›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

National Smoking Rate Rises, NY Rate Drops

AprecheApreche
edited November 2009 in Everything Else
http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/as-national-smoking-rates-rise-ny-s-drops-1.1584086
In New York, the rate of adult smokers dropped from 18.3 percent in 2007 to 16.8 percent in 2008, the lowest ever measured in the state, said Claire Pospisil, a spokeswoman from the state Health Department.
Less than 1 in 5 people are smoking, yet that is enough to make walking down the sidewalk horrendously unpleasant. Imagine if 16.8% of people carried spraying skunks with them whenever they were outside. Clearly this is a case of minority right to poison one's self, but it is even more clear that these 16.8% of people should not be permitted to poison the overwhelming majority of people who do not consent.
Nationally, about 20.6 percent of adults were smokers in 2008, up from 19.8 percent in 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Thursday.
Even though the national rate rose, you can see it is not a significantly greater percentage such that policy should be any different in other places.
«1

Comments

  • CremlianCremlian
    Even though the national rate rose, you can see it is not a significantly greater percentage such that policy should be any different in other places.
    You've run a statistical analysis on this data?
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    Even though the national rate rose, you can see it is not a significantly greater percentage such that policy should be any different in other places.
    You've run a statistical analysis on this data?
    Yes, please show us your maths that prove this is not statistically significant.
  • NukerjsrNukerjsr
    edited November 2009
    Yeah, make your state look even better.

    .../cry
    Post edited by Nukerjsr on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Even though the national rate rose, you can see it is not a significantly greater percentage such that policy should be any different in other places.
    You've run a statistical analysis on this data?
    Yes, please show us your maths that prove this is not statistically significant.
    That should probably be "trivial" for Scott.
  • AprecheApreche
    What are you talking about? 16.8% of New Yorkers smoke. 20.6% of people in the whole US smoke. Are you saying that 3.8% more people smoking in non-NY places is enough that smoking is acceptable in other places, but not NY? It's nowhere even close to 1/3 of people, let alone an actual majority.

    As the overwhelming percentage of the population is non-smoking, we are fully justified in reducing smoker's minority rights to the bare minimum, and otherwise restricting the harmful behavior in every way legally possible.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    As the overwhelming percentage of the population is non-smoking, we are fully justified in reducing smoker's minority rights to the bare minimum
    There are a lot more Christians in this country than there are atheists. Are the Christians therefore fully justified in restricting the rights of atheists?
  • AprecheApreche
    There are a lot more Christians in this country than there are atheists. Are the Christians therefore fully justified in restricting the rights of atheists?
    If atheism smelled bad, and gave other people heart disease and cancer, yes.

    Also, I didn't mention restricting any rights. I said we should maintain the minority right and restrict it in all other ways. Poison yourself in your own house, alone, when nobody else is around.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Also, I didn't mention restricting any rights. I said we should maintain the minority right and restrict it in allotherways.
    This is what you said: "we are fully justified in reducing smoker's minority rights to the bare minimum". Now, I'm usually pretty good at interpreting what I read, and that sentence to me means that you are seeking to restrict rights. I don't see "maintain the minority right and restrict it in allotherways" anywhere in that sentence. Are you saying now that reducing rights =/= restricting rights?
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    What are you talking about? 16.8% of New Yorkers smoke. 20.6% of people in the whole US smoke. Are you saying that 3.8% more people smoking in non-NY places is enough that smoking is acceptable in other places, but not NY?
    No, we're saying that's you're just quoting some numbers and subtracting. That's how the news warps things, and that's not how statistics work. We are a logic based forum and I refuse to accept what you say until you prove its statistical significance.
  • CremlianCremlian
    No, we're saying that's you're just quoting some numbers and subtracting. That's how the news warps things, and that's not how statistics work. We are a logic based forum and I refuse to accept what you say until you prove its statistical significance.
    Yea, I actually agree with Scott but I don't think we should be saying 20% or 3.8% is not a significant figure because well it is when your dealing in those numbers.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    Yea, I actually agree with Scott but I don't think we should be saying 20% or 3.8% is not a significant figure because well it is when your dealing in those numbers.
    I demand proof! There are protocols to be followed, steps to be completed! Then Scott can have his non-sense rant against smokers, not before.
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    Scott, from what I've read in the other thread, it seems like the problem with NY smokers is not the smoke, but the assholery. People (especially smokers) are much more courteous in civilized states like California. ;-P
  • AprecheApreche
    Scott, from what I've read in the other thread, it seems like the problem with NY smokers is not the smoke, but the assholery. People (especially smokers) are much more courteous in civilized states like California. ;-P
    So they only smoke when they are not anywhere even close to any other human beings?
  • ChurbaChurba
    Oh for christ's sake, here we go again.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Oh for christ's sake, here we go again.
    Not if we ignore it, we don't.
  • VhdbloodVhdblood
    Oh for christ's sake, here we go again.
    Not if we ignore it, we don't.
    That's why I've chosen not to even post in this thread... Shit.

    Seriously though, secondhand smoke may be an issue, but so is the horrible air pollution in these major cities, especially NYC.
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    edited November 2009
    So they only smoke when they are not anywhere even close to any other human beings?
    If they are around people (even smokers), they usually (>50% of the time) ask if it's ok if they smoke. If the wind changes direction and blows smoke towards nonsmokers, they move. If a group of mixed smokers/nonsmokers walks down the street, the smokers aren't in the middle puffing smoke on everyone.

    I mean, things like that are just common courtesy. It seems that people in CA* have retained common courtesy, while people in NYC (from your experiences) have not.

    * By CA I mean the San Francisco Bay Area. I can't vouch for anywhere else (Sac-town, SD, LA, etc).

    EDIT: And yes, they basically don't smoke when the act of smoking would physically discomfort others present. Now, when someone is morally indignant about smoking, and joins a group of smokers (who are already smoking), then complains about the smoke...
    Post edited by YoshoKatana on
  • trogdor9trogdor9
    YoshoKatana, you're at RIT, you should know that people here aren't courteous about their smoking. I've seen people smoking right outside my building, next to the sign that says "No smoking allowed within 25 feet of any building, door, or window." (I feel like the door and window part is a but redundant, but I digress.) They also smoke on the quarter mile, and when RIT is in windtunnel mode that sucks balls for EVERYONE behind them.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    Sac-town
    That is an unfortunate nickname.
  • Loganator456Loganator456
    This thread again? Jesus Christ.
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    RIT
    Yeah, that's included when I'm talking about NY vs. CA smokers. New Yorkers are assholes. :p
  • loltsundereloltsundere
    edited November 2009
    Seriously though, secondhand smoke may be an issue, but so is the horrible air pollution in these major cities, especially NYC.
    I just wanted to point out that just because every 1980's movie depicts NYC as a festering scuzzhole doesn't mean that we are still that festering scuzzhole. We don't even make it to the top ten of the country's most polluted cities, in any category of pollution. Not to say that we don't have pollution problems, being a major city. Comparing us to Washboard County, West Virginia might make things look pretty bad, but we're talking solely about cities.

    So unless you're going on stereotypes alone, I really don't know where your "especially NYC" remark comes from. As a resident, I can say that a lot of your negative NYC stereotypes don't hold as much water as you bumpkins may think. :P
    Yeah, that's included when I'm talking about NY vs. CA smokers. New Yorkers are assholes. :p
    Come over here and say that.
    Post edited by loltsundere on
  • SailSail
    *By CA I mean the San Francisco Bay Area. I can't vouch for anywhere else (Sac-town, SD, LA, etc).
    Speaking only in terms of the extremely limited amount of people whom of which I associate with who smoke, I can more or less confirm this behavior in the southern region of CA as well.

    I think it mostly has to do with the culture of the people in NY. I like to think that we're more laid-back and amiable over here on the best west coast ^_~
  • DiagorasDiagoras
    YoshoKatana, you're at RIT, you should know that people here aren't courteous about their smoking. I've seen people smoking right outside my building, next to the sign that says "No smoking allowed within 25 feet of any building, door, or window." (I feel like the door and window part is a but redundant, but I digress.) They also smoke on the quarter mile, and when RIT is in windtunnel mode that sucks balls for EVERYONE behind them.
    Same down here in Texas. What makes it worse is every time I have an allergic reaction due to second-hand smoke, the smokers laugh at me or act offended. I can't help it if I have trouble breathing through their damn smoke!
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Why is anyone still smoking with cigs costing $8+ per pack??? I used to smoke in the early 90's when I was in the service in part because I could buy a carton of good smokes for under $10 (and because you could get smoke breaks all day long but no 'health' breaks). Once I started having to buy the expensive ones off-base I stopped smoking.
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    Why is anyone still smoking with cigs costing $8+ per pack?
    Taste, relaxation, aesthetics, etc. The same reason everyone smokes. Rolling tobacco is generally higher quality and cheaper than most cigarettes.
  • AndrewAndrew
    image
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    It's all about cigars, pipes, and hookah. Classy gentlemen.
  • IlmarinenIlmarinen
    edited November 2009
    Why is anyone still smoking with cigs costing $8+ per pack??? I used to smoke in the early 90's when I was in the service in part because I could buy a carton of good smokes for under $10 (and because you could get smoke breaks all day long but no 'health' breaks). Once I started having to buy the expensive ones off-base I stopped smoking.
    Where are you at (or what brand are you buying) that cigs are $8 a pack? Camels and Marlboros are dirt cheap everywhere and Newports, which are the most expensive commonly smoked cigarettes as far as I know, are $7 or less in most places. Prices have been going down recently (it seems like at least by $0.50 in the last 6 months), not up.

    EDIT:
    Why is anyone still smoking with cigs costing $8+ per pack?
    Taste, relaxation, aesthetics, etc. The same reason everyone smokes.Rolling tobaccois generally higher quality and cheaper than most cigarettes.
    Rolling tobacco is about 1/4 to 1/2 the price of buying cigs after you factor in the cost of papers (and the quality is not much better unless you're buying REALLY nice stuff and you normally buy cheap cigs), but it will also get you a bunch of unwanted attention from assholes and police. You could buy a filter tubes and a stuffing machine, but the machines are expensive and extremely slow... not worth the marginal amount you save compared to buying a pack.
    Post edited by Ilmarinen on
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    edited November 2009
    Eh, I don't get no guff from the Man! He see me rollin' my tabac, he STEER CLEAR. Bitches be hatin'.

    EDIT: Um...this is the sort of discourse you get from me at 4:30am, after spending 3 hours researching and debating cell phone plans. In other news, went to a hookah bar today and DIDN'T GET SERVICE FOR AN HOUR. A bunch of friends are going to a better hookah bar tomorrow/today. Er. Saturday. I'm going to bed now, before I get more confused.
    Post edited by YoshoKatana on
Sign In or Register to comment.