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

starshineowned -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:01:57 PM)
quote: 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. Ya no..."related" does not equal causitive factor. Related means in laymans terms..it may have or might of or most likely was a factor amongst a zillion other factors. Like someone mentioned already..unless these tests were conducted in a controlled setting and environment with continuous purified air so that nothing else was present Except the cigarette smoke..I'll betcha bottom dollar you'd see alot less concerned and horrible so called research results poppin out. Now why haven't they dont that? Hmm? Everyone with half a brain knows that you can't get accurate results from a study unless you have controlled groups inwhich to study. Again it's sort of like everyone saying Bush lied just to get us into Iraq. Well guess what? Governments lying just to keep more control over the populous, and ofcourse they are going to do exactly what has been already said..feed you a bunch of propaganda bullshit to make you believe and support what they want in order to gain enough support by a larger group of the populous so that they can continue to look like they are really for the people. If non-smokers are so worried about "their air"..then they should stop agreeing that taking away civil liberties is the answer, and go plant some more damn tree's instead! For the people my rear end. Get real. starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

Zensee -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:08:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver 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. Not sure what you exactly mean by, social controls here, MC. Do you think we could function, presentl;y and practically, without any controls (laws, morals, ethics, regulations)? If we were all perfected beings perhaps. Z.

gentlethistle -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:16:19 PM)
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/howdoweknow/#Passive

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:21:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Not sure what you exactly mean by, social controls here, MC. Do you think we could function, presentl;y and practically, without any controls (laws, morals, ethics, regulations)? If we were all perfected beings perhaps. Of course I'm being flippent because anti-smokers are being irratitional and their anti-smoking stance is rabidly puritanical and for no other reason than they want the power to impose their will. I live in Amsterdam and people come here from all over Europe to enjoy smoking a joint without hassle. There is no problem with smoking here as you walk around the streets and if you don't like smoke you don't have to go into the bars or coffeeshops. You just don't get smoke wafting in your face everywhere. I've been to California where you don't have the same public acceptance of smoking so there is less than no problem there from what I've seen so the only reason left for people to object is their own irrational puritanical stance and it is that puritanism I object to.

Zensee -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:23:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned Like someone mentioned already..unless these tests were conducted in a controlled setting and environment with continuous purified air so that nothing else was present Except the cigarette smoke..I'll betcha bottom dollar you'd see alot less concerned and horrible so called research results poppin out. Now why haven't they dont that? Hmm? Everyone with half a brain knows that you can't get accurate results from a study unless you have controlled groups inwhich to study. If non-smokers are so worried about "their air"..then they should stop agreeing that taking away civil liberties is the answer, and go plant some more damn tree's instead! Obviously such a test would be unethical and impossible to conduct with humans (so much for that specious challenge). Animal studies prove the dangers of smoking (in animals) and establish a sufficient likelihood of those results being translated to humans. In the absence of any benefits from smoking, a precautionary approach is more rational than a dismissive one. Sorry, starshine, but it is not the responsibility of breathers to clean up after smokers. It is the responsibility of smokers to keep their habit out of everyone else's faces. I guess I should have added denial to the list of common symptoms of T.A.L.E.S.. Z.

NorthernGent -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:28:39 PM)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2407249.stm A report from the British Medical Association warns 1,000 people are dying every year as a result of passive smoking.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:29:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee 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 aspirin but certainly with other products. In any case, that in no way invalidates my argument. Then why did you introduce it as a point of argument quoted below? quote: Zensee: 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). quote: Your statistical arguments are unconvincing. You have yet to establish the harmlessness of first hand or second hand smoke. As stated not attempting to convince you of anything. The attempt, and final one, is that governmental legislation should be based on more than theory. Preference, personal choice to decide to use or not use marketed products or facilities such as apartments, should remain with people. The tangents that both sides of this issue raised only point to the ridiculousness of putting personal health in the hands of the government. It also begs the question, where does it end? It should also be considered for both sides what happens if law is introduced based upon faulty data? Do you think the government would be so quick to 'un-regulate'? The latest wrong test - child car seats: quote: WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. – Consumer Reports on Thursday retracted a negative report on infant car seats that left many parents worried about their babies' safety – an embarrassing revelation for the venerable magazine. Consumer Reports said it was withdrawing the report, issued Jan. 4, because some of its test crashes were conducted at speeds higher than it had claimed. Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070118-1319-infantseats.html

Zensee -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:31:19 PM)
MC. Thou? Flippant? Say it ain't so! I don't consider my position puritanical. The difference seems to be that smokers can exert their will silently by lighting up. For me to clear the air I have to speak out, making me look like the bad guy, imposing my will and suppressing their rights. I don't think that is fair. That said, blanket banning is impractical and a segregation approach is the most practicable, OMO. Z.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:35:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gentlethistle http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/howdoweknow/#Passive Having taken the time to read several of the links, they tell us nothing new, most of the language is hedged with what one would expect from such data because the links I have read used questionaires and not controled groups. All things being even, a miner having worked in a mine for 30 years and who is a smoker is going to have more bronchial problems than a similar smoker who has worked in the fresh air for 30 years. Coming from a mining area I'm aware of many miners with bronchial and other lung deseases that were none smokers so environment is a crucial factor too. My father worked 35 years in a mine and smoked and has outlived friends of his who were none smokers and he can still walk 5 miles a day at 81 which suggests susceptability to such illnesses is important too. I accept smoking contributes to ill health as do many things but as many of these links point out, smoking contributes to these illnesses and do not necessarily de facto cause them.

sleazy -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:36:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied 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. Ever heard of atmospheric dilution? There is no way the the concentrations can be higher unless you practically have my cigarette up your nose!!!

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:38:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee MC. Thou? Flippant? Say it ain't so! I don't consider my position puritanical. The difference seems to be that smokers can exert their will silently by lighting up. For me to clear the air I have to speak out, making me look like the bad guy, imposing my will and suppressing their rights. I don't think that is fair. That said, blanket banning is impractical and a segregation approach is the most practicable, OMO. Z I've been to BC Zensee and I missed all this smoking pollution you object to. I never noticed a problem with smoke filled restuarants, bars, shops, public buildings. I saw people standing in a huddle outside office buildings and that's about it and it wasn't because I was smoking too that I didn't notice it, I rarely smoke and never on the street because that is no place to enjoy a cigar.

Zensee -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee 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 aspirin but certainly with other products. In any case, that in no way invalidates my argument. Then why did you introduce it as a point of argument quoted below? quote: Zensee: 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). The fact that there are other dangerous products that are still legal today in no way makes tobacco a safe product nor does it justify tobacco's present legality. Your example of asprin does not invalidate my original point about tobacco being legal by historical accident. The exception does not necessarily disprove the rule, so to speak. Your response is an apples and oranges, diversionary argument. Like your child seat argument below. Consumers reports fucked up does not equal cigs are harmless. quote: Zensee:Your statistical arguments are unconvincing. You have yet to establish the harmlessness of first hand or second hand smoke. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth As stated not attempting to convince you of anything. The attempt, and final one, is that governmental legislation should be based on more than theory. Preference, personal choice to decide to use or not use marketed products or facilities such as apartments, should remain with people. The tangents that both sides of this issue raised only point to the ridiculousness of putting personal health in the hands of the government. It also begs the question, where does it end? It should also be considered for both sides what happens if law is introduced based upon faulty data? Do you think the government would be so quick to 'un-regulate'? The latest wrong test - child car seats: quote: WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. – Consumer Reports on Thursday retracted a negative report on infant car seats that left many parents worried about their babies' safety – an embarrassing revelation for the venerable magazine. Consumer Reports said it was withdrawing the report, issued Jan. 4, because some of its test crashes were conducted at speeds higher than it had claimed. Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070118-1319-infantseats.html You seem to be insisting that harm from smoking is theoretical and that perfect proof of fatal results are a must to justify regulation. I say there is already proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that cigs are harmful up to and including death. Z.

starshineowned -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:52:05 PM)
yes thats it segregation. You go have nice little buildings built for you non-smokers, and leave the smokers alone. Oh no wait..now that would be putting you non-smokers rights in the fire wouldn't it? Can't have that. Here in the US there wasn't a segregation process and fairness applied was there? No..it was trample the smokers rights and inconvience them, and yipee skipee we don't give a damn. Why should we as smokers have to go elsewhere to smoke just because you don't like it? Tough turtle. Ya don't like it..move on down the road. This is afterall what you are telling smokers is it not? To bad. Don't even attempt to try and tell me that doing such a controlled study is unethical. Where did you dream this crap up? They do controlled studies on many things under controlled environments with people who agree to be a part of the studies. So don't even. These lab rats under the same controlled air where no other toxins are present except for what is emitted from the cigarettes? If not..then it's just as useless an arguement, and remains nothing more than theory, full of nothing but maybe's mights, perhaps, and purposes no greater or more significant threat to anyone than anything else out there. I personally don't have a problem not smoking in stores or enclosed area's. I don't drink so I don't frequent bars. But I got a real problem with me being singled out and inconvienced based on no factual evidence, and just a bunch of blow hards. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

Jack45 -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 2:57:02 PM)
At least 2 states, I read about in December, I think they were MA and WA, were considering legislation, or one had already passed it, that would ban smoking in cars and homes IF children were present or lived there. Freedom is a joke, nobody is free, Big Brother is watching.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 3:00:11 PM)
You'd think legislators would have more pressing business but I guess going after smokers stops people asking questions about other matters and it looks like a bit of social radicalism.

Real0ne -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 3:07:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth No need. I'm supporting the continuing freedom of choice for something that I don't take any benefit. 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. Ditto, i agree with this 500%! Its about freedpm and democracy, patriotism. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied 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. Ever heard of atmospheric dilution? There is no way the the concentrations can be higher unless you practically have my cigarette up your nose!!! your assertion sounds great on paper but she is correct nonetheless since she stated her comparison parameters. Really do not have to be a physicist to know that smoke from the tip is less filtered than the smoke that went first thru the tobacco and the further filtering through the lungs and finally dispersed into a huge cloud as compared to that tiny little concentrated stream dilution notwithstanding. quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs 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~ i think i said somehting to the effect that smoke is a carcinogen and carcinogens are not healthy. i am not trying to condone smoking, but to point out there are much greater sources of the stuff and much great smoke inhilation issues with living in nyc or la for instance than any smoker in bumfuck montana for instance... cars, boats, planes, furnaces ect ect ect... ever work in a foundry? To properly blame cigarettes they have to know your whole environment or control it to even get close... i wont say that cigarette smoke doesnt hurt as it is a carcinogen and any carcinogen is known to be unhealty... but i will fight for the rights of those who wish to smoke to keep this country in at least some for of democracy. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver 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. excatly my point

Real0ne -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 3:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You'd think legislators would have more pressing business but I guess going after smokers stops people asking questions about other matters and it looks like a bit of social radicalism. like the patriot act!

Wildfleurs -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 3:13:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth 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. Except as people have pointed out in this thread there are plenty of products that either directly or tangently cause deaths that are legal or already currently legal. The absence of a ban does not negate actual scientific data that clearly shows ciggarette smokes danger to smokers and also to people (and children) who regularly breathe in cigarette smoke (I'm not going to copy and paste any more data since I've done it repeatedly). C~

Wildfleurs -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 3:21:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned Ya no..."related" does not equal causitive factor. Related means in laymans terms..it may have or might of or most likely was a factor amongst a zillion other factors. Except that you seemed to have not noticed that sentence right after in that says, "Every year, smoking kills more than 276,000 men and 142,000 women." There's no use of the term related. Or maybe you missed the sentence right before the one you focused in that said, "Each year more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking." Again no use of the term related (I don't feel like quibbling over the related statistics when there is plenty of clear and concise data that seems to be just absolutely ignored). quote: Like someone mentioned already..unless these tests were conducted in a controlled setting and environment with continuous purified air so that nothing else was present Except the cigarette smoke..I'll betcha bottom dollar you'd see alot less concerned and horrible so called research results poppin out. Now why haven't they dont that? Hmm? Everyone with half a brain knows that you can't get accurate results from a study unless you have controlled groups inwhich to study. Again with the not reading thing. Lemme just copy and paste again from my post that seems to have been missed (the one that responds to the post you mention) how the CDC calculated mortality figures (to be absolutely clear I'm not talking about the "related smoking deaths" statistics but the literal head count of 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). C~

Mercnbeth -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/18/2007 3:24:48 PM)
quote: You seem to be insisting that harm from smoking is theoretical and that perfect proof of fatal results are a must to justify regulation. I say there is already proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that cigs are harmful up to and including death. Although it may appear that way its not the intent. But overweight people and eating habits in general can have the exact same caparison. The cost of health treatment for obesity related diseases such as diabetes increases the cost of insurance. Trash on the beach - more food wrappers or cigarette butts? Second hand food, better know as garbage, generates vermin, generates disease and is taking up more space on the planet. Need I go on? Again - Not rationalizing or judging one better or worse. Would you be adamant about similar weight regulations or food prohibitions as you advocate for smoking? Why not? You say there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I respect that opinion and support your choice to not live in a apartment building where smoking is allowed. I'll support your right to insist on a non-smoking work environment. I'll support your choice to not frequent any bar, park, or public event where smoking occurs. Don't go and there is no chance of any health concern. Right? Enough don't go, and policy at these places will change and those that are on the other side of the argument will have to make a choice from the opposing viewpoint. My intent is simply that you reciprocate. Not in support of smokers, but in support of choice.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875