THE PACK Message Boards

I see Ink's point. The choice to smoke is hers to make, and she knows what the medical implications are. Because of this, you can probobly understand why it seems like an unwise thing to do. I have a few smokers among my family and friends. They tell me how impossible it is to quit. They just don't want to undergo the hellish days it would take to succeed. My uncle joe has smoked since he was 15. Now he's in his 40's and wishes he could quit. Again, this is something he feels is impossible due to the strength of the craveings.

I just hope you discourage your children, neices and nephews from smoking. Always explain what cigarettes can do to your body. Then the day will come when they make that choice.

As for me, I will never do anything that is addictive. I like to have the feeling that nothing but myself can control my life. Smokers can't simply quit when they want to, and that's a situation I don't want to be in. I have enjoyed a cigar or two on special occations, and a little bit of marajuana when I was in high school. Eh hem. Anyways, my choice is to keep my body clean.

Your actions do not effect only yourself INK.



You can go on and on and on and on as if the decisions you make don't matter to anyone but you...as if none of it is anyone else's business...

...but it IS.

You can pout and growl and try to deny it all you want, but the choices you make effect everyone around you...and beyond.


How many times do I have to say it? Whether you like it or not, you are a part of a worldwide community, the choices everyone else makes shape the world you live in, and the choices you make shape the world around you...which effects EVERYONE.


You making the choice to smoke makes that choice look more acceptable to the people who interact with you every day, in addition to making it very hard to try to help someone else near you who is suffering far more from it effects than you are who refuses to accept assistance, using YOU as an excuse for not ceasing their actions.

"...But INK is doing it too. Why should I stop, if She doesn't have to?..."

The fact that you are otherwise such an Admirable person just makes your impact upon the world that more potent. You think your decision is fine because You have expressed enough self control to not become a sickly, criminal, addict. (at least, I hope so. You could be lying and making yourself sound better than you are for all I know.)

However, by doing so, you directly or indirectly provide encouragement to those around you who admire your positive traits and possibly want to be like you to smoke as well...or, in some cases, just use you as part of their lame excuse. By radiating the message "Smoking Is Good", your attitude, combined with the attitudes of others around you who also smoke, creates an environment that inevitably creates MORE smokers.

Your actions, in this way, effect the decisions of those around you, and thus you own partial responsibility for the ramifications of those other peoples choices in addition to your own.

I know you would like to say ,"But it is not MY responsibility to care about what anyone else does. They make their own choices...I'm not making decisions for them. They are responsible for their OWN actions."

That is absolutely true. Everyone is primarily responsible for their own actions, and no one can fully displace the blame of any poor choices on anyone else. However, that is not the end of it. That is not the Whole Story.


If one Man teaches a dozen other Men how to use a gun, using it responsibly himself, but ceases to care about or take responsibility for what those other Men do with them after that, and then 7 of those twelve men use that knowledge to commit murder by gunfire, would it be incorrect to say that the first Mans decision and action played a part in the final outcome?


If one makes the observation that, in places where owning and using a Gun is seen as "Cool", that a significantly higher amount of fatal shootings occur, is it really so unreasonable to look towards the local Popular and Respected gun collectors, sellers and enthusiasts (who are not the ones doing the shootings themselves) and make the suggestion that MAYBE...just Maybe...it's not such a good idea to keep glamorizing firearms so much? I mean...look what is happening! These crimes are occurring more often around them because of what they are doing themselves.



I look around me and I see hundreds and thousands of people in my own communities whose lives are being ruined by "Smoking". The overall state of physical and mental health of the populace around me is far lower than it could be as a direct impact of this. That makes MY world, YOUR world, the the shared world of all the rest of us a far less pleasant place to live in than it COULD be.



ONE PERSON SMOKING does not make the world come crumbling down around us...but Several Hundred MILLION Smokers is certainly putting quite a nasty black stain on it. Everyone on Earth has to live with the consequences and extended ramifications of this.

It DOES affect ME. Therefore, it IS, "...any of my own Damn Business...".



Stop pretending that what you do does not have any effect on anyone but you. The Worldwide Epidemic of Tobacco and other 'Mind Altering Substance' abuse can not be treated effectively until the worlds general attitude towards these things is changed. However, a Nation can not gather under a common cause of healing if it's communities refuse to support it. A community can not support the cause if the cultures within it are unaccommodating to the greater good. And those cultures remain unaccommodating because their members refuse to see and take responsibility for the extended ramifications of their actions.



The cycle of healing MUST begin with Individuals recognizing the full scope of the role they play in the world. It is not until this happens that they will know and understand what must be done, (or NOT done).



I'm not about to feel sorry for you because you don't feel like bothering to worry about what happens to anyone else as a result of your personal "Choices". That is life. My bad personal choices have been hurting those around me as well, and I am no less responsible for that than anyone else.



By refusing to take responsibility for how you affect the people around you, your local culture is weakened. By weakening your culture, your community becomes weaker as well. A weakened community can not fully support the people within it the way it is intended to. A weakened community is of little or no help to the nation it resides in, during times of trouble and crisis. A Nation in crisis inevitably effects the rest of the world.

(Making poor choices in one community in one nation in one corner of the world eventually effects others everywhere else. The choices, values and activities of the cultures that spawned the radical group Al Quida certainly have effected far more than just the places they originated. The Materialism and Greed of many Americans also has provided direct support for the profitability of inhumane manufacturing practices in foreign countries. Those companies would not be so common and successful if not for the casual actions of millions of Americans. All we do is buy a pair of discount Shoes, and on the other side of the world, another 12 year old boy looses his arm in the machine that made it, and no one even cares. ...all they did was buy a $19.99 pair of sneakers. They did not chop off that boys arm themself, or approve of the machine not having adequate safety devices to prevent that from happening, or allow a starving, overworked child to operate such a dangerous machine to begin with, but that seemingly innocent purchase directly helped create a world where that is allowed to happen.

It sucks, but its true none the less.)


In this way, hundreds of millions of people around the world who refuse to, or can not believe that their actions could possibly matter to anyone else in the world but them...acting stupidly or irresponsibly, safe in their minds that they are harming no one but themselves, and content in that...collectively are helping to destroy the world around them one action at at time.



The solution? Solve the problem by starting at it's base. Go all the way down to an individual by individual basis, explain to them the role they play in the lives of everyone on the Planet, not just their own, and reveal to them the truth that:

"What I do with myself really DOES effect everyone else"


It's impossible to make a large number of people make a responsible choice, and possible personal sacrifice for the greater good, if every single one of them, (like you INK) refuse to open their eyes and see that their actions really do matter.


Will one person really make that much of a difference? If you think about it, everyone is "Just one Person".

So...YES! "One Person" makes all the difference in the world. Change, for good or ill, can not happen without them.

Jesus, Vuldari, you must not have any friends (joking). I swear, I truly wonder why you and INK dont ever go into politics, you two would really make a great politician, Im serouse. You know how to talk.

Long...post....cannot.....compute.... system.....failure....

Shadow Wulf wrote:Jesus, Vuldari, you must not have any friends (joking). I swear, I truly wonder why you and INK dont ever go into politics, you two would really make a great politician, Im serouse. You know how to talk.

Long...post....cannot.....compute.... system.....failure....

"Politics" has come to be heard as a dirty word to many because, unfortunately, so many people do such a poor job of it, and abuse it instead of using it for the greater good, as is it's fundamental purpose.


The act of setting up and enforcing guidelines for the purpose of maximizing the quality of life of all parties involved (the essence of Politics) is nothing to be afraid of. Far more people should take the trouble to become involved with it.

...however, that is a discussion for another day...

To me that ideal is wrong:

I'm a libertarian. I don't believe so pompously that I am responsible for the rest of the world. We all shed influence - nobody shields me from the impact of anti-smoking campaign. And I don't solicit a product to be responsible for - I'm not a corporation, a politician, a news reporter or any of those sorts that's selling you something.

I'm a citizen of the United States. A human animal.

I mean - even the cops aren't responsible for the safety of individuals - from mental, physical, or any type of hostile influence. (It's true - they're here for society - they don't have the responsibility of protecting you. There have been lawsuits against police and their response time but the it's specifically stated - police officers are to keep the peace, not save any of us from each other. Feel safer now? There's 3000 people to every 1 cop. Joy!)

We need to get over ourselves. The freedoms we have are ours because if we take responsibility for ourselves it helps this world function. I'm not going to make sure everyone at work is okay with me drinking coffee in their presence.

Granted, someone might have a problem with people drinking coffee - because it's addictive, causes stained teeth, and one report said it was really bad for your health. So I shouldn't drink coffee in front of that person. They don't, you know, want to send a bad message.

I ought to shift my entire life and choices because it's politically correct for me to care. Nobody's responsible for themselves these days - the blame is totally displaced! Take me in for drinking coffee, influencing people with it - and while you're at it nab the guy who bought me my first cup of coffee and taught me how to make it! Responsible for infringing by using yourself to influence others negatively!

How fanatical!

It's okay if you shoot someone in the forehead... someone taught you how to pull the trigger. We'll get him too! Plus the guy who you stole the gun off - and his family who taught him to use guns! Right-o!

Chain of influence baby!

How foolish!

I mean - say I sell fertilizer. If someone builds a bomb with the fertilizer that I sold them (and it does have a warning label on it about it's flammability) then shouldn't I also be jailed with the criminal intent? I mean, I sold him the fertilizer with a warning label on it about it's nature and any kid that listens well can figure out how to make a pipe bomb in about 20 minutes.

Hell, I could make pseudo-napalm after chemistry class out of gasoline and Styrofoam. Namely because I'm a pain in the a**. But, regardless, if we're going to cuff responsibility around the table my chemistry teacher should know better than to teach me chemistry - it really sucks when kids are so smart they become overly inventive. Lock him up with me why don't you?

If we were trapped by the expectations of the rest of the world I want someone else to pay for my car and take it away. If they don't I might kill someone - they kill a lot of people like cigarettes - and then the guy who sold it to me and my driver's ed teacher should be taken in too. And with my mother too - she never could make me listen about 'safe' driving practices.

The idea that I would ever stand for the assumption I am responsible for Joe-Blow's actions is pompous, ridiculous, and unrealistic. I won't ever succumb to the poppy-cock notion of me being responsible for the choices of someone else's actions. I am responsible for ME as you are responsible for YOU.

Nobody cleans up where I crap. Nobody else puts food in my mouth but me. And all the influences of the world are filtered by the individual - and the world gives them the tools to decide. It is THEIR responsibility to use those tools or not to make a decision. That's THEIR choice - to sift the influences and the messages given to this world or to accept them, neat presentations and all.

If I succumb to all the influences on billboards, ads, commercials, people - I'd be a drug addict, about a size 0, and an airhead. I'd take crack and heroin from old friends of mine, I'd be concerned about having sex a lot to be cool. You know that's what it's all about!

I know a house where I was trapped for 17 hours with the wrong kind of guy with a dead cellphone unable to get home. If I'd yielded to all the influences in my life I would know well the gutter. I could have AIDs and be snorting coke while getting raped to pay the bill - as would many people who've traveled and met all sorts and perspectives as odd as I have.

Brooklyn yields a really shady crowd, I might add.

I could be a hobo. A farmer. Yet I picked out the influences in this world - I shifted out what I wanted, I protected myself in bad situations that threw themselves on me, and I'm better off making my choices.

I make my choices. That's my responsibility and nobody else's. Don't take that away from me - in this world it's all we really have.

Nobody rules the individual - not even influence; unless the individual lets it. You cheapen it when you make everyone else important - like this world is one big greek house.

Helping people is one thing - being responsible for them is entirely different. I'm for the former - but I'm not going to be responsible if a student I'm tutoring won't get his a** in gear. That's his job. I'll be there - time and time again for him - but my responsibility is to give him the tools to make the answers for himself, not to forge his answers for him.

I take full responsibility for my actions and I have no qualms with that. Someone stupider, smarter, younger, fatter, disease infested, or whatever - so long as they're of age by society's perimeters they are given that right regardless of their shortcomings.

And not you or I are entitled to take that right to be responsible for one's self from a person. To judge them for shortcomings in your eyes is not your place, or mine. They still are given the ability to purse happiness as they see it, in their own choices, and throughout what influences present them. Influences aren't infringements on their freedom - they can walk away from those, even the unwanted ones.

That's at least the world I live in - and I don't want to live in any other kind.

To me that all just makes sense...

Taking responsibility for the repercussions of ones actions does not constitute throwing people in jail or killing them because something or someone they were second handedly involved in went wrong.

That does not help anyone. ...and the person can't do anything responsible about it if locked behind bars.

Your mind seems to be stuck on the notion that, "Being Responsible = Being Punished".

No.

Being responsible means paying attention, making intelligent decisions, and following through on your actions. ...caring what happens next, and proving it by staying involved whenever possible to encourage the most desirable outcomes.


Obviously, if you are a fertilizer salesman, you can not be expected to follow every customer home and baby sit them to ensure they are not using it to make bombs. However, what you CAN do is track each sale carefully, pay attention to who is buying and how much, and take the time to learn a little about what materials in what quantities add up to suspicious purposes. ...and if someone slips by your radar and makes a bomb from your products anyway...take the trouble to make your sales and product tracking even stricter and tighter, at your own expense and inconvenience. Troublesome, yes, but 'Responsible'.

Most of that would apply to the distribution of just about anything else that is potentially dangerous, from Psudophedrine to Firearms.


So how can one be a responsible Smoker?


First of all, you really need to ditch that , "what anyone else does is none of my business...they can ****ing snort nitro untill they explode for all I care...its their choice" attitude.

Not caring = letting the **** pile up around you until it hits the fan. Where exactly will that leave everyone? In a **** hole, that's where.

If that's not happening, then clearly someone else around you is caring twice as hard for you to keep things under control. I recommend finding out who that is and giving them a big hug...or maybe flowers...at the very least a hearty "THANK YOU". It's the hard workers who take the time to care that make things awesome for the rest of us. Most of us would all be starving, illiterate and homeless without them.


But really...Lets make an example, hypothetical scenario.

You smoke one pack a week, and a good friend of yours who likes to hang out starts smoking with you so you can do it together...but soon begins smoking 4 packs a week...then one a day...then two a day...until it seems they are almost smoking 24/7 and are clearly out of control and can't handle it.

Being 'Responsible' in that situation could mean spending more of your free time with that friend to help them get their habit and addiction under control. Be a supportive, positive force in their recovery, helping them fight their cravings by doing alternative, disassociating activities with them, checking in on your friend from time to time to make sure they are doing alright, helping them track down why they lost control and remedy the source if you can, and (my favorite IDEAL final scenario) possibly help them to quit the habit entirely by being a guiding force and quitting with them, dealing with all of the struggles involved together, every step of the way, reinforcing their failing strength with your own.

As much fun as it may have been for a while to share a smoke together every weeknight after work at sunset, you and your friends health is Clearly more important in the long run, and therefore, giving up the smokes together to guarantee that they will no longer destroy one of you would be a VERY responsible action. Plus...your friend wont be broke from spending all their money on smokes all the time, smell like they washed their shirts in ashes, or stare at you with tired, bloodshot eyes anymore, and I guarantee they would thank you for it.

Isn't the life of another more important than a favorite downtime activity?


I'm not suggesting that you should be thrown in jail and whipped for being the one who started them on the habit. That would be stupid, unreasonable and pointless. What I am suggesting is just that if your actions, innocent as they may be, lead to a mess... help clean it up. That really isn't so unreasonable if you think about it.



Now, to be fair, I will use an example that involves ME.


I started writing Mondays post about 15 minutes before I needed to leave for work. I knew better, but I went on with it anyway, and by the time I finished I ended up calling in to work an hour and a half later apologizing for my tardiness, and punching in at work a full two hours late.

When I showed up, many were suprised that I had been so long absent that day. Though I am notorious for arriving 5-15 minutes late most days, I was not one known for ever calling in sick or just not showing up. The manager on duty that day is a young slacker (I'm older than him, though he is technically my boss) who was very forgiving and offered to keep my slip-up a secret from the Store Manager (who has been on my case about my lack of punctuality).

Now...there were two other fresh, young employees there that day (one barely old enough to work, and the other just out of high school), who were rather impressed with my ability to receive such leniency for such irresponsible behavior, and both queried me behind the managers back about how I, "get away with" stuff like that...clearly with tones suggesting they intended to use my "secrets" to slack off, debt-free themselves in the future.

Now...the easy thing for me to do in that situation would have been to just laugh it off and accept the managers offer. What the Big Boss Man does not know, can not hurt him, right? Ahh...but my famously hyperactive conscience, (think Jiminy Crickets Zorak sized big brother), told me there was more to think about here than just myself. If I took the easy way out and let the assistant manager help me wiggle out of an embarrassing slip-up, I would become a very, very poor role-model for the young trainees to learn from. What kind of values would I be teaching them by doing that?

...so, I declined the managers offer, insisted that he recorded my tardiness on the time clock accurately, and (though I don't look forward to it) intend to fess up to the Boss man Personally before he has to pull me aside and lecture me about it, the next time I see him.

...they all looked at me like I was crazy when I told them that was what I was going to do...

But...when the older of the two trainees expressed his respect and admiration for my decision later that night, I knew I had made the right choice. I took the responsible route...and I think I may have inspired someone else to value that attitude as well.


Being responsible can be really tough sometimes...I'm pretty sure my Boss is going to have to cut back my hours and write me up for that now, since I have already been warned about my consistent lack of punctuality...but in the long run, standing firm upon my values and making myself a positive role-model for, not only the trainees but the lazy young ASM as well, is the best for me and everyone overall. I am more motivated to improve my reliability now, (as I need to be if I don't want to loose my job), and I may have just taught another to value and respect the importance of responsibility as well...a value that should serve him well for the rest of his life.


...though I Dread the conversation I will now have to have with my Senior Manager on Friday...


It is unfortunate that, in my situation, being responsible DOES = 'Being Punished' this time. ...but that is mostly because, honestly, I just plain really screwed up...and now I'm paying the toll.



Do you understand what I am trying to say yet, INK?

Terastas wrote:Ink, Vuldari, no offense, but this thread was never meant to be taken so seriously. Vuldari's chosen gripe for this thread is the tobacco industry. That's all there ever had to be breathed into this.

EDIT: Pun unintended.

Indeed...this whole conversation between INK and I has gone completely off topic.

...could one of the administrators splice out this debate into it's own thread so the original topic can continue?


I apologize for hijacking this thread for yet another one of my mad Rants. I had no idea what this was going to turn into when I responded the the comment about me "harassing" smokers.


I've really got to learn to hold myself back sometimes...

Is it only an Admins option to split up posts within threads? I dont know how to do it.

Vuldari, I completely understand what you're trying to say. I just can't see the common sense in garnering myself to everyone else and to have to assess everyone's needs. Unless they are a threat or I care about their well-being (and indifference is not painful - if I cared about everyone in the world I'd be broke and depressed).

I simply think it's pretentious to assume a role over what strangers need, too. I am not capable of garnering my individual to shield the world from my oh-so-potent influence.

Sure - we shape our behavior around everyone to some degree - to influence them. But it shouldn't be a mandate that I have to make sure every time I'm out smoking a clove on the steps of Blodgett Hall I have to hide my smoking from everyone viewing. Oh-my-god! I could cause them to smoke! And so could a million other things.

It's like saying because of video-games kids kill people. Or that a hunter-safety course trains kids possible murderers. Sure - it gives them ideas, tools - but saving the world from influence is a task I can't find much common sense in. Part of self-responsibility is not feeding a threat to yourself. Part of it is not having to save the world by re-writing yourself in a politically correct lighting.

As far as you at work - so you chose the noble course - but, as I've been saying, that's simply taking responsibility for yourself and your actions - not everyone else's. You chose the nobler course for other's - but that too is your decision.

So long as we have that freedom, the choice to assess what we do for whatever reason and whatever comes from it, I believe we should have the ability to respect each other. No matter how much we dislike each other's ideals. Smoking or non-smoking, respectively.

What's so fantastic about this world and this culture, IMHO, is that neither you or I have to impress anyone else in this world. Besides using the sociologist's looking glass theory is faulty by nature in itself.

The theory states that 'I think I am what I think you think I am' - and it makes being responsible for every influence you have faulty as it can be completely misunderstood by your unconscious application to define yourself and your influence, but I'm not going to take you through Sociology courses.

I think, in the end, we've all said our bit. That's really it - I guess the best way for me to describe it is I'm a Libertarian. Thick headed, through and through about it too. And you have your position. I'll respect it but never live by it.

It's obviously not necessary for either of us to yield to each other.

And as far as hijacking this thread - I'm sure none of us will be stuck down by lightening for it. Not the first nor last time it'll happen. No harm was ever meant by a little discussion of politics in the midst of a criminal activity thread.



Ink Out

Shadow Wulf wrote:Is it only an Admins option to split up posts within threads? I dont know how to do it.

Yes, we can split topics.

Edit: Ok. The thread has been split. Please... continue. I am reading this too.

With that said, this is also a first warning. Some of the counter-points in the debate are presented a bit harshly. Try and keep the tone on a positive level. This is an interesting debate, and I would hate to see it escalate into something completely negetive. My advice is to always allow room to give a little in a debate. Acting like a brick wall can frustrate others. Be sure to mention where the opposition is correct, and not just incorrect in your opinions.

If you have to be brutally honest, present it as delicately as possible. This subject in particular has the potential to explode easily, so please be careful not to upset the opposition.

WARNING: Possibly my Longest post EVER (Read ahead at your own risk)

[Edit: I split it up into three parts to make it slightly more manageable]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ink wrote:Vuldari, I completely understand what you're trying to say. I just can't see the common sense in garnering myself to everyone else and to have to assess everyone's needs. Unless they are a threat or I care about their well-being (and indifference is not painful - if I cared about everyone in the world I'd be broke and depressed).

You can't see the common sense in it? ?...

WTF?

Look. The world is messed up. The Human Race is messed up. Anyone who looks around can plainly see that things could be ALOT better than they are. ...but how does one accomplish the task of making it so?

By behaving differently than we are. By changing our ways so that we are doing more to improve the quality of our lives, and the lives of those around us than we are now.

Broke and Depressed? ...only if you are the only one doing it. That is the problem. No one wants to do it themselves. They all want someone else to take care of it for them. ...but that does not work.

Why do those who try to help end up being stretched so thin? ...because people like you are not helping at all.

In a city of 100,000...if everyone assisted in helping the 100 homeless people get back on their feet, get jobs and find a new home, that would be 1,000 people for each troubled one. Surely, at least a dozen of each thousand could find the time to lend a hand for a few hours, pass a few bucks along for bus fare to the Job center, spend one day teaching them a new skill, or pooling their cash together to pay one doctor bill...which would be impossibly expensive for that homeless person, but about the cost of a nice dinner for the rest when split between everyone else.

Now that homeless person is not making you depressed every time you see them sleeping in the bus station, they are not robbing convenience stores just to get food to eat, and are certainly not brooding to themselves about how no one cares about them and plotting to murder people in vengeful hopelessness. ...and you didn't have to do much at all.


...but this ONLY works if EVERYONE gets involved with that kind of behavior. What makes YOU so special that you should be excluded from all of this? ...why should you just get to sit back, smoke until the crack of dawn, and then expect everyone else to Defend your right to live as you please?


Are you familiar with the fable about the Loaf of Bread? Everyone pitches in to harvest the wheat, the eggs, make the flour, mix the ingredients and put in the oven to bake...all but one. Then when the bread is done, everyone eats it and enjoys it together...all but one.

If you choose not to play any part of making something grand, you have no right to take advantage of its spoils.


If you are not going to participate in supporting and defending the health, safety and quality of life of those around you...I fail to see why you should ever expect to have anyone come to your aid when you are sick, injured, under harassment or being brutally mugged.


Why should anyone else care? ...you don't care about them, or do anything for them. They loose nothing by just walking by and letting someone stab you to death for your MP3 player.


If you ask me...the only thing that makes sense is to constantly act towards the benefit of and care about Everyone around you so that they will always have a reason to care about, and act in your benefit in return.

If Everyone is doing it...no one will have to do much more than they are already doing for themselves. It's as easy as saying "Yes" when your neighbor asks for help getting a sofa up the stairs, or painting the tool shed...or putting out your cigarette when you notice the person next to you is gagging on your smoke.

You don't have to build anyone an entire house, or give them your life savings. Passing the person ahead of you in line at McDonald's a quarter every time when they are a little short can do wonders for strengthening the overall attitude of caring within your community.



By by maintaining that attitude of yours, it's like you are just standing around watching others having a hard time, blowing smoke in their faces and wiggling your fingers with your thumbs in your ears going, "Nya, nya...I don't have to do squat and you can't do anything about it because I have RIGHTS"


...and just who, pray tell, GAVE you those "Rights"? ...why do you think they were given to you? ...what was the purpose behind that? ...are you sure you really understand the concept as well as you think you do?

Ink wrote:I simply think it's pretentious to assume a role over what strangers need, too. I am not capable of garnering my individual to shield the world from my oh-so-potent influence.

Sure - we shape our behavior around everyone to some degree - to influence them. But it shouldn't be a mandate that I have to make sure every time I'm out smoking a clove on the steps of Blodgett Hall I have to hide my smoking from everyone viewing. Oh-my-god! I could cause them to smoke! And so could a million other things.

You are missing the point. Doing stupid things in secret is even worse than just doing them in the open. That is just passing along the message that it is okay to do whatever you want, no matter how destructive it may be, as long as you don't get caught doing it.

The point is, you should stop advertising that it is okay to do stupid things. Mistakes are one thing...mistakes happen, and should always be redeemed, but forgiven.

However, doing something you know is stupid, and then claiming its okay simply because you choose not to care...just doesn't make any sense.


[End Section One]

[Section Two]

Ink wrote:It's like saying because of video-games kids kill people. Or that a hunter-safety course trains kids possible murderers. Sure - it gives them ideas, tools - but saving the world from influence is a task I can't find much common sense in. Part of self-responsibility is not feeding a threat to yourself. Part of it is not having to save the world by re-writing yourself in a politically correct lighting.

Knowledge is power. Knowing more skills only makes a person stronger. Hiding the facts to mold the perception of others to your own ends is a political system that does not work. The period of time where that was last employed on a mass-scale is most commonly known as "The Dark Ages".

Once again, you are misunderstanding. First of all...I think that if something is seen to cause a great deal more harm than good, (like hand-guns and cigarettes) they should just be unanimously agreed upon to cease to be used. However, if a dangerous thing is required, then the details of its function and use should most definitely be made common knowledge. Hiding the truth is more harmful in the long run.

The trouble is...most people just don't put enough effort into teaching the proper attitude, values and respect that should go along with these things. The two things really need to come hand in hand.

In a community that makes use of hunting rifles, for example...it should be the responsibility of everyone in the community to always maintain a mutual respect and moral code concerning those tools, and make sure everyone understands and follows it. That means consistent individual interaction between everyone...not just waiting until someone screws up and then sicking the cops on them.

As for Videogames...I love First Person Shooters. There is just nothing quite like the challenge of a Pass or Fail (live or die) competition between yourself and another human being of equal or greater skill and strength. Reliving the horrors of a real conflict through a dramatic interactive recreation, or a simulation can be a very enlightening experience, while being entertaining at the same time. I think it is unreasonable to automatically blame such games for the violent actions of it's players. One does not get any ideas from playing Medal of Honor that they could not get from reading a History Text Book about WWII.

I think videogame inspired violence is a Red Flag to everyone that people in general are not living up to and sharing strong enough moral values. Not caring about someone enough to help them learn more constructive ways to deal with their anger and frustration is far more to blame.

One can not blame Game Makers for having violent content in their games. Videogames, like Literature, Music, Art and all other forms of Media, naturally base their content on subjects their audiences can relate to. Many Videogames are violent because they are echoing the events and attitude of the world around them, which consequently is what people care about.

...not the other way around...
(Although, some games are certainly a little more questionable)

IMHO Whomever has a complaint about the horrors virtually recreated in videogames should focus their energy towards strengthening social moral values, and fortifying the peaceful relationships between social-groups, cultures, and nations ...( which begins with all of them learning to CARE about and for each other. Imagine That ) ... to reduce the number of violent scenarios in the public focus that inspire violent games in the first place.

People will stop making so many games featuring realistic violence when violence ceases to be a consistent part of the audiences reality.


Violent Media is a symptom of Violent culture...not the cause.

Ink wrote:As far as you at work - so you chose the noble course - but, as I've been saying, that's simply taking responsibility for yourself and your actions - not everyone else's. You chose the nobler course for other's - but that too is your decision.

I made a decision based on a preventive purpose...providing encouragement towards good decisions, and moral discouragement against bad ones.

By doing so, I reduce the chances of myself needing to take responsibility for spurring the start of an increase in tardiness amongst the other employees.

However, if my original irresponsible action results in such an event happening anyway, I most definitely believe that I should take responsibility for that. I would do that by talking with those I poorly inspired and doing whatever I can to encourage them to redeem themselves with me...for as long as it takes, even if it ticks them off a little bit.

Ink wrote:So long as we have that freedom, the choice to assess what we do for whatever reason and whatever comes from it, I believe we should have the ability to respect each other. No matter how much we dislike each other's ideals. Smoking or non-smoking, respectively.

My argument has not been about liking your ideals or not. I personally don't like all of the ideals of Buddhism because I think a few parts of their philosophy is fundamentally flawed, but I respect most of it and have nothing against it. The culture does not, in and of itself, cause any harm.

What this has been about is the fact that Smoking DOES cause harm to yourself, and the people around you.

Insisting upon not restricting the widespread usage of it by anyone who wishes to allows widespread harm to occur to ALOT of people, and a significant number of secondary victims due to Second Hand Smoke,...not to mention the struggles of friends, family and social workers who have to deal with all of the people harmed by the activity...healing them...supporting them...and having to suffer the pain of seeing them in pain and/or dying due to this activity.

If smoking had a 'necessary' benefit to it, or it's benefits outweighed it's consequences, then it would be worthwhile to support it.

Sports can and do injure, cripple and kill people. They can create feelings of inadequacy and inspire un-friendly rivalries. They can even consume ones focus and life to such an obsessive degree that they neglect the other aspects of their life and suffer for it.

However, when applied properly within ones lifestyle, sports promote companionship, teach team-work, make ones body stronger and healthier, and can do wonders for ones self-esteem.

Sports have proven themselves worthy of public support.
(although, they currently receive an unbalanced preferential treatment over other important things such as General Education, Community Services and The Arts.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If the majority of Modern culture showed itself capable of applying the use of recreational tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and other mood altering substances "Responsibly", I would have no reason to complain. ...but they haven't. Letting this stuff stay out there, to be used as anyone pleases is resulting in HELL.

...do you remember my "Excuses" argument? The one where I referenced cultures that use such substances for ritual uses...and use them responsibly enough that they actually live LONGER than most...

If most people were smart enough to use such things that way, almost never going to far with it, there would not be millions of people sick from it everywhere you go, and most people would not even be aware that these things were harmful.

If we lived in a world where that was how it was...we would not even be having this discussion. HECK...if that was the world we lived in, I would likely enjoy participating in smoking with a Hookah with some Indian Friends of mine and have no regrets about it.

...but that is NOT the world we live in. This stuff (alcohol, drugs, whatever...) is KILLING people at an alarming rate, and making countless others miserable.

Therefore, I can see no other logical course to take but to do what I can to keep these things out of the hands of those who inevitably will harm themselves with it and bring our civilized world into a deeper state of decay with them. ...for the greater good of the ENTIRE WORLD.

Unfortunately, there is really no good way to determine who can handle that responsibility and who cant. Therefore, the only option I see is to keep it all away from EVERYONE...which unfortunately means I would have to take it out of the hands of the responsible minority as well...(including you, if I am to believe your self assessment).


... now ... if this epidemic of abuse were to be ended, and reduced to a mere uncommon problem amongst an unfortunate few ... and the general attitude of the populace at large was that the idea of one allowing oneself to abuse such substances to the point of causing significant self-harm was simply outrageous ... I think it would be perfectly acceptable to slowly reintroduce them into the public again for non-medicinal uses and re-evaluate their usefulness as therapeutic substances and social activities.

Basically, if MOST people, (not just "Some"), can prove they can use them without resulting in the destruction of their mental and physical well being, and the degradation of the overall quality of life of the Human Race... Then Smoking is Okay.

...but they haven't...so it's NOT...


[End Section Two]

[Section Three]

Ink wrote:What's so fantastic about this world and this culture, IMHO, is that neither you or I have to impress anyone else in this world.

Although I can not deny that I would take great pleasure in knowing that someone is "Impressed" with my nobility and morality, that is not the main reason why I do it. ...and I have not been trying to Impress YOU either.

My example was merely to point out that I am not perfect, but I am also not a complete hypocrite, and I am willing and able to live up to the ideals I preach. It is not Impossible to do.

No...

The primary reason why I live by and preach the ideals that I do is because I know that fulfilling them would surely make life better for me...for you...for that guy I don't know at the bus stop...for EVERYBODY.

Since we are all seeking our own happiness, I just don't see any reason to live and act by any other course but the one most assured to result in the greatest amount of joy, peace, long life, and mutual love.

"Every Man For Himself" just does not accomplish that. The more support you have, the better off you are, and you gain support by supporting others.

It's Smart...it's Logical...It's Wise...

...it just doesn't make any sense to do anything else.

Ink wrote: I guess the best way for me to describe it is I'm a Libertarian. Thick headed, through and through about it too.

Hmmm...

Wikipedia wrote:Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe forcing someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both. Libertarians also strongly oppose conscription, because they oppose slavery and involuntary servitude.

I could easily start an entire new debate about some of the fundamental flaws in the Libertarian philosophy, but this statement is one that I Agree with.

People are given welfare support regardless of how productive or useless they were. People who choose, or had chosen not to make their own keep in their lives, have not earned that kind of support. They don't deserve it.

(People Who are Unable to be useful to anyone are the subject of an entirely different moral debate)

As for conscription, I believe that mandatory community service is an appropriate and morally sound option for the redemption of a crime, (depending on the crime and the form of service), but "THE DRAFT" is just wrong on so many levels.

Ink wrote:I think, in the end, we've all said our bit. That's really it -
...you have your position. I'll respect it but never live by it.

Let me just toss one more scenario your way, before I end this.


There is a stretch of river where two settlements of people live. On one end of the river, it has been dammed to create an artificial lake which is an essential part of the lives of the people who live by it. On the other end of the river is another settlement of people whose culture and lifestyle pivot upon living with, in and around a swift moving river, and a diet comprised primarily of the fish that only live in such a river, but do not thrive in lakes. Both have lived there for many generations and consider the land their sacred home. Both cultures get along with each other just fine, but both settlements have grown considerably and now the small section of the river each lives upon can no longer support all of their people. There is more than enough river to support both cultures, but there is a problem. In order for the lake culture to accommodate their greater numbers, more of the river must be dammed up to make the lake bigger. At the same time, there is not enough flowing river left to accommodate the expanded population of the river people, and they need to remove the dam from the other end of the river to remedy this. Neither culture is willing to move away, or stop the expansion of their settlement or culture because that would go against both of their beliefs.


If both cultures have the right to live as they please, so long as they do not interfere with the other doing as they wish as well, (following the Libertarian philosophy)...

...what do they do?


My point is...you can't always get what you want. Not everyone can always live by conflicting ideals at the same time without eventually running into situations such as this.

Sooner or later, one or both sides must give in and/or make a compromise for the collective good of both.



If confronted with such a conflict yourself...would you be willing to compromise for the good of both parties...even if it meant you had to give up something that you want?

...or would you stand as a rock and fight the other to the Bloody End?




Something to think about.


[End Post]

AAAAIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!! The Smoking Debate has reached the shores of Packdom!! Run!!!!!!!

...

Actually, I could really take off on this...I've waded into many a flame war and posted many a blog on how I feel about smoking, but I'll sum it up in a few neat (and not necessarily antagonistic) verses:

1) There was a t-shirt at Hot Topic that I firmly agree with. The shirt reads, "There are cooler ways to die than from smoking." They didn't offer it in Adult XL and it was sold out when I got to the store anyway. I vaguely thought about buying the rights and the screens from the company and re-marketing it in a range of sizes, not just youth. You don't have to be 16 to believe in that message.

2) Surprise! I DO NOT support it's criminalization for a couple reasons. a.) Reference Prohibition. It doesn't work. b.) Tobacco is a part of Native American heritage, and for the love of the Gods, they've had enough of their culture stripped away. Don't criminalize it, just apply peer pressure and ostracism if necessary, make it socially unacceptable outside of traditional ceremony.

3.) Napalming tobacco plantations is a fun fantasy, but there's a better way. Research showed that the arsenic and formaldehyde in smoking tobacco comes directly from the processing it receives. The former is there to keep the tobacco cigarettes lit because without it, they go out rather quickly and the smoker has to continually relight it. The companies add it for "convenience of experience." And the latter is a preservative to keep it while it travels to market. One researcher grew tobacco in his back yard, dried it in a regular tumble clothes dryer, and analysed the resultant tobacco. The toxin levels were significantly lower. The moral of the story here is: dissolve Big Tobacco, decentralize it, grow and dry your own.

3a.) This strategy would also build in an anti-proliferation mechanism. If the smoker rations their cigarettes out carefully, limiting to one cig a day, then five tobacco plants would take care of them for a year. One doesn't need acres upon acres to grow their own tobacco.

4.) Cigar and cigarette tobacco smoke makes me sick, but surprisingly enough pipe tobacco doesn't. I'm also pretty tolerant of chewing tobacco. No cancer is good but lip and gum cancer are quicker and easier to detect and simpler to treat than lung cancer.

And 5...Screw it. Cigar and cigarette smoke are known killers, not just for the smokers but for everyone in the same building with them, and research has now proven that colon cancer can come up from exposure to second- and firsthand smoke. I've lost twenty close and distant friends and immediate family members to smoking-related issues. I can't go to clubs because the goddamn smokers have taken it over. No live music experience is worth sacrificing internal organs for.

Apologies if that last point sounded somewhat bitter. It's because I am somewhat bitter. I miss my Dad and brother, dammit; they both died too young.

Smoking: whatever, that's their right. But it's also my right to say that it's dumb, and if you're going to do dumb things I don't want any part of it, which includes smelling it in public, (this applies to other things like noxious odors, and loud music) and paying for your medical bills when the dumb things you do catch up with you.

Vuldari wrote:

Ink wrote:I simply think it's pretentious to assume a role over what strangers need, too. I am not capable of garnering my individual to shield the world from my oh-so-potent influence.

Sure - we shape our behavior around everyone to some degree - to influence them. But it shouldn't be a mandate that I have to make sure every time I'm out smoking a clove on the steps of Blodgett Hall I have to hide my smoking from everyone viewing. Oh-my-god! I could cause them to smoke! And so could a million other things.

You are missing the point. Doing stupid things in secret is even worse than just doing them in the open. That is just passing along the message that it is okay to do whatever you want, no matter how destructive it may be, as long as you don't get caught doing it.

The point is, you should stop advertising that it is okay to do stupid things. Mistakes are one thing...mistakes happen, and should always be redeemed, but forgiven.

However, doing something you know is stupid, and then claiming its okay simply because you choose not to care...just doesn't make any sense.


[End Section One]

That is exactly what I'm talking about. If you are going to be involved in a debate, DO NOT refer to someone's actions as "stupid". It is insulting to people who don't see it that way. If Ink is offended, I would consider this a last warning. Please consider Ink's third-person perspective. Yout may think it is stupid, but don't accuse people that they are "doing stupid things". It is insulting to others. Even Lupin's above post uses the word "dumb" to describe the act of smoking, but isn't addressing any person specifically.

Smoking is bad. I hate smoking. I would never do it.

BUT...

NOn-Smokers need to shut up and stop being so damn preachy. You take a way a person's right to smoke, that's just mone more adult pleasure gone. Next comes soda, or cheeseburgers. Muslims might try and outlaw all pork products. And sooner or later, anything that brings pleasure to a person ( or god forbid, COMFORT ) might be outlawed. You'd scoff at this now, but it's already happening, for example, the statewide smoking BAN in colorado that just took place.

I'm sorry. BANNING anything, unless you KNOW FOR A FACT it is evil, ( IE Child molesting, crime, or rape, ) is a very bad and UNAMERICAN thing. ( I know there are non-americans on this board but i speak for us, a free country where we have the right to make choices, and are protected from religious and majority persecution.

im not the preaching type but i think its disgusting ... im somewhat allergic to smoke so it really bothers me

wee

MattSullivan wrote:I'm sorry. BANNING anything, unless you KNOW FOR A FACT it is evil, ( IE Child molesting, crime, or rape, ) is a very bad and UNAMERICAN thing. ( I know there are non-americans on this board but i speak for us, a free country where we have the right to make choices, and are protected from religious and majority persecution.

A agree. In the same context it is unamerican to outlaw marajuana. A drug that is non-addictive, and not immediately bad for your health. The original purpose of outlawing the weed was because it was associated with illegal immagrants from Mexico. By banning it here, it discouraged them from crossing the border. Discriminatory, yes, but it's the truth. The U.S. government does crafty things to get their way. They can't ban cigarettes because of how great it has been for the economy, and because so many people use them.

wolfe wrote:wee

wtf?

MattSullivan wrote:Smoking is bad. I hate smoking. I would never do it.

BUT...

NOn-Smokers need to shut up and stop being so damn preachy. You take a way a person's right to smoke, that's just mone more adult pleasure gone. Next comes soda, or cheeseburgers. Muslims might try and outlaw all pork products. And sooner or later, anything that brings pleasure to a person ( or god forbid, COMFORT ) might be outlawed. You'd scoff at this now, but it's already happening, for example, the statewide smoking BAN in colorado that just took place.

I'm sorry. BANNING anything, unless you KNOW FOR A FACT it is evil, ( IE Child molesting, crime, or rape, ) is a very bad and UNAMERICAN thing. ( I know there are non-americans on this board but i speak for us, a free country where we have the right to make choices, and are protected from religious and majority persecution.

i'm all for freedom. i think its retarded that you can get ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt. (i always wear mine, but it don't hurt me if some other idiot goes flying out his windshield.) but the deal with smoking is the second-hand smoke. if it weren't for that, i'd think a smoking ban completly retarded too. but, for example, almost every guy i work with is a smoker, so whenever we're riding around in the van, i gotta breath his smoke. Simply put, smoking affects other people.

if its so wrong to restrict such a thing, we should make it legal to jakc off in public too. that can be pleasurable, and it has no direct affect on othe r people, cept making them uncomfortible. which isn't much more than smoking does.

*for the record, i'd vote against any outright ban on smoking. just restrict it a little.

The point is this: cigarette and cigar smoke contain toxins that, if a company put them in food or water, would result in a number of deaths and would get the company not only shut down but the staff thrown in the stoney lonesome for a VERY long time.

Fact: There is formaldehyde, cyanide (Google on "Jonestown mass suicide," take a good, long look at <i>THE PICTURE</i>), mercury, arsenic, lead, propylene glycol (anti-freeze; not just toxic, it's straight-up and very nasty poison), cadmium (yes, cigarettes are radioactive), ammonia and benzene in cigarette smoke. Sure, smokers will say that they're present in minute forms but that's just in one cig. Go through a pack...two packs a day...or share a room with someone who does, day after day, and it adds up. Cadmium, for example, stays in your body's tissues for years. Is it any wonder that every other man and every third woman in their lives gets cancer?

Fact: It has been medically proven that any exposure to cigarette smoke, first or second-hand, introduces an unsafe level of toxins to your system. <b>Quote from CDC: "No level of exposure to secondhand smoke is safe."</b>

So the argument of "it's their rights, it's different for rape/murder/child molestation" doesn't fly here. Cigarette and cigar smoke *is* a scientifically-proven, many times over, public health menace. Whenever I see someone whip out and light up a cigarette, I act as if they'd pulled out a gun, and get clear — because they did.

Smokers have a right to smoke, sure. But incestors have a right to privacy.

Virk makes a very good point, I mean when you add it all up the poisons in Cigarettes is high, around 2000 chemicals in each one, and not one of them good
I can't believe doctors once said they were good for your health (making you wonder if there was a little something extra in their paycheques) It's totaly insane and like other addictive substances should be banned. It's a disgusting habit and we should try hard to remove somking from society.

MattSullivan wrote: And sooner or later, anything that brings pleasure to a person ( or god forbid, COMFORT ) might be outlawed. You'd scoff at this now, but it's already happening, for example, the statewide smoking BAN in colorado that just took place.

I'm sorry. BANNING anything, unless you KNOW FOR A FACT it is evil, ( IE Child molesting, crime, or rape, ) is a very bad and UNAMERICAN thing. ( I know there are non-americans on this board but i speak for us, a free country where we have the right to make choices, and are protected from religious and majority persecution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Notes

"Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke."

"Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability."

"Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)."

"Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke."

"[Environmental Tobacco Smoke] is a major source of [Particulate Matter] pollution, contributing to indoor PM concentrations up to 10-fold those emitted from an idling ecodiesel engine. "