WizardofOz
New member
Your response makes no sense when it comes to legal consistency. They are harming others by smoking around them yet you would not make it illegal to cause harm in this way.
Ph.D in Pot & the G.H.W. Bush Legacy
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Your response makes no sense when it comes to legal consistency. They are harming others by smoking around them yet you would not make it illegal to cause harm in this way.
:doh:
:think:
Punishable... therefore illegal...
Seriously, WoZ, do I have to spell it out for you?
If a smoker smokes around other people, and they inhale the smoke, that is called causing harm to them, and would therefore be punishable, UNDER THE LAW I GAVE ABOVE.
Why, WoZ, do you need a specific law for a specific action that causes specific harm, when a law that has a much broader scope and that can be applied to many different actions with many different consequences will do just fine?
Again, you're trying to multiply laws, when the law should be simple enough for a child to understand it. No child could ever know all the laws if every single crime with every single consequence was spelled out, yet every child could know and understand that if you harm someone, you must face the consequences of (punishment for) that action.
WizardofOz
New member
:doh: Indeed. I specifically asked if smoking around others would be illegal. Whether there was a specific law is moot as you feel it should be illegal if it causes harm. But when I specifically asked: So yes, you believe that it should be illegal for someone to smoke inside their own home if another person is present. Correct?" You said "no".
The obfuscating is on you.
:think:
I don't see where I called you either.
In fact, it seems like you can't understand figures of speech.
And I told you that a specific law would not be needed.
:dunce:
No, I said that causing [physical] harm (which includes the harm caused by second-hand smoke, which is a physical thing) should be illegal.
The SPECIFIC act of smoking around others SHOULD. NOT. BE. A. CRIME.
Causing physical harm to someone should be.
Exactly. Here, I'll even state it explicitly:
It should not be illegal for someone to smoke inside there own home if another person is present.
No obfuscation here, not even by you.
You're just not comprehending what it is that I'm saying, and asking me the same question over and over again when I have given my answer isn't making this conversation go anywhere.
WizardofOz
New member
Equivocation is a logical fallacy.
Or are you unaware that it is possible to smoke around someone and not have the other person inhale it?
WizardofOz
New member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's just insane. He also thinks that road safety can be improved by getting rid of speed limits...
:hammer:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
be nice WoO - i expect this sort of thing from the retard, but not you
the danger from second hand smoke doesn't come from the exhalations of the smoker, it comes from the unfiltered smoke coming off the end of the lit cigarette
and there's battery powered ashtrays with filters on the market
for example:
Perhaps they're smoking in another room? Maybe they're sitting next to a window?
Appeal to extremes is a logical fallacy. :dunce:
This is called a red herring.
Stay on topic.
OOOH! Technology!be nice WoO - i expect this sort of thing from the retard, but not you
the danger from second hand smoke doesn't come from the exhalations of the smoker, it comes from the unfiltered smoke coming off the end of the lit cigarette
and there's battery powered ashtrays with filters on the market
for example:
Didn't know those existed. Though, in a way, those are (kind of) gas masks, just not ones that are worn on the face... :think:
:thumb:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
:doh:
You obviously don't realize how pervasive smoking is. Somebody wouldn't even have to be in the same room to be affected by it. It's recommended that the parents of children who smoke do so outside with the door closed and several steps away from it as well. Sitting next to an open window wouldn't protect the person...
:think:
the danger from second hand smoke doesn't come from the exhalations of the smoker, it comes from the unfiltered smoke coming off the end of the lit cigarette
and there's battery powered ashtrays with filters on the market
for example:
:idunno:
WizardofOz
New member
be nice WoO - i expect this sort of thing from the retard, but not you
the danger from second hand smoke doesn't come from the exhalations of the smoker, it comes from the unfiltered smoke coming off the end of the lit cigarette
and there's battery powered ashtrays with filters on the market
for example:
[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] was the one who brought up second hand smoke.
I'd be willing to bet that....:idea:....this same technology could be used for marijuana smoke.
[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] was the one who brought up second hand smoke.
I'd be willing to bet that....:idea:....this same technology could be used for marijuana smoke.
Why does pot have to be smoked? :think:
Why can't it be made into pill form? Maybe someone should research that, in addition to researching ways to make it so that one cannot get high from it.
Now THAT would be an advancement (as long as the resulting product would be a strictly controlled substance only for medicinal use available only through prescription) that I could get behind.
How about you, [MENTION=17501]ok doser[/MENTION]?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Hey, if there was some device that prevented second hand smoke from affecting anyone then fair enough, there's mixed reviews on this product however and there's nothing to say it sucks up all the smoke either. 80% of smoke is unseen and I wouldn't put faith in any such product until it was proven to absolutely work effectively. Even if it did it's a bad idea for parents to smoke around children regardless.
WizardofOz
New member
Yup. I just notice that the box specifically says "helps reduce second hand smoke" so they would probably still need to be flogged and/or executed anyway.
WizardofOz
New member
It doesn't. Just as tobacco does not have to be smoked and alcohol does not have to be drank.
It exists. There are CBD pills/oils on the market now.
It seems it can be used to treat a wide-range of ailments with little to no known side effects. That is why you don't need a prescription to purchase them.
| Strong Evidence for Treating Epilepsy Only one purported use for cannabidiol, to treat epilepsy, has significant scientific evidence supporting it. Last month, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel unanimously recommended approval of the CBD medication Epidiolex to treat two rare forms of childhood epilepsy. "That's really the only area where the evidence has risen to the point where the FDA has said this is acceptable to approve a new drug," said Timothy Welty, chair of the department of clinical sciences at Drake University's College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, in Des Moines, Iowa. For the rest of CBD's potential uses, there is simply too little evidence to make a firm conclusion. For example, some human clinical trials suggest that CBD could be effective in treating symptoms of anxiety, particularly social anxiety, Bonn-Miller said. Here |
It's time to let people use these products if they help them or their children. Who are you or anyone else to prevent them from doing so?
You're fighting against something you clearly know little about.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yep, so it doesn't filter out ALL of the second hand smoke as I doubt any product on the current market could anyway. There don't seem to be many endorsements for it from health sites either. JR hasn't realized until now just how the effects of second hand smoke work anyway given that he thinks sitting next to an open window would protect a child.