Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–147 of 147 posts

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#141

Post by brokenmachine »

shreyansj wrote: post #139
brokenmachine wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the standard strawman argument that antisocial smokers who don't care about others right to peacefully enjoy relatively clean air make. Fact is, cars have a lot of other utility, and if it was possible to make a car that doesn't make smoke cheaply and without any other negatives, the whole car industry would go that way, legislation would happen and no more smoky cars would be made. Smoking however has no oth…

While I am not an antisocial smoker myself, I disagree with complete ban on public smoking as the parent comment suggested. Designated areas for smoking, sure! There are ways to make cars that don't make smoke cheaply (Nissan Leaf, Chevy Bolt etc) and the argument about "without any other negatives" is really debatable when compared with manufacturing process of any other car.

Designated areas would be awesome, as long as it was actually enforced when they smoked outside those areas.

Personally I'm a fan of the idea of those hilarious little smoking boxes that they have in some airports.

Getting off-topic, but... I'd like to get an electric car, but there's no infrastructure anywhere near my area. My coal-addicted government (Australia) is definitely not making it a priority.

Electric cars are unsuitable for lots of people currently and do have significant negatives. If the infrastructure was there, then great. But it isn't.

I wasn't actually talking about electric cars though. If suddenly a discovery was made that a catalytic converter could be made cheaply that cleans the smoke from a car completely and doesn't affect power, etc, don't you think that every single car company would adopt it immediately?

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#142

Post by brokenmachine »

jedberg wrote: post #124
enneff wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never in my life observed clothes smelling like smoke from being near smokers outside.

You probably just don’t have a very sensitive nose. My wife would be able to tell any time I hung out with my coworkers for their smoke break, and that was many hours later.

This is the correct answer.

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#143

Post by brokenmachine »

mdifrgechd wrote: post #85
whatshisface wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But judging the "destroying your lungs" aspect is nobody's business but the person doing it. There's a limit to how far this principle goes. If you saw someone trying to saw something out of their arm, would you think "whatever, it's their arm," or "this person is having a psychotic break and desperately needs medical attention, including restraint?" A lot of people would extend that to most forms of irrational sel…

I was thinking closer to common behaviors that are known to be unhealthy... drinking pop, not exercising, whatever. If someone is trying to kill themselves I think its different and they should get help. But we cant be hyperbolic about what that means and try to force everyone into a norm that values long term health above all else, because of how it encroaches on freedom. A more realistic example of what you're sayi…

>there is no good reason to limit people's right to do that

Grandparent was talking about the adverse health effects on the people around who are not smokers, but forced to breathe toxic smoke from someone who doesn't care about anyone's health, including their own.

That's a very good reason in my book.

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#144

Post by brokenmachine »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #9
dheera wrote: post #6

I really wish there were also laws about not doing it in public spaces. I don't care if people do it in their own spaces, but when the smell wafts out onto the sidewalk, it makes me nauseous.

At least it isn't hazardous like cigarette smoke. I really wish cigarettes were completely banned in public spaces. If you want to destroy your own lungs on your own property, fine. But I shouldn't have to breath it in.

In a city, even smoking on their own property can affect the neighbors.

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#145

Post by FpUser »

brokenmachine wrote: post #117
FpUser wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One has to be careful with what the majority supports. I think if we always follow a majority we'd still be burning witches at the stake. I am not against people smoking joint though. Their choice.

How should we choose whose opinion matters?

I wish I knew. I bet there is no single recipe and it depends on many things and what is the subject. I community discusses building kids playground maybe 2/3 majority is enough. If we are talking death penalty "get tough on crime" crowd screams the loudest but in this case telling them to sod off I think would be a good thing.

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#146

Post by brokenmachine »

FpUser wrote: post #145
brokenmachine wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How should we choose whose opinion matters?

I wish I knew. I bet there is no single recipe and it depends on many things and what is the subject. I community discusses building kids playground maybe 2/3 majority is enough. If we are talking death penalty "get tough on crime" crowd screams the loudest but in this case telling them to sod off I think would be a good thing.

It was more of a rhetorical question, to make the point that you saying "one has to be careful with what the majority supports" doesn't really offer any solutions because it's unclear who we should listen to, if we don't listen to the majority.

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#147

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

Reelin wrote: post #112
lotsofpulp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being a carcinogen doesn’t mean something isn’t bad for you. I’d even go so far as to say all added sugar is bad for you. Doctors even put fruit juice on the list of bad things since it’s just sugar, even for kids. And sugar needs to be vilified more if anything. I would bet healthcare spending on issues related to excess sugar/carbohydrate consumption (aka being overweight) dwarf anything else.

> Doctors even put fruit juice on the list of bad things That's not because simple sugars are inherently bad for you but rather because many people don't realize just how much of it fruit juices contain. Related to this, an older family member was warned by a doctor for various reasons to cut back on fruit intake (not juice, but fruit itself).

Also a good indicator of what is fruit juice and what is not is look if it's a cocktail, vitamin c, no added sugars (high fructose corn syrup), and ingredients in general.

I never buy juice unless it's roughly 80-100% plus in vitamin c and it contains 0 added sugars. I'm often shocked how many "juices" are literally de-carbonized soda with a healthy looking image.

Post reply on HN