That's a specious comparison, and you know it.But let's take it at face value. Maybe some lives would not be ended by ambulances if there were none. But a lot of people would be made worse off directly.
Now perform the same thought-experiment with cigarettes. Not quite the same result.
Look: of course there's a trade-off to be made. But noone'd deny that. And since smoking does nothing at all to promote health, and ambulances do quite a bit, it's clear which way the trade should go on that one.
The actual measure of the harm of smoking isn't all that important here, I don't think. It's just a matter of a body the function of which is to improve health deciding not to facilitate an activity that diminishes it. No biggie.
(Now perform the same thought-experiment with cigarettes. Not quite the same result.
Look: of course there's a trade-off to be made. But noone'd deny that. And since smoking does nothing at all to promote health, and ambulances do quite a bit, it's clear which way the trade should go on that one.
The actual measure of the harm of smoking isn't all that important here, I don't think. It's just a matter of a body the function of which is to improve health deciding not to facilitate an activity that diminishes it. No biggie.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:15,
archived)
smoking prevents alzheimersi'd rather have lung cancer and know who the hell i am
than be eight years old again at the age of ninety
FACT
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:21,
archived)
than be eight years old again at the age of ninety
FACT
nonsenseget Alzheimer's - then you can forget you've got lung cancer
/logic blog
(/logic blog
Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:22,
archived)
Hmmm...That's a different question, though, innit?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:23,
archived)
It is?Or is it just a question which is hard for you to answer?
Ignore Ambulances - let's go with cars instead?
(Ignore Ambulances - let's go with cars instead?
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:28,
archived)
No, really...It's a different matter. I dig hard questions.
EDIT: OK, let's go with the car thing. I don't see your point.
(EDIT: OK, let's go with the car thing. I don't see your point.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:37,
archived)
Cars are more dangerous than fags.Why ban fags when you can ban cars?
Non essential journeys are just to make you happier - which is what fags are for . . .
(Non essential journeys are just to make you happier - which is what fags are for . . .
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:55,
archived)
Ah, but you've shifted the debate...... Noone proposed banning fags; that's not what the issue here was. Here, we were concerned with banning smoking in some places. Applying that principle to cars - that they should be banned in some places as well, seems straightforward...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:58,
archived)