Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
And yet, I rarely if ever see someone smoking in an area where there's a no smoking sign, or making a fuss about it. At this point I don't think people are all that bothered by it and don't mind moving the extra few feet or whatever is required to go smoking. It's nowhere near the same thing as being denied a voting right.
You might be missing the point, then. When you tell someone they can't do something that they may not have been bothered to do before, it makes it much more likely that they will try and do it.
Because now you've put the idea into their heads that it's something that they can do, when it was previously something they simply didn't care about or had forgotten about.
If I never placed much value in voting and let it simply slide as an afterthought, and suddenly you walk up to me and say "you're not allowed to vote anymore" the reaction will be more "well, why not?" rather then "Meh."
I chose not to smoke, same as you. For different reasons, but if I didn't smoke because I simply wasn't aware of it, and there are signs put up telling me I can't smoke, it puts the idea of smoking into the person's mind, for good or bad.
edited 9th Feb '13 3:55:07 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!@Devil Take Me: As noted above, if your point is really correct that putting up "No Smoking" signs encourages people to smoke, then why don't non-smoking places like restaurants have people defying the rule constantly? The vast majority of smokers are courteous enough not to deliberately indulge their habit where it is not wanted, and I highly doubt that a rebellious teenager is going to start smoking just to spite those signs.
In fact, the attempt to socially stigmatize smoking is working fantastically as far as I can tell. Nearly everybody who smokes understands by now that the majority of their peers consider it a disgusting habit, and that it is unhealthy for them.
If only we could achieve that same level of social disapproval for guns. Although I will admit that I see people packing heat where I live far less often than I see them smoking, to the point where it would be incredibly freaky to see someone openly armed other than a police officer or soldier.
And anyway, you are engaging in blatant strawmanning by comparing attempted disenfranchisement with gun control laws. Even the most rabid gun nut agrees that criminals should not be able to buy firearms.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Women and non-white people might take issue with that statement.
With smoking, it's less "No smoking ever!" which would inspire people to look into it, and more "please don't smoke in these specific places. As long as you're somewhere else, we don't care." It's a little hard to be rebellious when the most the government will do is say "please go outside".
Switzerland's voting turnout is miniscule even though they gave women the right to vote in the 70's. If something is available for 5 years, people will start to tune it out. The Internet has only really been big for, what, 10 years?
edited 9th Feb '13 4:02:51 PM by Zendervai
@Fighteer: And yet, Big Tobacco is raking in more money and selling more cigarettes than ever before.
Is social stigmatizing really working? Or is it simply something that people are no longer doing in public or moving elsewhere? For every "No Smoking" sign I see in California, there's a much larger kiosk outside the same building where people go to smoke.
I'm not strawmanning anything, I'm simply pointing out that the gut reaction from law-abiding citizens has been to buy more guns now that there's a fear that the government are going to try and tell them that they can't have them anymore.
I can certainly make the argument now that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is not the business of anyone else.
Now that their rights are being threatened, it's not any different than the disenfranchisement of voters and the whole Voter ID fiasco.
When you threaten someone's rights directly, even if they've never bothered to use those rights before, many of them will stand up and exercise them. And that's what's happened.
edited 9th Feb '13 4:06:53 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!92 percent of U.S. citizens support universal background checks. Law abiding citizens are not going to lose their guns. However, the NRA and other right-wing nuthouses have a vested interest in convincing them that they are. Every time Fox News starts a "DEY'RE TAKIN WAY OUR GUNZ" panic, sales skyrocket. It doesn't take a genius to figure out their motives.
edited 9th Feb '13 4:07:08 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Fighteer: I'm not saying anything about gun control itself, just the mindset behind the reaction. I'm agreeing with Belian's statement:
And I'm applying that feeling that even blocking cigarettes and guns or voting, or the internet. When SOPA and PIPA reared their ugly heads, people who normally don't talk politics at all got involved since it was going to affect everyone.
The reaction is different for different issues, but when people's freedoms are directly threatened, that's when people get involved.
It's sad to say that people only care about something that they've neglected, when for the most part, people take their rights for granted and only speak up, basically when its too late.
edited 9th Feb '13 4:19:00 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Well, certainly. Threaten to take away anything that people feel is their right and they'll probably go out and vote, when they might not have otherwise.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Cigarette smoking is actually at an all time low in the US and it's the lowest in states with smoking bans. It's fallen about 3 percentage points in the past five years and fewer people are starting smoking than ever before. If we're actually going by the facts, making it uncool to smoke works.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickYou might be misreading the stats. The biggest drop has been in new smokers aged 18-24. But overall smoking has not dropped much at all.
Instead of people smoking 30 cigarettes a day, there's been a greater increase in the number of people who smoke half a pack a day.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!I went to the CDC website where they outright said that the total number of smokers has been dropping.
Yes, there are more people smoking half a pack a day, but those are people who were formally smoking a whole pack. That's still a decline in smoking.
edited 9th Feb '13 4:43:05 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
And I would say the gauge of success is pretty skewed.
About the same number of people smoke as they did 7 years ago, meaning that smoking is still prevalent and still remains the number one preventable medical problem in the US, but they generally smoke less often because it costs more to smoke now, but the cigarette companies are now raking in even more profit while spending less money on advertising and streamlined manufacturing and distribution.
So... success?
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Unintended consequences of laws.
By law, they were forced to stop advertising, which didn't hurt cigarette companies at all. They simply pocketed the cash they would have spent on advertising. They then just made their manufacturing and packaging streamlined and cut costs in distribution.
The fact that taxing cigarettes raised the price didn't hurt either.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Frankly I don't care what the tobacco companies earn as long as they are barred from advertising and people smoke less. If nobody smokes, it won't matter how much they cut costs.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""The guns rights activists seem to be primarily motivated by the NRA"
People are exaggerating the extent to which this is true.
"If only we could achieve that same level of social disapproval for guns."
No thanks. I'd rather not be stigmatized for exercising proper gun safety and following state local and federal laws on firearms possession.
edited 9th Feb '13 5:16:39 PM by Aprilla
But how successful would you say it is if the same number of people smoke, just less often? Even after several years, enough people start smoking offsets the number who quit or, heaven forbid, die from smoking related illness?
edited 9th Feb '13 5:16:15 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Frankly, Devil, if someone wants, of their own free will, to fill their lungs with carcinogenic tar, that's their choice and I won't try to stop them. But I will tell them they can't smoke near me or my child, and I will make them pay for the societal costs of their habit in the form of higher taxes. If, after being told how bad it is for them, and knowing that nobody wants to smell their stink, they still want to commit slow, painful suicide, that's not my concern.
However, the tobacco companies, which for decades denied the hazards of smoking and did their best to make it seem cool, need to pay a much stiffer penalty for their actions than they have thus far. That is a travesty.
And frankly, smoking is an addiction and we need to treat it as such. Many people who get hooked cannot stop voluntarily and need support. If someone wishes to quit, then we should help them. We also need to do our best to keep people from starting to smoke in the first place.
edited 9th Feb '13 5:19:27 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I don't disagree, I'm just curious as to how we gauge success so far. The CDC numbers might say that there's a drop in new smokers at the youngest age bracket of 18-24, but that also means that the new smokers are starting a little later in life to offset the drop as the overall numbers have been pretty consistent in spite all of the "social stigma" as you call it.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Damn right it isn't. Leave me and my Marlboros in peace, and I'll stub out when your kid comes along.
EDIT: Apologies. I'm tired, and that was rude. What I mean to say, is that I know how bad smoking is for me, but I enjoy it so I do it anyway, much like drinking alcohol. I'm all for taking responsibility for my habit, but I feel that I already do by paying the higher taxes on my cancer sticks and by being barred from smoking a public place most of the places I go. For what its worth, I stop if people don't like it, and, on the rare occasions I smoke in public streets (usually on my way home after a particularly stressful day), I try to hold the tab away from children.
edited 9th Feb '13 5:40:23 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiFor whatever anecdotal evidence is worth, I generally get only seven or eight people under 25 buying smokes. The vast majority seem to be middle-aged men.
It's always bugged me that we don't treat cigarettes as a more serious addiction. My grandfather got COPD and went to the fucking hospital; twice for smoking related issues and even though the physical addiction was done by the time he got out he started smoking again. The man couldn't breathe without oxygen for months and he'd take the noseplugs out to light up a cigarette.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?I'll bring this up again. America had 50 countries
that took part in torture by proxy, ala extraordinary renditions.
These include Australia, Germany, Yemen, Sweden, Egypt, Italy, Canada, Untied Kingdom, Libya and Syria.
edited 9th Feb '13 6:32:43 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.

It's just psychology. If you tell someone that you can't do something, when there was no previous inclination to do so, the natural instinct is to ask what exactly that was. And oftentimes, it leads to rebelliousness against restrictive rules. Rebelliousness is a common reason why many started smoking in the first place.
Take a closer look at most "No smoking" signs. The ones put up by the government (like all other signs) have the whole bit about fines in much smaller print, while those in public places often have no such language at all. Few people are even aware of the quality of the air in the first place, and to say that most people are even thinking of that as why such laws exist is not really buying into human nature and the differences in individuals.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!