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

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 54 posts

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#11

Post by cmdrfred »

TomGullen wrote: post #9
mikeash wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always amazes me when smokers try to paint themselves as martyrs, because we keep trying to get them to stop exposing other people to their smoke. I'm sure it's inconvenient that you have to go outside and away from the doors to enjoy your habit, but if that's a problem then maybe you should have picked one that doesn't pollute so much.

Apart from the initial time they chose to smoke (and bear in mind it quite possibly might of been in a time where the health risks were far more contested) it's interesting that you suggest an addiction to be a choice.

Put a gun to the persons head (or because the self preservation instinct in them might not be strong in them, a loved one), say "Don't smoke or I pull the trigger". Magically addicts regain the ability to choose.

Addiction might make it uncomfortable if you choose to stop using a substance but it doesn't use the substance for you. All action excepting reflexes are a choice.

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#12

Post by ekanes »

TomGullen wrote: post #9
mikeash wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always amazes me when smokers try to paint themselves as martyrs, because we keep trying to get them to stop exposing other people to their smoke. I'm sure it's inconvenient that you have to go outside and away from the doors to enjoy your habit, but if that's a problem then maybe you should have picked one that doesn't pollute so much.

Apart from the initial time they chose to smoke (and bear in mind it quite possibly might of been in a time where the health risks were far more contested) it's interesting that you suggest an addiction to be a choice.

While you're right that smoking (after addiction) isn't so much a choice, I think the gist of GP's point is that smokers should go out of their way to not inconvenience others.

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#14

Post by saidajigumi »

TomGullen wrote: post #9
mikeash wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always amazes me when smokers try to paint themselves as martyrs, because we keep trying to get them to stop exposing other people to their smoke. I'm sure it's inconvenient that you have to go outside and away from the doors to enjoy your habit, but if that's a problem then maybe you should have picked one that doesn't pollute so much.

Apart from the initial time they chose to smoke (and bear in mind it quite possibly might of been in a time where the health risks were far more contested) it's interesting that you suggest an addiction to be a choice.

> it's interesting that you suggest an addiction to be a choice.

The data[1] makes is obvious that it's a choice, but no one said it's an easy choice. The zeitgeist has been continuing its swing against smoking in the US.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig...

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#15

Post by JoshTriplett »

ta92929 wrote: post #10
JoshTriplett wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are apartment buildings that ban smoking throughout the building. It's unfortunate that there are those that don't. I work in an office complex that prohibits smoking throughout all buildings and nearby, but provides a "smoking area" outside; unfortunately that area is right next to the path between my building and the next, so the smoke and smell inundates the path. I have to wonder how much they'd lose by sim…

They are not a protected class, but that doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to screw them over. In your example, they could just move the smoking area, couldn't they?

> They are not a protected class, but that doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to screw them over.

They've gone out of their way to screw themselves over; I see no particular reason to accommodate them. (Obvious exception for people who really do pre-date the widespread knowledge that cigarettes are both addictive and harmful, but that's a decreasing subset of smokers.)

> In your example, they could just move the smoking area, couldn't they?

Off campus, preferably. If you can't go eight hours without your drug of choice (especially one that harms the people around you when you use it), perhaps you have a bigger problem than an intentional lack of accommodations at your workplace.

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#16

Post by cmdrfred »

mikeash wrote: post #7
krschultz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. They have done a great job with branding to make almost everyone think they are an official part of the government. The Chamber of Commerce represents generally support incumbent business interests.

See the Better Business Bureau for another example of this. However, I don't think it's the fault of "the." Nobody thinks The New York Times or The Washington Post are government entities, for example.

There are multiple chambers of commerce [centralpachamber.com, njchamber.com] so perhaps the intent is to differentiate them?

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#17

Post by ta92929 »

mikeash wrote: post #6
lcswi wrote: post #2

I wish smoking was simply non existent. People in the stories below in my building and the adjacent one smoke which means I cannot have my windows open unsupervised or overnight unless I want my place to smell terribly (not to mention the possible health issues, minor but still...). Never again will I rent above ground level. Sorry for the not quite on topic comment but I really had to get that off my chest.

It always amazes me when smokers try to paint themselves as martyrs, because we keep trying to get them to stop exposing other people to their smoke. I'm sure it's inconvenient that you have to go outside and away from the doors to enjoy your habit, but if that's a problem then maybe you should have picked one that doesn't pollute so much.

They're complaining because they see the general trend.

When it's getting to the point where you don't just have to go outside, which is reasonable, or even go outside but avoid high traffic areas, but instead to go to this one specific spot outside, and there are people advocating banning smoking outdoors altogether it starts to get ridiculous.

I find it a strange comparison to the marijuana legalization movement.

EDIT: correction: they have actually banned smoking outside in certain places. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/23/new.york.smoking.ban/) So you can't smoke indoors. You can't smoke outdoors. But fuck 'em, they're smokers, so who cares.

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#18

Post by scarmig »

mikeash wrote: post #7
krschultz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. They have done a great job with branding to make almost everyone think they are an official part of the government. The Chamber of Commerce represents generally support incumbent business interests.

See the Better Business Bureau for another example of this. However, I don't think it's the fault of "the." Nobody thinks The New York Times or The Washington Post are government entities, for example.

It seems like the "of" does it more than anything. It parallels organizations like "Department of Defense" and "Federal Bureau of Investigation": some generic noun to represent that it's an organization of people, "of," and then an abstract noun that gives the organization a purview that's universal or total in scope. Most organizations that have the audacity to do this have a monopoly on the use of force behind them.

The CoC, of course, is itself in the business of government: trade its governmental access and leverage to businesses in exchange for large cash grants.

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#19

Post by mikeash »

ta92929 wrote: post #17
mikeash wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always amazes me when smokers try to paint themselves as martyrs, because we keep trying to get them to stop exposing other people to their smoke. I'm sure it's inconvenient that you have to go outside and away from the doors to enjoy your habit, but if that's a problem then maybe you should have picked one that doesn't pollute so much.

They're complaining because they see the general trend. When it's getting to the point where you don't just have to go outside, which is reasonable, or even go outside but avoid high traffic areas, but instead to go to this one specific spot outside, and there are people advocating banning smoking outdoors altogether it starts to get ridiculous. I find it a strange comparison to the marijuana legalization movement. E…

Why should smokers have the right to pollute the air in public places? We all have to breathe that stuff, you know.

Also you seem to be ignoring the "certain places" part of this ban. It doesn't say you can't smoke outdoors. It says you can't smoke in public parks, public beaches, and similar places.

You can smoke outdoors on your own property. You can smoke indoors in your own property.

The general trend is simply that smokers are free to enjoy their smokes in ways that don't affect others.

Re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

#20

Post by ivanca »

ta92929 wrote: post #17
mikeash wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always amazes me when smokers try to paint themselves as martyrs, because we keep trying to get them to stop exposing other people to their smoke. I'm sure it's inconvenient that you have to go outside and away from the doors to enjoy your habit, but if that's a problem then maybe you should have picked one that doesn't pollute so much.

They're complaining because they see the general trend. When it's getting to the point where you don't just have to go outside, which is reasonable, or even go outside but avoid high traffic areas, but instead to go to this one specific spot outside, and there are people advocating banning smoking outdoors altogether it starts to get ridiculous. I find it a strange comparison to the marijuana legalization movement. E…

Actually aside from minor memory problems after long term exposure (years) all reports suggest pure marijuana is very healthy, so no, no comparison with it.

If I started burning lithium batteries probably people will complain even if I do it outside or if I put it in my lungs, why should nicotine be any different?

Post reply on HN