|
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
It is not a self-choice because it is hard to quit? Just because nicotince or sugar is addictive, does not mean its impossible to avoid. The choice you make is yours, the fact that it is a hard choice does not change who is making it.
|
On March 06 2012 23:45 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 23:26 couches wrote: In the States.
Smoking is generally demonized, but it's still socially accepted. Except around yuppie moms that are pregnant or have a newborn with them. Smoking is addictive though. Nobody is addicted to having a crap diet and being too lazy to work out. Most people don't even know what a good diet is because here we are surrounded by such terrible food.
Are you serious? I'd be willing to bet that it's just as difficult, if not more-so, to stop being obese as it is to stop smoking. Smokers get withdrawal while the obese are starving.
Obese people do have it hard to lose weight. I don't know the feeling since I've always been at good weight so I've never had to lose any. All the different methods, diets, programs and TV-shows have basically proven that alot of people are really struggling with losing weight.
Even considering that though, when I see fat people trying to lose weight and they whine because it's so hard it just ticks me off. I don't know why :/. I guess we all have something unreasonable.
|
On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary harm to everyone around you.
Most countries have some laws to restrict smoking inside\in specific areas, and in a non public place any decent person will ask if you are ok with them smoking before they light up.
|
On March 06 2012 23:55 Earll wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary harm to everyone around you. Most countries have some laws to restrict smoking inside\in specific areas, and in a non public place any decent person will ask if you are ok with them smoking before they light up.
Still, living in a city or any urban area you are just going to breathe in smoke many times in your life. No matter what you might try and to do avoid it.
*edit that just make me think of last week when I went on vacation via plane. In front of the airport entrance there were about 10 people smoking and you had to get through this wall of smoke to get in. Seriously is it that hard to walk of to a more secluded area where people don't HAVE to pass through.
|
United Kingdom35817 Posts
On March 07 2012 00:01 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 23:55 Earll wrote:On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary harm to everyone around you. Most countries have some laws to restrict smoking inside\in specific areas, and in a non public place any decent person will ask if you are ok with them smoking before they light up. Still, living in a city or any urban area you are just going to breathe in smoke many times in your life. No matter what you might try and to do avoid it.
Yeah, you may as well vilify anyone who doesn't drive the most eco-friendly car possible.
|
laugh all you want but i dont get why people smoke at all maybe its because i didint try it so i dont understand whats so good about it
|
On March 07 2012 00:03 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 00:01 solidbebe wrote:On March 06 2012 23:55 Earll wrote:On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary harm to everyone around you. Most countries have some laws to restrict smoking inside\in specific areas, and in a non public place any decent person will ask if you are ok with them smoking before they light up. Still, living in a city or any urban area you are just going to breathe in smoke many times in your life. No matter what you might try and to do avoid it. Yeah, you may as well vilify anyone who doesn't drive the most eco-friendly car possible.
That is something different, having a car is a necessity for alot of people. And even if you don't consider it a necessity it is an important transport vehicle. Smoking is just purely for pleasure ( or to feed your addiction) and since you can decide exactly when and where to smoke. To bother other people with it is egocentric, I think.
|
On March 07 2012 00:03 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 00:01 solidbebe wrote:On March 06 2012 23:55 Earll wrote:On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary harm to everyone around you. Most countries have some laws to restrict smoking inside\in specific areas, and in a non public place any decent person will ask if you are ok with them smoking before they light up. Still, living in a city or any urban area you are just going to breathe in smoke many times in your life. No matter what you might try and to do avoid it. Yeah, you may as well vilify anyone who doesn't drive the most eco-friendly car possible. The obvious difference is that buying an eco-friendly car costs more money. Not smoking costs no money. Likewise eating so much junk food costs more money, whereas simply eating decent meals is much more financially sustainable. I'm judging them based on the more feasible and less destructive of options.
|
Sydney is trying to ban it everywhere, slowly but surely. I smoke but I try to not be obnoxious about it. I will leap to the other side of the street if there's a baby either in or out of the womb nearby. But to the paragons of justice who cry from rooftops about the dangers of second hand smoke. If you put half as much effort into a real social problem you might actually get something done.
Why is it necessary to point out that smoking is negative? It's a well known fact. People still choose to partake in it. Alcohol is negative, same case scenario. And it's not like alcohol has never hurt anybody, or the people around them... right?
|
Decent meals actually cost more than fast food, there's a reason poor families have such an high % of obesity and overweight.
Sugar and corn by-products (corn syrup, corn starch) are extremely subsidized, high caloric, high glycemic index, and prevalent in a shitload of low quality products (prepared meals, granola bars, cookies, etc.)
|
On March 07 2012 00:09 AlphaWhale wrote: Sydney is trying to ban it everywhere, slowly but surely. I smoke but I try to not be obnoxious about it. I will leap to the other side of the street if there's a baby either in or out of the womb nearby. But to the paragons of justice who cry from rooftops about the dangers of second hand smoke. If you put half as much effort into a real social problem you might actually get something done.
Why is it necessary to point out that smoking is negative? It's a well known fact. People still choose to partake in it. Alcohol is negative, same case scenario. And it's not like alcohol has never hurt anybody, or the people around them... right?
Even though your points are valid, I don't think you are in the position to criticize anyone who is against second hand smoking, as in the end you are hurting the people around you, not they (even if it's a mediocre hurting). The thing on alcohol is, that it is indeed forbidden in a lot of places, or just not wanted. Smoking was integrated into society, but nowadays there are places where smoking has to be forbidden, just like alcohol. It's basically the process that alcohol went trough a longer time ago.
|
I hate having to sit near smokers and smell them, and I hate the ones that breath it everywhere not realising everybody else has to inhale it. Not everyone is that inconsiderate though, and I dont mind them smoking
|
On March 06 2012 22:52 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 22:33 Geiko wrote:On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Have there been any studies indicating that nicotine is more addictive than sugar or fat by the way ? As I can't quote any science right now, suffice to say for the moment that the body requires sugar and fat to survive, it does not require nicotine. Actually, there is talk right now that nicotine is not addicting at all. Smoking is for some reason addictive, but not the nicotine. They are mainly thinking this because people do not get addicted and/or abuse nicotine patches/gum etc. Which means there is definitely something off with addiction to nicotine compared to crack (which are usually compared in severity).
At least thats I heard, and to be honest it sort of makes sense.
|
United Kingdom35817 Posts
On March 07 2012 00:08 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 00:03 marvellosity wrote:On March 07 2012 00:01 solidbebe wrote:On March 06 2012 23:55 Earll wrote:On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary harm to everyone around you. Most countries have some laws to restrict smoking inside\in specific areas, and in a non public place any decent person will ask if you are ok with them smoking before they light up. Still, living in a city or any urban area you are just going to breathe in smoke many times in your life. No matter what you might try and to do avoid it. Yeah, you may as well vilify anyone who doesn't drive the most eco-friendly car possible. The obvious difference is that buying an eco-friendly car costs more money. Not smoking costs no money. Likewise eating so much junk food costs more money, whereas simply eating decent meals is much more financially sustainable. I'm judging them based on the more feasible and less destructive of options.
No, buying a Clio is infinitely cheaper than a Range Rover.
|
There should definitely be something done to parents who make their kids fat. I don't understand how anyone can do that to their kids.
|
On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary physical harm to everyone around you. No one is forcing you to walk next to me when I'm smoking. In fact, if you do even though you have such a huge problem with passive smoking, I'm going to assume that you're downright stupid, so I would worry more about that than the fact that you're getting a bit of diluted smoke in your lungs.
EDIT: In fact, I'm not even done. Peoples sense of entitlement is insane. If I go to a restaurant and want to smoke, I have to sit outside. I do this gladly because I know it's not nice to get smoke in your face when eating, especially if you dislike smoke. Then you have the idiots who claim you're a dick for smoking even when sitting outside where theres ashtrays on every table! WTF? You can choose if you want to sit outside or inside, I'm forced to sit here, how can YOU be the one complaining? Get your ass inside, or whine to the owners to make a smoking section outside or whatever.
Smokers already show a ton of respect for non smokers. We sit outside. We go to the veranda. We refrain from smoking on airplanes etc. We go to a specific spot when waiting for the train. We stop smoking if we're in a situation where someone allergic etc can't avoid the smoke. Still, this is somehow not enough, you're an asshole for smoking in a spot where you're actually allowed to smoke, jsut because some obstinate straight edge can't take it that HE isn't supposed to be able to sit exactly anywhere he want without anyone else affecting him.
|
Anyone raising second hand smoke as an excuse to vilify smokers is incredibly obtuse. Studies of the effects of passive smoking are notoriously inconclusive, and unless you're living full time with someone who smokes indoors, you are unlikely to be exposed to anything remotely close to a health affecting amount of carcinogens. Open wood-fires such as braziers, campfires or open fireplaces expose you to far more carcinogens than living with a smoker.
Complaining about passive smoking from people smoking in public places is like complaining about exposure to radiation because the person next to you on the bus is wearing a watch with a luminescent face.
People will quite readily attribute any case of lung cancer in a non-smoker with second hand smoke but the reality of it is something like 10-15 out of every 1000 people will develop lung cancer regardless of whether they are a non-smoker, smoker or live with a smoker.
|
On March 07 2012 00:22 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 23:52 Roe wrote: Too often smokers and pro-smokers hide behind the argument that it's their personal choice. That they should be free to do whatever they want with themselves. Well guess what, the smoke isn't going to just effect you. Whenever you light up you increase the chances everyone around you gets cancer among other diseases. In this way smoking and obesity are different. I'm not going to be harmed by some fat guy walking next to me. And yes, I can judge as a bad person for smoking. You're causing unnecessary and voluntary physical harm to everyone around you. No one is forcing you to walk next to me when I'm smoking. In fact, if you do even though you have such a huge problem with passive smoking, I'm going to assume that you're downright stupid, so I would worry more about that than the fact that you're getting a bit of diluted smoke in your lungs.
And if not just you but everyone else smoked I just had to accept that I get killed, just walking down the street, because YOU are being ignorant and selfish.
|
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time. Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't.
|
On March 07 2012 00:27 naggerNZ wrote: Anyone raising second hand smoke as an excuse to vilify smokers is incredibly obtuse. Studies of the effects of passive smoking are notoriously inconclusive, and unless you're living full time with someone who smokes indoors, you are unlikely to be exposed to anything remotely close to a health affecting amount of carcinogens. Open wood-fires such as braziers, campfires or open fireplaces expose you to far more carcinogens than living with a smoker.
Complaining about passive smoking from people smoking in public places is like complaining about exposure to radiation because the person next to you on the bus is wearing a watch with a luminescent face.
People will quite readily attribute any case of lung cancer in a non-smoker with second hand smoke but the reality of it is something like 10-15 out of every 1000 people will develop lung cancer regardless of whether they are a non-smoker, smoker or live with a smoker. Would you mind referencing these studies, as well as who funded them?
|
|
|
|