Smoking Ban In Tacoma-Pierce County

[Illuminatus Primus]

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

Caffiene is an addictive drug that negative influences behavior (increasing stress), blood pressure, sleep patterns, and even bone mass.

http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=5687

"While today's cup of coffee might not, by itself, cause you much harm, the cumulative effects of drinking it day after day over a lifetime could really be unhealthy," [James D.] Lane [Ph.D] concluded.

And don't you dare backpeddle with the "well it isn't as dangerous alcohol and tobacco." Because you said this

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

By your logic, caffiene should be illegal. Justify this. Also, please concede for the factually wrong statement quoted just above.

[David]

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.

You had a point? Was it that that I should not assume people that drink will go out and drive? Look at the facts, people that drink many times do go out and drive and do kill other people.

[Illuminatus Primus]

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.

Exactly, and said intoxicated person isn't a threat to your rights until he actually does or nearly does something to you. Otherwise, as said, the logic is a racist automatically poses a more likely threat to certain ethnicities, and should be banned because of that.

But that is fault, and the racist (like the intoxicated man) is entitled to his own state of mind (fundamentalist, radical, racist, irrational, antisocial, etc.) until that state of mind actually causes someone to do something. Under your logic, thoughts could and would be crimes. Is Big Brother watching you, per chance?

The point is quite simple, until someone actually performs an action that infringes on the rights of others, you have no case. Otherwise you're pre-emptively invading others' rights because they may be more likely to perform said actions, which leads us to the quandries above.

[David]

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...

Unlike alcohol, racism does not alter your normal mindset and judgment. Racism is a choice they make, however killing someone because you are intoxicated and incapable of thinking straight is not a crime most people who do committ it normally would.

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?

Red Herring Racism and Fundamentalism do not create chemical imbalances that alters a person in such a way that they would do things that they normally would not, such as getting in a car and driving somewhere when they know that they are likely to get themselves and someone else killed in the process.

[HemlockGrey]

You had a point? Was it that that I should not assume people that drink will go out and drive? Look at the facts, people that drink many times do go out and drive and do kill other people.

So therefore, we should institute a blanket ban that preemptively assumes that all people who drink will drive, thereby punishing everyone for a crime they may or may not commit?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Unlike alcohol, racism does not alter your normal mindset

It makes you irrational and pre-emptively prediposed toward violence against certain people. This can be statistically verified, just like the fact that being drunk causes drunk driving accidents proves no one should be allowed to drink.

Racism is a choice they make, however killing someone because you are intoxicated and incapable of thinking straight is not a crime most people who do committ it normally would.

Both this mind-set and being intoxicated both cause irrational thinking patterns and suspension of normal human qualms and controls.

when they know that they are likely to get themselves and someone else killed in the process.

Yet a statistic of admitted white supremecists would turn out a much much higher incidence of violence against non-white minority groups, just as statistics of diagnosed alcoholics would turn up more DUIs and vehicular homicide cases. And it IS bad mind-sets which cause these accidents. I know plenty of drinkers who steadfastly refuse to drive when intoxicated; some irrational and irresponsible people do drive when intoxicated. Your argument would only be pertinent if there was a causal relationship where being drunk forces someone to drive drunk, which is not true. And as noted prior, your appeal to statistics without proposing a mechanism behind it could be made to apply to other irrational behaviors like racism. Concession Accepted.

[David]

Caffiene is an addictive drug that negative influences behavior (increasing stress), blood pressure, sleep patterns, and even bone mass.

http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=5687

"While today's cup of coffee might not, by itself, cause you much harm, the cumulative effects of drinking it day after day over a lifetime could really be unhealthy," [James D.] Lane [Ph.D] concluded.

And don't you dare backpeddle with the "well it isn't as dangerous alcohol and tobacco." Because you said this

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

By your logic, caffiene should be illegal. Justify this. Also, please concede for the factually wrong statement quoted just above.

Caffeine does not alter the mind in such a way as to cause the consumer to loose his or her ability to not make decisions and take actions that will adversely affect the lives of other people. Virtually everything people consume alters the physiology of the individual in someway, and I am referring to those that adversely affect not just the person consuming them but others as well. I think I have made this abundantly clear in my previous posts, and if you missed that then I can see why you would say that my statment was incorrect. My logic is justified and qualified, so I see no reason to conceed anything. Also please do not assume that I will respond in a certain way.

[RedImperator]

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...

Unlike alcohol, racism does not alter your normal mindset and judgment. Racism is a choice they make, however killing someone because you are intoxicated and incapable of thinking straight is not a crime most people who do committ it normally would.

Becuse non-racists routinely beat the hell out of people because of their skin color, right?

Red Herring Racism and Fundamentalism do not create chemical imbalances

The mechanism by which irrational thoughts and behaviors are produced is irrevelant. The end result is similar, and you've still yet to demonstrate why the end result of drinking (which, by the way, is a temporary state, as opposed to racism, which is by and large permanant) is worse than the end result of racism.

that alters a person in such a way that they would do things that they normally would not, such as getting in a car and driving somewhere when they know that they are likely to get themselves and someone else killed in the process.

I eagerly await your proof that 1) drinking automatically causes the drinker to drive, and 2) that racism and religious fundamentalism don't drive people to do things they normally wouldn't, like lynch black people or pilot airliners into buildings.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Caffeine does not alter the mind in such a way as to cause the consumer to loose his or her ability to not make decisions and take actions that will adversely affect the lives of other people. Virtually everything people consume alters the physiology of the individual in someway, and I am referring to those that adversely affect not just the person consuming them but others as well.

Lying backpeddler. Don't waste my time with your intellectual dishonesty. Here, I'll quote myself for the reading comprehension impaired:

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

.

The degree of alteration was not part of this claim. Caffiene does alter the mind, is legal, and merely for medicinal purposes.

And drugs do not adversely affect others directly. They produce a set of altered mental states whereby an irrational or irresponsible person will behave in such a manner that people could get hurt indirectly as a result. But we can't punish people for possessing the mental states themselves. You own your mind and unless you like the idea of a Thought Police, merely having certain mental states is not, in of itself, criminal.



I think I have made this abundantly clear in my previous posts, and if you missed that then I can see why you would say that my statment was incorrect. My logic is justified and qualified, so I see no reason to conceed anything. Also please do not assume that I will respond in a certain way.[/quote]

[David]

Exactly, and said intoxicated person isn't a threat to your rights until he actually does or nearly does something to you. Otherwise, as said, the logic is a racist automatically poses a more likely threat to certain ethnicities, and should be banned because of that.

This is a false analogy. The raciest knows that he is committing a crime, and can appreciate that he will be punished accordingly. Someone who is intoxicated is not capable of making the decisions they normally would, such as not putting themselves in a situation that endangers other people as well as themselves.

But that is fault, and the racist (like the intoxicated man) is entitled to his own state of mind (fundamentalist, radical, racist, irrational, antisocial, etc.) until that state of mind actually causes someone to do something. Under your logic, thoughts could and would be crimes. Is Big Brother watching you, per chance?

The problem is that intoxicated person is not in his or her normal state of mind.

The point is quite simple, until someone actually performs an action that infringes on the rights of others, you have no case. Otherwise you're pre-emptively invading others' rights because they may be more likely to perform said actions, which leads us to the quandries above.

By intoxicating themselves people are far more likely to cause harm to me. This is not some imaginary situation either, it is reflected by the reality of the thousands of graves created by drunk drivers every year.


Since you seem to be so keen on creating situations that use the same logic, lets suppose you and I have an argument where you get me pissed off. Further suppose I'm holding a loaded gun to your head ( which is analogous to a car speeding along a highway at 70 miles per hour.) Now in my normal state of mind I'd never pull that trigger, however lets suppose I'm drunk, and obviously not in my normal state of mind. By your logic you have no right to prevent me from drinking which may alter my state of mind such that I might just pull that trigger, you also do not have the right to take away my gun.

Until I pull the trigger, but then that doesn't help you very much now does it? While you might never encounter that type of situation involving a gun, encountering a drunk driver driving down the highway can be just as deadly, and he is just as incapable of controlling his weapon of choice.

[David]

You had a point? Was it that that I should not assume people that drink will go out and drive? Look at the facts, people that drink many times do go out and drive and do kill other people.

So therefore, we should institute a blanket ban that preemptively assumes that all people who drink will drive, thereby punishing everyone for a crime they may or may not commit?

To save the lives of the hundreds of thousands of innocents that fill our cemetaries? Hell yes! Reality is that people do drink do drive and do kill people whether they mean to or not. You do not have the right to put yourself in a state of mind that endangers mine or anyone else's life.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Someone who is intoxicated is not capable of making the decisions they normally would, such as not putting themselves in a situation that endangers other people as well as themselves.

Do you live in a fucking box?

Buddy, I've been drunk, and I knew driving was a stupid, stupid thing to do, and I wasn't able to walk straight at this point. It was precisely the knowledge of what could happen to me, and the consequences which I'd seen befall other people.

Drunkness impairs judgement, critical thinking, impulse-control, and other mental behaviors, but you're not in a coma or hallucenating.

You're basically implying drunkness makes you incapable of understanding the moral validity of one's decisions. I'm sorry, but claiming that drunkenness is ipso facto legal insanity is a leap in logic you'll need to close first.

The problem is that intoxicated person is not in his or her normal state of mind.

Its your right to be depressed, irrational, racist, fundamentalist, or whatever. The government doesn't get to decide what you are or are not allowed to think unless you are legally insane. I'd like you to prove that intoxication is ipso facto legal insanity.

By intoxicating themselves people are far more likely to cause harm to me. This is not some imaginary situation either, it is reflected by the reality of the thousands of graves created by drunk drivers every year.

You cannot take rights from people because they have a probability of hurting other people. As we said, membership in certain radical or extreme political organizations drastically increases your probability of commiting crimes and inciting violence. Should that membership be illegal? You're saying the government has the right to legislatively regulate your mental state and charge you the crime of being more likely to commit other crimes.

Any more Ministry of Truth logic?

Until I pull the trigger, but then that doesn't help you very much now does it? While you might never encounter that type of situation involving a gun, encountering a drunk driver driving down the highway can be just as deadly, and he is just as incapable of controlling his weapon of choice.

Which is why it is fucking illegal to drive intoxicated, you imbecile.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And this is all tangental to your unjustified claim the cigarettes should be banned even in private homes. Justify this too.

[David]

It makes you irrational and pre-emptively prediposed toward violence against certain people.

When a person makes the decision to hate another he is using his full mental capabilitites, and he or she has rationalized it to themselves in some way. When they choose to take actions against other people they are capable of fully apprectating the act. A person who is intoxicated is not in his or her usual state of mind.

This can be statistically verified, just like the fact that being drunk causes drunk driving accidents proves no one should be allowed to drink.

You just contradicted yourself and stated my point. I assume you misworded the sentence in an attempt at being sarcastic.

Both this mind-set and being intoxicated both cause irrational thinking patterns and suspension of normal human qualms and controls.

Raciest are still capable of rational though, they have simply rationalize their actions to themselves. Intoxicated people do not rationalize getting in a car when they know they can't drive, they simply don't care, which means that they really have altered their body chemisty in such a way that they cannot think rationally.

Yet a statistic of admitted white supremecists would turn out a much much higher incidence of violence against non-white minority groups, just as statistics of diagnosed alcoholics would turn up more DUIs and vehicular homicide cases. And it IS bad mind-sets which cause these accidents. I know plenty of drinkers who steadfastly refuse to drive when intoxicated; some irrational and irresponsible people do drive when intoxicated. Your argument would only be pertinent if there was a causal relationship where being drunk forces someone to drive drunk, which is not true. And as noted prior, your appeal to statistics without proposing a mechanism behind it could be made to apply to other irrational behaviors like racism. Concession Accepted.

You are living in a world of statistically probabily that does not exist. Racists do not committ murder except in isolated cases because they know that they will be punished and can appreciate the penalties that follow. The people that often do kill others while driving drunk would not normally committ to an action that they know would harm others, because when they are not normally intoxicated. If they are intoxicated the possibility that they will take such actions rises astronomically because they are not thinking correctly. This is the reason some guys will happily take a girl out to get drunk, because they know that it will alter her state of mind in such a way as to get her to do something she would normally not do. I have proposed the mechanisms behind the statistics, you simply are to blind to see them, so take your concession and stick it up your ass.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Translation: Intoxicated people are ipso facto legally insane and are not capable of evaluating the difference between right and wrong in their actions such as choosing to drive drunk or not.

Care to back up such a claim?

Because, if they're not legally insane, they do understand the relative rightness or wrongness of their actions and can thusly decide not to do wrong things.

[David]

Becuse non-racists routinely beat the hell out of people because of their skin color, right?

Racists are people that have, in some way, rationalized their actions. They have done so with their full intellectual capabilities at their disposale, such as they are.

The mechanism by which irrational thoughts and behaviors are produced is irrevelant. The end result is similar, and you've still yet to demonstrate why the end result of drinking (which, by the way, is a temporary state, as opposed to racism, which is by and large permanant) is worse than the end result of racism.

What part of red herring to you not understand? And where did I say that the end result of racism is just as bad as the end result of drunk driving? Reality is that drunk driving kills people because a person is not in a state of mind where they can excercise rational decisions, while racism does not in many cases kill because the racist's decision making process is not impaired by alcohol.

I eagerly await your proof that 1) drinking automatically causes the drinker to drive,

I never said that it does. It does however impair the person's ability to make the decision not to drive and once made the persons ability to drive in a way that does not endanger the lives of others.

and 2) that racism and religious fundamentalism don't drive people to do things they normally wouldn't, like lynch black people or pilot airliners into buildings.

Racism and fundamentalism are the things that person normally would do because he or she has made the decision that it is the correct action. Intoxicated people know that drinking and driving are wrong, but the their ability to make the distiniction between right and wrong is impaired by the alcohol.

[David]

Lying backpeddler. Don't waste my time with your intellectual dishonesty. Here, I'll quote myself for the reading comprehension impaired:

The degree of alteration was not part of this claim. Caffiene does alter the mind, is legal, and merely for medicinal purposes.

Are you simply incapable of reading between the lines? I wasn't referring to ginko boloba or nutrasweet or any other substance that does not indirectly harm others, even a child can understand that. You nit-pick at these because your arguments have no substance to them.

And drugs do not adversely affect others directly.

Unless I did so by mistake I never said that drugs hurt other people directly.

They produce a set of altered mental states whereby an irrational or irresponsible person will behave in such a manner that people could get hurt indirectly as a result.

They produce a state of mind whereby anybody, whether they would normally be a responsible individual or not, could behave in such a way that another person could be hurt. Though I would argue that anyone who chooses to take drugs that alter the state of the mind such that another person could get hurt is irrisponsible.

But we can't punish people for possessing the mental states themselves. You own your mind and unless you like the idea of a Thought Police, merely having certain mental states is not, in of itself, criminal.

But we can and do punish people for placing themselves in a situation where they become a threat to others because they choose to place themselves in a situation where they are capable of harming others because they have impaired their ability to make rational decisions.

[David]

Drunkness impairs judgement, critical thinking, impulse-control

(emphasis mine)

You're basically implying drunkness makes you incapable of understanding the moral validity of one's decisions. I'm sorry, but claiming that drunkenness is ipso facto legal insanity is a leap in logic you'll need to close first.

You just said what being drunk does, do you not consider the decision to get in a car and drive when you know full well you could kill someone an exercise of your judgement? or your critical thinking abilities? I know it impairs the consumers understanding of the moral validity his or her decisions because of the remorse that person exibits once they've killed someone because of their driving. They knew driving drunk was wrong before they got in the car yet they still did it because at that point their inhibitions had be wiped out by the alcohol.

Its your right to be depressed, irrational, racist, fundamentalist, or whatever. The government doesn't get to decide what you are or are not allowed to think unless you are legally insane.

Or unless you present a threat to other people.

I'd like you to prove that intoxication is ipso facto legal insanity.

See my first post.

You cannot take rights from people because they have a probability of hurting other people. As we said, membership in certain radical or extreme political organizations drastically increases your probability of commiting crimes and inciting violence. Should that membership be illegal? You're saying the government has the right to legislatively regulate your mental state and charge you the crime of being more likely to commit other crimes.

The government can and does have the right to regulate your ability to use a substance to alter your mind in such a way that you can no longer make rational choices, or did you miss the fact that substances like heroin are illegal. The decision to become part of fundamentalist or racist organizations are rational from the view of the individual, even if they aren't to you and me, however the decision to drink and drive would be a choice that most drunks would not normally make if they were not drunk.

Which is why it is fucking illegal to drive intoxicated

And how is one that is in a irrational state of mind to appreciate this?

you imbecile.

Sticks and stones

[Durandal]

Because, if they're not legally insane, they do understand the relative rightness or wrongness of their actions and can thusly decide not to do wrong things.

Shit, I'm drunk right now, and I understood that it would be wrong to just start humping a girl at the party I was just at. I guess I must be an exception. Hell, I don't even own a car, so it's literally impossible for me to drink and drive. But David's logic tells us that drunk people will automatically want to drive. I should've stolen a car or something to prove him right.

[David]

And this is all tangental to your unjustified claim the cigarettes should be banned even in private homes. Justify this too.

Cigarettes kill not just more people than any other thing in America through lung and heart disease, including tens of thousands that are exposed to second hand smoke. Those tens of thousands of people are composed of infants, other family, coworkers, and customers that are exposed to chronic smokers on a continual bases. The smoke causes alleries, tar build up in the lungs which impairs the person's ability to absorb oxygen into the bloodstream, cancer of the lungs and throat, and heart disease that results from chemical damage to the endothelial cells lining the veins.

[Graeme Dice]

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.

Except of course, that society is forced to bear the cost of looking after you.

[Graeme Dice]

And this is all tangental to your unjustified claim the cigarettes should be banned even in private homes. Justify this too.

Sure. When you get sick from smoking, which is more likely to happen than not, society must bear the cost of both your lost productive time, and that of attempting to heal you of your self-inflicted injuries.

[David]

Translation: Intoxicated people are ipso facto legally insane and are not capable of evaluating the difference between right and wrong in their actions such as choosing to drive drunk or not.

Their judgement is impaired, as you stated yourself, and judging by the reactions of the people who kill others through drunk driving, if they had been sober it was something they would never have because they knew it was wrong at the time however their lack of inhibition did not allow them to act on that knowledge of wrong.

Because, if they're not legally insane, they do understand the relative rightness or wrongness of their actions and can thusly decide not to do wrong things.

You said yourself that their judgment is impaired. My point is that they do know that it is wrong, but their judgement is sufficiently impaired such that they cannot act on that knowledge.

[David]

But David's logic tells us that drunk people will automatically want to drive. I should've stolen a car or something to prove him right.

You are obviously drunk, that, or incapable of reading. I never said that being drunk forces someone to drink and drive, just that if the person is so inclined to drive while drunk, that in a normal state of mind where their judgment is not affected, they would not drive, but when they are intoxicated the likelihood that they will make the irrational decision to drive is greatly increased. This is reflected by the number of deaths caused by drunk drivers.

[David]

Hmmm i was reading back through all my posts and realized that I contradicted myself in one sentence, quite by accident:

Intoxicated people know that drinking and driving are wrong, but the their ability to make the distiniction between right and wrong is impaired by the alcohol.

Don't know what the hell I was thinking, anyways it is my position, as I have said numerous times before, that they are capable of making the distinction, that is they know it is wrong to put another person's life at risk by drinking and driving, however the likelihood that they will make that irrational decision to operate a car despite being drunk is greatly increased by their intoxication.