problem with corporations. I am Darth Vader.

I enjoy the occasional double quarter pounder with cheese. I am Heinrich Himmler.

I don't know what my toiletries are tested on. So I'm going to assume that I do this.

I use the toilet, thereby producing sewage. I am Adolf Eichmann.

I probably do that.

I try to keep things tidy around the house, if that's what you mean.

So yeah, I guess we're both Hitler, OP, how about that?

 

[Aerodyamic]

Again, you're getting a different tone from his post than I did. I think there was an undertone of sarcasm I might have inferred that you didn't.

From what?!

And I know there's other sources of protein, but I've also seen vegetarians that don't seem to know that, and I've seen vegetarians that are almost worse than the religious nuts. Concerning the religious nuts, I don't dispute that a variety of good moral lessons have arisen out of the various dogmatic practices of mankind, but I think the terrible excesses of those same religions occasionally over-shadow those benefits. Regardless, that's a discussion best saved for a different time and place, like a whole new thread, in the Religion and Politics forum.

So basically; you've seen people in these areas that are bad.

Well, I've seen smokers who are incredibly belligerent, antagonistic, and irresponsible - smoking around kids, very young kids, pregnant women, sickly people, in public, enclosed places, and etc. I've seen smokers who apparently go out of their way to litter, who seem to have no sense of bodily hygiene whatsoever.

But -my- point is incorrect, while yours carries weight?

I've never denied that your opinion has weight. I've pointed out that I have a right to be free of persecution, while you've argued the semantics of a single point, while ignoring the greater argument. Remember, opinions are like assholes; everyone has one, most of them stink, and not everyone is particularly interested in anyone elses'. I have yet to see you express an opinion, though.

I've also never denied that some smokers are belligerent twats, or irresponsible, but I've seen MORE people that aren't smokers be nastier to people that are, simply because smokers are a minority in modern society.

Also, I'm not really 'holier-than-thou about much of anything, but where you keep inferring my 'position of moral superiority' from is a little confusing, but you can keep believing that I'm taking that position, if it eases your mind any. But I'll quite readily point out the hypocrisy of those that cry to the heavens about something, and ignore the impact their other actions have.

Like ignoring the rest of the harmful pollution sources, and instead focusing solely on cigarettes, or ignoring the fact that obesity is a greater health risk than smoking in North America.

At any rate, I'm off for the night... enjoy your misinterpretations, and I'll be back tomorrow, sometime.

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

Good for you, Aero. I don't smoke myself, but I hate the 'holier-than-thou' attitude I see here too. I'd rather live with a smoker than a self righteous prick any day.

Hooray for that.

I firmly believe that if people want to smoke, and know the consequences, then let them. It's their body, and not your business.

I agree with this. Law and health permitting, go ahead and smoke, I won't care, just don't blow it in my face, because I don't like coughing.

My "holier-than-thou" attitude is really only imparted on those of my generation, because they're not legally allowed to drink/smoke or whatever. Personally I have no problem with smoking, just don't do it around me, because it smells horrible in my opinion.

 

[Aerodyamic]

snip

Hun, I'm tired of trying to making this clear, so I'm going to be a little blunt; I'd apologize in advance for potential offense, but you've abrogated my necessity to do so, by coming across as an angry child.

I'm not justifying my habit, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of any person being an ignorant mouth-piece because theu don't have THAT bad habit, when they have any number of OTHER bad habits.

YOU do many things that hurt just as many people, indiscriminately.
I choose to be conscientious concerning THIS bad habit.

YOU choose to be ignorant of your contribution to local health issues.
I choose to be aware of people around me, especially when I'm indulging THIS bad habit.

You may claim to not smoke, drive, do drugs, or think that you pollute, but you do in fact cause those things to occur. You have no right to be a assume moral authority over anyone that isn't doing anything immoral, when it's only moral judgment is by YOUR interpretation; for that matter, it they do something YOU consider immoral, but they choose to minimize or remove the impact to you, you have to understand that your rights extend NO FURTHER than your 'moral' outrage does: the distance of your arm.

Your preaching and soap-boxing is a form of pollution that I don't want to tolerate, the sound of your voice might sound to the world like the screams of a thousand harpies, and your posts in this topic might be considered a manifesto that advocates mass murder. Does that make it simple enough for you? Let me boil it down FURTHER: you are not justified in assuming moral authority over anyone but YOURSELF, especially when the intended target of your ire is actually being more conscientious than you are.

I'll give you an example from the LAST thread about this: someone suggested they had the right to shoot a smoker with a super-soaker full of red food colouring. If that happened to me, I would instantly assume I was being assaulted, and respond appropriately. Take that as you will, but if I was suddenly sprayed with an unidentified red liquid, I would assume someone was trying to get blood, with an unknown contamination level, on me.

Which is more wrong? Making people scared they've been sprayed with potentially tainted blood, or trying to be a conscientious smoker?

 

[KwaggaDan]

People love the sound of their own opinions. Add that to the general unrecognized hypocrisy and it's a recipe for fun. Just do what Pliny the Younger does and laugh at the ignorance instead of get angry at it...

 

[deathlord552]

Good for you, Aero. I don't smoke myself, but I hate the 'holier-than-thou' attitude I see here too. I'd rather live with a smoker than a self righteous prick any day.

Hooray for that.

I firmly believe that if people want to smoke, and know the consequences, then let them. It's their body, and not your business.

I agree with this. Law and health permitting, go ahead and smoke, I won't care, just don't blow it in my face, because I don't like coughing.

My "holier-than-thou" attitude is really only imparted on those of my generation, because they're not legally allowed to drink/smoke or whatever. Personally I have no problem with smoking, just don't do it around me, because it smells horrible in my opinion.

Hear hear! Look at agreement and happiness as opposed to the fighting. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go smoke a Cuban.