I might like ot point out that in long term the average smoker is more of a drain on goverment in what they need due to heath care than helping them in the long term.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The First Nonsmoking Nation
- Thread starter wdlove
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A Mac Gamer said:
A car is often used for less than constructive purposes. Many people use a car for short journeys that they could have made on foot. That's hardly constructive, given the unnecessary pollution and the missed opportunity for exercise.
Sure, people need to get from A to B, but a car isn't necessary for most journeys in, or between, towns and cities. Using public transportation would be preferable, and inevitably cuts down on pollution and fatal road accidents.
As mentioned previously, using a car, like smoking, is a personal choice. I concede that being without a car in a rural area isn't particularly practical, but other than that, a car is by no means essential.
I agree that cars may have a greater number of benefits than smoking, but smokers can limit their impact to almost zero by choosing not to smoke around others in confined spaces. In contrast, car drivers can only limit their impact to a certain degree, by choosing to drive a more economical vehicle.
In terms of selfish behaviour that impacts upon one's fellow citizens, the comparison between smoking and car usage is valid and appropriate.
Brize said:
This thread was originally about smoking. I'm pretty sure that most people who want smoking banned or curtailed want this because they dont like the smell or health implications to them/their loved ones not through some fear that cigarette smoke is going to block out the sun a well all freeze.
Yes SUVs pollute more than minis if only used for the school-run or shopping but like you say its not just what you use its how you use it.
It can be argued that an SUV is the best solution for moving heavy loads across rough terrain.
My point was if we all do the least damage that we practically can and respect others rights to go about unhindered by our actions thats probably the best we can hope for.
Personally I would advocate that governments legislate many of the luxury features out of modern cars to help the environment. The new Ford GT is a good example with single figure fuel consumption.
Considering most of us live in places with speed limits around 55-80mph how many people would argue if modern cars were built limited to say 85mph? If so why?
mpw: You seem to imply that the effects of carbon monoxide emissions are merely long-term. Carbon monoxide is a major air pollutant, and its continued presence in the atmosphere is problematic in the present day. Childhood asthma has increased dramatically over the past few decades. During the same period, smoking has decreased, while vehicle use has increased. I'm not stating that there is a causal link here, although that may well be the case. Certainly though, asthma and other chronic respiratory conditions are very often aggravated by high levels of carbon monoxide. In short, there are significant and immediate health risks associated with the pollution caused by vehicle emissions, which far outweigh those caused by a considerate smoker.
Yes, it can be argued that an SUV is the most economical solution for moving heavy loads, etc., but it's not particularly relevant to our discussion. How many SUVs currently in use fall into that category? 0.01 percent? Not even, I'd imagine. The truth is that the capabilities of an SUV are hardly ever required outside of commercial use. They're status symbols; they make people feel safe despite the fact that they're detrimental to others' safety, and, as I understand it, they give people a sense of 'control' (read: superiority) given their elevated driving position.
Why is this relevant? Because car ownership, like smoking, is rarely a logical undertaking. More often than not, it's about unnecessary expense and personal gratification. This sub-discussion started when russed asked: 'what moral right do [people] have to smoke?,' which upped the ante somewhat. mouchoir responded by asking: 'what moral right does one have to drive a car and pollute the atmosphere?' To my mind, that was a valid response, and one that served to highlight the potential hypocrisy of many in the vehement anti-smoking camp.
Absolutely. I've said much the same myself at varying points throughout this thread. Smokers need to respect the concerns and rights of non-smokers, and non-smokers need to extend some tolerance to smokers, provided they don't smoke around others in confined areas.
Yes, it can be argued that an SUV is the most economical solution for moving heavy loads, etc., but it's not particularly relevant to our discussion. How many SUVs currently in use fall into that category? 0.01 percent? Not even, I'd imagine. The truth is that the capabilities of an SUV are hardly ever required outside of commercial use. They're status symbols; they make people feel safe despite the fact that they're detrimental to others' safety, and, as I understand it, they give people a sense of 'control' (read: superiority) given their elevated driving position.
Why is this relevant? Because car ownership, like smoking, is rarely a logical undertaking. More often than not, it's about unnecessary expense and personal gratification. This sub-discussion started when russed asked: 'what moral right do [people] have to smoke?,' which upped the ante somewhat. mouchoir responded by asking: 'what moral right does one have to drive a car and pollute the atmosphere?' To my mind, that was a valid response, and one that served to highlight the potential hypocrisy of many in the vehement anti-smoking camp.
mpw said:
Absolutely. I've said much the same myself at varying points throughout this thread. Smokers need to respect the concerns and rights of non-smokers, and non-smokers need to extend some tolerance to smokers, provided they don't smoke around others in confined areas.
Brize said:
I've never implied that, at least not intentionally.
Brize said:
I absolutly agree. I think my posts are clearly in favour of NOT banning smoking but encouraging those who choose to smoke to do so considerately AND attempting to limit the use of vehicles unnessecarily.
Brize said:
Glad you agree with my earlier post. As far as it's relevance here you mentioned cars before I did.
Brize said:
Why base your arguments on the potential hypocrisy of 'the other side'. I'm not aware of a strong anit-smoking lobby who at the same time lobby for inefficient use of fossil fuels.
I'm not suggesting a points system of;
I'm a non-smoker, plus 1, but drive a car, minus 5, but only a small car, plus2, etc.
edesignuk said:I know, I know, It'll never happen and that's because of these other possibilties you stated. But, I still hate to see my hard earned tax money go to idiots who still continue to smoke/start to smoke when the dangers are well known.
Just to add to that, anyone who get's ill from smoking has no sympothy from me!
I'm not trying to advocate smoking or anything, but I actually heard a study a few weeks ago that concluded that smokers dying young actually had a slight positive affect on the economy. Fewer social security payments and other services used by the elderly. So it may be something of a myth that smokers are just using up resources. They may be freeing them up by dying.
And given how much the tabacco companies knew for so long and didn't divulge, I still have sympathy for those who get sick, who tend to be older and from a time when the dangers weren't as well documented.
Still, as a former smoker, its better not to smoke.
mpw: I think we may have our wires crossed a little, perhaps because our difference of opinion, if we have one, is so subtle.
When I say 'highlight the potential hypocrisy,' I use the word potential to exclude those vehement anti-smokers who don't own a car. When I use the term 'vehement anti-smokers' in the context of this thread, I'm referring not to those who complain about having to suffer the smell and detrimental health effects of others smoking around them in confined spaces, but to those who take it one step further and demonise smokers regardless.
No, I'm not suggesting a points system either, but merely pointing out that those who drive a car (whether a Mini or a Hummer) are contributing by varying degrees to a pollution problem that affects people with respiratory conditions on a daily basis. As such, it's a bit rich to criticise smokers, especially given that driving a car is largely an avoidable, personal choice.
As I said, a subtle difference of opinion, if at all.
When I say 'highlight the potential hypocrisy,' I use the word potential to exclude those vehement anti-smokers who don't own a car. When I use the term 'vehement anti-smokers' in the context of this thread, I'm referring not to those who complain about having to suffer the smell and detrimental health effects of others smoking around them in confined spaces, but to those who take it one step further and demonise smokers regardless.
No, I'm not suggesting a points system either, but merely pointing out that those who drive a car (whether a Mini or a Hummer) are contributing by varying degrees to a pollution problem that affects people with respiratory conditions on a daily basis. As such, it's a bit rich to criticise smokers, especially given that driving a car is largely an avoidable, personal choice.
mpw said:
As I said, a subtle difference of opinion, if at all.