U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by mikeash » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:34 PM UTC

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.

So aside from the part where taking up smoking is a choice, it's weird to suggest that it's a choice?

You're right, some people got addicted back when it was cool. But there aren't a lot of those people around these days. (Most of them have either died from the habit or quit it.) Of those who remain, I do feel sorry for them. But they're not generally the ones I see complaining and trying to be a martyr.

Plus if you're addicted that badly, how about using the patch as a substitute? Or smoke in private. Just because you have an addiction doesn't mean you shouldn't be responsible for satisfying it in a way that doesn't impact other people.

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

#22

Post by mason240 » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:36 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #19

ta92929 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

"You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (As long as your pursuit makes me happy as well)" - Too many Americans.

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

#23

Post by brobinson » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:37 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #19

ta92929 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

In Japan, it's actually illegal to smoke and walk around in public. You have to stay in a designated smoking space.

Many restaurants actually have a separate, glass-enclosed section for smokers so they don't bother non-smokers.

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

#24

Post by ta92929 » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:38 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #19

ta92929 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

By certain places I meant New York City.

Do a lot of people in NYC have "outdoors" on their own property? I suspect not. Do a lot of people in NYC even own their own homes? Because most rentals disallow smoking. So in order to smoke, you have to outright buy a house or condo. Yeah, that's a reasonable compromise.

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

#25

Post by mikeash » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:42 PM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #22

mikeash wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

"You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (As long as your pursuit makes me happy as well)" - Too many Americans.

I can't quite tell what you're trying to say here, but I interpret this as my desire not to be exposed to secondhand smoke being somehow an infringement of other people's pursuit of happiness.

I really don't care what you do to make yourself happy as long as it doesn't harm other people. Your right to smoke stops at other people's lungs.

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

#26

Post by mikeash » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:44 PM UTC

ta92929 wrote: post #24

mikeash wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

By certain places I meant New York City. Do a lot of people in NYC have "outdoors" on their own property? I suspect not. Do a lot of people in NYC even own their own homes? Because most rentals disallow smoking. So in order to smoke, you have to outright buy a house or condo. Yeah, that's a reasonable compromise.

What about the sidewalk?

In any case, there are a lot of activities that are impractical in a large city. Try finding a place where you can have a bonfire in NYC, for example. Yet nobody is up in arms about that.

Do you know why most rentals disallow smoking? Because smoking ruins properties. It's not some vendetta against smokers, it's a pure financial consideration. It's the same reason they don't want you taking a sledgehammer to the walls, or putting sandpaper on the soles of your shoes.

Given that, why should anyone let you destroy their stuff in this way?

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

#27

Post by ta92929 » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:45 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #15

ta92929 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

  I see no particular reason to accommodate them.

Because they're people? And they're accommodating you by smoking only where it's allowed? So maybe out of the kindness of your heart you could leave them a place to smoke?

  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.

See above.

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

#28

Post by lsaferite » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:46 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #21

TomGullen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So aside from the part where taking up smoking is a choice, it's weird to suggest that it's a choice? You're right, some people got addicted back when it was cool. But there aren't a lot of those people around these days. (Most of them have either died from the habit or quit it.) Of those who remain, I do feel sorry for them. But they're not generally the ones I see complaining and trying to be a martyr. Plus if you'…

> there aren't a lot of those people around these days.

How incredibly naive and/or myopic.

There are PLENTY of people around who both smoke and are old enough that it was still 'cool.'

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

#29

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:54 PM UTC

vinhboy wrote: post #13

Is there a way we can get Google to leave this organization? It seems that Apple was able to do it without consequence, what's stopping Google?

Get together with some other people and some shares in Google; file for a stockholder's motion at the company's annual general meeting (you just missed the 2015 one unfortunately), which will probably be recommended against by the board; hire a PR person and target the business press with a clear explanation of why you're doing it and what you hope to achieve; lose the vote but repeat for several years in a row.

This is a slow and cumbersome procedure with a low-ish chance of success, but it does have the merit that the senior management of the firm will become aware of your issue, and if you can make a good case that CoC membership is at odds with stockholders' long-term interests then their fiduciary duties will require them to consider the issue seriously.

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

#30

Post by mikeash » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

lsaferite wrote: post #28

mikeash wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So aside from the part where taking up smoking is a choice, it's weird to suggest that it's a choice? You're right, some people got addicted back when it was cool. But there aren't a lot of those people around these days. (Most of them have either died from the habit or quit it.) Of those who remain, I do feel sorry for them. But they're not generally the ones I see complaining and trying to be a martyr. Plus if you'…

> there aren't a lot of those people around these days. How incredibly naive and/or myopic. There are PLENTY of people around who both smoke and are old enough that it was still 'cool.'

As far as I can see, the general negative health effects of smoking were well established in the 60s. Cigarettes sold in the US have had warnings about the negative health consequences since 1966. If you started before that showed up and still smoke today you'd be smoking for 50 years. I doubt there are PLENTY of people around who have been doing it that long.