Neo-Puritanism at RevLeft

[redstar2000]

Has anyone besides myself noticed the recent explosion of neo-puritanism on this board?

Suddenly it's 1915 at RevLeft! :o

All sorts of people are "busting out" with views that I thought revolutionaries had left behind "in the west" many decades ago.

We've got people pissing and moaning about wide-spread "sexual degeneracy". We've got people who not only support the "war on drugs" but who also want to extend it to alcohol and tobacco.

In 1915, this sort of shit was openly religious in inspiration. It was a "war on sin".

Now the motives for all this crap are "nominally secular". We have to "protect people's health" and keep them from being "weakened" by sexual or chemical pleasure...then they'll presumably "concentrate on revolution".

True, some of those "arguments" were also used in 1915...back then, for example, medical authorities assured the public that "self-abuse" (masturbation) led to insanity. :lol:

Religion having lost most of its intellectual respectability, we now face a flood of "scientific" evidence that all forms of sensual pleasure are incredibly dangerous and will kill us all unless, of course, we "repent and sin no more".

And the "political spin" is that we "can't" fight for revolution and still "have a good time"...we must become "revolutionary monks & nuns".

This is such a bizarre line of argument that one can only be amazed at its monumental effrontery.

And its elitist implications...that only the "virtuous few" are "fit" for revolution. The vast majority of "sinners" must be "taken in hand" and made to behave properly "for their own good". :o

The capitalist class has always had "mixed feelings" about the pleasures of the working class. They liked making money from them but they were displeased by the prospects of pleasure interfering with productive labor.

So the "signals" in capitalist society are "mixed"...we have "legal drugs" and "illegal drugs"; "permitted sex" and "prohibited sex". And the signals change from time to time.

Over the last half century, the signals have changed in a somewhat more "permissive" direction in the "west".

But in the U.S., that trend is being reversed under the ideological influence of Christian fascism...as well as sociological "research" designed to "prove" that "promiscuity is bad for you".

As are tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, opiates, cocaine, meth, and ecstasy...all "bad juju". :lol:

It would appear that the American ruling class is "switching over" to a "model" for the working class that emphasizes "de-personalized" pleasure. Porn instead of sex. Watching people use drugs instead of actually enjoying drugs...and feeling "morally superior" while doing so.

One would predict that there will be "food porn"...movies of people eating elaborate "unhealthy" meals which we can watch while chewing on our rabbitarian munchies and feeling smugly superior to those gustatory "degenerates". :lol:

What's most difficult for me to understand is why people who think of themselves as revolutionaries would allow themselves to get sucked into this crap.

Do they "just believe" all the witch-doctorery about "harmful pleasures"? Have they picked up somewhere the idea that sensual pleasures "are counter-revolutionary"? Do some of them just look forward to the idea of deciding what is to be permitted and what is to be prohibited for the masses?

As I've mentioned before, this is really a Platonic idea. The purpose of "good government" is to "make people virtuous".

Properly speaking, Plato was the philosophical "father of fascism"...and it was 20th century fascism in all its varieties that most strenuously attempted to make people "live virtuous lives" whether they wanted to or not.

"Degenerate behavior" was actually a crime in the Third Reich.

It seems to me necessary for communist revolutionaries to reject this whole outlook on human behavior. The human quest for pleasure is neither "morally reprehensible" or "physically deadly". There are some risks involved...but living itself is inherently "risky" and we'll all die from something.

Our approach should be to search for cures for illnesses that may be a consequence of indulgence in particular pleasures...and not seek to demonize those pleasures in a vain effort to "save people from themselves".

I know that there are more than a few people on this board who will find this "scandalous"...but communism will be fun!

Far more pleasurable than the empty promises of capitalism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[violencia.Proletariat]

The only arguement that has any relevancy is "second-hand smoke". Yet the reality is that unless you have a smoker in the family you arent forced to be exposed to smoke at any point. Going outside your more in danger of sucking in noxious fumes from the local factory than getting lung cancer from someones cigarette. :lol:

If its not directly effecting your autonomous functioning why the hell would you oppose someone else's personal choices?

[Janus]

Has anyone besides myself noticed the recent explosion of neo-puritanism on this board?
I'm sure that a lot of members here have noticed it as well. Since it doesn't violate any of the guidelines, I'm not sure what should be done about it.
I see no problem with seeking pleasure and having fun. I don't believe in banning drugs, I just don't really see the point of using drugs such as cocaine which are highly addictive and detrimental to one's health. But you have to remember that those who want to ban it do have some scientific evidence supporting their claims and aren't just a bunch of religious fundamentalists preaching that pleasure=sin.


Our approach should be to search for cures for illnesses that may be a consequence of indulgence in particular pleasures...and not seek to demonize those pleasures in a vain effort to "save people from themselves".
I agree. Warnings should be put out but adults should be able to make their own decisions.

The problem with drugs is when it affects someone else's life as nate mentioned whether it be through violence or health problems.

Also, hospital care is sometimes limited and there are those who truly need that care, those who had no control over their current conditions.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:13 AM
We've got people who not only support the "war on drugs" but who also want to extend it to alcohol and tobacco.
If I am included in this group (hint: Puerto Rican tobacco ban thread), then I find that you are just sadly mistaken. There is no anti-pleasure sentiment in my opinions; I truly am interested in public health and content. Is that not what a revolutionary fights for, but the welfare of all?

Edit: I am against the outlaw of drugs and alcohol, because neither of these (when used by others) are a risk to my health.

[Sentinel]

Yeah, this stuff can really piss one off. The swedish "left-wing" government has held enormous taxes on cigarettes and alcohol throughout the years, while lowering them dramatically for the corporations at the same time.

Smoking and getting drunk is only for the rich, it seems. :angry:

All because the Social Democratic Worker's Party is "worried" about the health of the citizens, naturally. :rolleyes:

Every once in a while some, propably richly government-funded, "experts" publish studies of the dangers of drinking, smoking, and so on.
I'm still waiting for the shock-documentaries about the nature of capitalism from that direction. Great "leftist morals" there.

But we were talking about real leftists, not reformist class-enemies, right? :lol:

Yes, the communist movement should absolutely distance itself from all kinds of "moral panic" crap.

Sexual "morals" are outright bullshit naturally. No-one can tell consenting adults what's "allowed" in their bedrooms - or on their damn kitchen tables. Or how many partners they may have. This should be obvious!

And I think something is fundamentally wrong when someone is "concerned", about my health and decides to "intervene". My health is my business.

As I see it, our goal isn't only to liberate mankind from the despotism of capital. It's so much more! Even all kinds of obsolete traditions, fears and regressions must be conquered.

I want the kids born in the future communist society to be brought up strong, fearless, and free to live an as satisfying and, yes, fun life as possible.

Therefore neo-puritanism isn't anything for us.

[encephalon]

Recently, I have indeed noticed this, especially concerning sex (which others seem to have left out so far in their replies, focusing mostly on tobacco).

I disagree wholeheartedly, but that's not really the point of this thread (as far as I can tell). My best explanation for it is that it may be a backlash against the failed "new left" of the past in the US.. because it lost footing, people may be rejecting all that went along with it without considering there's more to its failure than the fact that the new left didn't mind "sex, drugs and rock and roll."

It's almost like a conservative strain in the revolutionary left itself, somhow 8) I'm not really sure how to approach it, but very obviously something has gone sincerely awry.

[Vanguard1917]

We've got people pissing and moaning about wide-spread "sexual degeneracy". We've got people who not only support the "war on drugs" but who also want to extend it to alcohol and tobacco.

In 1915, this sort of shit was openly religious in inspiration. It was a "war on sin".

Now the motives for all this crap are "nominally secular". We have to "protect people's health" and keep them from being "weakened" by sexual or chemical pleasure...then they'll presumably "concentrate on revolution".

True, some of those "arguments" were also used in 1915...back then, for example, medical authorities assured the public that "self-abuse" (masturbation) led to insanity.

Religion having lost most of its intellectual respectability, we now face a flood of "scientific" evidence that all forms of sensual pleasure are incredibly dangerous and will kill us all unless, of course, we "repent and sin no more".

I agree with you here. Especially that "health" has replaced religion as a means to regulate people's lives.

I don't think we should be suprised that this new moralism has entered the left, though. It was the mainstream left that helped push all this moralism on the agenda in the first place.

[YKTMX]

As we already know, anyone who disagrees with Redstar about anything is either a latent despot looking to enslave the class or a sub-Calvinist zealot. It's not possible that reasonable comrades could disagree with the wise wizard about anything.

That's clear.


We've got people who not only support the "war on drugs" but who also want to extend it to alcohol and tobacco.


Nonsense. Everyone has made it clear that people shouldn't not do something simply because the Catholic Church or the "moral majority" thinks it bad. However, here's where it gets confusing for Redstar and other.

Just because the reactionary right doesn't want some people to do a given "thing", doesn't mean that "thing" is automatically an absolute "good". Contrary to his claims, Communists are not "ambivalent" about how people behave and interact with their enviroment. Why? Because we should know that every social phenomena (alcoholism, drug abuse, sexual "freedom") is underpinned by the underlying class structure of society. When people get blinding drunk and rape someone, that behaviour is just as "conditioned" by capital as when they go out to work at the factory the next morning.

There is also another contradiction Redstar is incapable of understanding. Take wage slavery. As Communists, we are opposed in principle to wage slavery, we think it "immoral" (some people will oppose this terminology, I know). However, we also absolutely defend the right to everyone who wants one to take a job and oppose attempts by individual capitalists to sack their workers.

So, on one hand, we're opposed in principle and on the other hand we defend the idea of people being employed.

This also applies to some of the behaviour we've been discussing.

We're not in favour of "stopping" people behaving in "lumpen" ways - that is, we're not in favour of the ruling classes or their religious representatives stopping them.

We are, however, in favour of destroying the system which makes people so alienated and unhappy in their everyday life, a system which prohibits any meaningful attachment to other human beings.

As to to "life under the revolution", Redstar's scaremongering is nothing if not comical - "revolutionary monks" :lol:.

In communist society, people will be "free" to act how they please without infringing on the freedoms of other - the libertartarian "harm principle" will actually mean something. If this means they want to abuse drugs and drink and have massive orgies, then great! Sounds fun. Will they though? I doubt it.

At the festival of the oppressed, there are many more attractive delights that alcohol and cocaine. ;)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Janus+--> (Janus)....I just don't really see the point of using drugs such as cocaine which are highly addictive and detrimental to one's health.[/b]

Cocaine isn't "highly addictive" - it's "fucking expensive" though.

I know a lot of people - myself included - who on occasions put all kinds of substances up their noses and I have yet to see one person become "addicted", certainly most people I know are able to just take huge amounts on weekends and then go weeks without doing anything else.

Plus, the only "detrimental" effect on ones health from snorting substances is waking up with a blocked nose. You'd have to snort stuff for about two years straight before you start to "make holes".


Originally posted by Janus+--> (Janus)But you have to remember that those who want to ban it do have some scientific evidence supporting their claims....[/b]

The Nazi's had whole departments which would tell you how Jews - and Slavs and Women and Black people and so on - were sub-human.


Tormented by [email protected]
I am against the outlaw of drugs and alcohol, because neither of these (when used by others) are a risk to my health.

Ah come on know.

Have you seen how many alcohol related violent attacks there are? ....it's staggering.


YouKnowTheyMurderedX
At the festival of the oppressed, there are many more attractive delights that alcohol and cocaine.

If that's the case, then I'm sending my invitation back! :lol:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Cocaine isn't "highly addictive" - it's "fucking expensive" though.

I know a lot of people - myself included - who on occasions put all kinds of substances up their noses and I have yet to see one person become "addicted", certainly most people I know are able to just take huge amounts on weekends and then go weeks without doing anything else.

Plus, the only "detrimental" effect on ones health from snorting substances is waking up with a blocked nose. You'd have to snort stuff for about two years straight before you start to "make holes".

Is this a joke?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 20 2006, 01:24 PM

Cocaine isn't "highly addictive" - it's "fucking expensive" though.

I know a lot of people - myself included - who on occasions put all kinds of substances up their noses and I have yet to see one person become "addicted", certainly most people I know are able to just take huge amounts on weekends and then go weeks without doing anything else.

Plus, the only "detrimental" effect on ones health from snorting substances is waking up with a blocked nose. You'd have to snort stuff for about two years straight before you start to "make holes".

Is this a joke?

Is what a joke?

The overwhelming majority of cocaine users never even come close to becoming addicted and actually the only cases of cocaine addiction I've heard about, have been rich people.

Cocaine is too expensive for "ordinary people" to take enough on a regular basis and to therefore become addicted.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
As we already know, anyone who disagrees with Redstar about anything is either a latent despot looking to enslave the class or a sub-Calvinist zealot.

You know, it is starting to kind of look that way. :lol:


When people get blinding drunk and rape someone, that behaviour is just as "conditioned" by capital as when they go out to work at the factory the next morning.

I see...before capital, people didn't get "blinding drunk" and rape was entirely unknown.

This is the sort of thing that passes for "Marxism" among my critics.

That most people who drink and even become drunk never rape anyone is "irrelevant".

Back in the 1930s, marijuana was criminalized on the basis that it was a drug "used by Negro males" to "get high" so they could "rape white women".

The "connection" was "obvious". :lol:


However, we also absolutely defend the right to everyone who wants one to take a job and oppose attempts by individual capitalists to sack their workers.

Careful with that "we".

I don't "defend" the "right" of people to get jobs as cops or soldiers or prison guards.

And if some especially repugnant corporation sacks all of its employees, I won't shed a tear...much less exert a gram of energy to "get their jobs back".

If, for example, some manufacturer of torture devices goes down the toilet, I will respond with a malicious chuckle.


We're not in favour of "stopping" people behaving in "lumpen" ways - that is, we're not in favour of the ruling classes or their religious representatives stopping them.

That seems rather inconsistent on your part. If you disapprove of "lumpen ways", why shouldn't you be in favor of "stopping them" any way you can?

I "disapprove" of religion (:lol:) and therefore anything that the capitalist ruling class does that undermines or represses religion has my approval.

Not that they do much of that sort of thing any more...but when they do, that's fine by me. :)

So why don't you feel the same way about repressing "lumpen behavior"?


In communist society, people will be "free" to act how they please without infringing on the freedoms of other - the libertarian "harm principle" will actually mean something.

Sounds promising. However, as you are a Trotskyist, you believe in a "transitional workers' state" -- with the power to repress "lumpen behavior".

Why should we believe you won't do that when you have the chance?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

It's not about what is good for you and what is bad for you. It's about upholding the autonomy of individuals to make their own decisions about how to live their lives. Human adults are capable of making rational adult decisions without the interference of the nanny wing of the state.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 02:02 PM
It's not about what is good for you and what is bad for you. It's about upholding the autonomy of individuals to make their own decisions about how to live their lives. Human adults are capable of making rational adult decisions without the interference of the nanny wing of the state.
In class society, autonomy is a myth.

And I'm rather surprised such a strident "anti-populist" like yourself would be copying wholesale the language of the Daily Mail!

"Nanny state"...indeed.

[YKTMX]

If you disapprove of "lumpen ways", why shouldn't you be in favor of "stopping them" any way you can?

I "disapprove" of religion () and therefore anything that the capitalist ruling class does that undermines or represses religion has my approval.



Yes, exactly.

I'm against every measure that emboldens the bourgeoisie. So I'm equally against measures to "supress" religions or to "supress" drug use, alcohol etc. I might be in "favour" of atheism amongst the class, and "in favour" of self-respect, but it doesn't mean that I, unlike you, want the stormtroopers of the ruling class to go around telling people what they can't do or believe.

This isn't a "moral" position, it's a question of the balance of class forces.

You're simplistic "anti-theocratism" leads you up so many weird paths.

Presumably you were in favour the SS storming the Chapels of Germany and replacing the good book with the "secular" Mein Kampf.

Yes?


Sounds promising. However, as you are a Trotskyist, you believe in a "transitional workers' state" -- with the power to repress "lumpen behavior".


Absolutely.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
This is the best law the UK parliament has passed in years.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292023447 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46509&view=findpost&p=1292023447)

[Vanguard1917]

In class society, autonomy is a myth.

When it comes to matters of how a person eats, drinks, smokes and has sex, there is increasing intervention by the state. Increasingly state-sponsored 'health experts' and 'lifestyle gurus' feel that they have the authority to tell people how to live their personal lives. There is a growing sense that people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions concerning the most trivial of things.


And I'm rather surprised such a strident "anti-populist" like yourself would be copying wholesale the language of the Daily Mail!

"Nanny state"...indeed.

It isn't only the Daily Mail that has made that observation. What the hell is the government doing banning smoking in public places, for example? What are MPs doing having heated debates in Parliament about how many pints of beer constitutes 'binge drinking' (anything over 3 pints, apparently!), or how parents should feed their children? These may not seem very significant, but they have a great cumulative effect. They perpetuate a sense of incompetence in people - that people are incapable of taking control of their own lives. It helps create a feeling that grown men and women are helpless children who depend on the state to make the decisions... even on such trivial matters.

We want a confident working class that sees itself as a revolutionary subject of history responsible for transforming society. Such working class people will have to make enormously consequential decisions and judgements in the process of taking control of their lives. If working class people are told that they're incapable of deciding how much alcohol to drink, where and when to smoke, and how to raise their children without state 'advice', how are they to see themselves as a revolutionary force?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Presumably you were in favour the SS storming the Chapels of Germany and replacing the good book with the "secular" Mein Kampf.

What an image! :lol:

The Nazis didn't have to "storm the chapels"...they received an enthusiastic welcome. The number of religious figures that opposed Nazism can practically be counted on the fingers of both hands.

And that doesn't even get into the "cult status" of Mein Kampf itself. It was a book given to young couples as a marriage present or to graduating students; even most Nazis probably never read the damn thing.

Sort of like the superstitious on this board who display astonishing ignorance of their own "holy books". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 20 2006, 03:27 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Feb 20 2006, 03:27 PM)
YouKnowTheyMurderedX
This is the best law the UK parliament has passed in years.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292023447 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46509&view=findpost&p=1292023447) [/b]
This is a ban on smoking in a certain context because of it's consequences for other people, namely people who work in bars, clubs etc.

It's different from banning drugs or religion because they're "bad".

[YKTMX]

When it comes to matters of how a person eats, drinks, smokes and has sex, there is increasing intervention by the state.

So you're opposed to public health initiatives?

I don't have any problem with the state advising people on what they should eat or consume.

Also, this language of "interference" is a bit suspect. The same people who disfavour "interference" in people's attitudes to health also happen to be the same people who support the "free market" and don't like "intervention" in the economy.

I wonder who those people could be?

As socialists, we're clear, if it's a choice between the "free market" and the "nanny state", it's the "nanny state" every time - within reason.


There is a growing sense that people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions concerning the most trivial of things.


Maybe they can't.


What the hell is the government doing banning smoking in public places, for example?

It's to stop people working in bars dying of lung cancer in their thirties just because a minority want to blow carcinogens in other people's faces all day.


If working class people are told that they're incapable of deciding how much alcohol to drink, where and when to smoke, and how to raise their children without state 'advice', how are they to see themselves as a revolutionary force?

Spurious.

The smoking ban as an inhibition on the growth of class consciousness?

Please, be serious.

The class will see itself as a revolutionary force when it comes face to face with its own power and the meakness of capital before collective action.

Nothing else matters.

[KC]

It's to stop people working in bars dying of lung cancer in their thirties just because a minority want to blow carcinogens in other people's faces all day.

You might as well suggest to ban power plants, vehicles, fireplaces, landfills, rocketry, volcanoes, cattle, and pine trees!!! :lol:

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:17 PM
You might as well suggest to ban power plants, vehicles, fireplaces, landfills, rocketry, volcanoes, cattle, and pine trees!!! :lol:
You ever worked in a smoked filled bar? You know, those places where you can't see the ceiling due to smoke? If you want to recreate the atmosphere then lock yourself in a garage with the car engine running for a couple of hours.

[emokid08]

I agree with RedStar. Neo-purtianism sucks. No one should ever force thier "morals" or values" on to others. I know the arguments are deeper, but that's what stands out to me. I will have sex with whoever I want (of course only if it's only consenual, I'm not a rapist.) I will jack off whenever I want ( in my own home), I will marry whoever I want,I will practice whatever religon I want-if I choose to practice religon. I will do what ever I want as long as my actions don't infringe on anyone elses rights, freedoms, or liberties.


The only person who knows what's bes for you is:
YOU!

I'm a civil libertarian and I think that as long as you're not infringing on others rights, then you're alright. No one should ever violate your rights, and you should never violate the rights of another.

Examlple:Smoking. Smoking is a violation of other people's rights. When you smoke, you're slowly killing yourself and everyone else around you. Now, I could care less that your're killing yourself, but please, do it in the privacy of your own home. Don't sentence everyone else around you to a slow and painful carcinogenic death, kill yourself in your own home. No one should be allowed to jeopardize the safety, health, or rights of others. That's just plain wrong.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Feb 20 2006, 02:22 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Feb 20 2006, 02:22 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 06:17 PM
You might as well suggest to ban power plants, vehicles, fireplaces, landfills, rocketry, volcanoes, cattle, and pine trees!!! :lol:
You ever worked in a smoked filled bar? You know, those places where you can't see the ceiling due to smoke? If you want to recreate the atmosphere then lock yourself in a garage with the car engine running for a couple of hours. [/b]
What a stupid comparison. With a car you'd inhale the carbon monoxide and die within a couple hours. That obviously doesnt happen to bar workers. Working in many bars in america you need to have bartending skills. Therefore most people working in there obviously wanted to in order to go through that training. They could easily have picked another bar.

[Janus]

Cocaine isn't "highly addictive" - it's "fucking expensive" though.

I know a lot of people - myself included - who on occasions put all kinds of substances up their noses and I have yet to see one person become "addicted", certainly most people I know are able to just take huge amounts on weekends and then go weeks without doing anything else.

Plus, the only "detrimental" effect on ones health from snorting substances is waking up with a blocked nose. You'd have to snort stuff for about two years straight before you start to "make holes".
So you're pretty much saying that cocaine isn't addicting and has no ill effects? What happens if you overdose? If you were wondering, I was originally talking about habitual use. Not everyone who uses drugs does it under the safest and best conditions.


The Nazi's had whole departments which would tell you how Jews - and Slavs and Women and Black people and so on - were sub-human.
I'm not sure how that's relative to this discussion. Those claims weren't based on actual science while the studies on drugs are.

Either way, I don't see the point of using drugs that are extremely expensive and that only give you a very short high. But if an adult decides to use it then it's their business. The only problem is when you get children strung out on it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
[The smoking ban] to stop people working in bars dying of lung cancer in their thirties just because a minority want to blow carcinogens in other people's faces all day.

A typical neo-puritanical "argument". :lol:

I, of course, have been inhaling first-hand two packs of cigarettes a day for at least 40 years...and if I have lung cancer, it must be in its very early stages. :P

And it's always been so annoying when the bartender or cocktail waitress coughs up blood in your drink. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 07:00 PM
Examlple:Smoking. Smoking is a violation of other people's rights. When you smoke, you're slowly killing yourself and everyone else around you. Now, I could care less that your're killing yourself, but please, do it in the privacy of your own home. Don't sentence everyone else around you to a slow and painful carcinogenic death, kill yourself in your own home. No one should be allowed to jeopardize the safety, health, or rights of others. That's just plain wrong.
If you do not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, stay out of bars. No one is forcing you in thier.

When you start up your car you are admitting pollutants in the air, which is detrimental to health and the enviorment. The second hand smoke argument is hypocritical for anyone who drives an automobile.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Janus+--> (Janus)So you're pretty much saying that cocaine isn't addicting and has no ill effects?[/b]

I'm saying what's viewed as "common knowledge" with regards the effects of cocaine use is mostly overblown.

Just because a few "celebrities" got holes in their noses, doesn't mean the rest of us will and what's more, cocaine use is - I suspect - very high and you don't hear all that many "horror stories" with regards cocaine.

Another overblown drug is ecstasy. There are a couple of examples which are always shown in the Media of a few people not drinking enough - or drinking way to much - water and dieing. This apparently "proves" that ecstasy is "really harmful". When in reality, shit loads of people "drop some pills" every weekend and are perfectly fine afterwards.

Indeed, a few of those "horror stories" are not because of ecstasy being "really harmful", rather club owners deliberately turned the water supply off in order to make people buy bottled water - you probably go through a bottle an hour over a 5-6 hour period. Meaning in a Club full of people, that's a lot of water and if they have to buy a new bottle every hour, that's a lot of money.

Bar heroin, I'd say the effects of every "Class A" drug are massively overblown.


Originally posted by Janus+--> (Janus)What happens if you overdose?[/b]

I've honestly never heard of someone overdosing on cocaine. It's probably happened, but I suspect that it is really rare.


Originally posted by Janus
Not everyone who uses drugs does it under the safest and best conditions.

Most people are bright enough to do these things properly.

I suppose there's likely a class difference with regards the dangers of drugs.

"Middle Class" people have more money and can buy more drugs, they also have less "worries". This means they're likely to go "over the top" more.

Working class people on the other hand, do have strict financial limits and also a lot of "worries" - getting up for work being a good one. Which means they are more likely to use drugs sensibly.


[email protected]
Those claims weren't based on actual science while the studies on drugs are.

It would be nice to find out who is funding the anti-smoking groups. That'll give us a decent indicator as to how "scientific" the science actually is.


Janus
The only problem is when you get children strung out on it.

Define child.

[Vanguard1917]

YouKnowTheyMurderedX:

So you're opposed to public health initiatives?

I don't have any problem with the state advising people on what they should eat or consume.

This 'advice' is based on a reasoning that people are incapable of making the right decisions on the most trivial aspects of their everyday lives.


Also, this language of "interference" is a bit suspect. The same people who disfavour "interference" in people's attitudes to health also happen to be the same people who support the "free market" and don't like "intervention" in the economy.

I wonder who those people could be?

As socialists, we're clear, if it's a choice between the "free market" and the "nanny state", it's the "nanny state" every time - within reason.

A choice between a 'nanny state' and a 'free market' is, from a working class perspective, no choice at all. They both reduce the working class to a pathetic mass of people who have no control over their lives. The 'nanny state', by definition, assumes that working class adults are children.


There is a growing sense that people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions concerning the most trivial of things.


Maybe they can't.

Well, you've put that suprisingly bluntly. For a socialist, you hold the working class in inexcusable contempt. That's where i differ fundamentally from those on the left like yourself.


It's to stop people working in bars dying of lung cancer in their thirties just because a minority want to blow carcinogens in other people's faces all day.

There is no hard scientific evidence to support that 'passive smoking' can cause lung cancer. And, at the same time, there is no movement of bar workers calling for a ban. The ban is something that comes solely from above.

Non-smokers may indeed find smoke annoying. But if we called for a ban on everything that causes us personal annoyance, we would live a very strange world. I find your argument in this thread very highly annoying (to say the least), for example - but i can live with it. In fact, there are many things in this world that i find annoying about certain personal behaviours and habits. But that's no justification to call for a ban on those things.


The class will see itself as a revolutionary force when it comes face to face with its own power and the meakness of capital before collective action.

Well, according to you, the working class cannot even get its head around the basic and trivial aspects of day-to-day life. If you're going to hold the working class in such low esteem, at least be consistent.

[Janus]

I'm saying what's viewed as "common knowledge" with regards the effects of cocaine use is mostly overblown.

Just because a few "celebrities" got holes in their noses, doesn't mean the rest of us will and what's more, cocaine use is - I suspect - very high and you don't hear all that many "horror stories" with regards cocaine.

Another overblown drug is ecstasy. There are a couple of examples which are always shown in the Media of a few people not drinking enough - or drinking way to much - water and dieing. This apparently "proves" that ecstasy is "really harmful". When in reality, shit loads of people "drop some pills" every weekend and are perfectly fine afterwards.
I was talking about long-term effects. I know that major problems after only one trial is extremely rare (and brilliantly exploited by the anti-druggies :lol: ).


Most people are bright enough to do these things properly.
Yeah, but there's always a few who harm other people's lives while under the influence.


That'll give us a decent indicator as to how "scientific" the science actually is.
So you believe that there's no correlation between the increased rish of cancer, emphysema, and other problems with smoking? It took years of scientific research to get the companies to put those warning labels on cigarette packs. Go look at the studies for yourself. When you put it that way, who funds the pro-smoking ads?


Define child.
Someone who is extremely malleable and gullible and doesn't understand the negative side effects of some drugs.

Like I said, I'm not against drugs. An adult should be able to seek pleasure if he/she wants to. The only problem is when this adversly affects the lives of others.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 20 2006, 10:07 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 20 2006, 10:07 PM)
YouKnowTheyMurderedX
[The smoking ban] to stop people working in bars dying of lung cancer in their thirties just because a minority want to blow carcinogens in other people's faces all day.

A typical neo-puritanical "argument". :lol:

I, of course, have been inhaling first-hand two packs of cigarettes a day for at least 40 years...and if I have lung cancer, it must be in its very early stages. :P [/b]
RedStar, why do you keep using "neo-puritan" and all of it's forms as buzzwords? They make no sense, considering what we're debating.

Here's a simple breakdown:

RedStar2000: Quit imposing your morals on my activities!

Myself: This isn't about morals, this is about health.

RedStar2000: Quit imposing your morals on my activities!

Myself: Your activities kill millions every year!

RedStar2000: Quit imposing your morals on my activities!

(and so on...)

Now, head over to the Puerto Rican ban thread for the argument I have been writing. By the way, your "I smoked for 40 years so it must be healthy" argument is fallacious at best.

[which doctor]

We are all going to die sooner or later. One person I know who smokes knows that smoking is probaly going to kill her. She loves smoking, and says, why not die from something you love doing. I say, let people smoke. There are plenty worse things out there that can kill you.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Janus+--> (Janus)I was talking about long-term effects.[/b]

There are no doubt some, but I doubt they are that bad.


Originally posted by [email protected]
So you believe that there's no correlation between the increased rish of cancer, emphysema, and other problems with smoking?

There most definitely is a "correlation". However I think that "correlation" is very weak with regards "passive smoking" - which is what we are talking about.

Plus, these studies often overlook a crucial factor....class.


Janus
Someone who is extremely malleable and gullible and doesn't understand the negative side effects of some drugs.

That could apply to all kinds of people.

[Ol' Dirty]

Drugs and alchohol don't do any good in the long run. They just ruin people's lives, bodies and minds.

Of course, this is just my opinion. If people want to fuck up their bodies, let them. It's no say of mine. It's like religion; do what you want, just keep it the fuck away from me.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Just because someone believes something is bad for you, why do they feel the need to push thier morals on others. Energy would be better spent helping those in need than pushing moral beliefs on others. Starvation is worse for you than anything covered on this thread. All these things covered are a choice, if someone chooses to do something detrimental to his or her health fine. Would it not be more wise to help those who are suffering because of circumstances beyond thier control? You can not save someone from themselves, save those who can be saved.

An entity that regularly blows up civillians has no business telling me what and where I can do something. The hell with government and the hell with neo-puritans.

[Janus]

There most definitely is a "correlation". However I think that "correlation" is very weak with regards "passive smoking" - which is what we are talking about.
:blink: I thought that you were originally talking about actual smokers.


That could apply to all kinds of people.
Not really. It's usually the childhood years in which one is most malleable and susceptible to peer pressure and whatnot.

Like I said, if someone wants to use drugs then that's their business. But they should try not to endanger or adversely affect the lives of others.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Janus+--> (Janus)I thought that you were originally talking about actual smokers.[/b]

Well all this fuss is about "passive smoking" and banning smoking in Public places, so that's what I thought we were discussing.

However, I must admit that all these debates seem to have become tangled up in all kinds of other stuff and therefore become really "messy".


Janus
It's usually the childhood years in which one is most malleable and susceptible to peer pressure and whatnot.

My point is, at what age do you define being a child as? ....is a 14 year old a child?

[Janus]

Well all this fuss is about "passive smoking" and banning smoking in Public places, so that's what I thought we were discussing.

However, I must admit that all these debates seem to have become tangled up in all kinds of other stuff and therefore become really "messy".
Oh, then I guess we must have misunderstood each other.


My point is, at what age do you define being a child as? ....is a 14 year old a child?
It depends on each person. I would probably say that it would have to be under 13 or 14.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Tormented by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:32 AM
RedStar, why do you keep using "neo-puritan" and all of it's forms as buzzwords? They make no sense, considering what we're debating.
Because anyone who disagrees with RedStar is obviously a Lenin worshiping, belly flopping neo-puritan :lol:

[redstar2000]

More bad news for the neo-puritans...


Originally posted by BBC+--> (BBC)Births out of wedlock 'pass 40%'

The proportion of children born outside marriage in the UK has leapt from 12% in 1980 to 42% in 2004, according to the Office for National Statistics.[/b]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4733330.stm

What would Lenin say??? :lol:


Tormented by Treachery
RedStar, why do you keep using "neo-puritan" and all of its forms as buzzwords?

For the sake of accuracy.

For the secular neo-puritans, to do something "unhealthy" is to commit a sin!

And people must be stopped from being "sinful". It's "for their own good", of course.

Aside from the substitution of nominally secular language, the attitude of the modern neo-puritans is no different than that of a Baptist preacher c.1915!

If you get sick, it's "because" of your immoral (unhealthy) behavior and you deserve to be sick...it is righteous "punishment for your sins".

I suspect the time is not far distant when it will be seriously proposed that people who suffer from so-called "lifestyle illnesses" (sin!) should be denied life-saving medical care.

Such a proposal is the logical consequence of the neo-puritan "paradigm" that currently prevails.

The Christian fascists claimed that AIDS was "God's Punishment" for the "sin" of homosexuality. Why not claim that lung cancer is "God's Punishment" for smoking tobacco?

Or just remove the religious language and talk about "health"...the rhetoric is all the same otherwise.

Why should we, the saved (healthy living), divert scarce resources to saving the damned (unhealthy living)?

Why indeed!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:33 AM
Why not claim that lung cancer is "God's Punishment" for smoking tobacco?
This has nothing to do with "sin" or religion.

To put it simply, I will quote one of my own posts, something that you've ignored.



Cancer is simply a disease that is caused when cells are unable to stop reproduction, until large growths are formed -- tumors. These tumors multiply in size until the organism dies.

What causes cancer, that is the question. Cancer is caused when a proto-oncogene is mutated, causing the cell to reproduce more rapidly and bypass the 'checkpoints' of the cell cycle, not allowing the cell to stop reproducing. Normally, the proto-oncogene would cause the cell to halt during the G_0 phase, but when this is 'switched off' the cell continues its mad cycle. Hence the uncontrolled growth into a tumor, as these oncogenes are introduced to new cells and they are thus mutated into cancerous cells. Now, as for what can cause this mutation -- there are some differing factors.

Now, smoking introduces mutanogens into the lungs -- that is, chemicals that are direct causes of mutation of genes (including proto-oncogenese and tumor supressing genes). To quote the pages of biology I posted , "Among the genes that are mutated as a result are some whose normal function is to regulate cell proliferation. When these genes are damaged, lung cancer results." Read the page. It has been clearly shown that the benzo[[i]a]pyrene (BP) binds to epithelial cells and forms BPDE, which directly binds to the p53 gene, a tumor-supressor gene, and mutates it to its inactive form! And you argue that "it causes some harm"?! As the book states, each cigarette is 10.7 minutes of your life. Enjoy.

There is no doubt whatsoever that it is a direct cause of cancer.

RedStar, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the "I have smoked for forty years and I am fine" argument is fallacious. There are people who have fallen from 70 feet in the air and lived, does this mean that it is not dangerous to jump out of a 6 or 7 story building? Or does it mean that the dangers of doing so are "greatly exaggerated"?


Births out of wedlock 'pass 40%'

The proportion of children born outside marriage in the UK has leapt from 12% in 1980 to 42% in 2004, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Do not associate me with these people that are 'worried' by this. That is simple, 3rd grade name-calling, and I would think you'd be above it.


And people must be stopped from being "sinful". It's "for their own good", of course.

Where have I argued that you can't smoke because it's harmful to you? I have never. I might have even stated (as I have on a separate forum) that if you'd like to do some crack while smoking 6 cigarettes and raping your cat, go for it. But it does not mean that you are allowed to spread your carcinogens and toxins to other people.


The Christian fascists claimed that AIDS was "God's Punishment" for the "sin" of homosexuality.

Are you again trying to associate me with Christian, homophobic fascists? I think you'll find you're "barking up the wrong tree."


Or just remove the religious language and talk about "health"...the rhetoric is all the same otherwise.

Find one instance of me using religious rhetoric, please.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Because anyone who disagrees with RedStar is obviously a Lenin worshiping, belly flopping neo-puritan.[/b]

The occurrence of this coincidence does seem to exceed chance by a substantial margin. :lol:


Originally posted by Tormented by [email protected]
This has nothing to do with "sin" or religion.

Oh? Want to take a guess who the first big anti-smoking crusader was?


King James I in 1604
A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black, stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the the pit that is bottomless.

Herein is not only a great vanity, but a great contempt of God's gifts, that the sweatness of man's breath, being a good gift of God, should be willfully corrupted by this stinking smoke.

Yeah, that's the same scumbag responsible for the "King James Bible".

And it has been thus ever since.

Puritanism in religion has to do with forcing people to give up "sin".

Modern neo-puritanism has to do with forcing people to give up "unhealthy lifestyles".

You may claim, in all sincerity, that you don't want to do that...but the agenda of the neo-puritans is very clear! They DO want to do that.

They're DOING IT!

And your own support for outright bans on smoking in public spaces simply supports their agenda.


RedStar, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the "I have smoked for forty years and I am fine" argument is fallacious.

Say it a million times if you like. It's the semantic equivalent of...

Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes? :lol:

When you get right down to it, neither you nor I nor (in all likelihood) anyone on this board is competent to discuss the actual scientific merits of the research purporting to "prove" that cigarette-smoking "causes cancer". None of us are trained experienced oncologists, right?

So what's left? You accept the slogan: "second-hand cigarette-smoke is dangerous to non-smokers."

And I don't accept it!


Find one instance of me using religious rhetoric, please.

My point is that neo-puritanical rhetoric is religiously inspired even if its terms are nominally secular.

Note also that I've responded at length to some of your points in this post. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46450&view=findpost&p=1292024491)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

RedStar, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the "I have smoked for forty years and I am fine" argument is fallacious. There are people who have fallen from 70 feet in the air and lived, does this mean that it is not dangerous to jump out of a 6 or 7 story building? Or does it mean that the dangers of doing so are "greatly exaggerated"?

Smoking is bad for a person's health. Even the most dedicated smoker knows this. But let's put it into perspective.

It is said that 1-in-3 smokers will die from a smoking-related illness. In other words, the majority of smokers (two-thirds) will die from causes unrelated to smoking. Therefore, your analogy is an inaccurate one: smoking is not comparable to jumping off a 6 or 7 storey building. Smoking is less dangerous than that.


Where have I argued that you can't smoke because it's harmful to you? I have never. I might have even stated (as I have on a separate forum) that if you'd like to do some crack while smoking 6 cigarettes and raping your cat, go for it. But it does not mean that you are allowed to spread your carcinogens and toxins to other people.

As i said before, there is no substantial proof that 'passive smoking' is a significant cause of cancer. The risks of 'passive smoking' are highly negligible.

There are many other things that can cause negligible risks to a person's life. But we do not (and should not) call for a ban on those things.

We shouldn't want a sanitised society obsessed with health risks. Human beings aren't as fragile as you and others may think. And there's no such thing as "health for health's sake". There is so much more to life than calculating and avoiding every little thing that may provide a risk to your health.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:15 PM
It is said that 1-in-3 smokers will die from a smoking-related illness.

I watched a programme the other day about a certain kind of "fat" - not saturated fat, something else I can't remember the name of.

Anyway, this programme said that eating this fat will double (?) your risk of heart failure.

Now apparently, this kind of fat is mostly found in cheap foods - working class food - and this is the same group of people that smokes the most.

So if this science is accurate, then most people who smoke and then die of heart problems could be dieing because of a certain kind of diet, not smoking.

Indeed, it does automatically put doubt on the figures for smoking deaths. After all, when someone dies from heart failure and they also smoke, as I understand it, the "cause of death" is listed as smoking.

However, what's to say it's not their diet and this type of fat in particular, that is causing their death?

Also, if someone is said to have "passive smoked their way to death", what is to say that in reality this type of food played a part.

I'd say, listing all the "micro-causes" of bad health is very difficult and therefore laying the "blame" on smoking seems very silly.

[anomaly]

I can't speak for Europe, but in the US, obesity has surpassed smoking as a health risk.

So, to those of you who propose these bans in public places, should we create a food quota for the overweight? The significance of their heart failing at a young age can have quite the effect upon their children, so the argument can be made that their actions 'hurt' those around them.

Hopefully, no one will seriously say 'yes' to the above question. Also, hopefully, you'll see from that nonsensical question that what you 'smoking-ban' supporters propose is equally nonsensical.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Oh? Want to take a guess who the first big anti-smoking crusader was?


Originally posted by King James I in 1604
A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black, stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the the pit that is bottomless.

Herein is not only a great vanity, but a great contempt of God's gifts, that the sweatness of man's breath, being a good gift of God, should be willfully corrupted by this stinking smoke.

Firstly, the first recorded anti-smoking crusader (nice use of adding religious connotations, by the way :)) is King James I, to our knowledge. Does this mean that there weren't peasants refusing smokes? Ah, heck, it's a moot point, they didn't know where babies came from back then. However, second, does the idea 'coming from' an outspoken Divine Right advocate mean that the concept is "evil"? Although I'm opposed to school uniforms -- the idea for them originated in 1930's Germany, does this make them inherently "evil" when used nowadays to simply eliminate prejudice based on class?


Yeah, that's the same scumbag responsible for the "King James Bible".

Agreed that he's a scumbag, but don't be ignorant enough to confuse yourself to think that just because someone supports an idea, it is instantly worthless or corrupt.


You may claim, in all sincerity, that you don't want to do that...but the agenda of the neo-puritans is very clear! They DO want to do that.

They're DOING IT!

And your own support for outright bans on smoking in public spaces simply supports their agenda.

I guess this is where we disagree. I'll thank you for (*ahem* finally) admitting that I am not out to cleanse the world of "sin" and convert all ye heretics to the love of Jesus, but you're sounding strikingly like our good friend Bill O'Reilly. Whereas he believes a secular stronghold of Jews and atheists are out to diminish Christian influence, you believe that a stronghold of Puritans and religious nuts are out to increase the Christian influence (as if that was possible ;) ). Both are strikingly similar in their paranoia.

Let them think I'm "supporting their agenda" (if they and their agenda are existant, we'll presume they are for now). As soon as they try to eliminate something that I think should stand, they'll be sadly mistaken in my "support" of their agenda. I'd be delighted to have these nutjobs show their true colors, thinking they have a following, when in reality it is but a few corrupt, insane, rich cappies.

But I digress. I think your class paranoia has officially exceded reality. I agree, there are definite lines of oppression and there are most obviously groups seeking to supress the poor. However, to deny simple empirical research conducted in literally thousands of laboratories around the world, well that's simply borderline Catholicism :D .


Say it a million times if you like. It's the semantic equivalent of...

Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes? :lol:

(Vanguard)

It is said that 1-in-3 smokers will die from a smoking-related illness. In other words, the majority of smokers (two-thirds) will die from causes unrelated to smoking. Therefore, your analogy is an inaccurate one: smoking is not comparable to jumping off a 6 or 7 storey building. Smoking is less dangerous than that.


Vanguard missed the analogy, RedStar ignored it.

If the man who jumps out of a building from 6 stories up lives, goes on television and says "I did it, see? It's perfectly safe, or at least, the dangers are greatly exaggerated!" Does this not compare to what you're saying? To again use the simple college-level Biology book I have exploited, 40% of the people smoking 25 cigarettes a day live past the age of 70. 80% of those who never smoked do. 5% of those smoking 25 cigarettes or more a day lived past 85 years, 25% of those who never smoked did. Simply put, I believe science over one story of survival. Because for every story that you can give me, there are going to be 5 of death.

My analogy is correct because just because one man can beat it doesn't mean that that is the normal.


When you get right down to it, neither you nor I nor (in all likelihood) anyone on this board is competent to discuss the actual scientific merits of the research purporting to "prove" that cigarette-smoking "causes cancer". None of us are trained experienced oncologists, right?

No, but some of us (such as myself) can understand simple biology. When the cell goes through the cell cycle, it reproduces through simple binary fission. During this cycle (comprised of Interphase, which is divided into G_1, S, and G_2, Prophase, Metaphase, Anaphase, and Telophase) the cell hits a few "checkpoints" where the cell determines if it is satisfactory to move on to the next phase. These checkpoints are responsible for phenomena such as placing epithelial cells on an agar plate and having them only form one layer of cells. If there are "enough" of these cells, the checkpoints will shut down the cycle and cease production of cells. As with every function, these checkpoints are controlled by genes. Now on to how this is affected by smoke.

Cigarette smoke has chemicals that are designed to "shut off" one of these genes, called pax53. The chemicals found in smoke (keep in mind, this means "passive" smokers receive this too!) were made for turning this gene, a tumor-supressor to its inactive form! It is supposed to cause cancer!

"What's left" is understanding the science behind this: something that you, having read the last 2 paragraphs, now do. You know how this works. Whereas there is no explanation for why people thought masturbation was dangerous other than "he did it a lot, and look at him," there is fairly understandable biology behind this.


Note also that I've responded at length to some of your points in this post. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46450&view=findpost&p=1292024491)

Sure, if you call waving the same "you're all religious nuts!" flag and chanting the same "I did it, so it's safe" mantra "replying." I'm gearing up to "reply" to it right now.

Vanguard1917

As i said before, there is no substantial proof that 'passive smoking' is a significant cause of cancer. The risks of 'passive smoking' are highly negligible.

There are many other things that can cause negligible risks to a person's life. But we do not (and should not) call for a ban on those things.

We shouldn't want a sanitised society obsessed with health risks. Human beings aren't as fragile as you and others may think. And there's no such thing as "health for health's sake". There is so much more to life than calculating and avoiding every little thing that may provide a risk to your health.

The risks are "highly negligible"? Do you have any clue about what you're talking about, or do you just prefer to take all of the knowledge you possess and ignore it?

The argument you all seem to be making is that there is no real risk (or a "highly negligible" one) for passive smokers. I've basically laid out how something works, much like saying "if you were to slit your throat open, the lack of oxygen going to the brain combined with blood loss would cause you to die." Still, you seem convinced that there is "no real evidence" that this causes anything, or that the "evidence" has been "cooked up" by bourgeois assholes trying to oppress you.

Armchair Socialism

I watched a programme the other day about a certain kind of "fat" - not saturated fat, something else I can't remember the name of.

Anyway, this programme said that eating this fat will double (?) your risk of heart failure.

Now apparently, this kind of fat is mostly found in cheap foods - working class food - and this is the same group of people that smokes the most.

So if this science is accurate, then most people who smoke and then die of heart problems could be dieing because of a certain kind of diet, not smoking.

Indeed, it does automatically put doubt on the figures for smoking deaths. After all, when someone dies from heart failure and they also smoke, as I understand it, the "cause of death" is listed as smoking.

However, what's to say it's not their diet and this type of fat in particular, that is causing their death?

Also, if someone is said to have "passive smoked their way to death", what is to say that in reality this type of food played a part.

I'd say, listing all the "micro-causes" of bad health is very difficult and therefore laying the "blame" on smoking seems very silly.

This whole post is "very silly." You're speaking of "transfat" I would suppose.

They "could" be dying of eating unhealthily, they "could" be dying of alcohol-related health concerns, they "could" be dying of smoking, or they "could" be dying of the poor sanitation and health care they recieve. There are a million and one reasons for a worker to die, in all seriousness. The reason it is "attributed" to smoking is because of the clearly defined genetic mutations it is known to cause. Whereas fat increases chances of blockages, smoking causes mutations. And mutations are what cause cancer and disease more than anything. There is a reason for smoking "taking the blame" for deaths. It is more commonly the cause.

Anomaly

Hopefully, no one will seriously say 'yes' to the above question. Also, hopefully, you'll see from that nonsensical question that what you 'smoking-ban' supporters propose is equally nonsensical.

The two nonsensical statements in the post were the question and the analogy. There is a big difference in "increasing chances of" and "directly causing." If you can't see that, and realize how eating unhealthy foods is the first and smoking is the second, than this debate is done.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+--> (Tormented by Treachery)You're speaking of "transfat" I would suppose.[/b]

Yep.


Tormented by Treachery
The reason it is "attributed" to smoking is because of the clearly defined genetic mutations it is known to cause.

So everyone who dies and has their death put down to "smoking" has been tested for these "causes"?

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 25 2006, 08:38 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Feb 25 2006, 08:38 PM)
Tormented by Treachery
The reason it is "attributed" to smoking is because of the clearly defined genetic mutations it is known to cause.

So everyone who dies and has their death put down to "smoking" has been tested for these "causes"? [/b]
They have to quantitatively measure how much blood was lost every time someone dies of blood loss?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+Feb 25 2006, 08:46 PM--> (Tormented by Treachery @ Feb 25 2006, 08:46 PM)
Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 25 2006, 08:38 PM

Tormented by Treachery
The reason it is "attributed" to smoking is because of the clearly defined genetic mutations it is known to cause.

So everyone who dies and has their death put down to "smoking" has been tested for these "causes"?
They have to quantitatively measure how much blood was lost every time someone dies of blood loss? [/b]

Well, to be accurate they would have to carry out and autopsy to determine the "cause of death".

I'm not in that "business", so I don't know what procedures they would carry out to determine whether the "cause of death" was "blood loss" or not, but figuring out (roughly) how much blood was lost seems a sensible position to me - especially if there are other "factors" that could have caused death.

[tambourine_man]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 20 2006, 10:40 PM
Bar heroin, I'd say the effects of every "Class A" drug are massively overblown.

i agreed with you till that.
the "negative effects" of heroin are just as misrepresented as those of cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana, and every other drug. for some reason, most people, even those on the far left, don't seem think so...

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by tambourine_man
i agreed with you till that.

No problem.

I'll happily admit that I may very well be completely wrong about heroin and its "harmful effects" because in all honesty, I've never tried the drug and "off-hand" I don't know of anyone who has.

From what I know about heroin - which isn't a lot - it seems (potentially) the most harmful recreational drugs around and I would therefore not use it - this being said, the effects are most likely overblown, I'm just not sure how much they are overblown.

I have in the past - and hopefully in the future! - experienced both ecstasy and cocaine (plus quite a few other drugs) and I know people who take, what would be described by "authorities" on the subject, obscene amounts of certain drugs.

And as far as I can tell, these drugs have not damaged these people in any substantial manner - they actually make quite a few of these people more tolerable! :lol:

So with regards heroin, I'm not "sure" how "harmful" it is and would not use it myself, however I will happily (and viciously) defend the right of a person to use it and the proposal to "legalise" it.

[Led Zeppelin]

You can't deny that smoking has a negative effect on ones health, I'm not even going to bother debating that.

I just wanted to add that smoking also gives you yellow teeth!

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 25 2006, 09:53 PM
I just wanted to add that smoking also gives you yellow teeth!

Not if you get them capped....

http://www.rockyriverdental.com/images/white-teeth.jpg

:D

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Led Zeppelin]

Don't you know? I'm a neo-puritan, I also oppose cosmetic surgery, and since I am really conservative, I consider getting your teeth capped also as cosmetic surgery.

God, sarcasm rules.

[anomaly]

"There is a big difference in "increasing chances of" and "directly causing." If you can't see that, and realize how eating unhealthy foods is the first and smoking is the second, than this debate is done."

Let me make the two equivalent.

Smoking causes unhealthy lungs, which can lead to complications such as lung cancer, heart disease, etc.

Eating like a total pig causes obesity, which can lead to complications such as diabetes, heart disease, etc.

Is the analogy really so incorrect?

So, since you are a good person and support the smoking bans, should we not also ban excessive eating, or atleast put a quota on it?

This all seems completely nonsensical, doesn't it? Well, that's the point. A quota on food consumption is nonsensical, and so is a ban on smoking in a public place.

If you're going to argue that we should ban smoking in public places since it can cause harm to others, should we not also ban alcohol any place but one's own home, since driving drunk or public drunkenness can harm others?

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 10:39 PM
"There is a big difference in "increasing chances of" and "directly causing." If you can't see that, and realize how eating unhealthy foods is the first and smoking is the second, than this debate is done."

Let me make the two equivalent.

Smoking causes unhealthy lungs, which can lead to complications such as lung cancer, heart disease, etc.

Eating like a total pig causes obesity, which can lead to complications such as diabetes, heart disease, etc.

Is the analogy really so incorrect?

So, since you are a good person and support the smoking bans, should we not also ban excessive eating, or atleast put a quota on it?

This all seems completely nonsensical, doesn't it? Well, that's the point. A quota on food consumption is nonsensical, and so is a ban on smoking in a public place.

If you're going to argue that we should ban smoking in public places since it can cause harm to others, should we not also ban alcohol any place but one's own home, since driving drunk or public drunkenness can harm others?
I wouldn't ban "excessive eating", but I would completely discontinue things like McDonalds and Krispy Kream.

Sorry if thats to Pilgrimish for some of you.

[Vanguard1917]

I watched a programme the other day about a certain kind of "fat" - not saturated fat, something else I can't remember the name of.

Anyway, this programme said that eating this fat will double (?) your risk of heart failure.

Now apparently, this kind of fat is mostly found in cheap foods - working class food - and this is the same group of people that smokes the most.

So if this science is accurate, then most people who smoke and then die of heart problems could be dieing because of a certain kind of diet, not smoking.

I don't think that this is a good way to counter the arguments against smoking.

In truth, human beings are living longer and healthier lives than they ever have. Our diets are, on the whole, better than they ever have been.

The problem of obesity in Western countries does not compare to the struggle against hunger and starvation that human beings have faced for thousands of years. In advanced capitalist countries at least, the problem of hunger has, on the whole, been solved. This is something to be celebrated. Being overweight is better than suffering from hunger.

Our contemporary obsession with "health" has an extremely unhealthy impact on the way we see ourselves as human beings. It creates a risk-averse atmosphere in which "health" is seen to be an end in itself. This is something that comes from above. We need to defend the liberty of human adults to decide for themselves what is good and what isn't.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Feb 20 2006, 06:23 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Feb 20 2006, 06:23 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 06:17 PM
You might as well suggest to ban power plants, vehicles, fireplaces, landfills, rocketry, volcanoes, cattle, and pine trees!!! :lol:
You ever worked in a smoked filled bar? You know, those places where you can't see the ceiling due to smoke? If you want to recreate the atmosphere then lock yourself in a garage with the car engine running for a couple of hours. [/b]
I really wouldn't want to work in a place like that either. And you know what? I don't!
Don't work there if it bothers you. It's really that simple.


As socialists, we're clear, if it's a choice between the "free market" and the "nanny state", it's the "nanny state" every time - within reason.
State beauracracies are entities which refuse to operate within the boundaries of reason. To expect any 'arm' of the "nanny-state" apparatus to behave 'within reason', be it the military or various other social control mechanisms, is absurd.

the puritan-esque thinking that's been rearing its ugly head in the left in recent history has some very grave implications of what's in store for us if the 'socialists' ever do gain state power. If your goal is to liberate the working classes, attempting to control their behavior is a very big step in the wrong direction.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
I don't think that this is a good way to counter the arguments against smoking.

Your choice.

All I was saying is that how does one effectively determine the "cause of death" of someone who had a heart attack and eat both "fatty foods" and smoked? ....do you just chalk it up to smoking without further investigation? ....I suspect this happens a lot, in which case the amount of deaths thought to have been caused by smoking may be significantly lower than anyone expects.

[KC]

I'll happily admit that I may very well be completely wrong about heroin and its "harmful effects" because in all honesty, I've never tried the drug and "off-hand" I don't know of anyone who has.

From what I know about heroin - which isn't a lot - it seems (potentially) the most harmful recreational drugs around and I would therefore not use it - this being said, the effects are most likely overblown, I'm just not sure how much they are overblown.

I know someone that did heroin for like 2 or 3 months and quit and said it wasn't that hard to quit. I really think that people that get addicted to these drugs get addicted for reasons that aren't just chemical. Chemical addiction could have to do with it, but I really think that drug addicts have a lot more problems in their lives that causes them to become addicted. I've smoked cigarettes when I'm at parties and someone gives me one or lets me have some of theirs and I can't see how people can get addicted to them at all.


You can't deny that smoking has a negative effect on ones health, I'm not even going to bother debating that.


So what?



I just wanted to add that smoking also gives you yellow teeth!


Not necessarily. I know a lot of smokers that have white teeth. They just brush their teeth twice a day.




Not if you get them capped....

Not if you get them capped....

http://www.vinylexchange.com/blog/pix/paulwall_close.jpg


In advanced capitalist countries at least, the problem of hunger has, on the whole, been solved.

You have to look at the system from a global perspective. You can't look at capitalism in just one area and come up with a conclusive analysis. In advanced capitalist countries, this problem has been "solved" because of the exploitation of less developed countries.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
No, but some of us (such as myself) can understand simple biology.

No...you understand how to use the "copy & paste" function in your operating system.

So do I.

Consider this...


Cigarette smoke has chemicals that are designed to "shut off" one of these genes, called pax53. The chemicals found in smoke (keep in mind, this means "passive" smokers receive this too!) were made for turning this gene, a tumor-suppressor, to its inactive form!

But those chemicals (or their analogues) must be found within the human body naturally...otherwise we'd remain the size of babies throughout our lives. Pax53 must be naturally "turned off" in order for us to grow at all.

Secondly, if your theory of causation were true, then everyone who smoked or who was exposed to smoke would inevitably get cancer.

The majority of people who smoke don't die of cancer or even get it at all; a complete contradiction to your analogy of "jumping off a building".

Or is it that most smokers have a genetic "fire brigade" that runs around after each cigarette is smoked turning pax53 "back on"? :lol:

In any event, you are completely missing the point of this thread; the fact that we have an astonishing number of people on this board who approve of the regulation of people's "lifestyles" for "their own good".

I have not noticed that your position is one of "segregation of smokers" in public places or in favor of extra ventilation for places where smokers congregate.

No, you just want to drive it out of public life altogether...mirroring, in fact, my own position regarding religion!

Come to think of it, it might not be such a bad idea to drive secular neo-puritanism out of public life altogether!

Considering how many lives have been utterly destroyed by the "war on drugs", the "war on alcohol", the "war on immoral sexuality", and anticipating the likely effects of the "war on tobacco", secular neo-puritanism is certainly making a decent effort to rival religion as a source of reactionary totalitarianism.

The time may come when such views expressed here will result in exile to Opposing Ideologies.

And that will be just the beginning. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Tormented by Treachery]

But those chemicals (or their analogues) must be found within the human body naturally...otherwise we'd remain the size of babies throughout our lives. Pax53 must be naturally "turned off" in order for us to grow at all.

You don't understand how this works.

The gene is pivotal in deciding if the cell need be stopped from reproducing. Switching it to its inactive form simply means that it is no longer able to serve that function. Indeed, for most cells, pax53 and the processes involved still allow the cell to continue with the cell cycle. It is when there are enough cells that the gene serves its function -- thats what a tumor-suppressor gene is for. It simply says "no, enough is enough." When this chemical has made the gene inactive, the cell cannot do this. Thus, tumors grow.

Your line:


otherwise we'd remain the size of babies throughout our lives.

Made me literally laugh out loud. I'm sorry that I can't discuss biology with you, it is akin to you discussing some complex philosophy with me. In all seriousness though, you really have no clue how the process works if you insist the chemical is naturally found in the body.

Thus, I'm done debating. I hope you realize a few things, judging by this sermon:


No, you just want to drive it out of public life altogether...mirroring, in fact, my own position regarding religion!

Come to think of it, it might not be such a bad idea to drive secular neo-puritanism out of public life altogether!

Considering how many lives have been utterly destroyed by the "war on drugs", the "war on alcohol", the "war on immoral sexuality", and anticipating the likely effects of the "war on tobacco", secular neo-puritanism is certainly making a decent effort to rival religion as a source of reactionary totalitarianism.

The time may come when such views expressed here will result in exile to Opposing Ideologies.

And that will be just the beginning. :)

This is my view of religion as well. And Nazism. And Capitalism. And most other things that I think you'd agree with. Let's not forget, we're on the same side for seemingly ever issue save this. If you want to drive "secular neo-puritans" out, go ahead. I am not in this group. If you choose to reject all of the data behind it, so be it, I disagree, but that is life. Your efforts to lump me with the raving protestant ministers and pro-life, nazi nutjobs is nothing more than throwing mud, RedStar.

[anomaly]

TormentedbyTreachery, you are missing the point of this thread.

Smoking clearly has some health risks, and those who smoke know this.

The point, however, is that you want to control people's lives by telling them what they can or cannot do. You try and back this up with 'science', but the 'science' is not at question.

The question is whether people should have the choice to do certain things some people find pleasurable, in this case, smoking cigarettes. You say no. There is no scientific data to back this idea that we should restrict people from actions that are pleasurable and have a negligible effect upon the rest of society. (cite 'second hand smoking' all you want...there is no evidence that such minimal exposure to cigarette smoke directly causes any serious harm).

I am still trying to discover how a communist could support any law limiting any person's basic freedoms.

But maybe the most astonishing thing is your resemblance to Rob Reiner, the notorious anti-smoking movie director... :lol:

[Punk Rocker]

There is no such thing as sin. We don't bow to their god, why should we still cling to his magical laws.

Make your choices but don't force them on the rest of us.

[Tormented by Treachery]

TormentedbyTreachery, you are missing the point of this thread.

No, you're missing what my argument is :).


Smoking clearly has some health risks, and those who smoke know this.

Although it's besides the point, some of them are doing a good job denying it.


You try and back this up with 'science', but the 'science' is not at question.

Successfully, I might add. And have you been reading most of the posts? Many are straight-out refuting that smoke (secondhand) causes cancer. I've endeavored to show exactly how it does.


The question is whether people should have the choice to do certain things some people find pleasurable, in this case, smoking cigarettes. You say no. There is no scientific data to back this idea that we should restrict people from actions that are pleasurable and have a negligible effect upon the rest of society. (cite 'second hand smoking' all you want...there is no evidence that such minimal exposure to cigarette smoke directly causes any serious harm).

You've ignored everything I've written. I shall simplify further:

Smoking causes cancer ---> It is the smoke itself that causes it ---> secondhand smoke contains the same toxins that cause it ---> a smoker causes someone else to get cancer ---> in communism, a society aimed at making all equal and directed at protecting the whole, someone else's pleasure endangering or killing another is not acceptable.


I am still trying to discover how a communist could support any law limiting any person's basic freedoms.

It is very simple. Communism also "limits" a jackoff from taking a bigger cut and whatnot -- in the interests of the public. His "basic freedom" to screw someone over is restricted in communism. His "basic freedom" to attempt to "enjoy" his life at the expense of others is restricted. Exactly like smoking. You can't kill someone else by reducing him to wage slavery, and you can't kill someone else by blowing mutanogen-laden smoke into their lungs. Did you wrap your mind around it that time?


But maybe the most astonishing thing is your resemblance to Rob Reiner, the notorious anti-smoking movie director... :lol:

And your resemblance to those who support "leftism" simply because they want their pot habit to be legal, knowing nothing of true revolutionary ideas.

[red team]

From a technical perspective:

cigarettes are technically flawed in which they are hazardous to both users and bystanders.

This is a design issue. Make a neurologically active product which is non-toxic then recall cigarettes. :)

As an interim solution chewing tobacco has exactly the same neurological effects as smoking tobacco, but with no collateral damage.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Just to toss in my two cents: If people are genuinely interested in bettering the populace's health, then, as stated before, you should focus on the extreme pollution and destruction being wrought upon the environment by capitalism, and the crap that is in the food most of us eat, not on the dude smoking a cig next to you for a few minutes. I do think restaurants should have smoking/non-smoking sections and stuff, sometimes you dont wanna be near smokers, not cause of health, but because it can simply be annoying sometimes. It also seems to me like a pretty rational conclusion that inhaling any kind of particulate matter into your lungs is bad, ergo smoking is not the best thing for your health on some scale. Nonetheless, people should be allowed to do what they will with using chemicals and what not for pleasure.

As for the source of this, its not that surprising. The bourgeoisie is the purveyor of extreme waste and fetishism. They spend massive amounts of wealth on petty useless commodities while people elsewhere starve. Thus people conclude that overindulgence is bad and ergo drug use and sexual promiscuity is bad. :-P.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Lazar
So what?

So it's best not to smoke.

To be honest, every logical thinking person would give up smoking after knowing that fact, that means that only smoke-addicts keep on smoking while knowing that it has a bad effect on their health, the real extreme addicts even try to defend it, cough...redstar...cough.


Not necessarily. I know a lot of smokers that have white teeth. They just brush their teeth twice a day.


And I know a lot of smokers who have yellow teeth, they also brush their teeth twice a day.

Perhaps I should change that to I knew. :lol:

[violencia.Proletariat]

So it's best not to smoke.

To be honest, every logical thinking person would give up smoking after knowing that fact

That's subjective. It's logical in the sense that you are trying to live as long as possible. Well if that were the case its logical to quit posting on here and start exercising.

Most here arent trying to live till 120. In fact most here are probably looking for some sort of pleasure to go in their lives after feeling the effects of class society. Therefore would it not be logical to smoke if it calms you down after a long day of work? Or even logical because if it does actually make you live a shorter life, you dont experience shitty class society as long.

I am not saying I agree with any of the viewpoints above, its just there are many ways to look at it.


And I know a lot of smokers who have yellow teeth, they also brush their teeth twice a day.

With the advancements in teeth whitening technology, the fact that your teeth are a bit yellow when you smoke is starting to diminish as an arguement against.

I dont smoke and brush my teeth twice a day, my teeth arent that white. It's just a weak arguement that could be compared to the super skinny models in magazines. Thats what you "should look like".

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+--> (Tormented by Treachery)....in communism, a society aimed at making all equal and directed at protecting the whole, someone else's pleasure endangering or killing another is not acceptable.[/b]

This sentence got me thinking, how do you plan to enforce a "smoking ban" in a Communist society? ....not the "transitional workers state" or the "Socialist epoch", but in a functioning Communist society with no Police and no Central Authority.

The Leninist of all varieties who dislike smoking, most likely wish to "train" smokers during the period of Party despotism, but how do those who disregard the "Leninist way" hope to accomplish their aims?

After all, it's quite easy to think of ways in which murder and rape will be dealt with - though the form of punishment remains controversial. However, a "smoking ban" seems more difficult - well virtually impossible - to enforce.

Do you wish to establish an "anti-smoking commune" which will enforce this ban? ....are you planning to build large prisons which will house the "un-civilised" who choose to smoke? ....or will you sentence them to death?

If a substantial part of the population decides they wish to smoke, will the Smoking Squad be called in - like the Riot Police are now - to "put down" the protests?

After a few "high profile" drink driving" deaths, will you propose that along with a Smoking Squad a Drinking Squad gets created to deal with the "problems" of drinking?

More importantly, what do you think will happen when the citizens of this Communist society decide to get rid of these Squads? ....they may "vote them out" or withhold goods from them. Will the Squads launch a "war on decadence"? ....seems possible to me.

Really, how do you plan to enforce this ban?


Marxism-Leninism
To be honest, every logical thinking person would give up smoking after knowing that fact....

If someone was to follow your logic, they'd be reduced to living in a hut somewhere, frightened of venturing out and bordering on complete insanity.
_____

It is slightly amusing that that the most "ban-happy" people are the people in the past have made posts about how they abstain from all kinds of pleasurable activities.

I suppose it is not surprising that personal preferences often spill over into political goals. Indeed perhaps it's my "disdain" for heroin which subconsciously meant I excluded it from drugs that I thought were "overblown" with regards their "negative effects".

I suspect that everyone really puts forward ideas for how they would like to see the world and in topics like this, it seems that some people wish to build a world "in their own image".

Some philosophical garbage for you to ponder on! :D

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
If someone was to follow your logic, they'd be reduced to living in a hut somewhere, frightened of venturing out and bordering on complete insanity.

Not really, they would just not smoke...


It is slightly amusing that that the most "ban-happy" people are the people in the past have made posts about how they abstain from all kinds of pleasurable activities.


I'm not for banning private smoking, that is, smoking in your own house or outside, but in a public place it must be banned, I hate it when people smoke somewhere I am, I really dislike the smell.

It just so happens to be that the majority of people agree with me, so tough luck buddy. :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+--> (Marxism-Leninism)Not really, they would just not smoke...[/b]

Or drive, or have sex, or take drugs, or eat certain foods, or participate in physical sports, or fly, or take a train, or wash an upstairs window, or....well anything really.


Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected]
I really dislike the smell.

Well fuck off then! :P

I don't like the smell of dog shit, so I don't step in it. :lol:


Marxism-Leninism
It just so happens to be that the majority of people agree with me, so tough luck buddy.

You live in Holland don't you?

I doubt many "Amsterdamians" would appreciate your "war on smoking".

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Or drive, or have sex, or take drugs, or eat certain foods, or participate in physical sports, or fly, or take a train, or wash an upstairs window, or....well anything really.

Nope, I have no problem with those things, just smoking.


Well fuck off then!

I don't like the smell of dog shit, so I don't step in it.

Why would I fuck off from a train station that I need to use to go somewhere, or a postal office, or a library or....?

Nope, the person lighting up should fuck off.


You live in Holland don't you?

I doubt many "Amsterdamians" would appreciate your "war on smoking".

It's already banned in most public places here, bars and such will soon follow, I don't hear anyone complaining, that is, no one is organizing against it, at least not any significant number of people.

Tough luck indeed, oh, and let me add that the government wouldn't have made those laws if the vast majority of people disagreed with them, I believe around 30% of people in this country smoke regularly, so you're outnumbered anyway.

The number's only going down, it doesn't look to good for smokers. :lol:

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 26 2006, 04:57 PM
Really, how do you plan to enforce this ban?
Well besides the whole industry ceasing to exist, making the production of cigarettes a thing of the past... ;)

We could suppose that were someone to magically obtain a cigarette or make his/her own, and this person went to a public area and smoked. Simply put, every citizen there would have the right to dispose of the person's cigarette. Simple. You're smoking, I take the cigarette and put it out. TA DA! No more cigarette smoke. If the person smokes in private, who gives a flying fuck? That's not what this is about. If a person smokes in the middle of the street at 1 am when no one is around, again, who gives a fuck? The question is just like asking how the society would enforce a ban on murder or rape. The citizens handle justice.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+--> (Marxism-Leninism)Nope, I have no problem with those things, just smoking.[/b]

Consistency, is obviously not one of your strong points.

You said: "To be honest, every logical thinking person would give up smoking after knowing that fact, that means that only smoke-addicts keep on smoking while knowing that it has a bad effect on their health".

Now if people followed your type of "logic", then they'd avoid thousands of everyday activities because there is a potential "bad effect on their health".

Indeed, if you are living in a "big city", then by your logic you should be planning to leave. After all, city environments are pretty detrimental to ones health.


Tormented by Treachery
The question is just like asking how the society would enforce a ban on murder or rape. The citizens handle justice.

Well here we run into problems.

You see, virtually everyone will agree that murder and rape are "bad" and that punishment should be dealt out, but I don't think you'd ever get a consensus like that with smoking.

That leads to obvious problems, especially in a Communist society. You would need an overwhelming majority of people in favour of enforcement to carry it out. Not only that, but you'd have to develop a large (?) bureaucratic body to enforce this "law" because a large portion of society would reject it.

Such a body, would obviously cause problems in a Communist society.

If you just left it up to "citizens", only Puritans would enforce this. Most people would never wish to physically confront someone just because they are smoking - especially if they thought the smoker would offer resistance.

After all, if you kept taking my cigarettes off me, I'd likely beat the living fuck out of you. And you wouldn't even have the gall to try and do it to a really big bastard - they'd seriously hurt you.

And this is what would happen if you tried to oppress a large portion of the population without having a suitable enforcement body - we'd fight back!

So what are you left with? ....either you construct a repressive state in a stateless society, or you execute everyone found smoking in public - you couldn't fine them and just taking their cigarette away wouldn't stop them doing it again.

Or perhaps - and this is probably what you'd enjoy doing - you could organise Vigilante Groups to carry out this enforcement. However, I very much doubt ordinary citizens would tolerate groups of Armed Puritans going round beating up normal citizens - especially in a Communist society.

Basically, normal citizens are too civilised to oppress other citizens and the only way you could oppress smokers is through constructing an apparatus dedicated to oppression. Something which is not part of the "Communist project".

In a Communist society, there would be nothing stopping you and the other miserable sods setting up places where you could be free of smoke, but if you tried to oppress any section of the population, you'd meet firm resistance.

People just wouldn't tolerate people infringing on their rights.

[boosh logic]

To get a good idea of wether smoking killed the person or not, all they have to do is open their lungs up and see if they are filled with tar. If they then died of lung or throat cancer then chances are smoking killed them. There is no absolute proof that smoking kills, but tobacco has been proven to be a carcinogen, and statistics show a clear link between deaths from certain illnesses like lung cancer and smoking, so to say "there is no proof so it isn't true" is just being pedantic, the facts show it is.

Saying that though, while I don't like the smell or taste of tobacco, it isn't my or anyone elses right to say wether or not they can do it, as if they know the effects then it is up to them. People can play Russian roulette if they want to - it's their desicion to risk their health, so as long as they don't stand next to someone else when they shoot it is not for someone else to say they can't. People might not like being in a smoke-filled bar, but they don't have to go to that bar, they can go somewhere else, or to the non-smoking section.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
Well besides the whole industry ceasing to exist, making the production of cigarettes a thing of the past...

I'm glad to see you've exposed your real agenda.

And that you confirm exactly what I said about you and your allies...by abolishing the growing of tobacco and the production of cigarettes, you reveal your incorrigible neo-puritanism.

Armchair Socialism correctly pointed out the consequences of the neo-puritanical agenda...you'd have no choice but to reinvent the police!

And what becomes of your "communism" when you've done that? It goes down the toilet!

Like religion, neo-puritanism is always reactionary and the people who advocate it are not communists no matter what they say!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Consistency, is obviously not one of your strong points.

You said: "To be honest, every logical thinking person would give up smoking after knowing that fact, that means that only smoke-addicts keep on smoking while knowing that it has a bad effect on their health".

Now if people followed your type of "logic", then they'd avoid thousands of everyday activities because there is a potential "bad effect on their health".

Indeed, if you are living in a "big city", then by your logic you should be planning to leave. After all, city environments are pretty detrimental to ones health.


The difference is that you can't avoid those other things which have bad effects on your health, you, however, choose to smoke out of free will.

Having common sense is obviously not one of your strong points.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+--> (Marxism-Leninism)The difference is that you can't avoid those other things which have bad effects on your health....[/b]

Of course you can avoid those things.

If "city air" is polluting your lungs, you can move to the country - which many wealthy people do.

If you don't want to die in a Plain crash, don't fly - something I manage to avoid every year! :lol:

If you're scared of snapping your leg, don't take part in physical sports.

If you don't want to catch and STD, don't have sex.

Nearly all things that have "bad effects on your health" can and sometimes are avoided - just like you can avoid cigarette smoke by not going to places where it is prevalent.


Marxism-Leninism
....you, however, choose to smoke out of free will.

I seems "common sense" has eluded you as well! :lol:

Smokers don't smoke because of "free will", the "Devil's work" or any other nonsense. They smoke because they have a chemical dependency - and an enjoyable one at that. :D

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 26 2006, 11:01 PM
Smokers don't smoke because of "free will", the "Devil's work" or any other nonsense. They smoke because they have a chemical dependency - and an enjoyable one at that. :D
I would have to disagree with this, but mostly on a personal level. Smokers smoke because they want to, and those that whinge about hating smoking, whilst still smoking are just being mildly pathetic. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense, rather they are either just suffering low motivation towards the task, or they still want to smoke.

Now a lot of smokers want to "not want to smoke" and this is completely different. Sometimes I wish I didn't like other things that are costly towards me.

The chemical side I never found too bad, and I have always found giving up relatively easy. Occassionally I will feel the urge to smoke (partly because I still reguarly smoke canabis with tobacco), and on these occassions I make a choice. I choose to smoke or otherwise, I definitely don't need to. I consider myself an honoury existentialist when it comes to tobacco :lol:

[Tormented by Treachery]

I'm glad to see you've exposed your real agenda.

And that you confirm exactly what I said about you and your allies...by abolishing the growing of tobacco and the production of cigarettes, you reveal your incorrigible neo-puritanism.

You're laughable, really. Tell me, if we "do away" with the whole system of capitalism, are we neo-puritans too? What about typewriters? If we stop producing those because they are obsolete, do we become neopuritans? You are amusing, RedStar, to say the least.

It would not be a mandated elimination. It would simply cease to exist. I know you can understand what I'm saying, judging by your theories on the elimination of the apparatus of the state.

I have no allies other than leftists, so I'd count you in.

Even still, the fact that I throw it out as a simple proposition makes me a neo-puritan? I suppose the first anti-slavery speeches were neo-puritanism as well?

Armchair Socialism did not, in fact, correctly point out the downfalls of this. Everything he stated could be easily said about a rapist or murderer, and yet, all of those are immediately defeated by simple logic. This is no difference. Do I really need to lecture on how the society as a whole would deal with offenses? I&#39;m sure that your system of justice would wither right away when the rapist was a "big" guy. <_<

This sounds like the argument of a capitalist, saying that doing away with something would recreate the police. Simply put, you are reneging on your positions and leftism so that you can enjoy your addiction while killing others.

There isn&#39;t a clear majority of anti-smoking? Have you seen the legislation springing up (and passing) all over the world at this point?

Furthermore, who&#39;s to say that the communist society will unanimously decide that rapists and murderers deserve the death penalty? Surely the community remains somewhat divided by this issue? Wait, that&#39;s right, this would not matter and would be defeated. Just like the minority who oppose bans.

What&#39;s interesting is your paradoxical consistency with being inconsistent. By that, I mean you simply state that you don&#39;t suppose the masses could successfully enforce the law to protect themselves if it is smoking, but you are sure that they could with more serious offenses. Just like you think science is all fine and dandy when disproving the existance of God, but if they tell you that smoking harms those around you, well then let us be skeptics, no?

I&#39;m just asking for a bit of consistency, AS and RedStar.


Like religion, neo-puritanism is always reactionary and the people who advocate it are not communists no matter what they say&#33;

Someone not thinking rationally, using logic only when it suits their arguments, advocating personal pleasure at the death or injury of another, ignoring fact, and continually changing their argument while maintaining a steady barrage of mudslinging and buzzwords, now that sounds like someone who is not a communist. And it is exactly what you have been doing. Maybe we find that you are only half-committed to the cause :o

No matter. If the revolution comes in your lifetime, you will be slowly swept away along with those who want rationality but think religion should stick around, along with those who think capitalism is wrong but the exploiting bastards should be allowed to live, and those who truly don&#39;t believe in equality.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Of course you can avoid those things.

If "city air" is polluting your lungs, you can move to the country - which many wealthy people do.

If you don&#39;t want to die in a Plain crash, don&#39;t fly - something I manage to avoid every year&#33;

If you&#39;re scared of snapping your leg, don&#39;t take part in physical sports.

If you don&#39;t want to catch and STD, don&#39;t have sex.

Nearly all things that have "bad effects on your health" can and sometimes are avoided - just like you can avoid cigarette smoke by not going to places where it is prevalent.


Luckily I no longer have to avoid that shit because it&#39;s getting banned in public places, because the majority seems to agree with the fact that smoking is bad for ones health.

And all those other stuff you mentioned can&#39;t be compared with smoking, don&#39;t be silly.


Smokers don&#39;t smoke because of "free will", the "Devil&#39;s work" or any other nonsense. They smoke because they have a chemical dependency - and an enjoyable one at that.

You developed that chemical dependency...by smoking.

[red team]

Just in Canada alone smoking causes more deaths than the other four leading causes combined:

1996 statistics:

murders: 519
alcohol consumption: 1,900
car accidents: 2,900
suicides: 3,900
smoking related: 45,000 :(

More than a lifestyle issue this is a public health issue.

Although, I don&#39;t think a prohibition program will ever work as it was tried and failed with alcohol, this is definitely something to think about. Here in Canada all cigarette packages have graphic warning messages. Incidentally this is where I got the above statistics from.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+--> (Hegemonicretribution)The chemical side I never found too bad, and I have always found giving up relatively easy.[/b]

I suppose it all depends on how much one smokes. I&#39;d imagine quiting when you smoke under 10 cigarettes a day is pretty easy.


Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+--> (Tormented by Treachery)I&#39;m just asking for a bit of consistency, AS and RedStar.[/b]

Consistency like this....


Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
It would not be a mandated elimination.

And then....


Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
Even still, the fact that I throw it out as a simple proposition makes me a neo-puritan?

By definition, a proposal that is then followed with eliminates something, is a "mandated elimination" and not a "withering away".

I&#39;m quite clear when I propose something I&#39;d like to see eliminated and I therefore make my political objectives known and clear - you don&#39;t do this, which will leave the reader thinking the worse.


Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
Do I really need to lecture on how the society as a whole would deal with offenses?

Yes.

I&#39;d like to know how you propose to stop me (and other smokers) from smoking in public.

What would you do with "repeat offenders"? ....execute them? ....imprison them? ....banish them?


Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
Wait, that&#39;s right, this would not matter and would be defeated. Just like the minority who oppose bans.

You see, there is a big difference here.

People know something has to happen to rapists and murderers and therefore the debate will be about what type of punishment is effective, and more importantly, possible.

Execution, seems the most practical solution in this regard.

Smoking on the other hand???

Will you construct prison complexes to house "repeat offenders"? ....because that in is not compatible with a Communist society.

So what we&#39;re left with are beatings and/or executions for "repeat offenders", because you will have to enforce this ban somehow, or people will violate it.

Do you honestly think people will be willing to inflict such brutal treatment on other people just for smoking?

Indeed, when Marx talked about a person in a Communist society being a fisherman one day, and something else the next. I bet he never thought one of the occupations in a Communist society would be that of Anti-Smoking Vigilante.

Indeed, I suspect Engels would have given up the idea of Communism altogether. After all, when wanted for Police questioning, he only agreed to go if he could smoke during the interview&#33; :lol:

However, when we follow this through logically, you are proposing some form of Smoking Police to be present in a Communist society. Otherwise, it would be very hard to oppress smokers.

People will deal out harsh punishment to murderers and rapists without remorse. However, it takes a "special mindset" (the "mindset" of the Gestapo) to oppress someone just for smoking.

The probability you would need some form of Police Force is very high and Police Forces attract people with a certain "mentality" - you know what that is right?


Marxism&#045;[email protected]
And all those other stuff you mentioned can&#39;t be compared with smoking, don&#39;t be silly.

Yes they can.

These things cause "bad health", if not death and are therefore "comparable".


red team
Here in Canada all cigarette packages have graphic warning messages. Incidentally this is where I got the above statistics from.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tormented by Treachery]

By definition, a proposal that is then followed with eliminates something, is a "mandated elimination" and not a "withering away".

Oh, so if you propose to a cappie that society will eventually be free, that means you have said that it is through forceful revolution? Because there are many different ways to interpret the statement. No, you&#39;re reading into what I said only one way -- the way you want it.

Your twisting of statements and narrow-mindedness make you remind me of Bill O&#39;Reilly.

Actually, no, Sean Hannity. Because you&#39;re acting more and more like RedStar&#39;s "assclown," to use a Jon Stewart phrase [to my knowledge, this is not a homophobic comment, just for the mods/admins, otherwise I would not say it].


I&#39;m quite clear when I propose something I&#39;d like to see eliminated and I therefore make my political objectives known and clear - you don&#39;t do this, which will leave the reader thinking the worse.

No, I&#39;ve said two ways it could be done. Just like I could say we could make all the people equal, that could be communism or by simply killing everyone. See? There is no "one" way to do something such as "eliminating" smoking.

I have stated my political objectives, numerous times. I have said again and again that any drug you want to do, any dangerous activity that is of no reasonable health risk to anyone else, go the fuck ahead&#33; Smoking lies outside of this realm, since it poses a very real risk to others. Just like capitalism poses a very real danger to the health of others. I don&#39;t see where your confusion as to my principles are.

I want everyone equal. I want communism. I want the society protecting the people. People take care of the people&#39;s rights.

Smoking infringes on those rights of others to live.

It doesn&#39;t get much simpler than that.


Yes.

I&#39;d like to know how you propose to stop me (and other smokers) from smoking in public.

I&#39;ve already said this, have you not read?


What would you do with "repeat offenders"? ....execute them? ....imprison them? ....banish them?

It is not my decision. It is the people&#39;s. But now that you mention it, someone purposefully putting my health, as well as the health of my friends, family, community, and comrades, in danger, well they probably deserve to die as well. Just as the capitalist deems his own pleasure more important than millions of other people&#39;s, you smoking and thinking yours is more important than everyone elses health would probably land you in the same position. Again, it&#39;s not my decision, but I would imagine it would be the same thing: death.

Of course, RedStar agrees with me on prompt execution&#33;

On rape:

The best way to minimize crimes like rape and murder is to promptly execute the guilty.

We don&#39;t know why a small minority of humans rape or kill...but we do know that a dead rapist will never rape again and that a dead murderer will never murder again.

So if our goal is not "a perfect society" where "nothing bad ever happens" but instead is one in which the frequency of such bad things is very low...then we must be prepared to take stern measures to stop people from doing it again.

Imagine a society in which everyone is taught as they&#39;re growing up that the immediate consequence of rape or murder is your own death.

Given our present knowledge, I think that&#39;s the "best we can do".

Perhaps someday we&#39;ll be able to tell in advance who is likely to rape or murder and provide some form of chemical therapy to them that will stop them from ever "doing the deed".

That would be even better.

But until then, you all know what has to be done.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Or this bit is lovely as well, I must say:


Consider most or all of us. Do we decline to murder or rape because "there&#39;s a law against it"? Or because "we might be punished" if we did those things?

Isn&#39;t it rather that we can imagine what it would feel like to have those things done to us...and we would not want to inflict that on others because "we&#39;re not the kind of people who do those kinds of things to others".

The murderer or rapist "thinks differently". Other people are "not like him" and "it&#39;s ok" to do to others whatever pleases him. He probably can&#39;t even imagine that anyone else would dare do to him what he does or might do to others.

This may not seem "logical" to you but it&#39;s what we observe taking place in the real world.

Therefore, what must be done must be done.

Oh, my&#33; (thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43222))

So we see, the smoker "thinks differently." Other people are "not like him" and "it&#39;s ok" to do to others whatever pleases him.


Do you honestly think people will be willing to inflict such brutal treatment on other people just for smoking?

If a "mob" can kill a man suspected of rape, a mob can kill a man for smoking. The differences are slight.


People will deal out harsh punishment to murderers and rapists without remorse. However, it takes a "special mindset" (the "mindset" of the Gestapo) to oppress someone just for smoking.

You seem awfully sure of that. I&#39;d say if a man can kill his son&#39;s hockey coach for not enough ice time, the coach blowing some carcinogens at the man seems to be an instant death wish.

On a more interesting note, you say that a police force is necessary to "oppress smokers" (oh, the poor bastards). This is the exact same argument we see from capitalists. "Police are necessary&#33;" I am surprised by how quickly you sell out when your pleasures are in danger&#33;

If the smokers -- the minority -- aren&#39;t "oppressed," they will be doing the exact same thing to those who do not smoke -- simply by smoking&#33; "If you don&#39;t like me smoking, you can go elsewhere&#33;"

Seems kind of illogical, especially since the public is not on that side.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+--> (Tormented by Treachery)Because you&#39;re acting more and more like RedStar&#39;s "assclown,"....[/b]

Charming.

Indeed your last post was full of "charms" about what to do to smokers. Take this....


Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+--> (Tormented by Treachery)But now that you mention it, someone purposefully putting my health, as well as the health of my friends, family, community, and comrades, in danger, well they probably deserve to die as well.[/b]

Hitler disliked smoking, but I don&#39;t think even he had the gall to propose the execution of smokers - though if he did, it would make for an amusing comparison between you and him.

As it is, on this issue you are to the right of the twentieth centuries most infamous fascist dictator.

Something to be proud of???


Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
I&#39;ve already said this....

Where?


Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
Again, it&#39;s not my decision, but I would imagine it would be the same thing: death.

Don&#39;t dodge the issue, say what you really mean. In this case, you propose the death penalty for smoking in public - later to be extended to "private"?


Tormented by [email protected]
The differences are slight.

I hope you never get raped, but if you did, you wouldn&#39;t make such absurd claims.

Frankly, that anyone would compare "passive smoking" to rape, baffles me.


Tormented by Treachery
I am surprised by how quickly you sell out when your pleasures are in danger&#33;

I think the reader will decide whether you or I have "sold out".

I certainly don&#39;t think any sane person would wish to associate with someone who wishes to conduct a mass culling of people who smoke.

Or maybe that&#39;s just me.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
You&#39;re laughable, really.

Yes, I&#39;m the one summoning up irrelevant "parallels" and inaccurate "metaphors" to defend an indefensible position.

Right. :lol:

Here&#39;s the "muscle" in your post...such as it is.


There isn&#39;t a clear majority of anti-smoking? Have you seen the legislation springing up (and passing) all over the world at this point?

I&#39;ve seen the hysterical reaction to contrived fear.

People are afraid of second-hand cigarette smoke because they&#39;ve been screamed at by the anti-tobacco neo-puritans for a couple of decades&#33;

What a brilliant public relations campaign. :angry:


Someone not thinking rationally, using logic only when it suits their arguments, advocating personal pleasure at the death or injury of another, ignoring fact, and continually changing their argument while maintaining a steady barrage of mudslinging and buzzwords, now that sounds like someone who is not a communist.

I&#39;m not your kind of "communist" and wouldn&#39;t want to have anything to do with your kind of "communism".

It would be a neo-puritanical nightmare&#33; :angry:


No matter. If the revolution comes in your lifetime, you will be slowly swept away...

Since I&#39;m such a heavy smoker ("big sinner"), I will be worm-shit before guys like you will ever take over.

You have managed the unique achievement of making communism actually look worse than capitalism&#33;

Congratulations. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[anomaly]

Death for smoking&#33;?&#33;?

Tormented by Treachery, have you completely lost your mind?

If we &#39;kill people&#39; for smoking, hell, why not kill them for driving? That activity kills more people than &#39;passive smoking&#39;.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Armchair Socialism:

Hitler disliked smoking, but I don&#39;t think even he had the gall to propose the execution of smokers - though if he did, it would make for an amusing comparison between you and him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law


As it is, on this issue you are to the right of the twentieth centuries most infamous fascist dictator.

Yeah, if you refuse to take into account his homophobia, anti-semitism, hatred of all ethnicity, insanity, economic plans, fascist dictatorial rule, and the whole nationalism part, I would suppose.



I&#39;ve already said this...
Where?


We could suppose that were someone to magically obtain a cigarette or make his/her own, and this person went to a public area and smoked. Simply put, every citizen there would have the right to dispose of the person&#39;s cigarette. Simple. You&#39;re smoking, I take the cigarette and put it out. TA DA&#33; No more cigarette smoke. If the person smokes in private, who gives a flying fuck? That&#39;s not what this is about. If a person smokes in the middle of the street at 1 am when no one is around, again, who gives a fuck? The question is just like asking how the society would enforce a ban on murder or rape. The citizens handle justice.

There. That is how I "propose to stop [you] (and other smokers) from smoking in public."


Don&#39;t dodge the issue, say what you really mean. In this case, you propose the death penalty for smoking in public - later to be extended to "private"?

I have. Multiple times. I even said, as with the above paragraph, that I do not care if you smoke in private&#33; I probably have said it five times in this thread&#33; I really do wonder if you read what I write, as your argument seems to be riddled with non-sequitors and holes.

I said what I really mean -- if you smoke in public, you are knowingly putting your pleasure above the general health concerns. You are purposefully saying that you can do whatever you want, despite people dying for it. As such, you will be killed, but that is my opinion. You asked how a community would decide. I&#39;ve no idea. But judging by the success of the anti-smoking legislation, I&#39;d say they would not just "let it go." The severity of the punishment is not mine to decide.


I hope you never get raped...

Glad to hear there&#39;s not complete hatred :)&#33;


...but if you did, you wouldn&#39;t make such absurd claims.

Frankly, that anyone would compare "passive smoking" to rape, baffles me.

Ok, both are personal choices made. Let us say that Man rapes Woman because he feels he has the right to hurt her for his own pleasure, he wants that power and that feeling. Man also smokes around Woman, despite her getting cancer from it. He enjoys the power he has over her and he thinks it is ok for his pleasure to cause her harm.

Surely the scope of the two are different -- and I&#39;m sorry if this was unclear -- but the same principles apply. It is simply that Man thinks his pleasure is "higher on the priority list" than Woman&#39;s health. Despite Man raping Woman being immediately more traumatizing, the only difference is the length of time involved with the negative "effects" to set in. Cancer can take years to develop, whereas the raped know what is happening and are experiencing it then. If the second Man&#39;s cigarette smoke touched Woman&#39;s lungs, she died or felt the cancerous tumor growing, I don&#39;t think smokers would be viewed so cordially.

By the way, I use Man and Woman as proper nouns, and only in that order because rape is more often a male raping a female.


I think the reader will decide whether you or I have "sold out".

:rolleyes:


I certainly don&#39;t think any sane person would wish to associate with someone who wishes to conduct a mass culling of people who smoke.

We&#39;ll see what the masses think about the punishment (as I have said more than once), for it is their opinion that will matter. I can guarantee you that it will not be a simple "please put that out."

RedStar2000:


Yes, I&#39;m the one summoning up irrelevant "parallels" and inaccurate "metaphors" to defend an indefensible position.

I see you&#39;ve chosen to decide for yourself that my parallels are irrelavent and my metaphors inaccurate. I&#39;m sure that if you plug your ears and say "nanananana" enough, I&#39;ll go away.

P.S.: Both positions are "defensible." Yours just happens to be accepted by quasi-revolutionaries because they don&#39;t want to give up their pleasures :). Just like the bourgeois doesn&#39;t want to give up their Lexuses (Lexii? :lol: ).


I&#39;ve seen the hysterical reaction to contrived fear.

People are afraid of second-hand cigarette smoke because they&#39;ve been screamed at by the anti-tobacco neo-puritans for a couple of decades&#33;

What a brilliant public relations campaign.

I do not know where you have been, but I&#39;ve seen a country unwilling to accept the obvious. For the most part, people still maintain (as seen in posts by Armchair Socialism and yourself) that tobacco and secondhand smoke "may" or "probably" cause "slight" or "negligible" harm. Truth is, the health risks of cigarettes have been grossly underestimated, just like those of industrial pollutants. This isn&#39;t another version of the "Red Scare," quite the opposite, really.


I&#39;m not your kind of "communist" and wouldn&#39;t want to have anything to do with your kind of "communism".

It would be a neo-puritanical nightmare&#33;

Going senile? What have I listed...


Not thinking rationally

Well, since "rational thought" is your litmus test for determining ones own religion, which when implemented, leads every person to atheism, when a communist uses "irrational" thought and still declares himself/herself a communist, you declare they are none such. Thus, you thinking irrationally now is no different.


...using logic only when it suits their arguments...

Again, you are using logic and rationality only when you so choose. In other times, such as this one, you&#39;re going on something astonishingly close to faith. This lands you right with the religious nutjobs, save your issue is different.


...advocating personal pleasure at the death or injury of another...

This is what capitalism does every single day. And this is what you&#39;re doing right now.


...and continually changing their argument while maintaining a steady barrage of mudslinging and buzzwords...

This one is about RedStar and AS.

First you say we&#39;re neopuritans. I say my argument is based purely on science (which, until now, was your "best friend"). Then you say the science doesn&#39;t support it. I show you how it does exactly. Then you say it is flawed. I say that you can&#39;t pick and choose when we "trust" science and when we are skeptical because the same rule of rational thought (as used by all true leftists) must be used here. You say it&#39;s impractical. I show how it would work. You neglect your own arguments and accuse me of insanity.

See how every time you make a "point," there is an easily available defense for it? Personally, I think your own position is "indefensible." Look&#33; You were wrong about the way it definitively causes cancer, and yet you still maintain that position, that it is only passingly unhealthy&#33;


Since I&#39;m such a heavy smoker ("big sinner"), I will be worm-shit before guys like you will ever take over.

Refer to what I&#39;ve said about mudslinging.


You have managed the unique achievement of making communism actually look worse than capitalism&#33;

Congratulations.

If your version of "communism" is that any man can fuck with everyone else, regardless of the detrimental effects on their health and lives, then count me out. See, it may be a "pipe dream," but the communist society I envision is simply that where personal freedom is at a maximum and labor holds the true "value." There is no state and there are no classes. But you seem to think that there should be a class of people who are able to disregard others for their own pleasure -- much like a capitalist thinks there should be the bourgeoisie who can exploit others for their own benefit.


Death for smoking&#33;?&#33;?

Tormented by Treachery, have you completely lost your mind?

If we &#39;kill people&#39; for smoking, hell, why not kill them for driving? That activity kills more people than &#39;passive smoking&#39;.

Read some backposts before you jump in.

No, I haven&#39;t lost my mind.

I&#39;ve simply refused to bend it to your will :) .

[anomaly]

No, I have read your posts, and I find your view to be insane.

You said you think people who smoke in public should be killed&#33; Killed&#33;

You argue that smoking in public puts pleasure before people&#39;s lives. Let&#39;s examine this. Murder &#39;put&#39;s pleasure before people&#39;s lives&#39;. So does rape. Now, when you murder, the person you murder dies 100% of the time. When you rape someone, the person you rape has severe emotional scars for the rest of their lives 100% of the time. When you smoke in public, the people inhaling the &#39;secondhand smoke&#39; do not die 100% of the time. (die because of secondhand smoke, I mean...of course they will die :P )

Do you see the fallacy in your argument? Execution is a punishment that fits the crime of rape or murder (in a communist society). However, this punishment far exceeds the &#39;crime&#39; of smoking in public places&#33;

And if you wish to ban smoking in public places because people in that public place are at risk, then, according to this logic, we should ban driving everywhere, or atleast put the speed limit at 20 miles an hour.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+--> (Tormented by Treachery)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law[/b]

I&#39;ll once again leave to the reader to judge whether I am "invoking Hitler&#39;s ghost" to back up my arguments.

I suspect most rational people will realise that it was a reasonable comparison, in that it showed that your advocation of the death penalty for smokers was to the right of Hitler on this issue.

In fact, it is to the right of everyone&#33;


Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+--> (Tormented by Treachery)Yeah, if you refuse to take into account his homophobia, anti-semitism, hatred of all ethnicity, insanity, economic plans, fascist dictatorial rule, and the whole nationalism part, I would suppose.[/b]

Read again....


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
As it is, on this issue you are to the right of the twentieth centuries most infamous fascist dictator.

(Emphasis added.)


Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
That is how I "propose to stop [you] (and other smokers) from smoking in public."

That paragraph is your idea of a proposal? ....how about actually responding to the content of the three posts I made where I raised objections?

Here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292025354 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46525&view=findpost&p=1292025354)

And here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292025492 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46525&view=findpost&p=1292025492)

And here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292025566 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46525&view=findpost&p=1292025566)


Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
As such, you will be killed, but that is my opinion.

I actually just realised, not once in any of your posts have you mentioned that nicotine patches or nicotine gum would be provided and that "support centres" would be opened to try and "help" smokers.

No, your solution has been execution.

A pathological hatred of smokers perhaps?


Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
Surely the scope of the two are different....

Yes they are hugely different.

Which is why people - well normal people - would propose radically different punishments.

Based on what you&#39;ve said in this thread, you must be in favour of scrapping fines for smoking in places where it is banned and instead have prison terms used as punishment.

How long? ....5 years? ....10 years? ....Life? :o


Tormented by [email protected]
I can guarantee you that it will not be a simple "please put that out."

And the response won&#39;t be cordial.
____

By the way, you seemed to have declined in commenting on Dr. Schettler&#39;s position that I posted here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292024725 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46450&view=findpost&p=1292024725)


anomaly
....and I find your view to be insane.

Personally, I can&#39;t wait to find out what the other Anti-Smokers make of the latest development.

Will they agree with the death penalty for smoking? :o

[anomaly]

I&#39;m not &#39;anti-smoking&#39;, if that&#39;s what you were implying, AS.

I&#39;m just a non-smoker.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 05:29 AM
I&#39;m not &#39;anti-smoking&#39;, if that&#39;s what you were implying, AS.

I&#39;m just a non-smoker.

I was thinking about ComradeOm, YKTMX and Marxism-Leninism in particular when I made that post and wondering what they would think of execution of smokers.

I have no problem with "non-smokers", just people who wish to execute me&#33; :o

[Body Count]

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+Feb 26 2006, 08:40 PM--> (Tormented by Treachery @ Feb 26 2006, 08:40 PM)
Armchair [email protected] 26 2006, 04:57 PM
Really, how do you plan to enforce this ban?
Well besides the whole industry ceasing to exist, making the production of cigarettes a thing of the past... ;)
[/b]
This is pretty much all you had to say.

I can&#39;t imagine that people will be slaving in fields over a product like tobacco when they could be spending time doing things they actually like, or better yet, working on productive agriculture like vegetables that people eat.

[jaycee]

u ,might call me a puritan but i can&#39;t help but see alot of modern culture as degenerate and an expression of a decedant society. During the decadence of the roman empire there was also a rise in depravity. While in a communist society peolpe will be free to do as they please i believe that in a happier, more well rounded and satisfying society people wouldn&#39;t, for example, take crack or any other modern, unnatural and destructive drugs.

[VukBZ2005]

Here are my views on Smoking and Neo-Puritanism.

First, I personally do not smoke, as I do not have the time, will or need for such activity at the present time of writing.

Moreover, This does not mean that I advocate the enprisonment and execution of people that do smoke in a real Communist society. Why should there be? I thought we were fighting for a classless society in which people would not be suppressed publicly by "visible" and "invisible" symbols of economical, political & social authority.

There is no need for the restoration of forces that are constantly demoralized, inside and out, both by the oppression of their fellow human beings and by enforcing the laws that your so-called Communism would inquire upon the population. Second, I frimly stand in my view that Neo-Puritanism makes no sense to be persistent in it&#39;s presence in the revolutionary movement against this society.

Why should my ability to engage in pleasurable acts be restricted for? All that would do is that it would alienate people from the rest of society - personally and publicly.

And to be honest, I am not apt for putting up with such stupidity in such a society - that is not what I am going for.

:angry:

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 27 2006, 05:37 AM
I was thinking about ComradeOm, YKTMX and Marxism-Leninism in particular when I made that post and wondering what they would think of execution of smokers.

I have no problem with "non-smokers", just people who wish to execute me&#33; :o
Well since I&#39;ve been asked...

Personally I rarely attempt to make any but the broadest predictions about communist society. That is in itself a fool&#39;s game. However if we accept that justice in a communist society will be decided upon and carried out by the people themselves then its fair to assume that those who deliberately smoke in public, despite knowing the dangers that this poses to others, will face some form of punishment.

Execution is an unlikely outcome given the scope of the crime, for that is exactly what it will be considered, and the ability of the smoker to simply quit. But it is fairly safe to say that there will be no need for a formal ban as smoking in public simply will not be tolerated by others.

But stop with the sideshows and red herrings and get back to the point. TBT has shown that, contrary to your initial statements, passive smoking is harmful to others. I applaud his efforts and eagerly await your response.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 27 2006, 12:29 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Feb 27 2006, 12:29 AM)
Hegemonicretribution
The chemical side I never found too bad, and I have always found giving up relatively easy.

I suppose it all depends on how much one smokes. I&#39;d imagine quiting when you smoke under 10 cigarettes a day is pretty easy. [/b]
I was reguarly smoking over 10 joints a day (with at least a whole cigarette a piece in them) for a few years. Some of that time I was also smoking roll ups full time, at work this was chain smoking.

The pangs you feel when giving up can be intense at first, but are relatively short lived. If you can occupy yourself for 20 minutes or so you will be over it, and eventually they decrease in frequency, although not perhaps intensity.

The problem is you are faced by it all the time, and this is where the problem comes in, if you really don&#39;t want to smoke you won&#39;t however.

[Abood]

It&#39;s not up to anyone to decide whether someone should smoke, drink or have sex.
But , if you think about it, eventhough factories do cause pollution, so do cigarettes... and imagine how many smokers we have in the world. I am not saying that more pollution is caused by smoking than by factories, but the pollution caused by smoking sure is significant.
Plus, passive smoking&#33; I don&#39;t want to die because someone else is smoking next to me&#33; If that person takes that risk, well, why should I take it too?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)I was thinking about ComradeOm, YKTMX and Marxism-Leninism in particular when I made that post and wondering what they would think of execution of smokers.

I have no problem with "non-smokers", just people who wish to execute me&#33; [/b]


Marxism&#045;Leninism
I&#39;m not for banning private smoking, that is, smoking in your own house or outside

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Body Count+--> (Body Count)I can&#39;t imagine that people will be slaving in fields over a product like tobacco when they could be spending time doing things they actually like, or better yet, working on productive agriculture like vegetables that people eat.[/b]

As in all other endeavors in communist society, the only people who will grow and cure tobacco are the people who want to do that.

It may well be that every smoker will have to grow his/her own tobacco...or be part of a co-operative that does this.

Or it might be possible to create a drug which confers the satisfaction of tobacco without requiring extensive agricultural labor.

There are lots of possibilities that we have no way of knowing about now.

There&#39;s a little hint in your last sentence that&#39;s problematical. If you think eating more vegetables is a credible substitute for smoking tobacco, I don&#39;t think you&#39;ll find many smokers who&#39;ll agree with you about that. :lol:


Originally posted by Jaycee+--> (Jaycee)During the decadence of the Roman Empire there was also a rise in depravity.[/b]

This was a myth invented after the fall of Rome to the barbarians.

The last two centuries of the Western Roman Empire was marked by the rise of Christianity. When Rome was taken and sacked, the remaining pagans pointed out that this was "divine punishment" for "abandoning the old gods".

We have no "depravity index" for those long-ago years, of course. But the end of the Roman Empire was preceded by the enormous expansion of Christianity and, presumably, a decline in morally "depraved" behavior.

The myth of Roman "degeneracy" was invented to counter pagan propaganda.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
But it is fairly safe to say that there will be no need for a formal ban as smoking in public simply will not be tolerated by others.

If it isn&#39;t, it isn&#39;t. Smokers will voluntarily segregate themselves from non-smokers and create their own public spaces...something that the neo-puritans oppose.

What the neo-puritans want is not segregation but prohibition. :angry:


TBT has shown that, contrary to your initial statements, passive smoking is harmful to others.

He has shown nothing but his ability to mindlessly repeat hysterical anti-smoking propaganda.


Socialist [email protected]
I don&#39;t want to die because someone else is smoking next to me&#33;

That&#39;s exactly what the neo-puritans want you to believe. If you&#39;re sitting next to someone who is smoking a cigarette, you will die&#33; :o

They want smokers to be treated like lepers in the Middle Ages.

UNCLEAN&#33; UNCLEAN&#33;


Marxism&#045;Leninism
I&#39;m not for banning private smoking, that is, smoking in your own house or outside.

Maybe you&#39;re not...but that&#39;s unacceptably permissive to the neo-puritans.

In the U.S., smoking is presently banned in nearly all or all outdoor sports arenas. Smoking is banned on all the outdoor elevated stations on the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. And smoking is banned in all of San Francisco&#39;s public parks.

The very sight of someone enjoying a cigarette is "an abomination in the eyes of..." the neo-puritans.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Abood]

That&#39;s exactly what the neo-puritans want you to believe. If you&#39;re sitting next to someone who is smoking a cigarette, you will die&#33; ohmy.gif

They want smokers to be treated like lepers in the Middle Ages.

UNCLEAN&#33; UNCLEAN&#33;

Well, how can you deny that smoke kills?
It contains thousands of chemicals that are inhaled...
What&#39;s the difference whether you smoke or inhale smoke from the atmosphere?
In fact, passive smoking is riskier - since you do not have any filter, while cigarettes usually have filters attached to them which prevent some of the chemicals being absorbed by the smoker.

Passive Smoking (http://www.theberries.ns.ca/BOTW_archives/passive_smoke.html)
Passive Smoking (http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/passive.html#_Toc73180386)
Passive Smoking (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by jaycee+--> (jaycee)....but i can&#39;t help but see alot of modern culture as degenerate and an expression of a decedant society. During the decadence of the roman empire there was also a rise in depravity.[/b]

I think it was in The German Ideology that Marx first laid out the theory that all ideas reflect a specific material reality - that the German Ideologues whom he was criticising, were not men of "pure thought", rather men who&#39;s specific ideas reflected a specific material reality.

Here jaycee - a self described puritan - talks about "degenerate" and "decadent" society and then "invokes" the example of the fall of the Roman Empire.

Which in effect, reveals the foundations of his outlook....5th century Paganism&#33;

I personally never expected to encounter the modern remnants of 5th century Paganism on a Revolutionary Leftist board, especially in its Theory forum - but I suppose life is full of surprises. :lol:


Originally posted by [email protected]
Execution is an unlikely outcome given the scope of the crime....

So what do you propose?

Can&#39;t we both play at "fools" for a short time and discuss how practical X or Y would be in a Communist society?


ComradeOm
I applaud his efforts and eagerly await your response.

Well, I too managed to "copy & paste" something from a piece of coursework I did and posted it here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292024725 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46450&view=findpost&p=1292024725)

Dr. Schettler seems to be under the impression that focusing on smoking alone is a "fool&#39;s game" and that there are far wider Environmental problems related to bad health than just individual substance abuse.

Of course, I have neither the understanding nor the ability to scientifically debate "passive smoking" - and neither does Tormented by Treachery.

I would contest that I&#39;m willing to look beyond the parameters of American high school biology before I accept that approach as "true", because I know that much of what I was taught in my Biology lessons - particularly regarding human activities - was bullshit.

Indeed, Marx once pointed out that "[t]he ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class."

In effect, what is taught in schools reflects what the ruling class believes. And we all know what kind of moralistic shit the American ruling class believes, don&#39;t we?

[Vanguard1917]

I am not saying that more pollution is caused by smoking than by factories, but the pollution caused by smoking sure is significant.

No, smoking does not cause &#39;significant&#39; pollution.


Plus, passive smoking&#33; I don&#39;t want to die because someone else is smoking next to me&#33; If that person takes that risk, well, why should I take it too?

There&#39;s no risk of you dying from such exposure to cigarette smoke. Stop worrying and pull yourself together.

[violencia.Proletariat]

If this is true, the puritan government is sinning :lol:

US Distributing Free Anti-terrorist Cigarettes In Iraq

http://www.tobacco.org/resources/general/2...04iraqcigs.html (http://www.tobacco.org/resources/general/20050204iraqcigs.html)

[red team]

There&#39;s a little hint in your last sentence that&#39;s problematical. If you think eating more vegetables is a credible substitute for smoking tobacco, I don&#39;t think you&#39;ll find many smokers who&#39;ll agree with you about that. :lol:


Not unless you genetically engineer tomaccos. :lol:

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 27 2006, 06:25 PM--> (Armchair Socialism &#064; Feb 27 2006, 06:25 PM)
ComradeOm
I applaud his efforts and eagerly await your response.

Well, I too managed to "copy & paste" something from a piece of coursework I did and posted it here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292024725 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46450&view=findpost&p=1292024725)

Dr. Schettler seems to be under the impression that focusing on smoking alone is a "fool&#39;s game" and that there are far wider Environmental problems related to bad health than just individual substance abuse.

Of course, I have neither the understanding nor the ability to scientifically debate "passive smoking" - and neither does Tormented by Treachery. [/b]
Just because you do not understand it doesn&#39;t mean that it is impossible.

Tell me, does the -- and forgive me for stressing this again -- simple biology trip you up when you come accross the Cell Cycle, how inhibitors/checkpoints work, how genes mutate, how cigarettes cause mutations, how cancer is formed, or do you simply say that it&#39;s all a big old conspiracy.

I&#39;m sure biology teachers making &#036;23,000 a year are out to oppress the poor :lol: .

I&#39;m glad you enjoyed my writing to the point where you thought it was a copy and paste job. Unfortunately, it was me summing up about 50 pages of text, not something that I found online.

What&#39;s interesting to me is that you maintain that science "can&#39;t be trusted" because it is telling you something you do not want to hear. Then you invoke class differences to try to "prove your point" (though the point is nonexistant), woefully confusing yourself.

Rich Cappie Number 1 grows (Edit, thanks for pointing it out, Redstar) tobacco for cigarettes and sells them at exorbinant prices to the poor, who smoke the highest proportion, as you yourself pointed out. Not only does the Rich Cappie get wealthy, but he is literally poisoning the poor at unprecedented levels&#33; As if that weren&#39;t enough, the government, owned and operated by bourgeois aristocrats, raises taxes to redistribute the wealth even further to the upper class and their own bourgeois counties (via "pork"). Furthermore, health care costs rise, making it even more difficult for the poor cigarette smokers to get health care&#33;

So who is being fooled here? I guess that&#39;s the issue.

[Abood]

There&#39;s no risk of you dying from such exposure to cigarette smoke. Stop worrying and pull yourself together.
Everytime someone smokes next to me I start coughing heavily and almost choke.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A thought has suddenly occurred to me as to why skmoking is currently out of favour with the majority. I think it is because of a lot of the types of tobacco people smoke is really crap stuff.

Think about it - you have all these leaves shredded, chemicals added to them keep them burning when you light, and then they stick a artificial foam filter on one end.

And then we wondeer why it doesn&#39;t taste or smell as good as a rollie, pipe or cigar, but buy them anyway because they are cheaper/easier.

I&#39;ve smoked decent cigars (King Edward Invincibles even&#33;) and I&#39;ve even got occasional compliments from non-smokers as to the smell.

I think a lot of the stigma comes from the fact that most people smoke those awful packet fags.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery
What&#39;s interesting to me is that you maintain that science "can&#39;t be trusted" because it is telling you something you do not want to hear.

"Science" had "told us" many things...and the truth content of what it has told us is enormously higher than any other form of "telling" in history.

"Science" has also been wrong about a fair number of things. Its "accuracy" has never reached "100%".

Much of what "science" has told us is demonstrably true...the escape velocity from the earth&#39;s surface really is about 7.5 miles per second. The distance from the earth to the sun really does average about 93 million miles.

"Science" tells us that global warming is taking place...with tons of evidence to prove that. Some science says this is "mostly" or even "completely" due to human activity (burning carbon fuels and raising large numbers of cattle); other science offers different explanations.

"Evolutionary psychology" is a "science" that tells us that human behavior is a consequence of "fit genes" rather than social/economic/political causes.

I "don&#39;t like to hear that"...so it would take a genuinely enormous amount of evidence to convince me of its validity. There may be some kind of very limited truth to their hypotheses...but I think most of it&#39;s just crap&#33;

Is smoking "truly harmful"? Possibly, at least for some.

Do smokers die somewhat earlier than non-smokers on the average? Possibly they do.

Is cigarette smoke a "deadly poison" that people must be "protected against"? Nonsense&#33;

People smoked like smokestacks during the first half of the 20th century. Was it "like" the bubonic plague? Were people falling down dead all over the place? Just dropping like flies from the dense clouds of deadly poison in every home, workplace, public bar or restaurant?

Now, some "science" tells us that "doom is at hand"...if people are not prevented from smoking or being around smokers, "millions and millions" of people will die prematurely...by "decades".

The neo-puritans -- who always disapproved of smoking before there was so much as a particle of evidence in their favor -- have seized upon what "science" they can muster to promote the hysterical fear that the very smell of cigarette smoke will "cause you to die an early and horrible death".

At best, this is the calculated mis-use of science to enforce an anti-scientific agenda: namely, that human behavior should and must be regulated in order to maximize life-span regardless of any other consideration.

It&#39;s the same assumption that motivates opposition to voluntary euthanasia for terminally-ill patients...people "must" be "kept alive" regardless of their suffering.

Human life "belongs to God". :lol:


Rich Cappie Number 1 grows cigarettes and sells them at exorbitant prices to the poor, who smoke the highest proportion, as you yourself pointed out. Not only does the Rich Cappie get wealthy, but he is literally poisoning the poor at unprecedented levels&#33; As if that weren&#39;t enough, the government, owned and operated by bourgeois aristocrats, raises taxes to redistribute the wealth even further to the upper class and their own bourgeois counties (via "pork"). Furthermore, health care costs rise, making it even more difficult for the poor cigarette smokers to get health care&#33;

Your attempt at "class analysis", while perhaps admirable in intent, is woefully inadequate...to say the least.

Cigarettes are not "grown", they are manufactured.

Today, tobacco is grown by petty-bourgeois peasants...small businessmen. The great "tobacco plantations" worked by slave-labor in the 18th and 19th centuries have disappeared.

Though large corporations still control the bulk of cigarette manufacturing, there has recently been (in the U.S.) an explosion of small cigarette plants...producing cheap tobacco products. In fact, there are brands now manufactured by Native American tribes on the reservations. These can be easily ordered over the internet...avoiding many of the taxes imposed by the state governments.

The sharp rise in "health care costs" has nothing to do with smoking cigarettes at all. It&#39;s almost entirely a product of large pharmaceutical corporations charging ever higher prices for medications that may be even less effective.

And there are other causes as well...

Doctor is in -- for a price (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/08/BUG7IGJHEC1.DTL)

As to "literally poisoning", well, we smokers still have a choice about that...though not if you have your way.

None of us gets much of a choice when it comes to breathing the exhausts from urban traffic...and no one says that the giant auto corporations are "poisoning" not only their customers but anyone who lives close to heavy traffic.

All rather ironic. In Los Angeles, you can be ejected from a bar or restaurant (and even fined&#33;) for lighting up a cigarette...and when you walk out the door, the smog is so thick that you can&#39;t see more than two blocks in any direction and your eyes begin to water.

Ain&#39;t neo-puritanism great&#33; :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[boosh logic]

No, smoking does not cause &#39;significant&#39; pollution.

Actually, it does. Cigarettes give off carbon monoxide, which is not only poisonous to people, but harmful to the ozone layer. It is only in very small amounts, so would only add up to a fraction of the pollution that factories and cars give off, but still contributes to the effects.


Everytime someone smokes next to me I start coughing heavily and almost choke.

So do a lot of asthmatics, but they can move or get their inhaler. Me, smoke makes my eyes itch after a while, but I can move. Bronchitis and emphysema, the two main diseases as a result of smoking (except lung cancer) are only caused if you are exposed to regular smoke, e.g. a bartender or smoker of many a day. Still, many smokers do not get any illnesses, but a lot do.

Passive smokers are at risk, as 85% of smoke is given off as sidestream smoke, i.e. not through the filter. This doesn&#39;t mean passive smokers have it worse though, as those who smoke normally are inhaling deeply and strongly, whereas a passive smoker is only exposed to it through normal breathing, not intentional inhaling.

Lung cancer normally takes around 20 - 30 years to develop in a smoker, which is why there are rarely young sufferers of the disease, as they would need to smoke a huge amount to do so. This means your chances of these three illnesses as an occassional passive smoker are very small, but still there, and it does vary from person to person.

Most weed smoked (in our town anyway) contains a lot of tobacco and tar, so this is giving the same effects of cigarettes, but with the high too. A lot of people I know who do weed are anti-smoking, but forget that they are effectively smoking a cigarette as well, but obviously not the same extent of a smoker. I don&#39;t like the taste of smokes, but I like the taste of weed, so even though I know the effects I&#39;m happy to light up because I don&#39;t do it that often, so I know I&#39;m not going to get ill from the tobacco or tar.


"Science" has also been wrong about a fair number of things. Its "accuracy" has never reached "100%".


Most modern day scientists are very sceptical about claiming to have &#39;proved&#39; something for this very reason, as they &#39;prooved&#39; that the world was flat using calculations, and have made many other false claims. They only ever claim that e.g. "this suggests there to be a strong link between lung cancer and cigarettes", as they don&#39;t count out the possibility they are wrong.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+--> (Tormented by Treachery)So who is being fooled here?[/b]

Something just occurred to me reading your last post.

As Marxists, we try to look at every action and try to figure out the rational economic motive behind the action and - more importantly - what class benefits.

We look at the Iraq War, and (rightly) disregard the rhetoric about "freedom and democracy" and say, quite bluntly, that it is the American ruling class who, at the very least perceives, it is going to benefit from this military adventure.

So who is benefiting materially from a smoking ban? ....you could I suppose contest that the working class is benefiting, but you&#39;d have to remember that it is the ruling class that is carrying out this ban.

So why would the American (and British) ruling class - or at least a section of it - support this ban? ....we know they never do anything "for" the working class, so what is their "motive" here.

The section of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois involved in producing cigarettes isn&#39;t going to benefit and if - as is predicted - people start drinking less, the sections of the bourgeois involved in the Alcohol Industry will also lose out.

So from an economic perspective, this ban is really stupid.

Now the next step in our "study", would surely be to look for a historical precedent. Where has a ban been imposed before that hurts the ruling class economically?

All kind of drug bans spring to mind. These drugs, if legalised, would be very profitable. So why are they banned?

Now, I&#39;m not an "expert" on this subject, nor do I know very much about it. However, as far as I know, most (perhaps all?) banned drugs, have been banned because the pious puritanical sections of the bourgeois have wanted that.

From a "ruling class perspective", they committed a deeply irrational act and Religion usually plays a significant role when the ruling class acts stupidly.

What we also know about the "Drug Wars", is that the puritanical sections of the ruling class have often funded the science which is used as "evidence" that the ban was "right" and "just".

Most "health experts" seem to agree without a second thought that "drugs are bad" and shouldn&#39;t be used. However, some studies have shown that some drugs used in some ways are enormously beneficial.

So why do all these "health experts" still assert that "drugs are bad"? ....surely there&#39;s not an economic motive behind it. :lol:

I mean, those scientists who produced "Nazi science" which "proved" smoking was "bad", can&#39;t have been doing it because the Nazi Officials paid them to say that. That would be, well...."wrong".

However, as well all know - or should know - scientists are not "above" earthly things like material gain....they need to eat too&#33;

And we should also know, that science isn&#39;t funded by "virtuous" people who wish for science to advance. The emerging bourgeois didn&#39;t fund scientific study because of "virtue", they funded it because it would advance the means of production - meaning they would make greater profits.

So, with regards "human science", we really do need to look for the real motives behind the scientific funding. In many ways, "human science" unlike most other sciences, is the area that can become most corrupted in class society.

The bourgeois, has a real material interest in funding science that depicts them as a more "genetically fit" form of human.

And, although it seems irrational to rational people, the "puritanical bourgeois" has a real material interest in funding "drug science" - which "proves" drugs are "bad" every time.

This "science", "proves" that drugs are "bad" and furthermore, it "proves" that drugs are "sinful".

There is a saying that goes "people wish to shape the world in their own image".

In many ways, that could be said to be a truism, especially in the political arena. When we discuss politics, we (sometimes) offer solutions that we think we would like.

As a working class person, I wish to create a "world" in the "image" of the working class, communism.

From my perspective, abolition of wage slavery is something I would like.

However, I am not in a position of "power" in which I can "shape" the world. I do not have the means to even attempt such a task, but the bourgeois do.

For the Puritanical Capitalist, it is both possible and enjoyable to try and "shape" the world in his or her "image". They can influence what the world looks like far more successfully than I.

So, when this particular Capitalist thrusts his money and power behind "drug science", s/he is able to have - a sometimes drastic - effect on the world we live.

S/he can alter and form "public opinion" - and scientific opinion - in a way most of us can only imagine about. And in this process, s/he conveys his ideas (image) onto society as a whole.

As Marx once pointed out, the ideas of the ruling class, really do become the ideas of society at large.


NoXion
I think a lot of the stigma comes from the fact that most people smoke those awful packet fags.

I smoke Amber Leaf tobacco because it&#39;s cheaper than packet fags - and in some ways it&#39;s nicer, though rolling is a pain in the arse&#33;

Though, I must admit, I&#39;ve haven&#39;t found rolling tobacco smells any nicer than packet fags, though I haven&#39;t really smelt any expensive tobacco.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 28 2006, 07:10 PM
So who is benefiting materially from a smoking ban? ....you could I suppose contest that the working class is benefiting, but you&#39;d have to remember that it is the ruling class that is carrying out this ban.

So why would the American (and British) ruling class - or at least a section of it - support this ban? ....we know they never do anything "for" the working class, so what is their "motive" here.
Health Insurance companies in The USA anyhow. The government whores for them all the time. Causes of death from cigarette smoking are usually slow and lingering. This costs insurance companies money and cuts into thier profits. Even in countries with national healthcare it is going to cost them alot of money which they could be using for building weapons to kill people in other countries or they could give tax breaks to the wealthy with the moiney saved or any other evil crap that governments are prone to doing.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed+--> (Atlas Swallowed)Health Insurance companies in The USA anyhow.[/b]

That never occurred to me and if it is true that Health Insurance companies are (heavily) backing this legislation because they perceive smoking to be financially detrimental. Then one can figure out more directly exactly how they influence the scientific studies.

After all, they&#39;re in that line of business&#33;

I suspect that it would make for an interesting chronology of events....

1) Nazi scientists "prove" that "passive smoking" is "bad" and that it harms the German Volk (non-smokers).

2) Some post-war pseudo scientists then "prove" that "passive smoking" is "bad" and as they are likely funded by Wealthy Puritanical Christians, the underlying message of this "research" will be that smokers (sinners) are harming non-smokers (God&#39;s children).

3) The Health Insurance Industry picks up on this research. Perhaps first using it to deny Health Insurance to smokers with cancer because they&#39;ve "violated" Clause 12: Sub-Section 92 of their contract.

To do this successfully, they have start producing "positive science" - they paid lots of money for science which "proves" they are right.

Somewhere along this process, the Insurance Industry starts to believe this research, forgetting the original scam. Indeed, they forget that they have paid "scientists" to "prove" that smoking is "bad".

4) The Health Insurance Industry, thinking that they are losing money from smoking, pressure the Government to introduce a ban.

5) Bans get introduced.

And then maybe....

6) The Christian Fascists come to power and set up large facilities in the rubble of New Orleans called Re-Education Camps for Sinners.

One of the first people to visit these luxury camps is an old man who goes by the internet identity of redstar2000. Not long after getting there, he is told to stand in front of a large wall whilst a young fellow who used to post at Rev-Left aims and then shoots him with a Rifle.

Redstar&#39;s last words echo as the shot rings out....

I am being tormented by treachery&#33;

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Atlas Swallowed
Even in countries with national healthcare it is going to cost them alot of money....

I&#39;m pretty sure that in Britain, the taxation on cigarettes covers all smoking related illnesses and still leaves a nice pot of spoils afterwards.

[Much Commie Love]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:07 PM

A thought has suddenly occurred to me as to why s(-k)moking is currently out of favour with the majority. I think it is because of a lot of the types of tobacco people smoke is really crap stuff.

Think about it - you have all these leaves shredded, chemicals added to them keep them burning when you light, and then they stick a artificial foam filter on one end.

And then we wonder why it doesn&#39;t taste or smell as good as a rollie, pipe or cigar, but buy them anyway because they are cheaper/easier.

I&#39;ve smoked decent cigars (King Edward&#39;s Invincibles even&#33;) and I&#39;ve even got occasional compliments from non-smokers as to the smell.

I think a lot of the stigma comes from the fact that most people smoke those awful packet fags.

--Emphasis added ;)

Really? How thoughtful of ye. Guess what...it&#39;s not out of "favour", it&#39;s out of interest. Because of the many puritan opposings - both legally and...illegally, to smoking, most think... "Why bother?" and just stop doing it after-all since it&#39;s such a damn hard thing to do withouth hiding it down in a "smoke-easy". So it never actually went out of "favour", only out of simple use. But how could a real addict taste a difference, if they&#39;re addicted? Crap is crap, to a smoker. Taste good, or bad, they still need it. Naw, it&#39;s the smoke-stigma that has risen like a bad headache lately.

And I know the process - it sounds worse when you get to describe it than it really is.
It&#39;s a pretty silly reason to buy something because it&#39;s cheaper/easier but tastes like SHIT. Do you really think someone would do that? Sacrificing comfort for....economy? The point of cigar&#39;s is luxury&#33; Nope, I don&#39;t thinks so: No-one in their sane minds would do that. They do it more likely, because, they have no choiche. They need something to relax, and they need it quick. Like, a "quick fix". Ye get me?

And sure: You&#39;ve smoked "the best" cigars, so that makes YOU, a professed pro-smoker, an EXPERT on the subject? No...but yeah, hey&#33; You can atleast dream on, duh&#33; And you&#39;re proud of that, huh, for bluffin&#39; smokes in the faces of the non-smokers? Perhaps you think it&#39;s some kind of elusive "cool" style, to not care about your surroundings? The &#39;rebel&#39; comes to town....and lights up a smoke. "Ooh, oh my god, he&#39;s got a smoke&#33;"...Well, you ain&#39;t getting that reaction (Which you seem to want) from me..only scorn.

Perhap&#39;s it&#39;s true, however, as you admit, that those chimney-smoking people who do it like, every day, all day, 24/7 so the air is barely recognizeable afterwards as anything but ozone layer blocking out the sun..but I think it&#39;s more the foolish "movie-culture" with smokes that no sensible person likes. Bare you, I can accept the incessant smoking for COPING reasons..but if you&#39;re doing it for the "image"-thing...you&#39;re really in my black book.

And as for that...in closure, I have to say...Nice wording at the end there :che:

[The Grey Blur]

They should just hire a sniper to shoot five random smokers a month. Yeah...rock&#33;

[boosh logic]

One of the reasons they want to ban smoking is because of the cardiovascular diseases linked to it. What they don&#39;t mention is that a very large proportion of office employees and other white-collar jobs are also at high risk to these problems. The stress associated with lack of control (i.e. being given an endless list of files to sort through) and lack of job satisfaction (who actually wants to do office-work for a living?) lead to increased blood pressure and heart rate, which then go on to cause strokes and coronary heart disease. They don&#39;t seem to be doing anything about that, but instead point to smoking as the only cause instead of looking at the other factors.

[вор в законе]

Global Priority (year 1998) &#036;U.S. Billions


Basic education for all : 6
Cosmetics in the United States : 8
Water and sanitation for all : 9
Ice cream in Europe : 11
Reproductive health for all women : 12
Perfumes in Europe and the United States : 12
Basic health and nutrition : 13
Pet foods in Europe and the United States : 17
Business entertainment in Japan : 35
Cigarettes in Europe : 50
Alcoholic drinks in Europe : 105
Narcotics drugs in the world : 400
Military spending in the world : 780


Source (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp)

:(

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 28 2006, 08:49 PM
I&#39;m pretty sure that in Britain, the taxation on cigarettes covers all smoking related illnesses and still leaves a nice pot of spoils afterwards.
The pot is never big enough, these are Capitalists after all :)


The rest of your post was very amusing. Does Red Star 2000 get to light up before he is shot?

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Rage Against The [email protected] 4 2006, 11:04 PM
They should just hire a sniper to shoot five random smokers a month. Yeah...rock&#33;
They should hire me and give me a bat to club 5 random smoiking Nazis a month.

Ah heck I would do it for free.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Much Commie [email protected] 4 2006, 10:34 PM
And as for that...in closure, I have to say...Nice wording at the end there, smart guy :che:
Can you be any more condescending, you fucking prick?

[Much Commie Love]

Nope...but I am sorry you see it that way. I just don&#39;t like it when people say "fags" in connection with anything. It is a insulting slur for homosexuals...unfit for use. You migth say you meant &#39;cigars&#39;, but to use an insult word as &#39;cigar&#39; is a bit bad comparing..we don&#39;t smoke homosexuals, now do we? ;)

But if that is all you want to debate and not the reminder of my post...very well.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A fag is also a fucking cigarette, you imbecile.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Fag is also a bundle of sticks(original meaning I believe). Different words have different meanings in other parts of the world. How the hell would calling a cigarette a homosexual make any sense at all anyway?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 7 2006, 01:15 PM
Fag is also a bundle of sticks(original meaning I believe). Different words have different meanings in other parts of the world. How the hell would calling a cigarette a homosexual make any sense at all anyway?
Taking a guess here, but I reckon the British slang for cigarette, "fag" comes from the bundle of sticks and not the reference to homosexuals.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by BBC
Reeve&#39;s widow dies of lung cancer

Dana Reeve, actress and widow of Superman actor Christopher Reeve, has died of lung cancer.

Reeve, 44, who led the Christopher Reeve Foundation, was diagnosed with the disease in August 2005.

Reeve, a non-smoker all her life, died on Monday, the foundation&#39;s president and chief executive Kathy Lewis said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/4782612.stm

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[STI]

Yeah, sometimes non-smokers get lung cancer and smokers don&#39;t. Nobody would contest that.

The idea is that smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer. There is a positive correlation between the two. Using a few examples that deviate from this trend is just bad thinking... and I&#39;m a smoker&#33;

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 7 2006, 04:06 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 7 2006, 04:06 PM)
BBC
Reeve&#39;s widow dies of lung cancer

Dana Reeve, actress and widow of Superman actor Christopher Reeve, has died of lung cancer.

Reeve, 44, who led the Christopher Reeve Foundation, was diagnosed with the disease in August 2005.

Reeve, a non-smoker all her life, died on Monday, the foundation&#39;s president and chief executive Kathy Lewis said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/4782612.stm

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Exactly how much are you getting paid by the tobacco industry to spread this stuff, Red?

I hope it&#39;s a lot.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Exactly how much are you getting paid by the tobacco industry to spread this stuff, Red?

I hope it&#39;s a lot.

Not a penny&#33; I do it just for the sheer delight in confounding the neo-puritans&#33;

May I now inquire as to your financial compensation for apologizing for medieval superstition (Islam)?

Or is it other people in your party who handle that? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

Solidarity with the oppressed is its own reward, comrade. ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:04 AM
Solidarity with the oppressed is its own reward, comrade. ;)
Reactionary superstitions are being oppressed? Are you fucking insane?

[Vanguard1917]

Exactly how much are you getting paid by the tobacco industry to spread this stuff, Red?

I hope it&#39;s a lot.

If someone likes and wants to smoke, or if someone defends the right of people to decide for themselves whether they should smoke or not, what exactly is wrong with that person supporting the production and distribution of tobacco?

Silly moralistic arguments aside, i can&#39;t see any reason why we should oppose the tobacco industry any more than we do any other industry which produces non-necessity products for profit in capitalist society.

The question is simple, and it&#39;s by no means restricted to smoking: do we see human adults as capable of deciding for themselves how to live their lives? Or do we see them as pathetic, passive-victim children under the spell of the demons who run the tobacco, alcohol and &#39;junk food&#39; industries? If you even sympathise with the latter view, you need to take a step back and consider why you call yourself a socialist.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by NoXion+Mar 8 2006, 07:52 AM--> (NoXion @ Mar 8 2006, 07:52 AM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 01:04 AM
Solidarity with the oppressed is its own reward, comrade. ;)
Reactionary superstitions are being oppressed? Are you fucking insane? [/b]
You&#39;re quite a hostile figure, aren&#39;t you?

As to your &#39;question&#39;, Muslims are being oppressed, yes.

I&#39;ve never commented on the merits of Islam as a doctrine.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:32 AM

Exactly how much are you getting paid by the tobacco industry to spread this stuff, Red?

I hope it&#39;s a lot.

If someone likes and wants to smoke, or if someone defends the right of people to decide for themselves whether they should smoke or not, what exactly is wrong with that person supporting the production and distribution of tobacco?

Silly moralistic arguments aside, i can&#39;t see any reason why we should oppose the tobacco industry any more than we do any other industry which produces non-necessity products for profit in capitalist society.

The question is simple, and it&#39;s by no means restricted to smoking: do we see human adults as capable of deciding for themselves how to live their lives? Or do we see them as pathetic, passive-victim children under the spell of the demons who run the tobacco, alcohol and &#39;junk food&#39; industries? If you even sympathise with the latter view, you need to take a step back and consider why you call yourself a socialist.
Hogwash.

Really, I&#39;d expect better from you.

Let&#39;s see if we can agree on one thing, and then see where we stand.

No social phenomena are class neutral.

Do you agree or disagree with that?


i can&#39;t see any reason why we should oppose the tobacco industry any more than we do any other industry which produces non-necessity products for profit in capitalist society.

So, you&#39;re seriously suggesting that the mass production of a drug by multinational corps which bumps off the urban working class 20 years early is &#39;nothing to be worried about&#39;?

It&#39;s this kind of dunderheaded thinking that worries me.



The question is simple, and it&#39;s by no means restricted to smoking: do we see human adults as capable of deciding for themselves how to live their lives? Or do we see them as pathetic, passive-victim children under the spell of the demons who run the tobacco, alcohol and &#39;junk food&#39; industries? If you even sympathise with the latter view, you need to take a step back and consider why you call yourself a socialist.

Ridiculous.

By the way, anyone who wants more of "Vanguard" or Red&#39;s viewpoints can buy a copy the Daily Mail. They&#39;ll tell you endless stories of the nanny state &#39;interfering&#39;, and how they don&#39;t let people &#39;get on with their lives&#39;.

The implication that just because people do, or want to do, something means it&#39;s "OK", and we should just &#39;let them get on with it&#39;, is nonsense.

And as soon as you put that theory under any kind of scrutiny, it falls apart.

Would &#39;vanguard let &#39;adult human beings&#39; Scab or cross pickets lines? Presumably you&#39;re opposed to &#39;telling people&#39; to respect picket lines, because, after all, they can make up their own mind.

Or, take wage slavery. People &#39;want&#39; to get jobs. Who are you tell them they&#39;re being exploited at work, eh? Eh? Wanna contol people&#39;s lives do you. Yeah, telling people how they should help themselves. Socialist nonsense.


Bourgeois utopian thought - courtesy of the &#39;revolutionary Left.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hogwash.

Really, I&#39;d expect better from you.

Let&#39;s see if we can agree on one thing, and then see where we stand.

No social phenomena are class neutral.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

I think it would be a better idea not to make such arrogantly sweeping statements.


So, you&#39;re seriously suggesting that the mass production of a drug by multinational corps which bumps off the urban working class 20 years early is &#39;nothing to be worried about&#39;?

It&#39;s this kind of dunderheaded thinking that worries me.

Food and clothing and medicine is also produced by "multinational corporations" (Not that being a large company makes any difference apart from increasing the scope of exploitation - exploitation is exploitation, large and small), do you think we should ban those as well?

Also, please prove that smoking knocks 20 years off one&#39;s life, especially in the face of people still surviving from the days when people smoked like chimneys.


By the way, anyone who wants more of "Vanguard" or Red&#39;s viewpoints can buy a copy the Daily Mail. They&#39;ll tell you endless stories of the nanny state &#39;interfering&#39;, and how they don&#39;t let people &#39;get on with their lives&#39;.

That&#39;s because there is a fucking nanny state. You don&#39;t have to be a leftist to realise that. Stop thinking in such black and white terms.


The implication that just because people do, or want to do, something means it&#39;s "OK", and we should just &#39;let them get on with it&#39;, is nonsense.

It depends on what that "something" is. There is a difference between having a cigarette and crossing a picket line, surely you can see that.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed+--> (Atlas Swallowed)Does Red Star 2000 get to light up before he is shot?[/b]

I don&#39;t think they&#39;d even allow him that pleasure&#33; :lol:


YouKnowTheyMurderedX
So, you&#39;re seriously suggesting that the mass production of a drug by multinational corps which bumps off the urban working class 20 years early is &#39;nothing to be worried about&#39;?

Given the miserable existence that Capitalism inflicts upon most working class pensioners, I&#39;d be ecstatic if I were to "bump" 20 years of my life.

Yet, you and you Parliamentary colleagues, wish to deny to deny me even this pleasant possibility.

Bastards&#33; :angry:

Perhaps it is a "sign of the times" when the Reformists don&#39;t even bother to propose half decent reforms. Instead of campaigning for better fuel allowances to stop pensioners freezing to death, they are "championing" further restrictions on human freedoms.

Plus, this whole "left" anti-smoking crusade stinks of opportunism and populism.

On a side note, I came across this article earlier - No smoke without fire (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4779694.stm) - and found it very interesting. Not only do "anti-smokers" wish to depict smokers as "sinners", they also seem to treat non-smokers with lung cancer with a certain amount of prejudice.

These people remember, are the people they are supposedly "helping", but old fashioned Christian Morality - which states that if you "sin", God will punish you - seems to be strongly linked in with the "worldview" of the anti-smoking puritan.

[Vanguard1917]

No social phenomena are class neutral.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

I don&#39;t think i see what you&#39;re trying to get at. Surely you&#39;re not implying that tobacco companies are involved in a conspiracy to exterminate the working class (a class which, by the way, has stopped posing a threat to capitalist society since decades ago)?

Or maybe that is what you&#39;re actually suggesting:


So, you&#39;re seriously suggesting that the mass production of a drug by multinational corps which bumps off the urban working class 20 years early is &#39;nothing to be worried about&#39;?

Let&#39;s be clear on one thing: tobacco companies aren&#39;t exactly pinning people down and forcing fags down their throats. Plus, tobacco advertising is largely non-existent in Britain due to state bans (not that i accept the snobby middle class idea that ordinary people are easily led astray by adverts they see on TV). Smoking is no longer portrayed as sexy, chic or cool by the cultural media, either. Smoking is probably one of the most socially unfashionable habits you can pick up nowadays.

The capitalist state, the media and the cultural elite have been waging a war on smoking for a good few years now. How do you explain that in class terms? My explanation is that it&#39;s a good old-fashioned case of those at the top of society taking the moral high ground, trying to control the lives of those at the bottom. They exploit contemporary anxieties about health in order to justify increasing regulation on how people conduct their everyday lives.


Would &#39;vanguard let &#39;adult human beings&#39; Scab or cross pickets lines? Presumably you&#39;re opposed to &#39;telling people&#39; to respect picket lines, because, after all, they can make up their own mind.

Or, take wage slavery. People &#39;want&#39; to get jobs. Who are you tell them they&#39;re being exploited at work, eh? Eh? Wanna contol people&#39;s lives do you. Yeah, telling people how they should help themselves. Socialist nonsense.

You&#39;re simply confusing what people do in their personal lives with what people do socially. Exploitation at work is a social problem. Smoking is entirely a personal issue. Smoking can only harm the person doing the smoking; crossing a picket line harms a collective social movement of people. I would have no reason to look down on a fellow worker smoking next to me as someone lacking morals. How i would react to a scab is an entirely different matter. The scab has chosen to side against a working class social movement; the smoker has chosen a &#39;vice&#39; that is socially inconsequential. To be honest, i&#39;m quite embarrassed to even have to explain this distinction.


Bourgeois utopian thought - courtesy of the &#39;revolutionary Left.

"The communists do not preach morality at all..." (Marx and Engels)

[YKTMX]

I don&#39;t think i see what you&#39;re trying to get at. Surely you&#39;re not implying that tobacco companies are involved in a conspiracy to exterminate the working class (a class which, by the way, has stopped posing a threat to capitalist society since decades ago)?


No, just like arms dealers aren&#39;t involved in a conspiracy to kill people, just like capitalists aren&#39;t involved in a conspiracy to exploit their workers.

They do it, but it&#39;s not a conspiracy.

And what do you mean about the working class not posing a threat to capitalism?


The capitalist state, the media and the cultural elite have been waging a war on smoking for a good few years now. How do you explain that in class terms?

Well, there&#39;s a debate in the ruling class. Some sections have been &#39;waging a war&#39;. Others have, like you, been outraged at the nanny state not letting people kill themselves if they wish. So, the latest ban on smoking in public passed with a small margin. Also, while they&#39;re opposed to smoking here, they don&#39;t mind the foreigners killing themselves.

click (http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact21.html)


You&#39;re simply confusing what people do in their personal lives with what people do socially.

No, it&#39;s you who&#39;s doing that. You&#39;re confusing the &#39;right&#39; of people to smoke if they wish (which I support), with their "right" give bar staff lung cancer. One &#39;right&#39; exists, the other doesn&#39;t.


Smoking can only harm the person doing the smoking

Except, of course, when it&#39;s harming everyone else.

Passive smoking does cause lung cancer (http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html)


How i would react to a scab is an entirely different matter. The scab has chosen to side against a working class social movement; the smoker has chosen a &#39;vice&#39; that is socially inconsequential. To be honest, i&#39;m quite embarrassed to even have to explain this distinction.


I know you are, because it betrays the totally vacuity of your position. You said:

"do we see human adults as capable of deciding for themselves how to live their lives?"

And I said no, because we don&#39;t recognise people&#39;s right to do lots of things.

To which you have no response, because yours is a stupid position.

[Vanguard1917]

No, just like arms dealers aren&#39;t involved in a conspiracy to kill people, just like capitalists aren&#39;t involved in a conspiracy to exploit their workers.

They do it, but it&#39;s not a conspiracy.

The tobacco industry produces a good that people consume - like food, clothes, cars, etc. Why single-out and demonise the tobacco industry?


Others have, like you, been outraged at the nanny state not letting people kill themselves if they wish.

So you&#39;re OK with the bourgeois state patronising people about the most trivial aspects of life?

And your over-blown rhetoric about &#39;letting people kill themselves&#39; sounds like it comes from someone who has a personal dislike of smoking. It has very little correlation with the facts concerning the risks of smoking. Smoking is not akin to suicide. People smoke because it gives them pleasure. They know that it might cause long-term health problems but they think that there&#39;s more to life than worrying about the healt risks of every single human activity.


No, it&#39;s you who&#39;s doing that. You&#39;re confusing the &#39;right&#39; of people to smoke if they wish (which I support), with their "right" give bar staff lung cancer. One &#39;right&#39; exists, the other doesn&#39;t.

Again, your rhetoric is based on a lot of confusion. Firstly, there is no evidence that bar staff are at any significant risk of lung cancer from exposure to smoke at work. Secondly, bar workers have not exactly been taking to the streets in support of a ban on smoking. In reality, it is the state that has assigned the identity of victim status on to bar workers. As i said before, this ban on smoking in public places is not in any way related to pressure on the state from below. It is something that comes solely from above.


I know you are, because it betrays the totally vacuity of your position. You said:

"do we see human adults as capable of deciding for themselves how to live their lives?"

And I said no, because we don&#39;t recognise people&#39;s right to do lots of things.

If you believe that working class people are incapable of deciding for themselves whether to smoke or not, you hold the working class in contempt. If that is your idea of socialism, it definately isn&#39;t mine. Your brand of socialism comes from the comment sections of the Guardian and the Independent - patronising middle class liberal intellegentsia snobs who want the riff-raff to live life as &#39;ethically&#39; as they do, in a nice muesli-eating, sandal-wearing sanitised society.

[YKTMX]

The tobacco industry produces a good that people consume - like food, clothes, cars, etc. Why single-out and demonise the tobacco industry?



For one, they have consistently lied (http://www.jeffreywigand.com/insider/7ceos.html) about the affects of their products.

Their product wipes out the working class.

They&#39;re unscrupulous bastards.

Would you like me to go on?


So you&#39;re OK with the bourgeois state patronising people about the most trivial aspects of life?


I don&#39;t see how it&#39;s patronising to want to educate people about what they&#39;re doing to their bodies. Your silly &#39;I&#39;m one of the workers&#39; bullshit is so paper-thin as to render it completely laughable.


And your over-blown rhetoric about &#39;letting people kill themselves&#39; sounds like it comes from someone who has a personal dislike of smoking.

Sure - I&#39;m an asthmatic, so I guess it comes with the territory.


People smoke because it gives them pleasure.

And? People do lots of things which &#39;give them pleasure&#39;. It&#39;s not a defence.


They know that it might cause long-term health problems but they think that there&#39;s more to life than worrying about the healt risks of every single human activity.


Smoking for pleasure is a product of alienation. Which explains why it&#39;s more prevalent in the working class and the urban poor.

The prevalence of smoking is higher among people in manual than non-manual social classes (31% compared with 23% in England in 2000). The widening of this gap over the past 20 years reflects a steeper decline in smoking prevalence among non-manual classes compared with manual classes.


Click (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=9979)


Firstly, there is no evidence that bar staff are at any significant risk of lung cancer from exposure to smoke at work.

Laughable nonsense. Passive smoke increases one&#39;s chance of contracting lung cancer later in life: FACT. Whether you &#39;like&#39; this or not is irrelevant.


As i said before, this ban on smoking in public places is not in any way related to pressure on the state from below. It is something that comes solely from above.


Jim Devine, spokesman for the public services union Unison, called banning smoking in enclosed public places a "basic health and safety matter".

"Passive smoking seriously harms health and can kill those who are exposed to tobacco smoke for extended periods of time - most vulnerable are bar and restaurant workers.

"To continue to allow people to work in smoky environments is the 21st century equivalent of sending children up chimneys."

This reflects the opinion of most of the unions. Whereas Vanguard&#39;s mates in the multinational corps and the small business community are in outrage&#33;


If you believe that working class people are incapable of deciding for themselves whether to smoke or not, you hold the working class in contempt.

If you believe that working class people are incapable of deciding whether they want to cross a picket line or not, you hold the working class in contempt.

Meaningless.


If that is your idea of socialism, it definately isn&#39;t mine.

Obviously.

&#39;Workers of the World, Unite&#33; We have nothing to lose but our respiratory function&#33;


Your brand of socialism comes from the comment sections of the Guardian and the Independent - patronising middle class liberal intellegentsia snobs who want the riff-raff to live life as &#39;ethically&#39; as they do, in a nice muesli-eating, sandal-wearing sanitised society.

Look, whatever. You&#39;ve offered no evidence to support any of your claims, and now your resorting to stupid ad hominem.

As long as we&#39;re offering up &#39;prolier than thou&#39; arguments, here&#39;s one for you.

I KNOW people in my family who suffer from health problems related to lung disease, I KNOW how they scrimp and save because they can&#39;t afford to buy cigarettes. I KNOW that when my Grandad and Grandma got addicted, the packets had no warnings on them.

I want my class to &#39;get their pleasure&#39; from overthrowing the rotten system, so that we call enjoy the real fruits of the world. You offer up stupid, petty bourgeois conciliatory bollocks about "if they want to do it, that&#39;s fine". No, it&#39;s not fucking fine&#33; It&#39;s killing them&#33; It&#39;s killing US, to make them more money. People who come from where I come from smoke not because they&#39;ve made a &#39;conscious decision&#39; to smoke, based on all the evidence. They smoke because there lives are shit. Smoking, however, will only make their lives more shit, and the lives of their children more shit.

So, please, just take a right good fuck to yourself.

Wanker.

[anomaly]

YKTMX, should we ban alcohol also? How far are you willing to go to ensure the safety of the proletariat?

And if you don&#39;t like smokers, just don&#39;t hang around them. What is the big deal?

Does your idea of communism only come with an assumed smoking ban? What if someone actually wants to smoke (and let&#39;s say that is even in a public place&#33;)? They shouldn&#39;t be able to?

And what of other drugs? Should they remain &#39;illegal&#39;?

If you are going to parade around crying about the costly effects of smoking, then you must be consistent. Alcohol abuse is just as dangerous to other people as tobacco use. Drunk drivers kill thousands every year. So, if you are to maintain that smoking should be banned in public places, you must call for a complete ban on drinking, if you are to be at all consistent.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

YKTMX, you are really overblowing the situation. Most smokers are not coughing, hacking and heaving lumps of misery that you seem to think they are. Nicoteine addicts are still socially viable people, unlike alcohol or heroin addicts.


For one, they have consistently lied about the affects of their products.

Their product wipes out the working class.

They&#39;re unscrupulous bastards.

Congratulations&#33; You&#39;ve just described a significant fraction of the capitalist class&#33;


I don&#39;t see how it&#39;s patronising to want to educate people about what they&#39;re doing to their bodies.

It&#39;s already being done. But people still smoke. This indicates they are at least aware of the risks.


And? People do lots of things which &#39;give them pleasure&#39;. It&#39;s not a defence.

I once got a nasty papercut off a book, does that mean books should be banned? That&#39;s the problem with the "ban it if it hurts people" mentality. Everything ends up being banned or regulated to hell. Stupid health and safety rules anyone?


Smoking for pleasure is a product of alienation.

So surely it would be a better idea to fight against that alienation rather than deny people a way of coping with it?


Laughable nonsense. Passive smoke increases one&#39;s chance of contracting lung cancer later in life: FACT. Whether you &#39;like&#39; this or not is irrelevant.

"non-smokers need not apply"


If you believe that working class people are incapable of deciding whether they want to cross a picket line or not, you hold the working class in contempt.

Once again you fallaciously equate smoking and crossing a picket line, they are not the same.


As long as we&#39;re offering up &#39;prolier than thou&#39; arguments, here&#39;s one for you.

Because we all know that anecdotes are evidence... right? right?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Smoking for pleasure is a product of alienation.

Astonishing&#33;

I am so naive. :lol:

Here for more than 40 years, I&#39;ve been thinking that "smoking for pleasure" had to do with a simple desire for pleasure.

Little did I know that my "alienation" was sending me unconscious signals to "have another cigarette and you&#39;ll feel better about life". :lol:

Amazing the things one can "learn" from mixing Trotskyism and Islam&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:11 AM
1.For one, they have consistently lied (http://www.jeffreywigand.com/insider/7ceos.html) about the affects of their products.

Their product wipes out the working class.

They&#39;re unscrupulous bastards.

2.Would you like me to go on?


3.Smoking for pleasure is a product of alienation. Which explains why it&#39;s more prevalent in the working class and the urban poor.

4."To continue to allow people to work in smoky environments is the 21st century equivalent of sending children up chimneys.

5. They smoke because there lives are shit.
1. This is different from most corporations in what way? Maybe I will stop eating meat, eggs, sugar and drinking milk :unsure:

2. No


3.The whole working class and poor are alienated from whom. Most people in my area are poor and working class are we alienated from each other? Maybe you are just a snob.

4. It is a choice. Restaurant work is low paying for the most part. They would probably benefit financially finding work elsewhere. Nobody is holding a gun to anyones head and saying work here or die.

5. Gee, when my life is shit I smoke marijuana and/or drink alchohol. My life is going pretty well now and I still smoke tabacco, go figure.

You may have control issues and should seek help :)


People who like to tell others what they can and an not do, think say bug the piss out of me. I get this almost uncontrollable desire to smack them with a hammer about a hundred or so times in the head :angry:

[YKTMX]

Despite what some of the more hysterical comrades are saying, I never said I want to ban smoking.

I do support the ban on smoking in public places, because:

1) It&#39;s a public health risk
2) It will encourage people to give up



That&#39;s the last thing I&#39;m saying in this thread.

Cheers.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:09 PM
Despite what some of the more hysterical comrades are saying, I never said I want to ban smoking.

I do support the ban on smoking in public places, because:

1) It&#39;s a public health risk
2) It will encourage people to give up



That&#39;s the last thing I&#39;m saying in this thread.

Cheers.
If disecting your crap arguments is hysterical then I guuess I am :lol:

Going out in public is always a risk, if you are afraid of risk, stay home.

Prohibition was a great success, everybody stopped drinking(I know you are against a total ban, but when you tell people they can not do something in certain places it usually has the opposite effect) :rolleyes:

Have a wonderful day :)

[piet11111]

if you think smoking is bad then you should look into drinking coffee.
i have heared doctors about coffee and they consider it far worse then smoking.

perhaps it has something to do with the coffee industry being the second most powerfull industry second only to the oil industry.
the coffee industry is also highly monopolised you have only a handfull of corporations that "own" the coffee industry.
namely nestle starbucks and some others but since there are only a few they have more power and financial means to manipulate anything that they deem undesireable.

the healtrisks of coffee go from cancer risks to heart problems and in all likelyhood this is only the beggining because there are only very few study&#39;s on the risks of coffee.

[321zero]

Smoke filled bars could be dealt with by enforcing adequate ventilation and air-conditioning. This option is usually rejected by boozecorp as too expensive to implement.

Far cheaper (for them) to have anti-smoking enforced by the state. As always this approach has the secondary (maybe primary?) consequence of giving the state another way into our lives.