60 replies to this topic

[bishmasterb]

I'd also feel better about it if I knew that smokers were free to quit whenever they wanted. Unfortunately, most smokers are addicted. 70% of smokers would like to quit, but are unable to do so. (Last time we discussed this issue, I posted a link to this research).

Huh? Smokers can quit whenever they want to. They decide that the benefits of smoking simply outweigh the detriments. Some of those benefits and detriments of course include the physiological effects of smoking or not smoking. That's really no different than most other human activities:

* Eating
* Sex
* Sports
* Driving
* Scuba
* Sky-diving
* Breathing!

All of these things have some level of physiological effect that can be either good or bad associated with them.

I decide to eat ice cream, even though I know it's bad for me, because I believe the reward (yumminess) outweighs the risk (obesity, heart attack, etc.). Smoking is fundamentally no different.

To hide human responsibility and freedom under a veil of "clinical addition" is really missing the point: we all choose to live life in the way that we believe will bring us the most happiness. Smokers smoke. The obese eat ice cream. Adrenaline junkies jump out of planes. And we all breathe.

[bishmasterb]

Some people would no doubt be okay with either one -- like Bish.

Just for clarification, since I've never touched a tobacco product in my life, I wouldn't be visiting either. But yes, I wouldn't try to have the government shut them down either.

[bordercolliefan]

To hide human responsibility and freedom under a veil of "clinical addition" is really missing the point: we all choose to live life in the way that we believe will bring us the most happiness. Smokers smoke. The obese eat ice cream. Adrenaline junkies jump out of planes. And we all breathe.

I just don't find this an accurate account of the physiology -- or the experience -- of addiction.

It now seems well-established that certain people have genes that predispose them to alcoholism (new evidence shows that the same is true for nicotine addiction). Do you contend that the person who has the "alcoholic gene" really has the same level of free choice and control as the person who does not have the "alcoholic gene"?

How do you see genes interacting with your concept of free choice? One of my daughters has some difficulty reading -- my sense is she just doesn't have the genes or natural gift (or whatever) that makes reading come with ease. --Is it your claim that she simply chooses not to be a good reader?

Don't you think some people's "choices" are limited by their physiology?

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

Forgive me, but bordercollie fan and resume lady you sure are insistent on making everyone think like you.

So you don't agree that if a substance is supposed to be illegal for minors that establishments that offer them should card patrons?

You don't agree that if a substance is harmful and has warning labels on packaging that an establishment that offers that product out of the packaging should post some type of warning allerting patrons that it is harmful? If someone knows the potential harm and chooses to use the product anyway, that's one thing. My point (you don't have to agree with it; it's a fact) is that many of the young people who do hookah think it's safe, think the water removes harmful chemicals. Do you have a problem with dispelling that myth?

By the way, I am not "insistent that people think like" me; honestly, I don't have the power or the desire. I am engaging in a debate, as are you. I am sharing my opinions, as are you. That's what a debate is all about, eh?

[bishmasterb]

It now seems well-established that certain people have genes that predispose them to alcoholism (new evidence shows that the same is true for nicotine addiction). Do you contend that the person who has the "alcoholic gene" really has the same level of free choice and control as the person who does not have the "alcoholic gene"?

How do you see genes interacting with your concept of free choice? One of my daughters has some difficulty reading -- my sense is she just doesn't have the genes or natural gift (or whatever) that makes reading come with ease. --Is it your claim that she simply chooses not to be a good reader?

Don't you think some people's "choices" are limited by their physiology?

I agree that we all have genes that influence our behavior in critical ways. Our personalities, emotions, physical traits, etc. all have a genetic influence (or at least I'm willing to believe they do). If I get angry and yell at some one, have I chosen to do that, or did my genetic makeup influence, or even force me to do it?

Going down this path and deconstructing this reasoning will eventually lead to the idea that none of us have free choice in anything we do. We will all act out our lives in the way in which the physical laws of the universe have predertimined. Free choice is nothing more than an illusion.

I realize that this is taking that line of reasoning further than you were (merely talking about genetics), but that is where I see that logic leading eventually.

I don't dispute any of that. Perhaps free choice is entirely an illusion, and just like a bunch of proverbial billiard balls, our lives are being played out in a completely predetermined manner.

Nonetheless, I choose (haha! sweet irony) not to live my life thinking that. Or letting other people convince me that they are not capable of choosing for themselves, and thus, are not responsible for their actions. People do, however difficultly, choose to quit smoking. Again, it is a matter of their perception of the risks versus the rewards.

[bordercolliefan]

Going down this path and deconstructing this reasoning will eventually lead to the idea that none of us have free choice in anything we do. We will all act out our lives in the way in which the physical laws of the universe have predertimined. Free choice is nothing more than an illusion.

I realize that this is taking that line of reasoning further than you were (merely talking about genetics), but that is where I see that logic leading eventually.

It is a fascinating question.

There is certainly a danger in concluding that people have no choice as to how they act, because then it would seem to make holding that person responsible for their actions -- i.e., punishing them -- unjust. But perhaps then we need to divorce the concept of justice from punishment, and just view punishment as an inevitable consequence of certain behavior.

Yet, how often we see someone who seems to be gripped in the throes of their own emotions-- even if they would wish not to be. Examples are people who suffer from poor anger management or kids who are hyperactive. We often say about such people, "He just can't help it!"

It is a puzzle, to be sure.

[bishmasterb]

There is certainly a danger in concluding that people have no choice as to how they act, because then it would seem to make holding that person responsible for their actions -- i.e., punishing them -- unjust. But perhaps then we need to divorce the concept of justice from punishment, and just view punishment as an inevitable consequence of certain behavior.

One thought would be simply that there is no punishment at all. People simply pay for the consequences of their own actions.

I'm not saying I agree with that. Frankly it's something that I don't feel I have a good understanding of yet (like so many things!).

Yet, how often we see someone who seems to be gripped in the throes of their own emotions-- even if they would wish not to be. Examples are people who suffer from poor anger management or kids who are hyperactive. We often say about such people, "He just can't help it!"

Hey, I tell my wife "I just can't help it!" every day...but it doesn't seem to buy me any leniency.

[DrKoz23]

It now seems well-established that certain people have genes that predispose them to alcoholism (new evidence shows that the same is true for nicotine addiction). Do you contend that the person who has the "alcoholic gene" really has the same level of free choice and control as the person who does not have the "alcoholic gene"?

Well... let's see...

Some people have gambling problems... which could be tied to genetics with an addictive behavoir. Should we shut down every casino... lottery... and card room.

Since their is predisposition for alchoholism... should we ban that as well. Say goodbye to every bar... liquor store... or winery. On a side note... that would make baseball really boring to watch!

Why can't people just take responsibility for their actions... instead of having the government tell us what we can and can't do around every corner we turn. I'm an adult... I can make decisions.

Should we even have a seat belt law or helmet law for adults? Probably not... it should be a personal choice... with the person suffering the consequences if they choose not to wear a belt or helmet.

[Mennabear]

I like hookah bars

[Chad Vander Veen]

http://www.hooka-hoo...hookah-info.gif

[jafount]

So you don't agree that if a substance is supposed to be illegal for minors that establishments that offer them should card patrons?

You don't agree that if a substance is harmful and has warning labels on packaging that an establishment that offers that product out of the packaging should post some type of warning allerting patrons that it is harmful? If someone knows the potential harm and chooses to use the product anyway, that's one thing. My point (you don't have to agree with it; it's a fact) is that many of the young people who do hookah think it's safe, think the water removes harmful chemicals. Do you have a problem with dispelling that myth?

By the way, I am not "insistent that people think like" me; honestly, I don't have the power or the desire. I am engaging in a debate, as are you. I am sharing my opinions, as are you. That's what a debate is all about, eh?

have you done an sophisticated survey that would support your comment that young people think the hokah pipe is safe? If not, then how is it "a fact"?

Of course they should card patrons. I have no problem with this. I have a problem with your assertion that because it is near a school we should, complain and close it.

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

have you done an sophisticated survey that would support your comment that young people think the hokah pipe is safe? If not, then how is it "a fact"?

Of course they should card patrons. I have no problem with this. I have a problem with your assertion that because it is near a school we should, complain and close it.

Why do I have to do my own sophisticated studies? I've read numerous reports in which others have conducted surveys, and those are their findings.

I've never asserted that because the hookah bar is near a school we should complain and close it. Go back and re-read my posts. Debate me on the points I've made, not on points others have made.

[jafount]

Why do I have to do my own sophisticated studies? I've read numerous reports in which others have conducted surveys, and those are their findings.

I've never asserted that because the hookah bar is near a school we should complain and close it. Go back and re-read my posts. Debate me on the points I've made, not on points others have made.

OK can you point ME to a sutdy that says young people think hookah pipes are safe?

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

OK can you point ME to a sutdy that says young people think hookah pipes are safe?

Here's one excellent article that has citations for numerous studies and articles.

http://www.trdrp.org...5...okah study"

I'm sure you can find more on the Net if you do a little homework.

[jafount]

Here's one excellent article that has citations for numerous studies and articles.

http://www.trdrp.org...5...okah study"

I'm sure you can find more on the Net if you do a little homework.

What I see is an article that says MOST of the people that use Hookah pipes are not as addictive and "safer" than ciggarettes.

I have to say, they must be safer in that they are not readily available as Cigarettes are. With the water pipe, there is an entire process that's involved in smoking so you can't smoke as much as frequently. It is, in fact an atmosphere and from this perspective, it is actually "safer". This is simply a moderation issue. Legislation of human behavior has never been successful and warning labels on a product like this are nothing but a feel good form over function attempt at education.