Smoking Ban In Tacoma-Pierce County

David · Post by **David** » 2003-12-06 08:06pm

Thank God, perhaps someday this country will come to its senses as a whole and outlaw the use of tabacco products in any place. Anything we can do to stop carcenogenic compunds from being pumped into the environment is a good thing, especially when you consider that cigarettes have absolutely no benefits associated with them.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-06 08:24pm

David wrote:Thank God, perhaps someday this country will come to its senses as a whole and outlaw the use of tabacco products in any place. Anything we can do to stop carcenogenic compunds from being pumped into the environment is a good thing, especially when you consider that cigarettes have absolutely no benefits associated with them.

Neither does alchohol, did you want to ban it too?

David · Post by **David** » 2003-12-06 09:09pm

If it could realistically be done, yes.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-12-06 09:50pm

David wrote:If it could realistically be done, yes.

Well I guess that tells us just how reasonable you can be.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-12-06 10:08pm

The Kernel wrote:Neither does alchohol, did you want to ban it too?

Someone hasn't been keeping up with their heart disease information I see.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-06 10:14pm

Graeme Dice wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Neither does alchohol, did you want to ban it too?
Someone hasn't been keeping up with their heart disease information I see.

Oh fuck off with that. The research on heart disease improvement has been argued many times and doctors said recently that if you don't reduce your general caloric intake to compensate for the extra calories of a glass of wine, you are probably worse off.

Not to mention the thousands that are killed each year by drunk driving accidents.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-12-06 10:30pm

Durandal wrote:
David wrote:If it could realistically be done, yes.
Well I guess that tells us just how reasonable you can be.

Oh forgive, allow me to be reasonable and support the continued consumption of a product that hooks twice as many people as any other drug and kills hundreds of thousands of people across the world every year through liver cirrhosis, drunk driving, overdosing. You know the wonderful thing about alcohol is that kills or hurts far more people than just the ones drinking. *cheers*

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-12-06 10:47pm

David wrote:Oh forgive, allow me to be reasonable and support the continued consumption of a product that hooks twice as many people as any other drug and kills hundreds of thousands of people across the world every year through liver cirrhosis, drunk driving, overdosing. You know the wonderful thing about alcohol is that kills or hurts far more people than just the ones drinking. *cheers*

And thus those who enjoy alcohol responsibly should be punished. Brilliant, but I think I've got a better idea. How about we punish just those who don't enjoy it responsibly, instead? You know, in the interest of fairness and the presumption of innocence and all that crap that's written on that annoying little yellow paper called the Constitution.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-12-06 10:57pm

Durandal wrote:
And thus those who enjoy alcohol responsibly should be punished. Brilliant, but I think I've got a better idea. How about we punish just those who don't enjoy it responsibly, instead? You know, in the interest of fairness and the presumption of innocence and all that crap that's written on that annoying little yellow paper called the Constitution.

We do punish those who committ crimes induced by alcohol and it has had no effect on the number of deaths caused by it. Every other drug that alters the state of the mind is outlawed in America except for medicinal purposes, why should alcohol be exempt?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-12-06 11:07pm

Every other drug that alters the state of the mind is outlawed in America except for medicinal purposes, why should alcohol be exempt?

You've got it backwards.

So your plan, incidentally, is to put into place a blanket ban that infringes upon the rights of basically every citizen in the United States of America, costs hundreds of billions of dollars, increases violent crime exponentionally, and has already failed once? Brilliant.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-12-06 11:32pm

David wrote:We do punish those who committ crimes induced by alcohol and it has had no effect on the number of deaths caused by it.

Most people will tell you that jail time as a punishment isn't an effective deterrent for any crime. A courtroom doesn't exist to prevent crime; it exists to punish the crime which has already been committed. The things that will prevent alcohol-related deaths like drunk-driving accidents are education, alleviation of this idiotic, repressive attitude toward alcohol and parental competence.

Every other drug that alters the state of the mind is outlawed in America except for medicinal purposes, why should alcohol be exempt?

Appeal to tradition. Please explain why it should be illegal for me to get drunk and pass out in the privacy of my own home.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-12-07 12:12am

Sugar and caffeine can be argued to influence state-of-mind.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-12-07 12:41am

David wrote:If it could realistically be done, yes.

I take it you slept through history class.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-12-07 12:42am

HemlockGrey wrote:
Every other drug that alters the state of the mind is outlawed in America except for medicinal purposes, why should alcohol be exempt?
You've got it backwards.

How is that backwards?

HemlockGrey wrote: So your plan, incidentally, is to put into place a blanket ban that infringes upon the rights of basically every citizen in the United States of America, costs hundreds of billions of dollars, increases violent crime exponentionally, and has already failed once? Brilliant.

How am does prohibition infringe on your "rights." Are you rights infringed upon because heroin and crack are outlawed? Oh and in case you haven't didn't notice I said "realistically" which I don't think is possible right now.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-12-07 12:47am

How is that backwards?

All the common mind-altering drugs should be legal along with alcohol, not alcohol illegal along with all other mind-altering drugs.

How am does prohibition infringe on your "rights." Are you rights infringed upon because heroin and crack are outlawed? Oh and in case you haven't didn't notice I said "realistically" which I don't think is possible right now.

Prohibition infringes upon my right to do whatever I want to my body, as long as I'm not hurting anyone. Telling me I can't do cocaine in my own house is almost exactly the same as telling me I can't watch TV in my own home.

Furthermore, there is no realisticly effective prohibition solution, as history and the contemporary era have proven.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-12-07 12:48am

Durandal wrote:
David wrote:We do punish those who committ crimes induced by alcohol and it has had no effect on the number of deaths caused by it.
Most people will tell you that jail time as a punishment isn't an effective deterrent for any crime. A courtroom doesn't exist to prevent crime; it exists to punish the crime which has already been committed. The things that will prevent alcohol-related deaths like drunk-driving accidents are education, alleviation of this idiotic, repressive attitude toward alcohol and parental competence.

We have that now and it doesn't work. The only thing that will reduce the problems associated with drinking to remove the ability of people to obtain alcohol.

Appeal to tradition. Please explain why it should be illegal for me to get drunk and pass out in the privacy of my own home.

Appeal to wise decisions made in the past. If you wanted to take a drug that made you feel good and had no ability to alter your thinking ability I'd have no problem with it, however the fact is that many people do not simply drink and pass out in their house, they go out half wasted to drive where ever and end up killing someone else.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-12-07 12:49am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Sugar and caffeine can be argued to influence state-of-mind.

I'm sure they could be, and I'd like to see that argument made. Please procede.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-12-07 12:50am

RedImperator wrote:
David wrote:If it could realistically be done, yes.
I take it you slept through history class.

What part of "if" and "realistically" do you not comprehend?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-12-07 12:52am

David wrote:How am does prohibition infringe on your "rights." Are you rights infringed upon because heroin and crack are outlawed? Oh and in case you haven't didn't notice I said "realistically" which I don't think is possible right now.

A human being is a sovereign entity with the freedom to do as he wishes to his body so long as he harms nobody else. Honestly, I see no reason why the mind can be considered sancrosect while the body is subject to the whims of the state--it can certainly be argued that religious fundamentalism and racism are just as harmful to society than drug consumption, if not moreso, yet racism and religious fundamentalism are Constitutionally protected while hundreds of thousands of people rot in jail for drug crimes.

Then of course is the practical issue that prohibition never works when that which is prohibited is desired by the public at large, unless measures are taken that are wholly unacceptable to free society (China's drug prohibition is more effective than ours, as happens when simple possession earns you decades of hard labor and distribution gets you a bullet to the temple).

David · Post by **David** » 2003-12-07 12:57am

HemlockGrey wrote: Prohibition infringes upon my right to do whatever I want to my body, as long as I'm not hurting anyone. Telling me I can't do cocaine in my own house is almost exactly the same as telling me I can't watch TV in my own home.

You do indeed have that right, however the problem arises because people do not just stay in their houses and the only people that are not the users. Other people such as the tens of thousands of other people that die in car accidents with drunks, the children and spouses of addicts, the people that addicts rob from to feed their habits, and finall the entire american public that must pay in taxes to support rehabilitation programs and inmates who are arrested, not just for using banned substances, but for committing crimes to obtain the money necessary to buy the drugs to support their habits.

Furthermore, there is no realisticly effective prohibition solution, as history and the contemporary era have proven.

Which is why i said "if" and not stated that it should happen now.

Edit: Fixed coding

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-12-07 01:01am

You do indeed have that right, however the problem arises because people do not just stay in their houses and the only people that are not the users. Other people such as the tens of thousands of other people that die in car accidents with drunks, the children and spouses of addicts, the people that addicts rob from to feed their habits, and finall the entire american public that must pay in taxes to support rehabilitation programs and inmates who are arrested, not just for using banned substances, but for committing crimes to obtain the money necessary to buy the drugs to support their habits.

If someone drives under the influence, you arrest them for driving under the influence. You do not institute a blanket ban that inherently assumes everyone who drinks will go out and drive.

Incidentally, does it not occur to you that the 'robbing people to pay for addiction' aspect is merely a side effect of the illegality of the addiction itself? You rarely hear about people being robbed for cigarette money, because cigarettes are quite cheap. If we were to legalize drugs, the cost would go through the floor.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-12-07 01:04am

RedImperator wrote:
A human being is a sovereign entity with the freedom to do as he wishes to his body so long as he harms nobody else. Honestly, I see no reason why the mind can be considered sancrosect while the body is subject to the whims of the state--it can certainly be argued that religious fundamentalism and racism are just as harmful to society than drug consumption, if not moreso, yet racism and religious fundamentalism are Constitutionally protected while hundreds of thousands of people rot in jail for drug crimes.

You draw connections which do not exist. Racism is protected however raciests killing innocents is not. As I said if there was a drug that had no other affect other than make you happy I'd be all for it, however alcohol and other drugs alter the state of mind such that it is possible to cause harm to others easily, and once you pose a risk to me you are stepping on my rights.

Then of course is the practical issue that prohibition never works when that which is prohibited is desired by the public at large, unless measures are taken that are wholly unacceptable to free society (China's drug prohibition is more effective than ours, as happens when simple possession earns you decades of hard labor and distribution gets you a bullet to the temple).

For the final time, this is the reason I said if it were realistically possible.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-12-07 01:12am

HemlockGrey wrote:
If someone drives under the influence, you arrest them for driving under the influence.

NO SHIT, in case you haven't noticed we do arrest people that drink and drive, but unless you want to put a police officer in every car there is no way to catch every person, as the tens of thousands of people dying from accidents with drunk drivers testifies to.

Incidentally, does it not occur to you that the 'robbing people to pay for addiction' aspect is merely a side effect of the illegality of the addiction itself? You rarely hear about people being robbed for cigarette money, because cigarettes are quite cheap. If we were to legalize drugs, the cost would go through the floor.

Cigarettes do not alter you mind in the same way as virtually every other drug does. Alcohol is legal and I do hear about people stealing to pay for that habit, despite how cheap it is. In know a man who is 38 years old that had his accounts takin over by his parents because he spent most of his money on drinking, and this was after his license had been revoked for DUIs and after being arrested for assult.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-12-07 01:13am

David wrote:You draw connections which do not exist. Racism is protected however raciests killing innocents is not.

Good point. Being racist is legal but causing harm motivated by racism is illegal. Unlike alcohol, where being drunk is legal and so is hurting people while you're drunk. Oh, wait...

As I said if there was a drug that had no other affect other than make you happy I'd be all for it, however alcohol and other drugs alter the state of mind such that it is possible to cause harm to others easily, and once you pose a risk to me you are stepping on my rights.

Are you now arguing that racism and religious fundamentalism don't make people more likely to cause harm to others? That they don't produce an irrational mental state? That racists and fundies are not a potential danger to those around them?

Again I ask, why is the mind sancrosect but the body not?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-12-07 01:14am

NO SHIT, in case you haven't noticed we do arrest people that drink and drive, but unless you want to put a police officer in every car there is no way to catch every person, as the tens of thousands of people dying from accidents with drunk drivers testifies to.

I like how you completely dodge my point.