Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA
One of the reasons for this ban is to protect the "greater good". However, when it is pointed out that more people die from alcohol related injuries/event/etc, than the "greater good" goes away and is replaced by whether or not the substance in question was used "properly".
|
I have less problem with people committing suicide slowly and painfully, than I have of people killing other people.
Beating your wife is illegal, even if you are drunk.
Breating smoke into the air in an enclosed, shared space is going to be illegal to a lesser extent.
Drinking yourself stupid is usualy not that illegal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA
If you are so concerned about the "greater good", than you would ban alcohol as well as cigarettes, it is the only natural conclusion to this argument.
|
I'll ban alchohol while driving. I'll ban smoking while you are breathing smoke into random other people's lungs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA
am disputing the how much harm it causes--for every study that says it is a killer, there is another study that says it isn't, this is the case with many "studies".
|
I haven't seen a study that says "second hand smoke cause no harm beyond a reasonable doubt".
There are 3 possible results from a study.
1> The effect was proved, beyond a statistical reasonable doubt.
2> The effect was disproved, beyond a statistical reasonable doubt.
3> The study was inconclusive, up to a statistical reasonable doubt.
I've seen people refer to type 3 studies as if they where type 2.
Not being able to show the effect in a study is not strong evidence the effect is not there.
Being able to show the effect in a study is strong evidence.
Being able to show the effect does not exist in a study is strong evidence.
Inconclusive studies are just inconclusive. They don't disprove the effect being studied. They are inconclusive. Lack a conclusion. Insert more thesaurus entiries here.