Thugs scared off by pocket knife

[ljcox]

ljcox, science does seek the truth, but you worded the following text in a non-scientific way. Agreed

We do not know that smoking causes lung cancer with everyone, we know that people that smoke have an increased rate of lung cancer, for specific cases it is often impossible to prove what caused what, cancer is often fickle in who it strikes. This doesn't mean that smoking can't cause cancer but you have to be very precise in the wording you use.
If smoking caused cancer then why do some 90 year olds die of old age after smoking for the bulk of their life? There is obviously more going on.

Yes, genes have an effect. For example some people can eat a lot of fat and not have a heart attack. But some can't.

Some people are immune to some diseases and some are not.

My point is that statistics show what proportion of the population are susceptable.

In order to be credible, you need large sample sizes.

The research must be repeatable - ie. a different group of researchers must be able to obtain similar results using the same methodology.

Ideally it should be done in different areas & countries.

It is also more credible if similar results can be achieved using different methodologies.

 

[Vizier87]

smoking does cause dislike to the public, that is somewhere near to being cancerous if I'm a poet.

 

[HarveyH42]

I think there are probably more people who dislike being around cigarette smoke, than there are smokers who develop cancers... The reason to prove that smoking is bad for everyone. Nasty vice, I will agree, but if a high proportion of the smokers do get cancer, tobacco would have been banned, like asbestos.

Kind of like wearing your seat belt in the car, you still run the same risk of being in an accident, it doesn't make you a better driver. Some accidents, it doesn't matter, you would have probably died with or without (big truck), sometimes you die because you are thrown through the windshield or bounced around as the car rolls. Sometimes the trap you in, and you might have lived, if you could have released it, and gotten out of the car. Mostly, I think the mandatory seat belt laws came about, from people who had lost loved ones in accidents, so other people don't have to go through the same grief. It's $116 ticket in Florida, and it's considered a primary offense, which means if the cop see you without the belt, he can pull you over and write the ticket. Driving over 30 years, and still don't wear mine...

 

[Hero999]

They can't ban tobacco, because it's been legal for too long.

Maybe it'll get banned eventually in some countries?

I can see it happening in the UK eventually.

Another problem is it's fairly easy to grow which would make policing it difficult but that didn't stop them banning cannabis which I think should be legalised anyway.

 

[Mickster]

What would happen if they banned tobacco?

Where would all that revenue have to come from next?

Perhaps the anti-smoking supporters would wish they had kept their mouth shut, when it starts to affect their own pocket.....

 

[Sceadwian]

By the way, I'm an ex smoker =) I quit because I noticed it's effects on my breathing ability and I need to be an active person for my work. I didn't quit because I think smoking is bad though or personally reprehensible or 'nasty' as some people seem to attribute to it, I have every intention of starting to smoke again when I'm much older because it was an enjoyable thing for me, the ritual, taste, and drug effects. As far as it's ability to cause cancer that was also a concern, however everything in life is a risk and you have to weigh the personal pros and cons and let that be that. It is no different or more harmful than many other activities that humans intentionally partake in for enjoyment. It does however impact a greater number of people simply because more people do it than do other more risky endevors. But we don't see intervetions for base jumpers, or car drviers. You have to put it all in it's proper perspective and stay off that knife edge of paranoid judgement.

 

[HarveyH42]

I think it comes down to moderate use, and excessive abuse. There is probably some threshold, moderate is reasonably safe and harmless, like most vices. Those that over indulge, run into health problems, which is common for all obsessive/compulsive addiction prone types of people. Lots of people drink, but seldom enough to get drunk or damage organs, since alcohol is a poison. We all have to eat, but some people enjoy feeding a little too much, heart disease, diabetes... Think tobacco is reasonably safe if used reasonably and responsibly, unfortunately self control is a major problem for some people.

I don't think most thieves will stop, just because the get caught once or twice, or even dozens of times. Couple of years in prison doesn't seem to change their thinking. A major beating is more likely to provide some incentive. We have gotten much too soft on those who choose to victimize other people, since most seem to continue doing it. They choose to do us harm, we didn't volunteer to be victims, and the criminals shouldn't be allow to go unharmed, when they have no problem beating the victim. Cops can only do so much after the crime, they rarely arrive while a crime is in progress. If there is an opportunity to fight back, we should, since it might save our lives, or the life of future victims of this thief.

 

[Hero999]

Yes, it's true that our health service benefits from taxes gained from cigarette sales which is probably more than enough to pay for the extra illnesses suffered by smokers.

As far as I'm concerned, people can do what they like as long as it doesn't effect me.

I've tried smoking cigarettes when I was 15 and hated it. Cigars are better, cannabis better still although it still didn't do that much for me to make it worth it.

I agree with the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces but I think smoking rooms should be allowed, as long as they're well ventilated and children aren't allowed in them.

 

[Mickster]

<SNIP>I agree with the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces but I think smoking rooms should be allowed, as long as they're well ventilated and children aren't allowed in them.

I'm a smoker, but I totally agree with the above. The problem is though, that businesses have been dictated to as to how they serve there customers as a whole. There has been no choice offered to allow patrons to use separate smoking areas, which would cater for both parties in the same establishment. Instead, there has been a blanket-ban which has had detrimental effects resulting in previously viable businesses closing their doors.


Following the introduction of the public smoking ban, I had a discussion with a non-smoking female friend. She said she preferred the previous smell of smoke, to the smell of body odour and farts...

 

[Hero999]

I used to go clubbing, before the smoking ban and I could often smell body odour as well as cigarette smoke.

I haven't been out clubbing as often, after the ban so the BO is probably more noticeable.

The only problem with I can see with allowing smoking rooms is that some of the staff might refuse to go in them. If I worked in a bar, I don't know if I would go in the smoking room and I certainly would refuse to work in there for long periods.

 

[Mickster]

I suggest that the proprietor choosing to allow smoking on the premises should set aside a separate ventilated area solely for the purpose. Any other activities should be performed in the non-segregated area, such as ordering drinks/food etc.

Hired staff should have the option of working in the smoking area and should they object, then the proprietor has the responsibility since they have made the choice to allow it.

 

[HarveyH42]

I think they took the smoking ban a little too far. I can understand government buildings, and businesses where children are allowed, fire hazard areas, or places where non-smokers must go (banks as example). But for restaurants, bars, clubs, and so forth, it should have been left up to the owners what they wanted to do. They could have no smoking at all, smokers welcome, or separate areas. The customer would have the choice of whether the smoke bothered them enough, to not spend their money in there, or go down the road to a non-smoking business. Same with the employees, if they know about the smoking, they didn't have to apply (well, in a better economy, perhaps 2012...). Don't recall ever being in a No Smoking bar, but never drank much either, bet it really brings out the smell of puke and urine, so much better. Lots of these businesses have limited space, a partition would really mess things up. Tough to keep an eye on people from behind the bar, with a wall blocking the view, somebody could be getting beat-up for beer money, and left for dead, as the thugs go and buy themselves another round, and wait for the next victim...

Been trying very hard to steer this back to the original topic of cutting up thugs with pocket knives, but seems tobacco causes thugs to beat and rob people. Anyway, I'm a smoker, but not a work, as the walled off portion of the break-room for smokers, is much too intense for me, not to mention I have a very active and physical task, and just not worth it. Kind of weird, cigarettes are so addictive, yet I have no problem working 7-15 hour days, and I could always go out to my car to light one up... Another strange coincidence... I work in a distribution warehouse, where I personally handle about 1,000 cases of cigarettes during my work day. Talk about temptation... I speak from personal experience, the numbers and statistics on both sides of the argument are weighted, and not exactly accurate, but technically true and fact based. I've smoked for about 20 years, and in good shape and health. None of the people I've been around, smoking with, have gotten cancer yet, but there have been a few with some heath issues (heart problems).

 

[Sceadwian]

But for restaurants, bars, clubs, and so forth, it should have been left up to the owners what they wanted to do.

The problem is those situations are enclosed spaces with barely adequate ventilation. The minority of smokers would be saturation the majority of non smokers with smoke for no reason. I fully understand the reason for banning smoking indoors at all.

Harvey, I thought I explained the whole thugs cutting people with pocket knives thing =) It's a well understood part of the human condition. Knives or basically anything considered sharp is almost universally feared in the human race. Almost everyone everywhere as an inate fear of sharp things. If you're trying to understand crime, it's a simple market economy, supply vs demand. If you want to argue morality good luck with that! That doesn't make sense on any front =)

 

[HarveyH42]

The problem is those situations are enclosed spaces with barely adequate ventilation. The minority of smokers would be saturation the majority of non smokers with smoke for no reason. I fully understand the reason for banning smoking indoors at all.

Harvey, I thought I explained the whole thugs cutting people with pocket knives thing =) It's a well understood part of the human condition. Knives or basically anything considered sharp is almost universally feared in the human race. Almost everyone everywhere as an inate fear of sharp things. If you're trying to understand crime, it's a simple market economy, supply vs demand. If you want to argue morality good luck with that! That doesn't make sense on any front =)

The private business owner should have had the choice of what sort of customer he wishes to attract. If the owner believes his business would be more profitable, by allowing smoking, he should be allow to make that choice. Since some non smokers are wiling to tolerate the smoke, he will still get a few of those. The problem is those, who are completely against smoking in public, don't make a non-smoking establishment profitable.

I don't think your fear theory is correct, getting cut isn't that painful, nor the end of the world. Pretty much any sort of weapon, would cause the same fear of injury. Think I'd prefer a knife wound over a crushed skull. Thugs lack moral judgment, so should be given moral consideration, and should be punished down at their own level, with something they understand. Even the Bible, our blueprint for morality says something about an eye-for an eye...

 

[Sceadwian]

Pretty much any sort of weapon, would cause the same fear of injury.

How can you logically substantiate that? Almost everyone has been cut by a knife or sharp object, very few have been shot by a gun, by simple looking at the number people are going to have a more immediate fear reaction to a knife than to a gun. We know that guns can kill, but understanding that fear by remembering a past pain such as is more common with a knife is more psychologically intimidating.

You statement that Thugs lack moral judgment is dead wrong, many people that commit crimes are simply people in bad situations pushed over the edge to the point where they feel they have to take actions they ordinarily wouldn't. If the eye for an eye blueprint of morality actually worked when poor people mugged people for money or drug users commited a crime to get money for their habbit we would rehabilitate the indivudal by feeding them and help them get a job or get them into drug rehab center, instead of simply locking them up in prisons where drugs are just as easy to get as on the outside.

 

[HarveyH42]

The only cuts that really hurt, are paper cuts, sort of sting... Only needed stitches three times, so maybe mine weren't as bad as most folks. My only point in all this, is the prospective victim should have a complete free hand, on how he/she deals with a thug. Should have to worry about walking away safe and unharmed. The thief deserves whatever is dealt out in the process, it was his choice to initiate it. He could have turned himself in, and gotten help and rehab. Most churches offer free help, clothing, food, jobs, housing, just for asking. Obama is very generous with our tax dollars, no reason to victimize anyone, except through taxes.

 

[Reloadron]

Sceadwian:

How can you logically substantiate that? Almost everyone has been cut by a knife or sharp object, very few have been shot by a gun, by simple looking at the number people are going to have a more immediate fear reaction to a knife than to a gun. We know that guns can kill, but understanding that fear by remembering a past pain such as is more common with a knife is more psychologically intimidating.

You are kidding right? Personally I don't need to be shot to fear a gunshot one hell of a lot more than a knife wound. I am much more intimidated looking down the business end of a handgun than seeing a knife. Matter of fact even a small bore handgun would place more fear in me than a big knife.

There is an old saying that "you don't bring a knife to a gunfight". Why do you think that is?

The merit to a gun is your assailant does not need to be on top of you. I see someone come at me with a knife I can at least run like hell and pray as I run I am quicker than the guy with a knife. The guy with a gun can effectively blow you away at what distance? The guy with a gun doesn't need to be up close and personal to make you quite dead. That sure as hell worries me more than a knife. I sure as hell don't need to be shot to fear a gun many fold over a knife.

As to the morality thing. You can't legislate morality. They have tried for years and for years it never has worked out all that well. Sceadwian, I don't live in Rochester NY but Cleveland, OH isn't all that far. Most of the bad guys around here, the really evil bad guys who would murder you for ten bucks to buy drugs have had a chance at rehab in every form and manner. These guys have treated the prison system like a revolving door for years. The guy who does something dumb because he is down on his luck is not the guy who will blow your brains out for a few bucks. The bad guys are career criminals.

Just My Take
Ron

 

[Hero999]

What difference does it make?

If someone threatens you with a knife, you don't stand much of a chance, even if you have a gun because they can stab you before you have chance to draw your weapon.

The same applies, if someone threatens you with a gun.

The only advantage a gun has is a greater range, although a skilled knife thrower can make up for some of that.

I'd say a gun is generally more scary myself, although knives come a close second.

 

[HarveyH42]

The thing with a knife, is that the attacker needs to be close enough to cut or stab, which also places him close enough where you can fight back. You still have a chance to survive. As mentioned, if you see the blade, you can try running as well. A gun only requires line of site, and the twitch of a finger. Personally, I try to maintain about 6 feet distance from strangers, and on high alert if someone is within 3 feet, any closer and there better be a good reason (crowded space, waiting in line...). Just kind of high strung that way. Gunshot, stab wound, death isn't instant, you still have a few minutes. Most people pass-out from the pain, shock, fear of dying. Perhaps I don't feel much pain from a cut, because I focus on the extent of the injury, and what I need to do to minimize blood loss and treatment.

 

[Frosty_47]

I would like to end this thread by saying:

If Death is smiling in your face, smile back at it with a .45

**broken link removed**