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

Post by Amezarak » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:58 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'…

Post by Zigurd » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 7:18 PM UTC

krschultz wrote: post #5

bmohlenhoff wrote: post #3

It strikes me as both grammatically confusing and arrogant to refer to this organization as " the US Chamber of Commerce" when it isn't affiliated with the US government at all. It's a lobbying organization. It's analogous to calling something "the Google" or "the Microsoft."

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.

Post by g8oz » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 7:22 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…

Post by Lawtonfogle » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 7:30 PM UTC

ta92929 wrote: post #27

JoshTriplett wrote: post #15

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. 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…

Post by Domenic_S » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 7:33 PM UTC

Amezarak wrote: post #31

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'…

> You're right, some people got addicted back when it was cool. But there aren't a lot of those people around these days. Smoking is still considered cool among some subgroups. I've seen a lot of 14-16 year olds get addicted to cigarettes this year for that reason. Mostly a subset of the ones that tried vaping, which is being marketed very aggressively even in the US.