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

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 11:43:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking. In fact, one in every five deaths in the United States is smoking related. Every year, smoking kills more than 276,000 men and 142,000 women. You do know that this is untestable and unprovable and this is typical anti-smoking propaganda? If the US government really thought they could save 400,000 lives a year by banning smoking, they would be criminally negligent not to. Don't you think they would ban the purchasing of tabacco or are they quite happy to see so many American citizens dying? In Holland findings put statistics of moderate smokers and none smokers suffering from repiratory and heart conditions as no different. From what I've been told and I don't know if this is correct but a report with similar stats was suppressed in Britain, which wouldn't suprise me, I can think of a couple of reports this British government suppressed because stats suggested government policy was ill founded. The stats suggest industrial and traffic pollution are the biggest causes of asthma and other repiratory illnesses which have been going up while smoking is in decline.

eyesopened -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 11:44:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Apart from being addictive enough to make people engage in proven fatality inducing behaviours, nicotine is also a powerful mind-altering substance. One side effect of smoking, which is often ignored, is a form of pathological rationalisation called T.A.L.E.S. (Tobacco Associated Lame Excuse Syndrome). Symptoms are varied and may include: excessive use of apples and oranges arguments (banning smoking is like requiring seatbelts), fallacious comparisons (cars kill people, you must ban cars too), demonisation (if you favour restrictions on smoking you are a Nazi), the slippery slope defense (today cigarettes, tomorrow democracy), all or nothing excuses (if you can’t stop all sources of pollution you can’t stop me lighting up wherever I want), reductio ad absurdum (if you restrict smoking why not just execute smokers?) and emotional appeals to unrelated topics (abortion, flouridation, etc.). Z. PS: Why is smoking a right but clean air an imposition? Everyone has to breathe, only a few have to smoke. Smoking tobacco is legal. Why do people have to stop a legal activity to accomodate others? That's the point. Period. If the product is so darn unsafe that even the wafting into someone else's space is a health hazard the product should be made illegal. As long as the use of the product is legal, people should be allowed to use said legal product in the privacy of their homes and within the confines of their personal property.

Zensee -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 12:03:42 PM)
Fatal effects from second hand tobacco smoke are NOT theory, they are fact. Let us be clear on that. You'll have to do better than insisting that 'your logic kills kittens and puppies'. This argument fails on so many levels (demonisation, reductio ad absurdum etc.) it beggars belief. And again the, why must all other sources of pollution be addressed before cigarettes? What do deaths from other sources have to do with deaths from tobacco? Why the insistence on either or solutions? Why fix one or the other and not both? I don't buy arguments like this. Z.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 12:07:43 PM)
quote: Fatal effects from second hand tobacco smoke are NOT theory Fine - Prove it. Your Nobel prize awaits in Stockholm.

Wildfleurs -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 12:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs It would be so nice if people did some actual substantive research. Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking. In fact, one in every five deaths in the United States is smoking related. Every year, smoking kills more than 276,000 men and 142,000 women. From: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/health_consequences/mortali.htm C~ if you said "pollution" in its entireity i would agree with you. I think you confused my post with starshineowned - I don't think I said anything about pollution in my post. quote: The only way to do a test like that is to take people and have them live in a clean room of filtered air, pure filtered water, organic food, etc have one group smoke and the other not. The problem is that we live in a dirty world and i assure that cigarette smoking was not the only factor in thier premature deaths. i can equally say those deaths were eating related, drinking related, and toxic chemicals in our surrounding related. Have you even bothered to look at the CDC's methedology for calculating deaths due to smoking? It is not based off of a test, its based off of individual doctors reporting how their individual patient died on mortality forms that are then collected and synthesized by the CDC to provide annual mortality statistics. Basically the person that knows that individuals health the best is the one reporting on what they died of - I'm not sure how you can get more reliable than that, but I'm certainly not going to take your word (without any backing) that all those deaths weren't due to smoking over individual doctors assessments of their patients (and yes the CDC provides actual guidance on how to do the assessment so its not just a "winging it" assessment). C~

Wildfleurs -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 12:11:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Fatal effects from second hand tobacco smoke are NOT theory Fine - Prove it. Your Nobel prize awaits in Stockholm. I think you need to talk to the US Surgeon General. C~

Wildfleurs -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 12:15:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You do know that this is untestable and unprovable and this is typical anti-smoking propaganda? If the US government really thought they could save 400,000 lives a year by banning smoking, they would be criminally negligent not to. Don't you think they would ban the purchasing of tabacco or are they quite happy to see so many American citizens dying? In Holland findings put statistics of moderate smokers and none smokers suffering from repiratory and heart conditions as no different. From what I've been told and I don't know if this is correct but a report with similar stats was suppressed in Britain, which wouldn't suprise me, I can think of a couple of reports this British government suppressed because stats suggested government policy was ill founded. The stats suggest industrial and traffic pollution are the biggest causes of asthma and other repiratory illnesses which have been going up while smoking is in decline. It would be nice (again) if there were some substantive proof... studies... research. I keep on providing research from the Centers for Disease Control and being told that all that research is just lies or false with no substantiation. Its really just getting silly. And FYI changes are the reason why the literal number of asthma and respiratory illnesses due to smoking have declined is that overall among American's the sheer numbers of smokers have decreased. See: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/adults_prev/prevali.htm C~

Mercnbeth -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 12:24:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Fatal effects from second hand tobacco smoke are NOT theory Fine - Prove it. Your Nobel prize awaits in Stockholm. I think you need to talk to the US Surgeon General. C~ There is no proof - only theory. Read the labeling. In Australia I understand they even have pictures. Already said well by another non-smoker... quote: Meatcleaver: You do know that this is untestable and unprovable and this is typical anti-smoking propaganda? If the US government really thought they could save 400,000 lives a year by banning smoking, they would be criminally negligent not to. Don't you think they would ban the purchasing of tobacco or are they quite happy to see so many American citizens dying?

Wildfleurs -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 12:42:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth There is no proof - only theory. Read the labeling. In Australia I understand they even have pictures. Nope there is proof and numerous scientific studies. I'm not going give you the specific cites from the Surgeon General's Report on the dangers of second hand smoke that enumerat studies on the dangers of secondhand smoke because I think you are intelligent enough to look at it yourself (here's a hint, its all contained within post #96 of this thread). But when there are quite literally over a hundred (at a glance, probably closer to a couple of hundred) studies on second hand smoke that find the same results... its no longer a theory. quote: Meatcleaver: You do know that this is untestable and unprovable and this is typical anti-smoking propaganda? If the US government really thought they could save 400,000 lives a year by banning smoking, they would be criminally negligent not to. Don't you think they would ban the purchasing of tobacco or are they quite happy to see so many American citizens dying? This is why I wish people actually did research instead of just spouting out some half-cocked theories (when there is no substantiation that is when it is a theory). Let me repost my explanation for how the CDC compiles mortality statistics (including their mortality statistics on deaths from smoking): Have you even bothered to look at the CDC's methedology for calculating deaths due to smoking? It is not based off of a test, its based off of individual doctors reporting how their individual patient died on mortality forms that are then collected and synthesized by the CDC to provide annual mortality statistics. Basically the person that knows that individuals health the best is the one reporting on what they died of - I'm not sure how you can get more reliable than that, but I'm certainly not going to take your word (without any backing) that all those deaths weren't due to smoking over individual doctors assessments of their patients (and yes the CDC provides actual guidance on how to do the assessment so its not just a "winging it" assessment). So if you can actually prove (with some sort of citation even) that the CDC is just fudging the mortality statistics that would be great. Otherwise I'll take the CDC's word over a random collarchat poster. C~

swtnsparkling -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 12:52:07 PM)
quote: juliaoceania People who smoke around their babies when compared with those who do not have a much haigher incidence of sudden infant death. Their kids are sick much more often They have asthma more often and allergies more often my parents were smokers so were their parents- I grew up around smokers it was just every day part of my life. I'm 49 brother in his 50's - neither one of us have allergies/asthma were very healthy. even our children spent alot of time around their grandparents. . all the family and friend smokers in my life Not One child died of SIDS- Not One has asthma- Not One has any allergie- and My daughter has never had any sickeness worst than the common cold. All the while during school children were sick constantly/colds/flu/ear infections/streph throat. My brother in Law never smoked neither did his wife and they lost 2 babies to sids. Girlfriend never smoked nor did she grow up in a smoking home , she has asthma. So dont go saying all these poor kids of smokers suffer such things it is Just Untrue.

Zensee -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 12:52:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Smoking tobacco is legal. Why do people have to stop a legal activity to accomodate others? That's the point. Period. If the product is so darn unsafe that even the wafting into someone else's space is a health hazard the product should be made illegal. As long as the use of the product is legal, people should be allowed to use said legal product in the privacy of their homes and within the confines of their personal property. If you introduced a product today which was even faintly as toxic as tobacco it would be illegal (I recommend smokers avoid this argument lest it lead to an outright ban). Many other products, ingredients and devices with hazardous natures have been removed from the market and will continue to be removed when they are identified (assuming the watchdogs are doing their jobs). Tobacco is an exception because of its highly addictive nature. It has been grand fathered in to hazardous products legislation because to ban it outright would cause more problems (black market wise etc.) than it would solve. Also many governments are equally addicted to tobacco revenue. Frankly, I have no problem with people smoking or doing anything else that doesn't affect my health, comfort or enjoyment of my private space. I would also accept designated smoking establishments if they similarly didn't impinge on the right to tobacco smoke free air. I realise there are levels of pollutants in most of the air we breathe. That doesn't make it ok to introduce additional and unnecessary sources or to increase concentrations of toxins in the form of tobacco smoke. Nor do I believe I need to prove fatal effects to justify restricting public smoking (including private smoking that invades adjacent areas). The extreme annoyance that smoke represents is cause enough. I remember, in my smoking days, that as soon as my cigarette was extinguished, fresh air returned to replace the miasma. Similarly, holding my cigarette at arms length from the table or fanning the toxic cloud with my free hand was a charm against irritating others in my company. As a breather I now know that the area of effect from a single smoker is enormous, even outside. Should I have to close my windows to prevent smoke from adjacent apartments entering mine? I don’t believe so. That is an encroachment. Adding fuel to the fire, smoking materials are responsible for 7% of house fires and 29% of fire fatalities. As an apartment dweller that represents a significant and unnecessary risk from someone else’s behaviour. Z.

Lorelei115 -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 1:03:29 PM)
Zensee: I agree with a lot of what you have said. It makes good sense, as you usually do. The problem as I see it is: Where does it stop? If we can ban smoking due to the statements as you make above, what is to stop us from banning everything else? As I mentioned in an earlier example, smoke from barbeques and open flame cooking is also full of carcinogens and the smell is a very strong one that can waft for miles. I can often smell my neighbor's incense right through the venting system, and I am allergic to very strong smells, therefore it creates a health hazard for me. Also, a great many fires are caused by unattended candles and incense. Ban smoking today, where does it go tomorrow?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 1:09:19 PM)
quote: So if you can actually prove (with some sort of citation even) that the CDC is just fudging the mortality statistics that would be great. Otherwise I'll take the CDC's word over a random collarchat poster. Edited to add: quote: Merc N Beth - No. You prove it. :p No need. I'm supporting the continuing freedom of choice for something that I don't take any benefit. I'm not seeking any change or prohibitive legislation - you are. At minimum there should be scientific reasoning applied; not good intention, not feeling, not "because I say so". I'll defend that right of choice as dilegently as you fight against it. Maybe someday there will be a liberty you currently enjoy that aother well intentioned group wants to prohibit. You know what? I'll be there fighting for that too. C, Seriously I am not trying to change your mind about this. I'll just give you one more example of governmental powers and then compare them to this situation regarding tobacco and smoking. How many people do you think EVER died in a motorcycle just because they weren't wearing a helmet? Let's make it high and say 100,000 all time in the USA. However, the government of most states, required that each and every motor cycle rider wear a helmet. Going further and making the operation of a MC without a helmet ILLEGAL. Now use any number you like regarding tobacco for deaths to smokers and second hand smoking. My guess is the number you would use for all time deaths would be higher than 100,000. If there were proof, unquestionable proof, scientific proof where an experiment can confirm the theoretical results of second hand smoking killing ONE person, or even a lab rat, or a republican if harming a animal is offensive; it would be illegal to light up. Something so dangerous and so directly contributing to death should be and would be just as illegal as non-helmet riding. Especially in this political environment were people are lining up supporting the reduction of personal liberty and choice. By the way, if aspirin were introduced today - it too would not be approved. There are a long list of similar products. Sidebar: Watch for future attention to peanuts and peanut oil. Know what is commonly used as a replacement of the evil "Trans-Fat"? - Peanut oil. Recall how many deaths have been attributed to peanut allergies? How many schools now prohibit peanut butter? Well, now those "Trans-fat" fried potato chips which only made you fat, are now peanut oil fried potato chips. Get some as a free side with your lunch and you could be killed. Worse - A CHILD could be endangered, albeit a reduced fat child. Banned potato chips coming to schools and restaurants near you soon.

Zensee -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 1:09:50 PM)
Regarding the "so and so smoked and drank every day of their life and they lived to be 90" argument. If we blind folded a thousand people and had them walk around on the freeway for an hour, some would survive. This does not mean freeways are safe for blindfolded pedestrians. Merc N Beth - No. You prove it. :p

kutarc -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 1:13:17 PM)
Banning smoking is a ludicrous idea. Whatever happened to freedom and civil liberties? If people don't want to go to a bar/pub/club/restaurant which permits smoking, then they are free to go to many that are already smoke free (without legislation). We do not need governments to legislate on this, as market forces ensure that it takes care of itself. In the United Kingdom we already have one of the lowest percentages of adult smokers in the developed world. The biggest killer in the UK is not cigarettes, it is fatty foods, and sedentry lifestyles. No-one is suggesting that the likes of McDonalds, KFC etc be banned as people should be free to eat what they want, when they want, even if it kills them - this is their choice! We don't need a Nanny State to tell us what to do, or where to do it. I myself have stopped smoking as a New Years' resolution, but still believe that hard working people should be free to smoke in the pub if they want to, rather than be treated like a 15 year old schoolchild caught smoking in the bike sheds.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 1:28:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs Have you even bothered to look at the CDC's methedology for calculating deaths due to smoking? It is not based off of a test, its based off of individual doctors reporting how their individual patient died on mortality forms that are then collected and synthesized by the CDC to provide annual mortality statistics. Basically the person that knows that individuals health the best is the one reporting on what they died of - I'm not sure how you can get more reliable than that, but I'm certainly not going to take your word (without any backing) that all those deaths weren't due to smoking over individual doctors assessments of their patients (and yes the CDC provides actual guidance on how to do the assessment so its not just a "winging it" assessment). So if you can actually prove (with some sort of citation even) that the CDC is just fudging the mortality statistics that would be great. Otherwise I'll take the CDC's word over a random collarchat poster. The argument isn't that smoking might make a contribution to someone's early demise, many things do, fatty food, lack of exercise, environmental pollution, sedentary work. The fact is that many people who eat fatty foods and slouch for hours in front of the TV and also smoke, doesn not make smoking the decisive killer, prejudice does. The drastic decline in smoking hasn't drastically cut early mortality for many people which suggests something else is at work which is being ignored. This is why many countries have started paying more attention to general life style such as fatty foods and exercise. If smoking is such an accute killer, please explain why deseases blamed on smoking don't decline at the rate of its decline? Many independent health sources recognise, while keeping the pressure on smoking, smoking is only one contributing factor to bad health. Astma in the young is growing incrementally each year and in none smoking households which suggests environmental factors. The official line here in Holland is the same as in America and most countries but privately many health officials recognize that taking smoking out of the equation doesn't solve public health problems and smoking can't be totally to blame on early deaths because many people who die prematurely also don't smoke.

Zensee -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 1:47:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth By the way, if aspirin were introduced today - it too would not be approved. There are a long list of similar products. Not aware of that with regards asprin but certainly with other products. In any case, that in no way invalidates my argument. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth If there were proof, unquestionable proof, scientific proof where an experiment can confirm the theoretical results of second hand smoking killing ONE person, or even a lab rat, or a republican if harming a animal is offensive; it would be illegal to light up. You are arguing that the absence of legislation is proof of there being no harm from second hand smoke (fatality being only one type of harm, not the only one of significance). That's putting the cart before the horse. If first hand smoke is harmful (and it is) second hand smoke must be harmful too. It is not magically transmuted in the smokers lungs. Besides, most second hand smoke is sidestream smoke, coming directly from the burning tip and not filtered in any way. Your statistical arguments are unconvincing. You have yet to establish the harmlessness of first hand or second hand smoke. Lorellie: I have no easy answer for that one. Finding the balance between liberty and responsibility in a society is the ever changing challenge. What was acceptable for one generation becomes unacceptable in the next. What pleases some annoys others and what poses an acceptable risk for me may be a threat to you (yeah, I hate sucking other people's greasy BBQ smoke too). In the case of smoking the risks are clear and the annoyance sufficient to warrant regulation of the behaviour, IMO. I think that the yardstick is to what degree a behaviour threatens or annoys the majority for the convenience of the minority. Ideally the tobacco companies should have their profits taxed 100% and be forced to provide generically packaged, maintenance products for the presently addicted, until the habit dies out. Their execs and boards should be voluntary or with a very small honorarium. All marketing and product development should be halted. Smokes should only be available in liquor (and recreational drug) stores. Cigs in pharmacies! What a friggin bad joke. Z.

NorthernGent -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 1:51:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Finding the balance between liberty and responsibility in a society is the ever changing challenge. Z. Exactly. Freedom? - yes, but at any cost? - no.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 1:53:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Finding the balance between liberty and responsibility in a society is the ever changing challenge. Z. Exactly. Freedom? - yes, but at any cost? - no. Freedom from social control? Yes. At any price.

KatyLied -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:00:48 PM)
quote: most second hand smoke is sidestream smoke, coming directly from the burning tip and not filtered in any way. It is more hazardous than mainstream (what the smoker inhales) smoke. The same toxins, in higher concentrations, in smaller particles, more dangerous to the lungs. You can google sidestream smoke, there are plenty of links.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875