I didn’t say it was only gross in this situation. What other context would you like me to comment on?
1 Like
My reasoning may not be the same as yours. I’m not so sure why you’re so afraid to explain why?
I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate please?
Yes please. You could start with the below examples from WhyRhy that you seem to have missed earlier.
2 Likes
In my humble opinion, the answer is an unequivocal NO.
You make an excellent argument, and the example that you used is extremely poignant and relevant. Most people do not appreciate that building construction is a public health issue. So are food, road design, gun violence, etc… But just because science is on your side doesn’t mean that people and political leaders will listen and make the necessary structural changes to protect everyone. The COVID-19 pandemic is the most recent example of it.
OFF TOPIC
The pandemic pushed forward a huge scientific paradigm shift, which is that COVID-19 and most respiratory diseases, such as flu, measles, chickenpox, and tuberculosis, are airborne. This means that these diseases that kill millions every year are not primarily transmitted by people sneezing and coughing near you. They are primarily transmitted through tiny virus-laden particles (aerosols) that linger in the air, incidentally, like smoke.
These aerosols are spread simply by breathing. They float and travel long distances. This means that a sick person can enter a room, breathe in it, leave that room, and the next person who enters it will get infected because the virus is still inside, suspended in the air. This has been well documented by science since the beginning of the pandemic.
Despite this new scientific knowledge, institutions fail to communicate it or deliberately underplay it. It took 2 years for the World Health Organization to recognize that COVID-19 is airborne despite overwhelming evidence. Why is that?
Since humans spend over 80% of their time indoors, this means we need to completely rethink all indoor spaces. In other words, we need to reassess the way we design and operate buildings, including schools, hospitals, malls, office buildings, etc., with new air systems adequate to protect people, because clean air is vital to health. This represents a huge structural change that businesses and political leaders are unwilling to take on, to the frustration of expert scientists and the many vulnerable who suffer the consequence.
We live in a very ableist world. To me, it’s unacceptable that many apartment buildings do not have elevators and are not wheelchair friendly. They assume that everybody can walk, even though everyone benefits from having an elevator, not just the disabled.
2 Likes
I’m not afraid, it’s just not relevant.
These are also examples of laws which have age related justifications. Do you agree?
Yes. I’m glad you agree. Why do we only need to limit harm to children though?
So children not being allowed to smoke at present. Is not relevant when discussing an age related smoking ban?
Yes. What is your explanation for them being different to the proposed ban discussed in this thread?
I didn’t say we did
Better that you explain the relevance, it’s your question.
The law being discussed in this thread does not have an age related justification
I think this is what you had an issue with isn’t it?
Thank you. I know what you mean now.
My question would be: If it isn’t ok for children, why is it ok for adults?
Specifically each half of the sentence already answers that.
Logically speaking, read my first post in the thread, it’s addressed in there somewhere, that this doesn’t even work anyway. I also touch on the same thing I just quoted as well as the logic with first hand experience on both arguments.
Absolutely demonstratively false. Humans have been inhaling weird stuff for a while.
1 Like
They never really cared about the state of young people’s health and now they somehow do. To me it looks like a little less blunt, indirect initiative of forcing young people to have some new shiny digital ID on them, for example just to enter an establishment where they sell these kinds of products that are extremely dangerous for the health of generation, without even buying them (if they already have that one, then sorry I’m not that familiar with the current state of events in the UK). Maybe there is an angle of cutting funding to the healthcare programs connected with the issue. Not to forget the military angle. These brave lads do love them some healthy and young candidates. Data collection, measure of control, cutting costs and throwing a bone to the military. At least this way it makes sense to me. Overall it is not that controversial as some other UK government previously declared initiatives but imo it will sure open other doors for completely different even more helping and caring restrictions.
2 Likes
Your source says nothing about when people started inhaling the smoke from cigarettes. You can smoke without inhaling as is typical today of cigar smoking. Before the 1930s it was common to smoke cigarettes more like cigars, by taking the smoke into their mouths and then releasing without allowing it into their lungs.
Here’s a Wikipedia page that actually discusses this advent of inhaled cigarette smoking: Initially, not all cigarette smokers inhaled the smoke produced by cigarettes due to its high alkalinity levels. Starting in the 1930s, the tobacco industry began to conduct advertising campaigns encouraging the inhaling of cigarette smoke
Next time I recommend thinking things through a bit more before taking such a condescending tone.
Did you read the next sentence after the one you quoted?
The one about pipe smoking and not cigarette smoking? Did you read my comments?
Is reading comprehension no longer taught in schools or something?
My original statement that inhaling the smoke from cigarettes was a relatively recent phenomenon. Someone responded and said it wasn’t, saying that people have been smoking “weird stuff” for a long time. I pointed out that cigarettes are different. Now you respond again saying that something entirely different has been inhaled for longer than cigarettes? Yeah? Did I ever say otherwise?
See:
I think this is where your reading comprehension failed. It is a ban on the sale of tobacco products https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3879/publications
That is not directly what the thread of conversation my statement on the inhalation of cigarettes was involved in was about though? I was discussing with someone else the history of cigarettes and how they became uniquely harmful as a drug as a direct result of the cigarette companies seeking profits at the expense of people’s health. As part of this, I pointed out that cigarettes are so new that there are people alive today who might remember a time before it was common to inhale cigarette smoke.
Your quote from me is from an entirely different comment which I was basing on the article which does frame it as a cigarette ban specifically. I guess sure the article that started this thread might be incorrectly framed and I shouldn’t have taken it at face value. What does that have to do with your aggressively hostile and irrelevant to my point response about inhalation though?
Is simply not an innocent question, it is insulting and implies I have an issue with reading comprehension, and is incredibly absurd considering it has nothing to do with my point. Maybe you made a poor choice of words and didn’t mean it as how it comes across, but that is still on you regardless.
I was not. The point you responded to about cigarette inhalation was entirely correct and backed by a source, and therefore not even an assumption, let alone a false one.
Maybe it can serve as an example to you of how to handle being proven wrong with grace.
Note for anyone who wants to respond to me further: I am muting this thread entirely because I think it has become as toxic as cigarette smoking and honestly considering that and how it is not entirely related to privacy or tech I think it should probably be locked and/or unlisted at this point. I am happy to discuss more privately in DMs if you are genuinely interested in a discussion with me about anything I talked about.
This discussion has run its course and descended into personal quarrels. Closed.
6 Likes