If Stupidity Is Evil...

[Lord Jim]

Well Dale, I was just referring to Volume I

When rube says one of these bone chillingly ignorant things, (like asserting that people who smoke are less intelligent and less "moral" than "normal" people) the natural impulse is to suggest to him that he might want to put his brain in gear before he gets his mouth in motion....

The sad thing however, is that long association with rube has shown me that this is the sort of thing he comes up with when he has been using his "brain"....(which is why he's probably better off when he sticks to copying and pasting.)

Pity, no one has the wit or honesty to address it.

No one has addressed it because it's a complete strawman...There have been no reports of widespread "immediate vomiting" caused by someone in another apartment smoking....In the vast majority of cases most people have no idea whether or not other people in an apartment complex smoke, (unless they happen to see them or know them personally.)

[rubato]

Postby rubato » Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:42 pm
No matter if someone is in their own home or outdoors they have no inherent right to pollute the air other people have to breathe. No more than if they kept rotting animal carcasses around or burned piles of wet brush. What the boundaries ought to be is a matter of legitimate debate. What level of harm is low enough that someone should be told they just have to put up with it? Is a bad smell ok if it changes the death rate only slightly? What if the small causes immediate vomiting? What if it is so bad you can't sell your home or it reduces the price?

The history of modern civil society is the history of understanding what these boundaries ought to be.

Can't think won't think.



yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Can't think won't think.

yrs,
rubato

Your new signature is perfect.

[Lord Jim]

The history of modern civil society is the history of understanding what these boundaries ought to be.

In this country rube, the state has to demonstrate clear and compelling reasons before it attempts to prevent people from engaging in a legal activity in their own homes, whether it likes that activity or not. The city of Belmont has not even attempted to do this. (There are clear 4th Amendment issues here)

In Levine's case, health concerns, (proven or unproven) obviously aren't even an issue or motivating factor since as Saunders points out, while the American Lung Association has determined that the carcinogenic and other toxic substances from second hand marijuana smoke is worse than for cigarettes, his bill doesn't even address this; he is either ignorant of, or disinterested in this fact.

No, this is the case of an arrogant, nasty little man, trying to harass people for daring to engage in behavior in the privacy of their own homes that doesn't meet with his approval. A man so filled with hubris that he believes that his personal opinions should trump the rights of others in their own homes. A truly disgusting human being.

[rubato]

The question is purely a material one: Does the behavior effect neighbors materially or not? One can ban keeping an open pit of rotting offal in the yard if the smell is offensive, whether or not physical injury is proved. Smoking stinks. If you are in close proximity you will be effected by the smell and particulate smoke.

One can not ban (for example) cell phones or home wireless networks because extensive research has failed to show any effects whatsoever; people cannot even tell in a double-blind experiment if there is such a field in the vicinity. People might be able to tell if the person in the next apartment is smoking because the stench will reach them.

This comes back to basic principles articulated by JS Mill. "On Liberty"

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Banning smoking in your own home is a terrible "solution". Individuals can already sue other individuals for creating a nuisance if they are affected by a neighbor's smoking or by rotting offal in someone's backyard.

I suppose we should have a law that says you need to take a shower daily so you won't offend someone with your odor. Or maybe we should outlaw cooking cabbage or fish in your home because some people don't like the smell. How about not allowing you to start your car up near your neighbor's home because of the pollutants your car puts into the air?

It's interesting how marijuana is "not covered in this". It makes no sense.

Only a politician with a weak brain would support a law like that.

[Big RR]

The question is purely a material one: Does the behavior effect neighbors materially or not? One can ban keeping an open pit of rotting offal in the yard if the smell is offensive, whether or not physical injury is proved. Smoking stinks. If you are in close proximity you will be effected by the smell and particulate smoke.

One can not ban (for example) cell phones or home wireless networks because extensive research has failed to show any effects whatsoever; people cannot even tell in a double-blind experiment if there is such a field in the vicinity. People might be able to tell if the person in the next apartment is smoking because the stench will reach them.

This comes back to basic principles articulated by JS Mill. "On Liberty"

yrs,
rubato

Running a lawn mower, a string trimmer, or just driving a motor vehicle creates more pollutants and noxious fumes than a cigarette. And then there's the noise, which is a problem by itself. but we don't tell people to use manual lawn mowers and/or walk--life requires we accept some discomfort from our neighbors.

[rubato]

In California 2-stroke engines have been outlawed for mowers or string trimmers because of the noxious pollution. And you cannot mow your lawn at 2am or blast your stereo. You cannot pour used motor oil down the drain &c. So we do regulate those impacts.

And of course because we do not regulate all things which might impact others is no logical reason not to regulate some of them. As I said "The history of modern civil society is the history of understanding what these boundaries ought to be." It is reasonable to consider what the boundaries should be.



yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

In California 2-stroke engines have been outlawed for mowers or string trimmers because of the noxious pollution. And you cannot mow your lawn at 2am or blast your stereo. You cannot pour used motor oil down the drain &c. So we do regulate those impacts.

Land of the free eh?

[Sean]

...and the home of the unkempt lawn.

[Lord Jim]

because we do not regulate all things which might impact others is no logical reason not to regulate some of them the things I don't approve of.

Fixed.

[oldr_n_wsr]

A law saying one cannot smoke in ones house? How stupid is that? and then rubato talking about pollution that a cigarette causes? What about the oil/gas burner used to heat the house? What about the power plant used to supply you with electricity? And as BigRR pointed out, lawn mowers, weedwackers, leaf blowers etc? So what if they are 4 cycle, they still generate smoke, CO and carcinogens. Not as much as a 2 cycle, but a 2 cycle is more efficient as it uses less gas to do the same job especially on high RPM machines like weedwackers.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Someone should think first.

[dgs49]

In an argument that I generally lose due being shouted down, the real empirical evidence on second-hand smoke (aka "environmental tobacco smoke" or "ETS") indicates that it is harmless. Even if you are in the constant presence of a smoker, the level of exposure is simply not sufficient to cause any MEDICAL harm (no argument that the stuff is obnoxious and offensive). But the studies that rise to the level of public consciousness generally are merely compilations of previous "studies" that were in themselves statistical nonsense. The EPA and the CDC have done this on several occasions. In short, non-smoking spouses of smokers and non-smoking co-workers of smokers have no greater risk of contracting any diseases that are generally associated with cigarette smoking than anyone else. (I was raised in a household with 7 "chain smokers"). But because this goes against "common knowledge" and current public sentiment, the real data is never reported.

I have linked and copied an abstract of a Real study.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776 ... t=Abstract


Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe.
Source
International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France. boffetta@iarc.fr
Abstract

BACKGROUND:

An association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer risk has been suggested. To evaluate this possible association better, researchers need more precise estimates of risk, the relative contribution of different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different histologic types of lung cancer. To address these issues, we have conducted a case-control study of lung cancer and exposure to ETS in 12 centers from seven European countries.

METHODS:

A total of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects up to 74 years of age were interviewed about exposure to ETS. Neither case subjects nor control subjects had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime.

RESULTS:

ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

So the chances of getting sick through smoke exposure through the common wall of a condo? Pretty much nonsense

[Lord Jim]

Well Dave we've been round and round about this on this board, and the CSB before that...

While I wouldn't go so far as to call it absolutely harmless, I've made very clear that the next survey I see on second hand smoke that employs a methodology that would actually allow it to remotely support some of the wild claims that have been made, ("50,000 die a year from second hand smoke") will be the first one...

And of course add to that, in this case you're talking about not even being in the same room or set of rooms; you're talking about being in a space separated by walls, and possibly other units, and floors...

If there is any "harm" at all in that scenario, it has pretty much got to be less than from traffic passing by on the street...Certainly not something that would rise to the level of taking the extreme step of regulating legal private behavior in the privacy one's home...

In any event, the little tin-pot dictator wannabe who came up with this obnoxious and invasive legislation clearly isn't even really the slightest bit concerned about health claims, even spurious ones...That's just a strawman he's thrown up...

He shows his ass conclusively on this by not including pot in his bill. No, his objective is simply to harass people for daring to engage in an activity he does not approve of. He apparently thinks he has that right.

I'm glad rube has participated in this discussion, because I think what he has said really illustrates the fundamental problem:

Nowhere in rube's posts about this will you find him, in even a lip service paying way, giving the slightest acknowledgement to the notion that the right to be secure in one's home against the intrusions of government, is a right every bit as fundamental as the right to free speech, or to keep and bear arms. For people like rube and this arrogant dweeb legislator, this right isn't even worth mentioning; it doesn't exist for them, it's nowhere on their radar screen.

No, for these types of folks, (and this really isn't ideological; it's more of a mindset of entitlement; Lord knows there plenty of folks on the right who also want to regulate the behavior of people in the privacy of their own homes; they just have a different set of behaviors they want to regulate.) the only thing that matters is getting the results they want and imposing whatever they see as "good" behaviors on others, the hell with any other consideration.

People like this simply do not comprehend the whole concept of what a free society is supposed to be about; they pretty much view it as just a damned nuisance. Something that gets in the way of their ability to impose on others the behaviors that they know to be best for them.

This right to be secure in one's home, while a fundamental right, is not of course inviolate or absolute; no right is. But when a fundamental right is going to be impinged upon, the burden lies with the state to demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so; in the case of this proposed bill, or the Belmont ordinance, the state never even made an attempt to do this; it just presumes it has the right. (And I guess because smoking is unpopular they have been able to get away with it; but there's an important principle here that's being trampled.)

BTW, I have been able to discover that in the Belmont case, the police policy is to only enforce the law if there is a complaint (so if they happen to cruise by and see someone smoking on their balcony they don't intervene).

I have not been able to find any stats on how many complaints have actually been made or what was done about them (I'd really hate to think that someone who's actually being victimized by a real crime could find themselves with a slow police response time, because a cop was busy writing out a ticket for this nonsense. Anyone who would actually waste the police department's time by calling in a complaint over this clearly has no regard for the well being or safety of their community; just another one of the "entitled" types with serious values issues.)

Nor have I been able to find out anything about the status of legal challenges to this morally offensive ordinance.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Good post LordJim. I am a smoker and I smoke outside my home. If my neighbor complained i would move to the other half of my half acre. But some don't have that privilege. All they have is their four walls, and they should be allowed to smoke in those four walls. After all, can we burn all the toast and bacon we desire, which produce more smoke than a cigarette.

I think the crux of this is that people who have smoked smell of smoke (duh). And people would like pleasant smelling people in their elevators they have to share with others. God forbid someone doesn't smell pleasant!!! I think everyone should have to take a showen with Irish Spring every day.

Well i am someone who does not have a sense of smell and is allergic to some perfumes. I cannot smell those ahead of time and thus cannot avoid them (which I would happy to wait for hte next elevator if i could smell the type of perfume) so I get to walk around with itchy swollen eyes instead.
People are just trying to live their lives and have what little enjoyment (having a cigarette, putting on perfume, not bathing) they seem to need/want.
Next time some dickhead walks into me because he is too busy ypping on his cell phone or texting or web surfing, can I get a law passed about walking and phoning? After all, he might have accidently shoved me into the street to get hit by a passing motor vehicle. a big detriment to my health. And if you don't that happens, walk down a NYC street and observe

[Lord Jim]

Personally oldr, I'd like to see an ordinance prohibiting people from saying incredibly stupid or ignorant things in public...

Every time I'm out and about and I hear someone say something like, "smokers are intellectually and morally inferior to normal people", or "The British have had a 4th rate navy since the American revolution" or "The Poles weren't victims of the Nazis", (to give some hypothetical examples) my ears start to ache, and my eyes begin to water....If the idiot blithers on long enough, my discomfort can develop into a full blown migraine...

Restaurants are the worst...

It's hard to hold your food down when you hear the person at the next table issue forth with something like, "There was no genocide before Christianity"...

Really, there ought to be a law....

[oldr_n_wsr]

I hear you LordJim. I am anti-law enforce what we already have don't invent new laws as that is just reduntant to the law that should apply. I try and tolerate as much as I can and if I can't tolerate it I excuse myself from the situation. Many people would rather enact a law or providence against that behaviour rather then just walk away.
I think that's what you were trying to say and what I am saying
Higher power
Let me accept the things I cannot change
Change the things I can
And
Wisdom to know the difference
All could learn from that especially the last phrase.