NationStates Jolt Archive

It really angers me the way many liberals rail against the propoganda and oppression supposedly spread by the government and corporations, then go and spread bullshit of their own. Case in point: Secondhand smoke. Yet another instance in which anti-corporate liberals have skewed the facts and used media hype to push an agenda.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm?z=1837_00000_0000_ep_01
http://www.smokingsection.com/issues1.html#smoke
http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html

I especially like the third one, which cites actual articles re: secondhand smoke and then looks at the studies and discusses them.

Case in point: Secondhand smoke.

Are you claiming that when I, as a smoker, inhale cigarette smoke my body automatically purifies it completely and then releases an entirely harmless substance?

I dare you to stay next to a smoking smoker for 24 hours and tell me you don't feel like shit after that.

Just continue breathing whatever he/she breathes out.

I didn't say its not unpleasant, I'm just saying there are no studies out there that definitively prove a link between second hand smoke and cancer.

Are you claiming that when I, as a smoker, inhale cigarette smoke my body automatically purifies it completely and then releases an entirely harmless substance?
No...about 50% stays in your lungs and is assimilated into your body, the rest is diluted into the air to the point where it is harmless.

No...about 50% stays in your lungs and is assimilated into your body, the rest is diluted into the air to the point where it is harmless.
And of course, the second it leaves the mouth it immediatly spreads out and flies a million directions everywhere at 50 mp/h so that no one even feels it or sees it at all.

I didn't say its not unpleasant, I'm just saying there are no studies out there that definitively prove a link between second hand smoke and cancer.

There are no studies out there that definitively prove a link between stabbing yourself with a corkscrew and feeling pain.

There are no studies out there that definitvely prove a link between stabbing yourself with a corkscrew and feeling pain.
:D

Smoking kills, dude.

I'm guessing you smoke, by your reaction to these studies. I don't care if you do, it's your choice to ruin your body.

I can say that I'm allergic to tobacco smoke. If you want to smoke, do it away from me.

No...about 50% stays in your lungs and is assimilated into your body, the rest is diluted into the air to the point where it is harmless.

So, if I and John Q Random share a room and I smoke, then the air that he breathes contains, by your figures, about 50% of the carcinogenic material that I am ingesting by choice, yes?

I didn't say its not unpleasant, I'm just saying there are no studies out there that definitively prove a link between second hand smoke and cancer.

What a load of rubbish. Many studies HAVE proven a direct link between passive smoking and lung cancer. See:

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/passive.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4214369.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4072121.stm

What a load of rubbish. Many studies HAVE proven a direct link between passive smoking and lung cancer. See:*snip*


Ah, he won't believe you anyway...he'll just call it liberal propoganda.

I see EmoBuddy has never been within 100 feet of anyone who smokes

Smoking kills, dude.

I'm guessing you smoke, by your reaction to these studies. I don't care if you do, it's your choice to ruin your body.

I can say that I'm allergic to tobacco smoke. If you want to smoke, do it away from me.
I believe you meant:
Smoking kills people who accept the risks of smoking, dude.
I do not smoke.
If you were allergic to peanuts, does that mean we should ban peanuts?

I dare you to stay next to a smoking smoker for 24 hours and tell me you don't feel like shit after that.

Just continue breathing whatever he/she breathes out.

Yeah, but how many people stand next to a smoker for 24 hours straight? Somebody might get a whiff of second hand smoke a few times a day, but that is nothing compared to what you're suggesting...

Of course NO conservative would ever think second-hand smoke was wrong..after all, only liberals are anti-smoking...

That or he smokes, so doesn't notice otehr people's smoke.

If you were allergic to peanuts, does that mean we should ban peanuts?

That's why we ban the tossing of peanuts on allergic persons, or force-feeding them peanuts.

Yeah, but how many people stand next to a smoker for 24 hours straight? Somebody might get a whiff of second hand smoke a few times a day, but that is nothing compared to what you're suggesting...
I assume you've looked over the evidence provided by EmoBuddy...now look over the evidence provided by Europland.


Edit: I've just graduated to the coveted level of Miss Pacman Lover! Yay me!

Yeah, but how many people stand next to a smoker for 24 hours straight? Somebody might get a whiff of second hand smoke a few times a day, but that is nothing compared to what you're suggesting...

Have you ever worked in a bar?

Have you ever worked in a bar?
Or a bingo-hall, or a restaurant that allows smoking...

What a load of rubbish. Many studies HAVE proven a direct link between passive smoking and lung cancer. See:

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/passive.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4214369.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4072121.stm
Oh please.....did you actually READ the studies? Or did you just stick in the first thing that came up on google. Well, I did read the studies, and was sorely disappointed that (surprise, surprise) they DID NOT show a definitive link between passive smoke and cancer. For instance, the first site you listed there was not a study, but rather a summary of studies. When I looked at the studies they mentioned, most could not be found, and the few that could said nothing:

Source #6
Advertisement, no study found.

Source #7
Did not even address secondhand smoke.

Source #8
Best link they could findwas "casual link" with some minor respiratory diseases (not cancer) - whatever that means.


Source #15
Conclusions Results are consistent with prior reports that never-smokers currently exposed to ETS have about 20% higher CHD death rates. However, our data do not show consistent dose-response trends and are possibly subject to confounding by unmeasured risk factors.

Of course NO conservative would ever think second-hand smoke was wrong..after all, only liberals are anti-smoking...
I am talking about the liberal campaign to ban smoking....just because the campaign is liberal doesnt mean conservatives can't be involved in it (though I doubt many are). By acting under the campaign, you become liberal if only in that position.

I see EmoBuddy has never been within 100 feet of anyone who smokes
No never. What's it like? :rolleyes:

I am talking about the liberal campaign to ban smoking....just because the campaign is liberal doesnt mean conservatives can't be involved in it (though I doubt many are). By acting under the campaign, you become liberal if only in that position.

Black, white, "with us, against us"... some people just never learn, do they?

I am talking about the liberal campaign to ban smoking....just because the campaign is liberal doesnt mean conservatives can't be involved in it (though I doubt many are). By acting under the campaign, you become liberal if only in that position.
So you're a conservative in liberal clothing if you want to ban smoking?

It really angers me the way many liberals rail against the propoganda and oppression supposedly spread by the government and corporations, then go and spread bullshit of their own. Case in point: Secondhand smoke. Yet another instance in which anti-corporate liberals have skewed the facts and used media hype to push an agenda.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm?z=1837_00000_0000_ep_01
http://www.smokingsection.com/issues1.html#smoke
http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html

I especially like the third one, which cites actual articles re: secondhand smoke and then looks at the studies and discusses them.

Emo, the day you get an air filter built into your trachea is the day I don't care that you smoke. Smoking is rude and smoker health problems are a drag on society.

Have you ever worked in a bar?

No. I’m only 16. And incidentally, it’s illegal to smoke in bars over here anyway. Though I acknowledge the point which you were trying to make - yes, for people working bars in the past, there has been quite a health risk -. that's not really relevent to what I was saying...

No. I’m only 16. And incidentally, it’s illegal to smoke in bars over here anyway. Though I acknowledge the point which you were trying to make - yes, for people working bars in the past, there has been quite a health risk -. that's not really relevent to what I was saying...

What were you trying to say?

No. I’m only 16. And incidentally, it’s illegal to smoke in bars over here anyway. Though I acknowledge the point which you were trying to make - yes, for people working bars in the past, there has been quite a health risk -. that's not really relevent to what I was saying...

Been a child with a smoking parent?

" Children regularly exposed to smoking are three times more likely to contract lung cancer in later life than those in non-smoking homes, research suggests."

Of course, taht has nothing to do with second hand smoke, right? The articles you attacked say what they claim - you obviously can't read. The first was an ad? I clicked the link and found an article. Maybe it only likes evil liberals...

Black, white, "with us, against us"... some people just never learn, do they?
I guess I don't.....I'm saying that's it's a liberal campaign in the sense that it's striving to change something. If someone who identifies themself as a conservative joins the campaign that would be a liberal thing to do, would it not?

I guess I don't.....I'm saying that's it's a liberal campaign in the sense that it's striving to change something. If someone who identifies themself as a conservative joins the campaign that would be a liberal thing to do, would it not?

No, because wanting change is nothing inherent to liberalism. And resisting change is not inherent in conservatism, either, despite the name. Conservatives change things all the time, like constitutions and what "proof" is considered to be...

Oh, and not being conservative != being liberal, or vice versa. There are shades! And there are other scales!

Been a child with a smoking parent?
Oh oh! Pick me, pick me!

My mom smokes like a copy of the Sears Catologue when you throw it on the fire...

It was really bad when we took roadtrips in the winter, because she refused to roll down the window for fear of getting cold. My pediatrician finally told her that my tonsilitus was being set off by her smoking. I hate the stench that clings to you, even when you don't smoke yourself...

In that case, social security reform is a liberal campaign, right? So is the Patriot Act - it changed a hell of a lot, right?

... and for the record, I'm not a conservative. I'm a liberal, who doesn't believe in banning smoking fullstop. If people smoke in private, like at home or in some back alley why should we care? It's their lives at risk.
I think banning smoking entirely in bars is all a little extreme too, also. We could allow for some bars to allow smoking, especially if they can provide a separate area for non-smokers to escape the fumes.

The bottom line is, banning smoking altogether isn't a very liberal thing to do.

" Children regularly exposed to smoking are three times more likely to contract lung cancer in later life than those in non-smoking homes, research suggests."
I don't see the word proof or prove in there....besides if that was from the CLASH site you obviously didn't read the discussion below.

Not to mention that your risk of contracting lung cancer is low to begin with, so tripling it does not necessarily mean that your overall risk factor is great. What is the risk factor for smokers? 50x? 100x?

The bottom line is, banning smoking altogether isn't a very liberal thing to do.

Surely banning anything isn't a very liberal thing to do, or are you using that new weird American sense of the word?

In that case, social security reform is a liberal campaign, right? So is the Patriot Act - it changed a hell of a lot, right?
Liberal in the sense it is trying to change something that has been traditionally accepted by society...please don't get off topic with this foolish nitpicking. It doesn't even matter if it's liberals: [i]somebody[i] is still doing it.

One of the biggest campaigners in Canada for tougher smoking restricitions...the one who got all those nasty pictures put on packs of cigarrettes, is a redneck conservative who would be pretty put out to be called liberal.

Bullshit. My grandma never smoked a day in her life but ended up dying from a particularly malignant form of throat cancer. The first time she went into the doctor the thing that immediately came out of his mouth was the question if she had smoked a lot. She hadn't, but she had worked in an office building where almost everybody else smoked for about 40 years.

Been a child with a smoking parent?

Yes. My father smokes, my mother gave up a few years back. Both always went outside to smoke, or at least to the other end of the house. My exposure to second hand smoke will have been very limited, and doubt it's a serious health risk even worth thinking about.

I guess I don't.....I'm saying that's it's a liberal campaign in the sense that it's striving to change something. If someone who identifies themself as a conservative joins the campaign that would be a liberal thing to do, would it not?
Wanting to change things doesn't make you liberal. Wanting to change things to give more freedom is liberal. Wanting to change things to restrict freedom is reactionary.

So you're a conservative in liberal clothing if you want to ban smoking?
Hold on, I thought that conservatives want to ban drugs.

Liberal in the sense it is trying to change something that has been traditionally accepted by society...please don't get off topic with this foolish nitpicking. It doesn't even matter if it's liberals: [i]somebody[i] is still doing it.
Well since you initially blame it all on liberals, yes it does matter. Otherwise, retract your first post.

Bullshit. My grandma never smoked a day in her life but ended up dying from a particularly malignant form of throat cancer. The first time she went into the doctor the thing that immediately came out of his mouth was the question if she had smoked a lot. She hadn't, but she had worked in an office building where almost everybody else smoked for about 40 years.
One (unproven) instance does not prove an inherent pattern. How old was your grandma?

You realise that breathing in carbon monoxide doesn't kill you, right? No, the shut down of your organs when you breath CO does. So there isn't really a direct link to that either...

Yes. My father smokes, my mother gave up a few years back. Both always went outside to smoke, or at least to the other end of the house. My exposure to second hand smoke will have been very limited, and doubt it's a serious health risk even worth thinking about.

Ask yourself why your parents didn't want to subject you to it.

Also consider that not all parents are as smart in their stupidity as yours.

Liberal in the sense it is trying to change something that has been traditionally accepted by society...please don't get off topic with this foolish nitpicking. It doesn't even matter if it's liberals: [i]somebody[i] is still doing it.

It really angers me the way many liberals rail against the propoganda and oppression supposedly spread by the government and corporations, then go and spread bullshit of their own.

Huh?

Hold on, I thought that conservatives want to ban drugs.
No, I was referring to the post by Emo that stated that even if you were a conservative trying to ban smoking, you were ACTUALLY a liberal.

Oh oh! Pick me, pick me!

My mom smokes like a copy of the Sears Catologue when you throw it on the fire...

It was really bad when we took roadtrips in the winter, because she refused to roll down the window for fear of getting cold. My pediatrician finally told her that my tonsilitus was being set off by her smoking. I hate the stench that clings to you, even when you don't smoke yourself...

I can relate. When my parents came to visit when I graduated boot camp (two months gloriously free of smokers), they rolled up the windows in the car and both lit up. I almost vomitted.

I had a lung capacity test done as part of an experiment. The tester noted I had a lower level than normal. The first question he asked me (since I marked nonsmoker on the questionaire) was "did or do you live w/ smokers?"

No, no relation at all to 2nd hand smoke. [sarcasm]

You realise that breathing in carbon monoxide doesn't kill you, right? No, the shut down of your organs when you breath CO does. So there isn't really a direct link to that either...

Don't forget that there is no link direct link between cancer and death! No one knows why or how cancer kills in most cases...

Ok fine, I relinquish my charge that "liberals" are responsible for this. Clearly, I meant "typically liberal people who run the anti-smoking campaigns" but you guys were too immature to understand that and instead chose to rip me to pieces over the word liberal rather than focusing on the studies.

honestly, i dont care if second hand smoke is bad for me. its gross, and all non smokers hate it.

Ok fine, I relinquish my charge that "liberals" are responsible for this. Clearly, I meant "typically liberal people who run the anti-smoking campaigns"

What is a typical liberal? Are you aware that being "liberal" is different in different places?

Ok fine, I relinquish my charge that "liberals" are responsible for this. Clearly, I meant "typically liberal people who run the anti-smoking campaigns" but you guys were too immature to understand that and instead chose to rip me to pieces over the word liberal rather than focusing on the studies.

We were too immature to understand that when you wrote one thing, you actually meant something else? I wasn't aware that telepathy came with maturity.

I can relate. When my parents came to visit when I graduated boot camp (two months gloriously free of smokers), they rolled up the windows in the car and both lit up. I almost vomitted.

I had a lung capacity test done as part of an experiment. The tester noted I had a lower level than normal. The first question he asked me (since I marked nonsmoker on the questionaire) was "did or do you live w/ smokers?"

No, no relation at all to 2nd hand smoke. [sarcasm]
I never said second hand smoke is harmless, merely that it doesn't necessarily cause cancer and that the anti-smoking campaigns have spread propoganda that says it does. I have no doubt that being in close proximity to smokers is not pleasant or good for your health, but so is having parents who don't care about their children or alcoholic parents - it's the parent's choices that are hurting their children, not necessarily the method they use to do it.

Also, it's very possible you had a lower level than normal to begin with.

Surely banning anything isn't a very liberal thing to do, or are you using that new weird American sense of the word?

I use the world 'liberal' to mean tolerant - generally anyway. What you say is ludicrous. Banning acts which don't cause harm to others non-consenting isn't very liberal (which is what I mean by 'banning smoking outright'. If people smoke in their own homes, it's their health at risk and their own business). Laying down the law for murder and anything which causes others harm is justified whatever political beliefs you hold.

We were too immature to understand that when you wrote one thing, you actually meant something else? I wasn't aware that telepathy came with maturity.
This was about second hand smoke, not the definition of who is a liberal. You knew that.

Don't forget that there is no link direct link between cancer and death! No one knows why or how cancer kills in most cases...
Haaahhaaaa! This is true...usually secondary causes get you...

Ok fine, I relinquish my charge that "liberals" are responsible for this. Clearly, I meant "typically liberal people who run the anti-smoking campaigns" but you guys were too immature to understand that and instead chose to rip me to pieces over the word liberal rather than focusing on the studies.
Say what you mean. If you are misunderstood, clarify yourself, as you have now done. But don't hurl insults at people who took you at your word. You are responsible for making yourself clear.

Also, it's very possible you had a lower level than normal to begin with.
flaming now?

Say what you mean. If you are misunderstood, clarify yourself, as you have now done. But don't hurl insults at people who took you at your word. You are responsible for making yourself clear.
I didn't hurl insults....and you are responding to a post in which I clarified myself. What charge have you against me?

flaming now?
!!!! :confused:
THAT"S flaming?!

Ok fine, I relinquish my charge that "liberals" are responsible for this. Clearly, I meant "typically liberal people who run the anti-smoking campaigns" but you guys were too immature to understand that and instead chose to rip me to pieces over the word liberal rather than focusing on the studies.
Questioning the level of maturity of those who questioned your blatant stereotyping is what I am referring to. My charge? Again, you are responsible for making yourself clear. But I already stated that, didn't I.

One (unproven) instance does not prove an inherent pattern. How old was your grandma?
About 55-58. And our family has little to no history of cancer, and no throat cancer.

Ask yourself why your parents didn't want to subject you to it.


I have never said that there isn't a danger in smoking, whether to the smoker or people around him/her. I simply said, and put it to you now, if people choose to smoke in private (away from others) then what business is it of yours? It's just like sex.

Restricting smoking in public places I am open to. But banning smoking outright is insane, and certainly not what I would call 'liberal'.

Also consider that not all parents are as smart in their stupidity as yours.

Yes, and that's sad. But the way to fix the problem is through public education, like is being done here in New Zealand. There's currently a large media campaign going.

Questioning the level of maturity of those who questioned your blatant stereotyping is what I am referring to. My charge? Again, you are responsible for making yourself clear. But I already stated that, didn't I.

What's up? You are being a wee bit more aggresive than ususal! :fluffle:

In any case, Emo, a lot of the information out there is not focused solely on cancer...it is focused on more immediate health concerns that aggravate pre-existing conditions, or trigger them...such as asthmna, ear infections, bronchitis, etc. Cancer is kind of the big one, but the 'little' ones can be quite dangerous too, especially to children. Is it just the cancer issue that bothers you?

What's up? You are being a wee bit more aggresive than ususal! :fluffle:
Na, just nitpicky:)

Edit: I just don't see smoking as a liberal vs. conservative issue I guess.

Just jumpin' in here after reading all the posts..
Well, for starters, "Liberal", "liberal" and other such words obviously mean different things to different people. For the U.S., the context means that someone is more of a social democrat than the other 51 percent of the populations. (Call them Republicans, call them conservatives....call them the lunatic fringe)..In Canada, liberal means something altogether different. The Liberals at times here have proven themselves to be right of the conservatives and willing to support, for example, security measures in concert with the American "war on terror". I think we are really talking not only about the issue of smoking, but the issue of liberalism and what it means.
For the record, I think that there is no reason why there cannot be smoking bars and non-smoking bars... like liscenced or non-liscenced restaurants. The smokers can go somewhere to smoke and drink, and the drinkers can go somewhere to drink and not smoke, and the people who like to do neither can stay home :) (or go to un-liscenced restaurants) There is no reason to ban outright, but categories of liscences can be created to deal with the problem.
Just a few long-winded thoughts.
USlave

*snip*
USlave
Maybe people who work in the smoking bars, or smoking areas should have masks? It might not be as fun to hit on the bartender if her face is covered with a respirator though... :D

I surrender this thread, but not my views. Debating here has gotten to the point where you get so swamped with inconsequential nitpicking that no one ever discusses the real topic at hand. Sad, isn't it?

I surrender this thread, but not my views. Debating here has gotten to the point where you get so swamped with inconsequential nitpicking that no one ever discusses the real topic at hand. Sad, isn't it?

Yeah. I know what you mean. Nobody has even answered my question, they're more interested in debating the term 'liberal'.

I surrender this thread, but not my views. Debating here has gotten to the point where you get so swamped with inconsequential nitpicking that no one ever discusses the real topic at hand. Sad, isn't it?
Ay Emo, don't give up...the thread just evolved, as threads are wont to do...I think we can get back to the issue at hand if we leave liberals and conservatives out of it.

You're right, putting up links to credible articles that contradict your views is DEFINATELY nitpicking, and not the subject that was meant to be argued about.

Yeah. I know what you mean. Nobody has even answered my question, they're more interested in debating the term 'liberal'.
You'd think neither of you have ever strayed from the main topic before...or had your initial statements questioned....

You're right, putting up links to credible articles that contradict your views is DEFINATELY nitpicking, and not the subject that was meant to be argued about.
I responded to those, but people moved on to "better" things.

You'd think neither of you have ever strayed from the main topic before...or had your initial statements questioned....
Sigh...

JRV: what was your question? I'm not seeing it...

Sinuhue: People are being very selective as to what statements they question...

Since this thread was begun as spam, I think anything goes. :P
USlave

JRV: what was your question? I'm not seeing it...

If a person chooses to smoke in private, what business is it of yours?

I responded to those, but people moved on to "better" things.No, you completely dismissed them, then retracted your statment about it all being a liberal plot. Is your point only that there is not a completely proveable link between cancer and second hand smoke? I'm trying to clarify here, because you started this thread, and now you aren't really saying much...

Since this thread was begun as spam, I think anything goes. :P
USlave
Na...that was a different one:) This one started with a real topic.

If a person chooses to smoke in private, what business is it of yours?
Ah, thanks.

I don't care if someone smokes in private...but I don't think that's the issue here, since we are talking about second hand smoke, not banning smoking completely. Of course, we can't go into someone's home and make them smoke outside if they live with someone...we can try to educate them so they CHOOSE to do so, but I don't support making it illegal (my god, how would you enforce that?)

I DO care that when I am in a public building, that I am not forced to breath in someone else's smoke. Smoking areas outside are fine, as long as they aren't directly in the path of people going in and out of the building.

I am very liberal and i don't think smoking should be banned outright either. If people want to smoke in the privacy of their own homes, that's their perogative. I would just hope that if they have kids they would be responsible enough not to smoke around them. As for the bars, i agree with the poster who said their should be smoking and non-smoking bars, that way people could have a choice which ones to go to, and hopefully, which ones to work at. I do think there should be some restrictions in public places, as there are with alcohol, but i would never want to make it illegal. I think all drugs should be legal.

As for the bars, i agree with the poster who said their should be smoking and non-smoking bars, that way people could have a choice which ones to go to, and hopefully, which ones to work at.
How do you protect the workers though? You can't as a worker choose to wear safety equipment or not around asbestos (well, you can, but according to safety standards you MUST wear proper protective gear)...so how could we allow people to CHOOSE to work in smoking bars without some sort of safety precautions?

I don't think smoking should be banned, but I think people should be aware of the risks, be they cancer or other diseases - and, as I recall, you agree that there are health effects to second hand smoke, you only dispute cancer. Even without cancer, there are plenty of risks to second hand smoke that people should know about.

Both of my parents smoke, and have for over 23 years that they have been together, i say mom dad your killing me and they say well get away from me. what they do not realize is they are killing me more than there selves..

I bring this up, because there is the potential for class action lawsuits when you know that there is exposure in a workplace to hazardous materials, and you do nothing to deal with that hazard. I think this is why they are banning it outright...what kind of regulations would be needed to provide safety for employees in smoking workplaces? It would probably be impossible to do, short of full body suits....

I think people should be aware of the risks. We should educate people, so that if someone chooses to work at a smoking bar, they go into it armed with the proper information. I do think though that they should also be allowed some way to protect themselves, as all workers should, regardless of their vocation and the dangers involved.

Ah, thanks.

I don't care if someone smokes in private...but I don't think that's the issue here, since we are talking about second hand smoke, not banning smoking completely. Of course, we can't go into someone's home and make them smoke outside if they live with someone...we can try to educate them so they CHOOSE to do so, but I don't support making it illegal (my god, how would you enforce that?)

I DO care that when I am in a public building, that I am not forced to breath in someone else's smoke. Smoking areas outside are fine, as long as they aren't directly in the path of people going in and out of the building.

Second hand smoke is roughly as bad for you and can be linked to as many things that are bad for you as exhaust from cars. How many hours do you drive a day? How many exhaust fumes do you breath in? I'd give a crap about the 2nd hand smoking issue in this world today if it was actually meaningful but eliminating 2nd hand smoke hardly eliminates a serious health risk to anyone.

And Armed Bookworms, bugger off. Your grandmother made a choice to work in an environment filled with smokers day in and day out. That was her choice and if she developed throat cancer because of it that would be a direct result of her actions and no one else’s.

but I don't think that's the issue here

I can't remember why I brought it up, but it was initially in response to what somebody said a few pages back. In fact, it's possible I have threads confused. But whatever. Most anti-smoking groups I know of seem to want an outright ban.

EDIT: And by private, I mean anywhere where there are no people to complain about second-hand smoke. Whether it's a back alley, a smoking bar. Whatever.

How do you protect the workers though? You can't as a worker choose to wear safety equipment or not around asbestos (well, you can, but according to safety standards you MUST wear proper protective gear)...so how could we allow people to CHOOSE to work in smoking bars without some sort of safety precautions?

If workers choose to work in a bar that allows smoking that is their damn choice and no one forced them to make it. Banning smoking because people choose to work in an environment that allows smoking makes absolutely no sense.

And Armed Bookworms, bugger off. Your grandmother made a choice to work in an environment filled with smokers day in and day out. That was her choice and if she developed throat cancer because of it that would be a direct result of her actions and no one else’s.
Wow...that was incredibly insensitive.

Information about the dangers of second hand smoke are pretty recent. Do you blame the workers that blew asbestos into attics for not knowing it would give them asbestosis? Do you begrude workers now working (usually removing) asbestos the safety equipment now required?

Your analogy to car fumes is only applicable if you are someone who has high exposure to these fumes (as a person working in a smoking bar has high exposure to second hand smoke). Of course, someone with high exposure to car exhaust also is at risk for some of the same related health problems such as asthma, CPOD, and so on.

If workers choose to work in a bar that allows smoking that is their damn choice and no one forced them to make it. Banning smoking because people choose to work in an environment that allows smoking makes absolutely no sense.

Agreed.

I can't remember why I brought it up, but it was initially in response to what somebody said a few pages back. In fact, it's possible I have threads confused. But whatever. Most anti-smoking groups I know of seem to want an outright ban.

EDIT: And by private, I mean anywhere where there are no people to complain about second-hand smoke. Whether it's a back alley, a smoking bar. Whatever.
If you can show me any group that wants an outright ban (I'm assuming you mean in the home, and the back alleys?) I'd be quite surprised...I think they're focusing on workplaces, aren't they? Again, how could you possibly police everyone's home? And who would want to?

I'm a smoker. I'll openly admit I'm killing myself. Although I try to practice discretion and not smoke around people who don't like it.

But yes, second hand smoke will do damage to you if you sit long enough around it. If you want proof, go to a bowling alley that allows smoking ( I used to work in one) all of the non-smokers essentially have the same condition as the smokers because there is so much smoke inside of the building.

Wow...that was incredibly insensitive.

Information about the dangers of second hand smoke are pretty recent. Do you blame the workers that blew asbestos into attics for not knowing it would give them asbestosis? Do you begrude workers now working (usually removing) asbestos the safety equipment now required?

Your analogy to car fumes is only applicable if you are someone who has high exposure to these fumes (as a person working in a smoking bar has high exposure to second hand smoke). Of course, someone with high exposure to car exhaust also is at risk for some of the same related health problems such as asthma, CPOD, and so on.

What about going for a strole through a city like New York? You're telling me the exposure to car and other fumes is not high?

What about going for a strole through a city like New York? You're telling me the exposure to car and other fumes is not high?
Ah, but the difficulty in banning all automobiles is prohibitive...banning smoking in the workplace is not.

Wow...that was incredibly insensitive.

Thank you, this world places far to much worth in being "sensitive" and speaking what someone believes to be truth. If I'm wrong, fine. But I'll not hold back my opinion for fear of someone's misguided feelings.

Information about the dangers of second hand smoke are pretty recent. Do you blame the workers that blew asbestos into attics for not knowing it would give them asbestosis? Do you begrude workers now working (usually removing) asbestos the safety equipment now required?

Study information about smoking being bad for you is somewhat recent; knowledge about it being bad for has been around for a very long time.

Your analogy to car fumes is only applicable if you are someone who has high exposure to these fumes (as a person working in a smoking bar has high exposure to second hand smoke). Of course, someone with high exposure to car exhaust also is at risk for some of the same related health problems such as asthma, CPOD, and so on.

My analogy for car fumes has nothing to do with someone working in a bar. So read it again till you can show a level of comprehension to determine what it was referring to.

Here's a hint though. The average person is exposed to car fumes more than they are to cigarette smoke. And we hear no one making claims to ban gasoline and diesel engine due to health risks.

Second hand smoke is roughly as bad for you and can be linked to as many things that are bad for you as exhaust from cars. How many hours do you drive a day? How many exhaust fumes do you breath in? I'd give a crap about the 2nd hand smoking issue in this world today if it was actually meaningful but eliminating 2nd hand smoke hardly eliminates a serious health risk to anyone.


Thank you. While I do agree that second hand smoke is unhealthy, I have never understood the extreme amounts of attention underwhich it has been brought to bear given the (lack of) enviornmental regulations regarding automobiles, factories, etc.

It seems like a game of smoke (pardon the pun) and mirrors.

Ah, but the difficulty in banning all automobiles is prohibitive...banning smoking in the workplace is not.

And that matters? We should take away choice, and a massive industry that pays a huge amount of taxes (hint hint, the reason why its not gone anyway) because its less "prohibitive" bah. Taking away your right to free speech would make things easier as well.

If you can show me any group that wants an outright ban (I'm assuming you mean in the home, and the back alleys?) I'd be quite surprised...I think they're focusing on workplaces, aren't they? Again, how could you possibly police everyone's home? And who would want to?

Admittedly I couldn't name any groups which would be relevent to you, as I live on the other side of the world. But be assured, there are people in New Zealand who would like to outlaw smoking.

How would they police it? The same way they'd police a ban on parents smacking their children. Besides - all you have to do is bar retailers from selling cigarettes.

So far I don't think anybody of signifigance has suggested such a ban, but one or two MP's recommend introducing a tax for smokers.

My great grandmother died of emphesema because my great grandfather smoked all the time in the house.

I don't care if people smoke. I'm glad it's illegal in bars without enclosures now. I like it when I go home and don't smell like smoke.

Thank you, this world places far to much worth in being "sensitive" and speaking what someone believes to be truth. If I'm wrong, fine. But I'll not hold back my opinion for fear of someone's misguided feelings.

I'm sure you're a riot at family functions..*uncomfortable silence*


Study information about smoking being bad for you is somewhat recent; knowledge about it being bad for has been around for a very long time.
People tend not to believe things until they have been proven. Yeah, they knew it was 'bad'...they didn't know it could kill you. Kind of like asbestos.



My analogy for car fumes has nothing to do with someone working in a bar. So read it again till you can show a level of comprehension to determine what it was referring to.
You are the one who made the comparison.
Second hand smoke is roughly as bad for you and can be linked to as many things that are bad for you as exhaust from cars. How many hours do you drive a day? How many exhaust fumes do you breath in? I'd give a crap about the 2nd hand smoking issue in this world today if it was actually meaningful but eliminating 2nd hand smoke hardly eliminates a serious health risk to anyone.
Plenty of things are MORE dangerous than second hand smoke. It doesn't mean we should ignore everything below a danger level of x. You state that eliminating second hand smoke 'hardly eliminates a serious health risk to anyone'...are you denying it poses a risk to people working in places where smoking is rampant? Or are you solely focused on car fumes? Perhaps you should start campaining for a ban on cars if that is all that worries you...

Thank you. While I do agree that second hand smoke is unhealthy, I have never understood the extreme amounts of attention underwhich it has been brought to bear given the (lack of) enviornmental regulations regarding automobiles, factories, etc.

It seems like a game of smoke (pardon the pun) and mirrors.
Apples to oranges...do you begrude the attention prenatal exposure to alcohol has (FASD) simply because it is more dangerous to shoot heroin while pregnant?

Ah, but the difficulty in banning all automobiles is prohibitive...banning smoking in the workplace is not.

Pft. I'm not suggesting a ban on automobiles, I'm just pointing out (as the previous person was trying to) that the fumes from automobiles is just as concerning as second smoking. And you don't have to ban cars outright in order to combat pollution, governments could take other initiatives (which they aren't - instead worrying about banning smoking in bars).

And you say 'workplaces'... some people work on construction sites and the likes, surrounded by all sorts of city fumes.

I'm sure you're a riot at family functions..*uncomfortable silence*

Family function compared to a random idiot on the internet? Sorry, I have no vested interest in maintaining any sort of “sensitivity” with some random idiot who blames others for their own grandmother’s choice.

People tend not to believe things until they have been proven. Yeah, they knew it was 'bad'...they didn't know it could kill you. Kind of like asbestos.

Actually, we didn't know asbestos was bad, nor is it even... unless it gets knocked down or when you are spraying it. But that’s beside the point of this thread

You are the one who made the comparison.

Except that I, get this, didn't. I made a comparison between the average person's exposure to 2nd hand smoke and their exposure to exhaust fumes. Nothing else. So, no, I didn't make the comparsion you decided to address.

Plenty of things are MORE dangerous than second hand smoke. It doesn't mean we should ignore everything below a danger level of x.

Yes it does. If we do not draw a line at what we do and do not care about we should all be locked away in padded rooms and only eat with our hands, which are restrained to make it impossible for us to choke ourselves. Slippery slope? Damn straight. But then your the one advocating it by saying we shouldn't ignore things below danger level of X.

You state that eliminating second hand smoke 'hardly eliminates a serious health risk to anyone'...are you denying it poses a risk to people working in places where smoking is rampant?

Those people made a choice to work in... that’s right a smoke filled in environment. I don't care about anyone who decides to work in an environment that is smoke filled, especially today where they are making a very informed decision.

Or are you solely focused on car fumes? Perhaps you should start campaining for a ban on cars if that is all that worries you...

I don't care about car fumes either. I'm demonstrating the point that car fumes realistically pose more danger to the average person, and no one here cares about them so caring about 2nd hand smoke makes little to no sense.

I didn't say its not unpleasant, I'm just saying there are no studies out there that definitively prove a link between second hand smoke and cancer.

Smoke is smoke regardless of the source. It's bad for you to be inhaling smoke from any source.

Pft. I'm not suggesting a ban on automobiles, I'm just pointing out (as the previous person was trying to) that the fumes from automobiles is just as concerning as second smoking. And you don't have to ban cars outright in order to combat pollution, governments could take other initiatives (which they aren't - instead worrying about banning smoking in bars).Absolutely governments aren't doing enough about pollution caused by automobiles...but then again, who has more pull...tobacco companies or oil/automobile companies?

And you say 'workplaces'... some people work on construction sites and the likes, surrounded by all sorts of city fumes.
Mmmmhmmm...right, and in order to stop their exposure, it would take massive effort, which is probably why it isn't a huge agenda item (which it should be).

Apples to oranges...do you begrude the attention prenatal exposure to alcohol has (FASD) simply because it is more dangerous to shoot heroin while pregnant?

Blueberries to grape fruits. The health risk of 2nd hand smoke and car fumes is realistically virtual nil. Mean while both of the things you just mentioned are both serious health risks.

Hmm. How many megatons of noxious cancer causing chemicals are emitted by gas and diesel burning, do you think? How many megatons of second hand smoke?

I would say (without knowing the exact answers to those questions) that auto pollution is FAR WORSE than secondhand smoke in the overall scheme of things. People generally go on about cigarette smoke because cigarettes are becoming un-PC (heh, becoming), unfashionable, and the secondhand smoke and health issues are secondary to purely social forces driving people to blame smokers and tobacco companies disproportionately to their actual damage in this world.

Blueberries to grape fruits. The health risk of 2nd hand smoke and car fumes is realistically virtual nil. Mean while both of the things you just mentioned are both serious health risks.
So your whole basis for this argument is that you believe second hand smoke poses no (sorry 'virtually nil') health risk?

Hmm. How many megatons of noxious cancer causing chemicals are emitted by gas and diesel burning, do you think? How many megatons of second hand smoke?

I would say (without knowing the exact answers to those questions) that auto pollution is FAR WORSE than secondhand smoke in the overall scheme of things. People generally go on about cigarette smoke because cigarettes are becoming un-PC (heh, becoming), unfashionable, and the secondhand smoke and health issues are secondary to purely social forces driving people to blame smokers and tobacco companies disproportionately to their actual damage in this world.
Agreed. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with second hand smoke.

Perhaps we should ban cars too? They emit tons of pollution that could be inhaled.

Chances are that you aren't going to be around smokers in public places LONG enough to suffer any serious effects. So please, why should it be banned? Woopity doo if someone smokes. It's their choice. ESPECIALLY in private places.

Absolutely governments aren't doing enough about pollution caused by automobiles...but then again, who has more pull...tobacco companies or oil/automobile companies?

If you're not that concerned about driving (or even walking) through a city, then why should you be so concerned about second hand smoke?

Agreed. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with second hand smoke.

Or, let people choose how to direct their own lives. If you don't want to be next to a smoke, MOVE. If you can't move, then deal with it that time. Chances are you're not going to die right then and there.

Or, let people choose how to direct their own lives. If you don't want to be next to a smoke, MOVE. If you can't move, then deal with it that time. Chances are you're not going to die right then and there.

Absolutely right. Only, if you’re in a place from which you cannot move away, then the smoker should be barred from smoking there.

So your whole basis for this argument is that you believe second hand smoke poses no (sorry 'virtually nil') health risk?

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate that it causes any health risk superior to cars driving the road?

I believe the listed chance of increase was 3 times for cancer right? What’s your normal chance for cancer anyway? Increasing that by 3 times is meaningless. If you have a .2% chance of getting cancer increasing it 3 times simply gives you a .6% chance of getting cancer. That is virtually nil.

But then, I doubt your base chance of getting cancer is anywhere near as high as .2% anyway.

If you're not that concerned about driving (or even walking) through a city, then why should you be so concerned about second hand smoke?
For one thing, I never said I wasn't worried about car emissions. However, I live in the the country, and my exposure to them are not really that high. Not the point however. My point is, second hand smokes poses a health risk, more to those who are exposed often (workers in a bar, as the example). That is why I support smoking being banned in workplaces. I pointed out the pull of the auto lobby to show why I think the government isn't doing enough to deal with auto pollution...not to say one is worse than the other.

Funny...this isn't really an issue that affects me much, but I just find it strange that people are denying something like this poses a health risk...

Absolutely right. Only, if you’re in a place from which you cannot move away, then the smoker should be barred from smoking there.
Like right next to your dinner table...OR IN YOUR WORKPLACE.

Absolutely right. Only, if you’re in a place from which you cannot move away, then the smoker should be barred from smoking there.

Why? What if it's just a congested street or something like that? The polite thing to do would be to ask the smoker to move or put out their cigarette. Some people may be jerks about it, some might not be. Besides, how many public places would be like that unless the smoking would DIRECTLY cause something hazardous - such as explosion or somesuch (you would need to inhale a lot more smoke than one day to suffer the effects of second-hand smoke).

Like right next to your dinner table...OR IN YOUR WORKPLACE.

a workplace, being a private entity, has every right to bar smoking on their property.

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate that it causes any health risk superior to cars driving the road?

I believe the listed chance of increase was 3 times for cancer right? What’s your normal chance for cancer anyway? Increasing that by 3 times is meaningless. If you have a .2% chance of getting cancer increasing it 3 times simply gives you a .6% chance of getting cancer. That is virtually nil.

But then, I doubt your base chance of getting cancer is anywhere near as high as .2% anyway.
Again, you are completely missing the point. Never did I say one is worse than the other...only that both are bad, and I suspect one is being dealt with more than the other for logistical as well as political reasons.

Cancer of course is not the main issue, as I have said before...as with auto fumes, other health problems (asthma so on and so on...tired of repeating myself) are certainly made worse by exposure. Some people are more at risk than others of course.

Funny...this isn't really an issue that affects me much, but I just find it strange that people are denying something like this poses a health risk...

Hey, I have a question. Since sex poses the risk to get an STD, should we ban it? Or restrict it and regulate it?

a workplace, being a private entity, has every right to bar smoking on their property.
Are we disagreeing about something here? :p

Are we disagreeing about something here? :p

I don't know. :confused:

Hey, I have a question. Since sex poses the risk to get an STD, should we ban it? Or restrict it and regulate it?
:rolleyes: What part of "I support banning smoking in the workplace" is so radical that you start getting frothy at the mouth like this? I've stated again and again that I don't care if people smoke, that we should never try to make it illegal, but I'm fine with not having to go into a restaurant and breath in someone's Malboros. Go smoke outside.

I can't completely see how the two issues are related. The issue of cars and emissions is an issue of long-term damage caused to the environment. Smoking is an issue of people's experiences within a confined space that has a negligible environmental effect. The environmental issue of cars is about sustainability and how to reduce the human impact on the natural environment. The issue of second hand smoke is an issue of people's right to control their exposure to a potentially harmful substance. Not banning people's exposure to smoke in public places is not allowing them control over their exposure. This is an issue of rights. Since the studies do not confirm beyond a doubt one way or another, the issue should be about allowing people the greatest control and the greatest amount of choice. This can be handled through keeping liscenced smoking areas and prohibiting exposure in public areas..for me this is very simple.
USlave

Apples to oranges...do you begrude the attention prenatal exposure to alcohol has (FASD) simply because it is more dangerous to shoot heroin while pregnant?

Here again we have a case of propaganda induced perception outweighing the facts. It is actually, it is more dangerous to expose a fetus to alchol or nictone than to heroin - not that I think a someone who plans on carrying a fetus to term should expose the fetus to any of these.

What I am trying to say is that if a person living in an inner-city or near in an area with a large concentration of factories has lung problems, the first thing that tends to spring to mind was 'OMG are they a smoker/have they been exposed to smokers' even in absence of signs of smoke-smell, yellowed teeth, etc and even when other causative factors are more than evident in the enviornment.

I never said the dangers of second hand smoke should be ignored. What I am trying to say is that the hysteria build up around second hand smoke has lead people to ignore the dangers of pollution - like the media/political powers wants us to forget about other irritants and blame just cigarette smoke.

For one thing, I never said I wasn't worried about car emissions. However, I live in the the country, and my exposure to them are not really that high. Not the point however. My point is, second hand smokes poses a health risk, more to those who are exposed often (workers in a bar, as the example). That is why I support smoking being banned in workplaces. I pointed out the pull of the auto lobby to show why I think the government isn't doing enough to deal with auto pollution...not to say one is worse than the other.

But presumably you do visit the city, and do get exposure to the pollution. Yet you are more worried about a co-worker smoking? I agree that it's not fair if you have to put up with somebody smoking in your face all day, but most indoor work places I know of do have like a staffroom, and I doubt many businesses would allow their employees to have a cigarette in one hand all day...

Funny...this isn't really an issue that affects me much, but I just find it strange that people are denying something like this poses a health risk...

For the thousandth time, I don't doubt that there is health risk involved. But I refuse to believe that the risk is so great that we need to get all fanatical about eliminating second hand smoke.

:rolleyes: What part of "I support banning smoking in the workplace" is so radical that you start getting frothy at the mouth like this? I've stated again and again that I don't care if people smoke, that we should never try to make it illegal, but I'm fine with not having to go into a restaurant and breath in someone's Malboros. Go smoke outside.

Go to a restaurant that prohibits smoking.

Again, you are completely missing the point. Never did I say one is worse than the other...only that both are bad, and I suspect one is being dealt with more than the other for logistical as well as political reasons.

Neither should be delt with because neither presents a notable health risk.

Cancer of course is not the main issue, as I have said before...as with auto fumes, other health problems (asthma so on and so on...tired of repeating myself) are certainly made worse by exposure. Some people are more at risk than others of course.

And none of those are increased enough to matter. A mechanic might potentialy face a problem, someone who works in a smoke filled bar their entire life might face a problem, both those are choices both of those peolpe made and they take that risk.

Like right next to your dinner table...OR IN YOUR WORKPLACE.

You CHOOSE WHERE YOU WORK YOU --------

Cheers.

Why? What if it's just a congested street or something like that? The polite thing to do would be to ask the smoker to move or put out their cigarette. Some people may be jerks about it, some might not be. Besides, how many public places would be like that unless the smoking would DIRECTLY cause something hazardous - such as explosion or somesuch (you would need to inhale a lot more smoke than one day to suffer the effects of second-hand smoke).

Okay I retract that part of my statement. I was actually thinking in terms of quite extreme cases, but I guess they’re really not an issue. In every day life, you’re absolutely right and I agree.

It really angers me the way many liberals rail against the propoganda and oppression supposedly spread by the government and corporations, then go and spread bullshit of their own. Case in point: Secondhand smoke. Yet another instance in which anti-corporate liberals have skewed the facts and used media hype to push an agenda.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm?z=1837_00000_0000_ep_01
http://www.smokingsection.com/issues1.html#smoke
http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html

I especially like the third one, which cites actual articles re: secondhand smoke and then looks at the studies and discusses them.

Look you stupid, selfish son of a bitch. Once you die of cancer, or some sort of smoking related illness, who do you think will have to pay for you? Indirectly(through insurance) or directly(the government), will have to pay for your disgusting habit.
Aside from that you are polluting the air, and it is just a flithy habit to have. If you are too weak and selfish to stop smoking, I would suggest you kill yourself now, before we all have to pay for your ignorance.

I can't completely see how the two issues are related. The issue of cars and emissions is an issue of long-term damage caused to the environment. Smoking is an issue of people's experiences within a confined space that has a negligible environmental effect. The environmental issue of cars is about sustainability and how to reduce the human impact on the natural environment. The issue of second hand smoke is an issue of people's right to control their exposure to a potentially harmful substance. Not banning people's exposure to smoke in public places is not allowing them control over their exposure. This is an issue of rights. Since the studies do not confirm beyond a doubt one way or another, the issue should be about allowing people the greatest control and the greatest amount of choice. This can be handled through keeping liscenced smoking areas and prohibiting exposure in public areas..for me this is very simple.
USlave

Actually we're talking about the *health* risk posed to people by automobile fumes. Not the danger they may pose to the environment.

Cheers your pinko hippie ;)

And Sinuhue, if you ban smoking in both

a) public areas (what is that btw? Beaches, public buildings, parks, motorways, the DMV? definre "public areas" for me please)

and

b) the workplace

Would ban smoking pretty much everywhere except your own property.

Go to a restaurant that prohibits smoking.
It's a non issue here. There already is a full smoking ban in public places (not outside...government buildings and so on) and workplaces.

I'm not going to continue to argue whether it is necessary. It's already been decided here.

Look you stupid, selfish son of a bitch. Once you die of cancer, or some sort of smoking related illness, who do you think will have to pay for you? Indirectly(through insurance) or directly(the government), will have to pay for your disgusting habit.
Aside from that you are polluting the air, and it is just a flithy habit to have. If you are too weak and selfish to stop smoking, I would suggest you kill yourself now, before we all have to pay for your ignorance.

Both of those are indirect you little dumbass.

Do the world a favor and jump off a cliff, it'll be fun for you and improve the human race at the same time.

a) public areas (what is that btw? Beaches, public buildings, parks, motorways, the DMV? definre "public areas" for me please)
Public buildings...not outside...though you have to stand away from the doors. This means government buildings and such, libraries...any building paid for by public funds. In Canada, the smoking ban in these places has been around for quite a while.



b) the workplace

Would ban smoking pretty much everywhere except your own property.
This is the more contentious one, but a lot of municipalities are moving to do it. Again, it means inside, not outside. You are free to smoke all you want anywhere but inside a building.

It's a non issue here. There already is a full smoking ban in public places (not outside...government buildings and so on) and workplaces.

I'm not going to continue to argue whether it is necessary. It's already been decided here.

Thankfully, it hasn't been banned here. And get this, I don't smoke.

Cheers ya socialist bastard :p

Thankfully, it hasn't been banned here. And get this, I don't smoke.

Cheers ya socialist bastard :p

*gasp* advocating the rights of others??

Thankfully, it hasn't been banned here. And get this, I don't smoke.

Cheers ya socialist bastard :p
Way to make assumptions, about my politics, my gender, and my parentage:)

Ad hominem is a great way to cover up inadequate arguments. Good work!

Hey, I have a question. Since sex poses the risk to get an STD, should we ban it? Or restrict it and regulate it?

No that’s different. I was going to raise that point myself, but then I thought about it. Two people having consensual sex do run the risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases, but they don’t actually put others at risk. Smokers pass on the health risk to non-smokers.

Both of those are indirect you little dumbass.

Do the world a favor and jump off a cliff, it'll be fun for you and improve the human race at the same time.

Regardless of both of them being direct or indirect, they still cost US money, for your habit. Please don't evade my points with your illogical bullshit, spewed from the mouth of a man whose brain has been disintegrated by smoking.

Yes, so next time confront me properly. Instead of picking at bits of the statement which are arbitary to the argument, very much like a five year old I know.

No that’s different. I was going to raise that point myself, but then I thought about it. Two people having consensual sex do run the risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases, but they don’t actually put others at risk. Smokers pass on the health risk to non-smokers.

Okay then.

:fluffle: No hard feelings all...have a great night!

Way to make assumptions, about my politics, my gender, and my parentage:)

Ad hominem is a great way to cover up inadequate arguments. Good work!

Your the one who ran away from the argument by taking safety in the actions of your foolish country.

Cheers you socialist bastard.

No sarcasm this time.

Actually we're talking about the *health* risk posed to people by automobile fumes. Not the danger they may pose to the environment.

Cheers your pinko hippie ;)

And Sinuhue, if you ban smoking in both

a) public areas (what is that btw? Beaches, public buildings, parks, motorways, the DMV? definre "public areas" for me please)

and

b) the workplace

Would ban smoking pretty much everywhere except your own property.

Well, I think that the issue of the environment and the issue of human health are pretty directly related. My concern is that second hand smoke is not an issue of relating to the enviroment, but an issue of people's right to limit their exposure. Here in Canada, the issue is one of scope. Which public areas and how far reaching legislation should be.

If you are calling me a pinko hippie then I would say you are half right. I aint no hippie :)
USlave

Regardless of both of them being direct or indirect, they still cost US money, for your habit. Please don't evade my points with your illogical bullshit, spewed from the mouth of a man whose brain has been disintegrated by smoking.

Yes, so next time confront me properly. Instead of picking at bits of the statement which are arbitary to the argument, very much like a five year old I know.
I just thought I'd point out:

You're doing your position more harm than good by being insulting... but that's your right...

Way to make assumptions, about my politics, my gender, and my parentage:)

Ad hominem is a great way to cover up inadequate arguments. Good work!

lol, Sinuhue, it seems that Salv here has also harassed you with his bullshit.

Cheers to Salve the five year old of NS!

*throws party*

lol, Sinuhue, it seems that Salv here has also harassed you with his bullshit.

Cheers to Salve the five year old of NS!

*throws party*

and you're what, six?

Regardless of both of them being direct or indirect, they still cost US money, for your habit. Please don't evade my points with your illogical bullshit, spewed from the mouth of a man whose brain has been disintegrated by smoking.

Yes, so next time confront me properly. Instead of picking at bits of the statement which are arbitary to the argument, very much like a five year old I know.

I'll get back to you when you have shown that you have transcended the reading comprehension level of a five year old and can let me know why making any comments about my brain and the affect of smoking makes no sense.

P.S. Smoking has actually been shown to improve memory among other things.

With all the people whining about banning smokng, etc. Why aren't these sme people trying to ban alcohol? I mean, isn't alcohol-related ilnesses/deaths/accidents importnat? After all your whining with this, i would assume that most of the anti-smoking people here drink. Drinking causes more severe and more immediate health problems than smoking. How many peopl ehave you seen start chain smoking one day and end up dead the next day? I have had several friends die from binge drinking. Yes noone is pushing for the banning of alcohol (and if you do, you call them fundies). Drunk drivng kills ALOT more people than second hand smoke. what do you all ahve to say about that?

Okay I retract that part of my statement. I was actually thinking in terms of quite extreme cases, but I guess they’re really not an issue. In every day life, you’re absolutely right and I agree.

wait wait wait. am I sensing deja vu?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8246578&postcount=135

wait wait wait. am I sensing deja vu?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8246578&postcount=135

I deny all existence of a second post. There was no second post. You did not see smoke rising from the grassy *knoll, there was no conspiracy.

With all the people whining about banning smokng, etc. Why aren't these sme people trying to ban alcohol? I mean, isn't alcohol-related ilnesses/deaths/accidents importnat? After all your whining with this, i would assume that most of the anti-smoking people here drink. Drinking causes more severe and more immediate health problems than smoking. How many peopl ehave you seen start chain smoking one day and end up dead the next day? I have had several friends die from binge drinking. Yes noone is pushing for the banning of alcohol (and if you do, you call them fundies). Drunk drivng kills ALOT more people than second hand smoke. what do you all ahve to say about that?

I ahve to asy thta yuor splleing ndeeds wrk.

I love how people are 'whining' when it's an issue that someone doesn't agree with.

I deny all existence of a second post. There was no second post. You did not see smoke rising from the grassy *knoll, there was no conspiracy.

K.

You know, to be fair, I didn't read the first three orginal links right away, but I'm going through them...check this out. The first one:



The study was funded in part by the Center for Indoor Air Research, which the American Cancer Society says is an arm of Philip Morris and other tobacco companies. Enstrom requested and received funding for the study in 1997. Also, the whole article discusses how the study that supposedly shows second hand smoke is 'ok' is completely flawed.

Ay, why bother. First Salvondia says the grandmother died because of second hand smoke, and it was her own fault for exposing herself to it, then he says second hand smoke doesn't negatively affect health. Nor, apparently do car emissions.

With all the people whining about banning smokng, etc. Why aren't these sme people trying to ban alcohol? I mean, isn't alcohol-related ilnesses/deaths/accidents importnat? After all your whining with this, i would assume that most of the anti-smoking people here drink. Drinking causes more severe and more immediate health problems than smoking. How many peopl ehave you seen start chain smoking one day and end up dead the next day? I have had several friends die from binge drinking. Yes noone is pushing for the banning of alcohol (and if you do, you call them fundies). Drunk drivng kills ALOT more people than second hand smoke. what do you all ahve to say about that?

The US tried that in early part of this century and it failed badly. It's better to have a legal market which can be controlled. Smoking is a long term health-hazard like drinking as well, but people have been doing both for quite.

Ay, why bother. First Salvondia says the grandmother died because of second hand smoke,
No I didn't, but then why don't you try and find that quote where I said that. Come on, go ahead and find it. You can't though, because I didn't say it.
and it was her own fault for exposing herself to it,
If that was what affected her health then yes it was her own fault.
then he says second hand smoke doesn't negatively affect health.
That the amount the typical person will experience does not negatively affect their health.

All of my statements were very well qualified and in context. What you have done is to warp them and take them out of context. In effect you have lied.

Nice try though.

You know, to be fair, I didn't read the first three orginal links right away, but I'm going through them...check this out. The first one:



Also, the whole article discusses how the study that supposedly shows second hand smoke is 'ok' is completely flawed.

Ay, why bother. First Salvondia says the grandmother died because of second hand smoke, and it was her own fault for exposing herself to it, then he says second hand smoke doesn't negatively affect health. Nor, apparently do car emissions.

His grandmother was a different generation and what First Salvondia knows about smoking was not available to his grandmother at the time.

His grandmother was a different generation and what First Salvondia knows about smoking was not available to his grandmother at the time.

The intricate details no. That it was a health risk? Yeah people knew it was probably dangerous and hanging around it all day might not be the best thing.

But then he hasn't even addressed any other possible causes for why his grandmother got throat cancer anyway.
Drinking excessively
Inhaling coal, asbestos or diesel fumes
Poor oral hygiene.
Excessive consumption of salty meat.
Abnormal tissue growth (this is a cause, not a symptom)

And oh yeah, Smoking. 2nd hand smoke in LARGE quantity may also be a cause but that is not something that has ever been proven.

What I don't get is where "liberals" got connected with second hand smoke in EmoBuddy's miind.

I mean, eh? Most people I know lean muchly to the so-called left and don't give a shit about someone smoking near them... I know I don't, unless it's my next door neighbour smoking on the balcony utside my door at 2am. It does wake one... More because he ahs an annoying laugh...

Are you claiming that when I, as a smoker, inhale cigarette smoke my body automatically purifies it completely and then releases an entirely harmless substance?

When I was in high school my parents bought 3-family house. One of the tenants (an old woman who smoked) died and after her family cleared out the stuff they wanted I went with my father to clean the rest of the place up.

The walls were that unappealling dull yellow that people tend not to notice because it's so bland. I didn't think much of it because it's a fairly popular decorating scheme, especially with old ladies who don't want to do much maintenance. Then I took down the pictures from the wall.

The walls were painted white. They were merely stained yellow from cigarette smoke.

That said, I really hate the anti smoking ads that are out these days. For the most part they're retarded, like the one that suggests tearing the cigarette ads out of magazines so that people won't be tempted by them (and then the small print says to only do this to your own magazines). Anyone dumb enough to be willing to smoke and can be persuaded not to by these stupid ads just isn't worth the advertising revenue it takes to save them..

There were two notable exceptions along the lines of "would you use a product that kills 1 out of 3 people who use it?" One of them was a spoof Mountain Dew commercial for a fake soda called "'splode" and another spoofed Stridex pads. Those were comedy genius. :D

What I don't get is where "liberals" got connected with second hand smoke in EmoBuddy's miind.

I mean, eh? Most people I know lean muchly to the so-called left and don't give a shit about someone smoking near them... I know I don't, unless it's my next door neighbour smoking on the balcony utside my door at 2am. It does wake one... More because he ahs an annoying laugh...

You're forgetting that a sizable portion of the political right defines "liberal" as "what smart people think therefore I will think the opposite out of spite and don't even have to realize it because most of the words in this sentence aren't part of my vocabulary nor do I understand the use of punctuation required to make this run-on sentence coherent." That sort of person would easily make the connection between second hand smoke and liberals. The reasoning goes something like this.

fact: "Scientists teach at colleges sometimes"
fact: "College proffessors are liberals"
fact: "Scientists present evidence of second hand smoke"
Conclusion "Second hand smoke is a liberal conspiracy"
Peer Review "Conservative politicians are pro-tobacco company, that proves that second hand smoke is liberal bunk."

You're forgetting that a sizable portion of the political right defines "liberal" as "what smart people think therefore I will think the opposite out of spite and don't even have to realize it because most of the words in this sentence aren't part of my vocabulary nor do I understand the use of punctuation required to make this run-on sentence coherent." That sort of person would easily make the connection between second hand smoke and liberals. The reasoning goes something like this.
Dude, I know! What's with the right-wing nutters on these forums using run-on sentences?

fact: "Scientists teach at colleges sometimes"
fact: "College proffessors are liberals"
fact: "Scientists present evidence of second hand smoke"
Conclusion "Second hand smoke is a liberal conspiracy"
Peer Review "Conservative politicians are pro-tobacco company, that proves that second hand smoke is liberal bunk."
Hahaha. :) Nothing quite like the rape of good logic.

A British study to counter the secondhand smoke denial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4214369.stm

Dude, I know! What's with the right-wing nutters on these forums using run-on sentences?



grammar and spelling rules are tools of the coastal intellectual elites(code word fer the jews don't ya know), only by taking control of our language back from these degenerate forces can the honest folks of the american conservative magority hope to finally win the culture wars and secure the hopes and aspirations of our christian forebears to create an true city on a hill which will serve as a shining beacon of morality and freedom in the dark night of a sinful and dictatorial world.

I didn't say its not unpleasant, I'm just saying there are no studies out there that definitively prove a link between second hand smoke and cancer.

Are you working for the cigarette companies?

grammar and spelling rules are tools of the coastal intellectual elites(code word fer the jews don't ya know), only by taking control of our language back from these degenerate forces can the honest folks of the american conservative magority hope to finally win the culture wars and secure the hopes and aspirations of our christian forebears to create an true city on a hill which will serve as a shining beacon of morality and freedom in the dark night of a sinful and dictatorial world.

Indeed. By robbing the elite of the tools of literacy, ignorance is inevitable in a population allowing for easy manipulation of the masses.
Of course, as a good old Briton, I won't have to worry too much about the happy-clappy evangelicals who are perverting most aspects of American policy.

I believe you meant:

I do not smoke.
If you were allergic to peanuts, does that mean we should ban peanuts?
If you ate peanuts with the completion being that you spit them down someones mouth....maybe.

If you were allergic to peanuts, does that mean we should ban peanuts?

Slight diffrence. A small percentage of people are allergic to peanuts. A very high percentage of smokers die of smoking related diseases.

Thank you. While I do agree that second hand smoke is unhealthy, I have never understood the extreme amounts of attention underwhich it has been brought to bear given the (lack of) enviornmental regulations regarding automobiles, factories, etc.

It seems like a game of smoke (pardon the pun) and mirrors.

It is simple. Cars take you from A-->B. They have a purpose and many people regard them as a necessary evil, for one to function in modern spectacles.

What does smoking do?

Look you stupid, selfish son of a bitch. Once you die of cancer, or some sort of smoking related illness, who do you think will have to pay for you? Indirectly(through insurance) or directly(the government), will have to pay for your disgusting habit.
Aside from that you are polluting the air, and it is just a flithy habit to have. If you are too weak and selfish to stop smoking, I would suggest you kill yourself now, before we all have to pay for your ignorance.

Wow, so hostile! Apparently, government funding pisses you off. And insurance companies making money does too. You know, once you die of heart disease (caused by the stress and high blood pressure of your self righteous and poorly focused anger) who do you think will have to pay for you? Indirectly or directly, insurance or the government!

Oh, wait, thats what's going to happen NO MATTER HOW YOU DIE.

I guess anyone who DIES is a stupid, selfish son of a bitch!

As for filthy habits to have, who cares? The world isn't as "clean" as you would like? People are smelly? Suck it up, tough guy. The world doesn't change just because it's the way you don't like it. Neither do people.

And frankly, judging by how you apparently think you're the only one who pays taxes (thus your typical self-righteous tax paying martyr complex) I would suggest you too are selfish. You object to other people DYING... on the basis that they will contribute some minor fraction of a penny to your tax dollar. How dare they!

It is simple. Cars take you from A-->B. They have a purpose and many people regard them as a necessary evil, for one to function in modern spectacles.

What does smoking do?

Relieves a person's stress.

Oh, wait, thats what's going to happen NO MATTER HOW YOU DIE.

I guess anyone who DIES is a stupid, selfish son of a bitch!


He objects to people causing their own death via a filthy habit. People cant stop themselves from dying, they can not cause themselves to die. Your arguement falls down on the fact that smokers knowingly abuse their own health. Thats where his stands up.

Relieves a person's stress.

1)How does smoking do this? Nicotine is a stimulant.

2)Addressing the causes of a person's stress and working to alleviate them will relieve a person's stress. Will there be any less stress-inducing factors in your life after you smoke?

He objects to people causing their own death via a filthy habit. People cant stop themselves from dying, they can not cause themselves to die. Your arguement falls down on the fact that smokers knowingly abuse their own health. Thats where his stands up.

People who smoke are not causing themselves to die unless they actually die from smoking. Not everyone who smokes dies from smoking. How many other habits, behaviors and tendencies CAN lead to death, that he is not railing against so violently? A WHOLE LOT.

I don't see how his objection to 'filthiness' and unhealthfulness stands up and I definitely don't see how anything I've said falls down. His argument was that people who smoke die and that's a financial burden on him personally .... oh and that they're selfish. (Pot, kettle black?)