Should smoking be illegal?

[anitram]

I think there is something to be said for bad food being cheaper, though.

You can go buy how many boxes of KD or imitation KD for a buck? Packs of ramen noodles? Or those boxes of Rice-a-Roni or whatever else you can sometimes buy for like 69 cents. Or get a frozen pizza on sale for $3.99. Or a pack of hot dogs. Those are typically bad decisions made and they are a lot cheaper than fast food and also a lot cheaper than making a meal from scratch.

If you live alone, it gets even more expensive because a lot of times you might buy produce that goes to waste because you can't eat it as fast as it will go bad and you also don't have time to go to the grocery store every other day.

I know that when I lived in NYC, you had neighbourhoods in Harlem where you'd literally walk for blocks and blocks on end and not see fresh fruit or vegetables aside from the odd banana or tomato. So your options are either to eat crappy canned food that's full of sodium or pay to get on transit and go buy food that way.

Yes, you can eat cheaply if you shop very carefully, plan all your meals and so on, but for people who have poor eating habits, picking up a box of KD is a super easy and much cheaper solution than anything else.

[Caleb8844]

I think a huge part of the benefit of college is learning HOW to learn.

[Edge425]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

A few friends and I were talking about smoking tobacco, the risks associated with it, and whether or not it should be illegal. They brought up some interesting viewpoints.


Pros of smoking tobacco:
- Generates money from taxes.
- Relaxing/Aids Anxiety and depression
- Is part of a long tradition/ has been done for a long time.
- Weight loss.
- Seems to help prevent certain kinds of ulcers.

Cons of smoking tobacco:
- Has a serious carcinogenic effect.
- Causes part of your body such as your skin, hair and teeth to yellow.
- Addictive.
- Smoking-related diseases kill one in 10 adults globally.
- Every 8 seconds, someone dies from tobacco use.
- Risk of birth defects if cigarettes are smoked during pregnancy.
- Secondhand or passive smoke alone can cause significant increase in various diseases/risk of cancer. The effects are even worse for the one smoking.
- Smoking does not just hurt you, it hurts the people around you.

What do you think?

I'm of the opinion that prohibition does not solve anything and just forces things into an underground market. I am unsure of what a good alternative, besides strict laws about when/where you can smoke, would be.

I question whether anything good can come from smoking. It does not seem to help weight loss really and the anxiety smokers experience when its been a little longer than usual since their last smoke does not in my view make it an anxiety reducer but an anxiety producer.

There are 29 states in the USA that have statewide bans in public places like bars, eating establishments, and other public areas. Its hard to believe that the other 21 states have limited or no such bans at all. Those laws allow a small minority of people to risk and compromise the health of innocent people.

Also the idea that business would be hurt by bans is false given what we have seen from the 29 states that have bans as well as countries in Europe. Hell, if smoking is banned in Ireland, then even West Virginia and Alabama should have it banned. Not saying Ireland is a hick land, far from it, but the consumption of beer and smoking was very widespread before ban went into effect.

[Edge425]

Originally Posted by BVS

North America is definitely backwards on this subject. We've banned things far less harmful without a blink of an eye yet turned a blind eye on cigarettes. We've criminalized marijuana, which is much safer regarding long term health. I think part of the reason is that it's difficult to reverse gears on something like this. I'd like to see us someday be consistent about the things we allow ourselves to put into our bodies on a daily basis.

Well, there are 29 states with full state wide ban, plus I think there is a move to have a nationwide ban by 2020.

[Liesje]

To me something is not really "banned" if it is still sold. Smoking is already "banned" in a lot of places, but that doesn't mean you can't smoke. Our city "banned" smoking in public areas and certain types of places but no one I know that smokes has quit or even cut back.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

I think a huge part of the benefit of college is learning HOW to learn.

[BGD75]

You can't really make it illegal.... I mean, that would just be over the top. I am not a smoker and never have been, but making smoking illegal would be good enough reason to make drinking illegal as well.
It is good enough that there is a law which prohibits people from smoking in restaurants/pubs etc. That certainly makes it more tolerable for us non-smokers. Everyone knows that smoking is not the best for your health...so the ones who choose to do it are doing it knowing that they are harming themselves. Freedom of choice.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by anitram

But it isn't supposed to train you for that. I'm not sure why you think that these days university degrees are tied into job training. They most certainly are not.

The reason that people tend to look at undergrad degrees even for secretarial positions (like we do when we hire legal assistants) is because if you have 10 equally good people competing who have a BA and maybe 4 who don't (because that's really a realistic ratio these days), then why wouldn't we go for the person with a BA who has 4 extra years of maturity, who has written major papers and we know with some degree of certainty is fairly literate and capable to do some critical thinking? It's not that we think that they're better trained to be a secretary, it's just that if the choice is there, why not go with it? If the choice wasn't there and all we had was applicants with high school degrees, it isn't as if we wouldn't hire anyone - we would, and could probably be happy with their work. But that's not reality these days.

Stenographers don't need critical thinking skills, and a BA doesn't impart any either, for that matter. Critical thinking skills are innate.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Stenographers don't need critical thinking skills, and a BA doesn't impart any either, for that matter.

Way to pick a profession that's going to be obsolete very shortly, lol.

[Irvine511]

critical thinking skills are developed. the brain is a muscle. some people have bigger muscles than others, but they can always be exercised.

[INDY500]

Here's to hoping they're more exercised than they were in 2008.

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

the brain is a muscle.

It isn't, actually It's an organ comprised largely of nervous tissue

 

Just an excuse to be lazy

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

It isn't, actually It's an organ comprised largely of nervous tissue

 

Just an excuse to be lazy

ironically, it's mostly composed of fat

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

ironically, it's mostly composed of fat

Ya, I guess it is. There's a lot of myelin in there, which is mostly fat.

Maybe America has the right idea after all (nah, you've got to get your Omega-3 on)

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by Liesje

Re. university education, not to jump in an defend it because I often think it was a waste of time and money in some ways, but it did offer some general experiences that are valuable in the work environment. I don't think it can substitute for trade school or trade type training, but in college I was routinely forced to do a lot of things I'm still doing at work.... doing projects I might think are pointless, working in groups with people I don't necessarily like, managing time and resources, etc.

In a way college is a "safe" artificial environment for people to become more responsible, experiment, and explore adulthood. I feel as though there need to be more field-specific colleges. Basically, a trade school in that you only study one thing, but in a college-like environment.

OK so we did some of that in high school but the level of maturity and professionalism was not really the same as what is required in college and at work.

But what about a people who went to work right after high school and got that experience on the job? 3-4 years in a professional environment makes a person grow a lot more than 3-4 years in a classroom.

I will be honest, if I'm asked to be involved in hiring a new team member I rarely consider anyone without a BA, even though the work we do requires technical certifications you don't get with a liberal arts BA. The technical stuff is easy enough to train and our employer will help people get the certifications they need but the level of professionalism, maturity, and interpersonal skills goes above and beyond what people experience at a high school or GED level, and I'm not talking about a highly professional career either, I'm talking entry level $32K/yr job.

This is something I strongly disagree with. Liberal arts degrees don't promote professionalism, it's a playground to fool around in a bunch of different subjects without actually being serious about something. I'm someone that does freelance work on the side of my main job and I'm lucky to have the job that I do have (my job requires a serious amount of professionalism and etiquette).

I have spent the past 3 years being turned down because the employer thinks my lack of "education" makes me somehow less mature or professional than an inexperienced person fresh out of college. At my job I have to be professional or we could lose clients. My classes never required the level of professionalism I'm expected to have at my work.

When I was taking classes at a local community college I applied for a helpdesk technician position and was turned down because I didn't have a degree yet and was undeclared. They hired somebody else who had a degree. One semester later, I was in the lab working on a project when I watched the person they had hired instead of me fumbling like an idiot trying to fix a problem.

They'd had over 3 months of training at this point. They couldn't fix a simple problem with computers that I could fix when I was twelve. On top of that, the person was completely unprofessional and rude to the student they were helping. But they were more "qualified" so they got that job. IMO I don't think an entry level position should require someone to go into debt.

Originally Posted by anitram

But it isn't supposed to train you for that. I'm not sure why you think that these days university degrees are tied into job training. They most certainly are not.

No, they're not, but people are apparently incapable of doing these simple jobs without degrees.

The reason that people tend to look at undergrad degrees even for secretarial positions (like we do when we hire legal assistants) is because if you have 10 equally good people competing who have a BA and maybe 4 who don't (because that's really a realistic ratio these days), then why wouldn't we go for the person with a BA who has 4 extra years of maturity, who has written major papers and we know with some degree of certainty is fairly literate and capable to do some critical thinking?

What about the person who has been doing other work and spent the same amount of time maturing? If they're the same age, "maturity" is not a logical way to rule them out. Those people that you are turning down might just be incredibly talented, mature, professional people that you're ruling out and judging because they don't have a degree.

Let's say I have to hire someone as a legal assistant or secretary. I have 10 choices, 6 with bachelor's degrees, 4 without. It is just as logical here to assume the people without degrees have had a much harder time finding work and will appreciate the job a lot more. Some people with BAs feel as though they're above doing that kind of work, so they'll slack off. People without BAs tend to know where they stand more often. I would consider the ones without the BAs first, looking into their experience, what they did in high school (were they involved in clubs? did they get good grades?), etc.

It is not always more logical to just grab the person with the degree.

Originally Posted by BVS

I think for the most part those that are feeling that university degrees are useless are probably approaching them incorrectly.

They are not useless.

Originally Posted by Liesje

I think bad food being "cheaper" is about more than just the actual price of the ingredients. I'll admit I often get lazy and stop somewhere to "grab" something (not Big Macs though, usually some sort of sandwich that is made in front of me). For me it's not just the price of food but the "cost" of having to shop around for ingredients and the time it takes to make the food. Also right now with it often being about 100 degrees and humid which means 90 degrees inside the house, there's no way in hell I'm turning my *oven* on to cook meals and prefer not to use the gas stove either. It "costs" me less to just buy a cheap meal on the run because it doesn't involve any prep work or inconvenience to me. We have a really nice fresh market at the end of our block and have been shopping there a lot for fruits, salad stuff, and meats, but the food is really fresh, eat it within a day or two or its not good. It's hard for me to get into the habit of having to grocery shop every other day when I'm used to doing it once every other week. So yes it does come down to laziness which for me translates to the cost of my time and other factors that I often am not willing to deal with on a daily basis for every meal.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Here's to hoping they're more exercised than they were in 2008.

it's true. people voted for Grandpa Walnuts and Our Sarah out of dispassionate reason and pure intellect.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

This is something I strongly disagree with. Liberal arts degrees don't promote professionalism, it's a playground to fool around in a bunch of different subjects without actually being serious about something.

oh ok. thanks for clearing that up with us who worked our tails off to get BAs from liberal arts colleges and make healthy salaries working 60 hours a week.

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

oh ok. thanks for clearing that up with us who worked our tails off to get BAs from liberal arts colleges and make healthy salaries working 60 hours a week.

The fact is that many of the people coming out of these degrees did not know what they wanted to do when they rushed into college. Most (not all, most) went for these degrees because they had no idea of what they wanted to do and were just going with what was expected of them. It's better to have a liberal arts degree than no degree! Right? That's why we have to get one! At least it's something! These people did not have the creativity to bust out and do something unique, were not smart enough to realize they didn't have to go to college and should wait until they knew what they wanted to do first, and they didn't have the talent in a specific field to pursue that field.

There's the occasional exception, but many businesses I know will throw applications with "liberal arts" degrees in the trash because of how unprofessional those graduates can be. We just recently fired someone with a liberal arts degree because they had no clue how to work in a professional environment. They need a college schedule dictating how they spent their time and when they suddenly had to plan things on their own... they couldn't.

The difference is when you encounter someone that wants to study many things, and usually those people will pick a specialty later on in life. The rare person who goes to college to learn. Perhaps I am guilty of generalizing here, so I should mention that I don't immediately judge someone for having that kind of degree. It's just something I see that's so common it's hard to separate the two. But unlike the stuck up people who refuse to consider someone without a degree professional, I will never rule out a person for a job based on their college education (whether they have it, what degree it's in, etc). I take the time to interview them, see their skills, look at what they've accomplished, and decide from there.

[Liesje]

Erica the flaw is that the post seems to assume that undergrads don't work. I can only speak for myself but I worked three jobs throughout college, full time and some overtime every summer. I often skipped classes to work and my second half of college I only took classes two days a week and worked full days the other three days, plus afternoons the days I had class and other jobs for the evenings and weekends (my job job was for a dept. only open 8-5 but I was also a TA so I could revise, grade, and answer students' questions at any time). I got the job I have now because I've been on the team since I started as a student employee. I've been working for the same team for 10 years (I'm 27). I've worked my way through five promotions and am second in command (and would never want my boss' job! Way too political and I don't like to manage people, I like to get shit done). My husband worked second and third shift when he was finishing his teaching certificate. Sometimes I went 5 days without actually seeing him even though we were sleeping in the same bed.

High school involvement carries little weight for me personally because 1) it's highschool and 2) most of the stuff people do during that time largely depends on privilege and not actual skill or level of commitment. I don't know about you guys but I also worked through high school which did not leave time for all the fun clubs and extracurricular activities. I would have been on dozens of teams and crews and clubs if I had the time and the money.

At the time I often felt college was useless but the farther away it seems, the more useful it has become. Also I wouldn't take back the cost of tuition to give up the friends I made.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

What about the person who has been doing other work and spent the same amount of time maturing? If they're the same age, "maturity" is not a logical way to rule them out. Those people that you are turning down might just be incredibly talented, mature, professional people that you're ruling out and judging because they don't have a degree.

Let's say I have to hire someone as a legal assistant or secretary. I have 10 choices, 6 with bachelor's degrees, 4 without. It is just as logical here to assume the people without degrees have had a much harder time finding work and will appreciate the job a lot more. Some people with BAs feel as though they're above doing that kind of work, so they'll slack off. People without BAs tend to know where they stand more often. I would consider the ones without the BAs first, looking into their experience, what they did in high school (were they involved in clubs? did they get good grades?), etc.

It is not always more logical to just grab the person with the degree.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. Getting a degree certainly has its benefits and I applaud people who work hard to earn such high honors. And there are things that sort of study can give you that will help you in the long run.

But the idea that people without degrees are presumed to be less mature or literate and may not have the skills to take on a job is just not true. Find someone within a line of work who can take on the role of teaching people the necessary skills and I think you could find out fairly quickly who's willing to learn and who has the skills necessary versus who isn't/doesn't.

Also, the laziness thing regarding food is spot on as well. You get off work at 9 pm, you just don't feel in the mood to throw together a legitimate meal, something quick and easy will do.