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

#41

Post by Domenic_S » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 7:36 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…

Many non-western countries have very, very different attitudes about smoking (India, Ukraine, Russia, etc), and we get a lot of H1-B's from those countries.

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

#42

Post by JoshTriplett » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 8:10 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #37

ta92929 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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? Because banning all areas to smoke it a kinder attitude as it eliminates any appearance of acceptance of smoking.

> Because banning all areas to smoke it a kinder attitude as it eliminates any appearance of acceptance of smoking.

Exactly. The more places it becomes socially unacceptable, the better.

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

#43

Post by pizza » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 8:14 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #36

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…

I've long since considered getting stink spray, basically the concentrated aerosol version of what is in a stink bomb, and spraying it in any smoking areas. If you can pollute the air with second hand smoke, I can pollute the air with stink. For added effect, I would want the container to look like a cigarette.

By your own logic, you would be guilty of polluting the air.

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

#44

Post by jodrellblank » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 8:37 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…

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?

Presumably you are also in favour of public places for heroin addicts to shoot up, public places for masturbation, and public places for shouting and screaming contests?

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

#45

Post by ta92929 » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 9:20 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #42

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? Because banning all areas to smoke it a kinder attitude as it eliminates any appearance of acceptance of smoking.

> Because banning all areas to smoke it a kinder attitude as it eliminates any appearance of acceptance of smoking. Exactly. The more places it becomes socially unacceptable, the better.

How did Metallica put it?

  Love is control
  I'll die if I let go

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

#46

Post by cafard » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 9:24 PM UTC

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.

I don't like the habit. However, I do not hassle smokers for the simple reason that it is not useful to do so. Smokers who want to quit, will quit when they manage to. Nagging makes them defensive. It may make the nagger feel better, but it doesn't that I've ever seen make the smoker readier to quit.

I am grateful and amazed that smoking is so much less popular now. Back in the early 1980s a friend remarked that he liked runners parties: two hours after they started you could still see across the room. I hadn't thought it about, but he was correct that in most other circles there was still a lot of smoking.

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

#47

Post by wfo » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 10:44 PM UTC

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.

A terrifying article about how corporate profit motive is exerting its power to destroy national sovereignty and public health concerns across the globe; what would ten years ago have sounded like the ramblings of a homeless liberal conspiracy theorist on the street reported as plain fact, and the top voted comment is "eww smoking is gross".

Even considering enshrining this as standard operating procedure (i.e. TPP) would be so disgusting as to be unthinkable if it weren't currently happening and championed even by the "liberal" wing of the US political body; people should be able to decide the rules in their own country, not corporate lawyers overseas interested in maximizing how much profit they can milk from a foreign population against their will. The previous thought is so obviously morally correct and self-evident it should not need to be said and yet it does need to be said, which is horrifying.

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

#48

Post by marcos123 » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 10:47 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…

> 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?

Their habit harms the health of everyone around them. Your comments make it seem like you don't understand that fact. Being mean or nice has nothing to do with any of it, it's about not inflicting harm on people that choose not to smoke.

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

#49

Post by mikeash » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 12:25 AM UTC

cafard wrote: post #46

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.

I don't like the habit. However, I do not hassle smokers for the simple reason that it is not useful to do so. Smokers who want to quit, will quit when they manage to. Nagging makes them defensive. It may make the nagger feel better, but it doesn't that I've ever seen make the smoker readier to quit. I am grateful and amazed that smoking is so much less popular now. Back in the early 1980s a friend remarked that he l…

I don't go out of my way to hassle smokers. But I do enjoy and approve of the fact that they are generally not allowed to smoke near places I want to be. Nothing to do with wanting them to quit (although that would certainly be a good thing!) and everything to do with my own selfish desire for cleaner air.

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

#50

Post by ta92929 » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 2:26 AM UTC

marcos123 wrote: post #48

ta92929 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? Their habit harms the health of everyone around them. Your comments make it seem like you don't understand that fact. Being mean or nice has nothing to do with any of it, it's about not inflicting harm on people that choose not to smoke.

Did you even read the thread?

"Accommodating them" referred to moving the designated smoking area so that the other poster's path wasn't near it. So "accommodating them" means making a small effort so both smokers and non smokers can get what they want. It does not mean forcing non smokers to breathe smoke.