RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much?

RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 3:48:57 AM)
quote: With regard to the seatbelt, why should someone else have to deal with your mangled body lying in the middle road with your head smashed in because you've gone flying through your windscreen. *The only people that would have to deal with that would be the paramedics and they've dealt with worse... that and the morbid lookie-loos that slow down to check it out.* quote: Also, if you're lucky enough to be scraped off the road with your life in one piece then why should tax-payers have to pay for your stay in hospital because of your social irresponsibility (presuming tax-payers contribute towards this in the US)? *Nope... I have insurance that covers that and we pay a dear premium, have for the longest time...The only thing tax payers contribute to in the US is lining the pockets of politicians.* And once again... not getting it... it isn't about poor choices, it's about the right to decide for yourself. Why don't you just come right out and say it... you do NOT believe that people should have the right to make decisions on their own. Give me the facts, show me the proof and then leave me alone to decide what I want to do. There simply is NO definative proof that seat belts, helmets, and non-smoking makes a serious difference. My brother died in a car accident because he wasn't wearing a seat beat... my cousin died in one because she was. In a motorcycle accident one can be killed due to lack of helmet or killed because the helmet broke their neck... people that have smoked for 60 years suffer no long term effect, then there are people that have never touched a cigarette that die from lung cancer... plain and simple... you pays your money and takes your chances. quote: What you say is equally nonsense and blather because you object to someone smoking who would be in a building that you don't frequent. You position isn't about breathing clean air, its about denial of someone part taking in an activity of which you don't approve. *Thank you.* quote: Which is correct, is smoking the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths and the government is criminal in its greed for tax revenues? Or is smoking not proven to be the cause of those deaths and it's just another justification for bigotry? We can't ban tobacco because it will cause problems? That's a little weak, i think. If smoking and second-hand smoke is so dangerous then the public should SCREAM for it being illegal. But people would rather have someone who its politically correct to hate. It's a whole lot easier and also fun! Get rid of smoking and then what? Would it be unreasonable to believe that the government of this fine country would throw up yet another (pardon the pun) smoke screen to enrage the people and take the focus off of other things we may actually find to be far more important? I have to say... if it is PROVEN to be so lethal, so detrimental to that many people... then it should go the way of phen phen... outta here. Apparently it isn't that big of a deal huh? The government counts on the sheeple of this country to believe whatever they say. *And YES... the laws are getting way out of hand.* *Jewel*

Rough1 -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 4:17:05 AM)
To quote Ben Franklin "Those that are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither." It's my personal oppinion that the world is a dangerous place and going after the minor issues dosn't help make it safer only less free.no one is disscussing not allowing anyone to run a internal combustion engine with all the hydrocrabons it produces. you dont die within mins of someone smokeing in a closed room but you do with a engine running in a closed room

farglebargle -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 6:21:16 AM)
Thanks for the return to center. Yes. They are out of hand.

Wildfleurs -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 7:48:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned The only problem I really see with this data is that for all the data you can google up supporting your claim..you can also come up with exact opposite studies that prooved nothing or such little results of significance to warrant any type of Governmental actions. Except that no one has actually provided any comporable studies that showed that. If you'd like to show me a link, citation, exerpt (with citation)... something. Please do! quote: Look at some of the reporst posted in this thread already that directly contradict the cdc reports you provided. So who's telling the truth? Some people say they got cancer, know people who got cancer or kids who have their asthma triggered more in this friends home where they smoke versus another that doesnt. For all those people saying this..you have just as many stating that they grew up, infact their entire family grew up living amongst smokers, and no one has any health issues beyond the simple cold. So who do you believe there? Umm I'm not sure that you understand how statistics work, or in particular mortality statistics compiled by the CDC work. I'm not going to repeat it a fourth time (the inability to actually read is just perplexing me), but I'll explain that one person self-reporting what has happened in their family or their friends is not remotely the same thing as national compilation of data reported from doctors within a particular rubric for reporting cause of death. Its not a contradiction because I have never said (and neither has the CDC) that every single smoker will die of lung cancer or heart disease from their smoking, just that a great many (approx 400,000 a year in America) of smokers have (and yes Virginia there is data substantiating that - just go to the CDC's website) and will die prematurely because of their smoking. So yes, some smokers will live until 95 and not have complications from smoking, and some will not. I can't help but think of that movie Rush Hour, "Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?" quote: Because of these types of direct contradictions on all fronts that are readily presented, and as equally oh so factual..the use of Government infringement on peoples rights and civil libertys is the only thing I see that is Unethical. If you want to point me to the section of the Constitution that grants rights specifically to smoke in public, please show it to me quote: So to anyone that supports this action being taken ..whats your next target of interest? Me? I think I'll go after a ban on anyone being allowed to pop popcorn in public places. Why? Because the smell of it makes me turn 3 shades of green, and nauseated to the point of gagging. Immediate effects to I can present. Just pop popcorn around me or let me enter a place that still has the lingering smell of it. When popcorn kills approx. 400,000 Americans every year I will be right there with you on banning popcorn in public places! C~

sleazy -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 8:02:09 AM)
Query, Who funds the CDC? Could it be the same government that wants to impose the ban? Would the pro-ban group accept a study done by a group that is payed for by Morris et al? I myself posted a quote reffering to a World Health Organistation study I personally think that is as independent as anyone is likely to get on such an emotive issue.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 8:30:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs Its not a contradiction because I have never said (and neither has the CDC) that every single smoker will die of lung cancer or heart disease from their smoking, just that a great many (approx 400,000 a year in America) of smokers have (and yes Virginia there is data substantiating that - just go to the CDC's website) and will die prematurely because of their smoking. So yes, some smokers will live until 95 and not have complications from smoking, and some will not. 400,000 people won't die prematurely of smoking, smoking is most probably a cointributing factor. How many of those 400,000 spend hours on the couch watching TV. The average American spends 42 hours a week in this position. How many of those 400,000 people eat processed food and little fresh food and are overweight? More Americans are obese than any other developed nation. How many of those Americans have sedentary jobs and drive to work and hence get no exercise? To imply that 400,000 Americans die prematurely and cigarettes is the sole cause is seen for the propaganda it is.

starshineowned -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 8:56:50 AM)
quote: Except that no one has actually provided any comporable studies that showed that. If you'd like to show me a link, citation, exerpt (with citation)... something. Please do! Sleazy just did. Other people that have posted on this thread have offered real life accounts of showing zero problems related to smoking or second hand smoke. Therefore it seems pretty clear to me that without definitive proof (which can not be done based off of dead people because there is no control present) it has to remain in the "maybe" "might" risk category. We are exposed to risks every single day. We are also adults and in a free country where it is suppose to be up to Us to make the decision of if we want to take those risks. Again..if this were a true hazard instead of a maybe hazard..not only would it be banned all together to the population at large such as illegal drugs but at the bare minimum would require cigarette makers to have a more alarming and matter o fact warning label on them. Sorry, but just printing: cigarettes contain carbon monoxide just doesn't cut it. quote: Umm I'm not sure that you understand how statistics work, or in particular mortality statistics compiled by the CDC work. I'm not going to repeat it a fourth time (the inability to actually read is just perplexing me), but I'll explain that one person self-reporting what has happened in their family or their friends is not remotely the same thing as national compilation of data reported from doctors within a particular rubric for reporting cause of death. Its not a contradiction because I have never said (and neither has the CDC) that every single smoker will die of lung cancer or heart disease from their smoking, just that a great many (approx 400,000 a year in America) of smokers have (and yes Virginia there is data substantiating that - just go to the CDC's website) and will die prematurely because of their smoking. So yes, some smokers will live until 95 and not have complications from smoking, and some will not Let me reinterate for you since you don't seem to understand anymore than you think I do. Taking records of people who died of lung cancer or any other disease that might be attributed to chemicals found in cigarettes is Not definitive proof that cigarette smoking or second hand smoke was the causitive factor. This compilation of data can not be obtained or warranted as factual until such a time as a Controlled study is done eliminating any and all other Highly Enormous Known Risks that run rampent in the Free Air that might, maybe, are likely to..cause the same diseases. Unless All other mitigating risks that can cause diseases are ruled not present or of such a low significance present..you have no grounds inwhich to just pick and choose a causitive factor. The mere fact that the air you breathe everyday has more toxins and deadly chemicals in it from cars, and factorys alone is enough to invalidate any cdc findings. The day you can proove without doubt that cigarettes caused a persons death is the day you will hear it plastered wall to wall, and a all out ban on it not just some piffy deal of hiking the taxes on it to a ungodly amount or limiting certain spaces to do it. So until then..your just blowing smoke with your cdc reports. quote: When popcorn kills approx. 400,000 Americans every year I will be right there with you on banning popcorn in public places! Again..when you can proove that cigarettes were the only factor present that caused the death..I'll be on the bandwagon also. Until such a time..my immediate physical ill to the smell of popcorn popping holds more ground and proof. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

Anarrus -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 9:08:19 AM)
hmmmmm.... 10 pages of bickering back and forth and not 1 has mentioned smoking possibly might be linked to E.D. Now that's something to worry about.<grins>

FelinePersuasion -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 9:15:59 AM)
not really adding anything of benifit but I wanted to say it anyway. Wheather you smoke indoors or go outside people who smoke still stink of the cigarett smell regardless of where they smoked it. I know every one who smokes says no we don't stink I know we don't. Wrong. that stink permiates the hair the clothing the skin for a good while after a ciggy.

QuietlySeeking -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 9:17:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Mercnbeth: I support choice. I just feel that it is the responsibility of smokers to moderate the effect of their habit on others rather than the publics' responsibility to find safe havens from smokers. I also take issue with smokers dismissing concerns about health effects or claiming that smoke isn't a bother in other ways. That's just crap. Smoke if you want to but take full responsibility for keeping that choice purely personal. Z. As much as it pains me to say this Zensee....I agree. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m28.gif[/image]

starshineowned -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 9:19:26 AM)
lol .. I'm done honest. Aside from getting sidetracked cause well thats what we do..I don't disagree that cigarettes are bad mojo. I disagree that the government stepped in and took the decision away from people and business's to decide for themselves what they wanted to do about it. I disagree that they unfairly hiked the taxes on this product the way they did for the reasons they are trying to pass off. They are trying to fund a war, and since this is a luxury they can because we are sheeples and allow this crap to continue to happen. A all out ban they did know better than to attempt because they have history in their face to know exactly what would happen if they did. Sorry but if this is enough of a detterrent from them "doing the right thing and protecting us from ourselves" then I don't hold much stock in their values. Forget the all out ban. This alone has already started the pickets and bootlegging. This will continue, and eventually it will be to a magnitude that the government is reaping less income than they were before these implementations. Bootleggers will get rich though so atleast democracy is still working in some fashion around here..lmao. Not to also mention now they are considering going after the Indians again on this subject. They might give in though because I think their main revenue now comes from gambling. Not sure on that. Still it boils down to..were doing this in a effort to make the world more safe by saving the people from themselves but hey..you can continue to smoke that peyote okay..even though we don't really agree with that either but it's okies by us..wink wink Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

FelinePersuasion -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 9:33:00 AM)
They don't need to be smoking at work. It's unprofessional, and it makes the employee's reak of ciggie stink long after they've smoked it. quote: ORIGINAL: katzschen Where are employees supposed to go when they only have 10-15 minutes for a smoke break?

ttystikk -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 9:49:57 AM)
Maybe it's been said, and I am a nonsmoker, but I think that in some instances the 'ban it everywhere!!!' attitude has indeed gone too far. Zensee said above that it is the responsibility of smokers to be sure their habit doesn't infringe on the rights of others to clear air. The trouble with that is simple; human nature. There will always be some asshole who thinks his rights come before everyone else's, and that's why these bans got started in the first place. I think a reasonable limit on smoking- and bans, for that matter- is that if any potential non-smoker has to be in the area (barmaids included!), then smoking shouldn't be allowed. That also means that if the establishment's whole raison d' etre is to serve smokers (hookah bars here in Ft Collins, for example), then it's not acceptable to ban these either. The idea that a person can't smoke in their own car is ludicrus, no matter what their excuse- it's your car! Yes, as a nonsmoker, I can smell it when a fella lights up on the freeway two cars ahead, but at some point I am more than willing to live and let live. Nonsmokers do not have any divine rights that supersede anyone else's.

Zensee -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 9:55:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rough1 To quote Ben Franklin "Those that are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither." It's my personal oppinion that the world is a dangerous place and going after the minor issues dosn't help make it safer only less free.no one is disscussing not allowing anyone to run a internal combustion engine with all the hydrocrabons it produces. you dont die within mins of someone smokeing in a closed room but you do with a engine running in a closed room Actually the ban cars argument has been made ad nauseum and it gets no less specious with repeated use. It's hardly original or pertinent. Cars are not intended to be used in enclosed spaces. When you use a car responsibly, no one should die. When you use cigs the way they are intend, people do. Nice Ben quote. It applies equally to breathers as to smokers of course. Freedom from something can be as important as freedom to do something. How long can you go without a cigarette? How long can you go without breathing? Survival trumps addiction, in my books. Z.

Wildfleurs -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 10:19:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Query, Who funds the CDC? Could it be the same government that wants to impose the ban? I haven't seen the federal government (for the US) try to impose smoking bans. Thats happened on a state level. quote: Would the pro-ban group accept a study done by a group that is payed for by Morris et al? I myself posted a quote reffering to a World Health Organistation study I personally think that is as independent as anyone is likely to get on such an emotive issue. I don't know who Morris is but the only thing I saw you post were direct quotes from an opinion piece from: http://www.forestonline.org/output/page16.asp It referenced a WHO study but I wouldn't consider them independent since they literally say that almost all of their funding for their website comes from tobacco companies. * C~ * See: http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page103.asp

Wildfleurs -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 10:22:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned quote: Except that no one has actually provided any comporable studies that showed that. If you'd like to show me a link, citation, exerpt (with citation)... something. Please do! Sleazy just did. Other people that have posted on this thread have offered real life accounts of showing zero problems related to smoking or second hand smoke. Therefore it seems pretty clear to me that without definitive proof (which can not be done based off of dead people because there is no control present) it has to remain in the "maybe" "might" risk category. We are exposed to risks every single day. We are also adults and in a free country where it is suppose to be up to Us to make the decision of if we want to take those risks. Sleazy posted an opinion piece taken from a website that openly admits it recieves its funding from tobacco companies. The rest of what you said again goes into my explanation of Statistics 101. quote: Let me reinterate for you since you don't seem to understand anymore than you think I do. Taking records of people who died of lung cancer or any other disease that might be attributed to chemicals found in cigarettes is Not definitive proof that cigarette smoking or second hand smoke was the causitive factor. This compilation of data can not be obtained or warranted as factual until such a time as a Controlled study is done eliminating any and all other Highly Enormous Known Risks that run rampent in the Free Air that might, maybe, are likely to..cause the same diseases. Unless All other mitigating risks that can cause diseases are ruled not present or of such a low significance present..you have no grounds inwhich to just pick and choose a causitive factor. The mere fact that the air you breathe everyday has more toxins and deadly chemicals in it from cars, and factorys alone is enough to invalidate any cdc findings. Quite literally this is not how the CDC compiles their mortality statistics (the CDC does not examine records and independently decide what the persons cause of death is). Thats why I just can't imagine you are clearly reading what I keep saying. But... since you're done with the thread its all moot eh? C~

starshineowned -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 10:31:42 AM)
http://www.edcallahan.com/web110/articles/smoking/cato.htm

sleazy -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 10:46:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs I don't know who Morris is but the only thing I saw you post were direct quotes from an opinion piece from: http://www.forestonline.org/output/page16.asp It referenced a WHO study but I wouldn't consider them independent since they literally say that almost all of their funding for their website comes from tobacco companies. * Yes forest is funded by tobacco users and producers. However I do not think that either group has that much influence on the World Health Organistion. That page also references a US federal court ruling that a US federal agency did not prove a case regarding passive smoking. It also cites the professor who first published any possible danger as regarding the risk to be "so small it doesn't worry me." it also cites..... well if you have actually read it you know, and after all that all you can comment on is the fact the data was published on a pro-choice website Forget the publisher, look at the sources!

Zensee -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 10:56:16 AM)
The Cato Institute receives funding from the Philip Moris company (tobacco). What's a little blood money between friends?

NorthernGent -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 11:42:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel quote: With regard to the seatbelt, why should someone else have to deal with your mangled body lying in the middle road with your head smashed in because you've gone flying through your windscreen. The only people that would have to deal with that would be the paramedics and they've dealt with worse... that and the morbid lookie-loos that slow down to check it out. Wrong. 1) The driver and passengers in the other car/s involved in the crash. 2) Your passengers - possibly your kids. 3) By-standers in a built up area. leave me alone to decide what I want to do. Kill yourself in any way you want in your home, in a forest, in a desert - fine, no problem here. Ditto smoking, drinking whatever. However, the planet is not yours to do as you wish in a public place. It's this simple: come over to England and have a beer with me down the pub and after a few I'll piss on your leg rather than be bothered to go to the toilet. You won't mind will you because in your logic I should be left to do as I please regardless of people around me. Pissing on your leg is invading your space but will not kill you. If you and I were in a public place then yours and others' smoke will invade my space and over a sustained period of time there is a good chance it will knock years off my life (there's always the exception to the rule). Everytime you smoke in a public place you are contributing to someone else's ill health. I'm all for smoking establishments - the smokers can all smoke around each other - no problem. However, there has to be non-smoking establishments for those who do not want to breathe the fumes of smokers. No one is banning smoking. There's a certain amount of delusions of grandeur about this thread with all the smokers saying "they're coming for me". Believe me, no one gives a flying one what you do in private. Here's the deal: in a shared public place - you don't invade my space with your smoke and I won't invade your space with my piss. There simply is NO definative proof that seat belts, helmets, and non-smoking makes a serious difference. You're scraping the barrel here. Driving - if you crash at 60mph and you're not wearing your seatbelt you will go through your windscreen. Second hand smoke - there are links on this thread telling you that second hand smoke kills - including one from the British Medical Association. Do you honestly believe you and the people on this thread no more than a highly reputable and respected organisation with decades of research and experience? quote:

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875