Smokers take 2 (1 Viewer)

[CSA_TX]

Seeing how the majority of liberals want to outlaw the use of cell phones while driving. Seeing how second hand smoke has more of a direct impact on my day to day life than if someone is talking and driving. I thought of something that I would like to propose and get your feedback.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Although I am a smoker I have voted "agree" on this poll, with the proviso that we are referring to enclosed public spaces. Passive smoking has been demonstrated to be harmful, and therefore non-smokers should not be forced to inhale the smoke of others. Of course I could also make the same argument about pollutions and the USA's refusal to sign up to Kyoto!

Seeing how the majority of liberals want to outlaw the use of cell phones while driving.

Shouldn't that be the majority of people with any intelligence? The issue of safety is surely not a right versus left issue,is it?

 

[Squawker]

Passive smoking has been demonstrated to be harmful,

To Rats

and therefore non-smokers should not be forced to inhale the smoke of others.

Don't get in my face, and you won't.

Of course I could also make the same argument about pollutions and the USA's refusal to sign up to Kyoto!

You could, but it wouldn't make it a valid argument.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

To Rats

As far as I know there haven't been any studies into the effects of passive smoking on rats. Why would anyone do that? There is, however, a lot of evidence regarding the effects on people:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4101474&chk=%2BB7p/V

You could, but it wouldn't make it a valid argument.

Would you know a valid argument if you saw one?

 

[CSA_TX]

The issue of safety is surely not a right versus left issue,is it?

the issue is government infringment. As a right wing conservitive I beleive in less government involvment. I know some who frequent the board that claim to be consevative however would like the government control our lives.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

the issue is government infringment.

No, the issue is safety.

As a right wing conservitive I beleive in less government involvment. I know some who frequent the board that claim to be consevative however would like the government control our lives.

So we can all do what we like, regardless of the effects on others?
That's not "conservative", it's plain irresponsible.

In any organised society we cannot have rights without responsibilities.

 

[Blue Hobgoblin]

I'm a liberal and I'm opposed to such things like seatbelt laws. You get in an accident and get killed because you weren't wearing a seatbelt, that's your own damn fault.

But driving while talking on a cell phone is not only dangerous to you, but to everyone around you, since you could be busy talking to someone and hit another car or a pedestrian. And smoking in public with other people around to me is just rude.

Yet on the other hand, their is the personal freedoms and liberties issue. How much do we want the government controlling our lives.

I really am not to passionate about this cell phone/smoking thing, and could go either way.

 

[Squawker]

The true facts about second hand smoke have been suppressed for years to further the environmentalist agenda.

April, 2003 -- Dating back one year, this milestone study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology has been so thoroughly ignored by the public health gangs and its media servants - it has escaped even our attention! The enormous study covers 37 years, during which thousands of filght attendans have been followed and monitored for cancer. Furthermore, this is not a study based on questionnaires asking whether uncle Jack smoked more or less in 1956, as it's the case for most antismoking junk science -- nor it is something started and finished in a few months. Finally, it is neither financed by the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, nor is it supported by "public health" funds allocated to produce scientific frauds to support public health's frauds on smoking. All that explains the results. Here is an excerpt that says it all:
"We found a rather remarkably low SMR [standardized incidence ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights. The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and female air crew was surprisingly low (reaching statistical significance among women)."

Source

 

[Schweddy]

Link no work

Take out the <br> at the end of it.

Good find!

 

[Urethra Franklin]

I voted "don't care" but on reflection I should have voted that it should be banned.

My man always knows I've been to bars floozying around when he smells the smoke on my clothes. When tha bars are smoke free I can be a bar slut all I want with no worries.

 

[GarzaUK]

If passive smoking wasn't dangerous to the non-smoker, I would say smoke away. Tobacco smoke is harmful. Whether you inhale it indirectly or directly it is still - Tobacco smoke. I indulge in the odd fag (ciggarette to you Americans lol) or cigar the odd time and enjoy it, but that is my choice not the choice of a person near me.

I live with a chain smoker - has about 60 fags a day, the house, my room, my clothes reek of smoke. I actually have got BRONCHITIS (spelling) from living in this house!

So yeah ban smoking from pubic places and if you have kids you should smoke outside your house - for their safety.

 

[shuamort]

Naughty Nurse made a quick reference to this, but I think we really need to define "public" more finitely. I wouldn't ban smoking anywhere but for some there are boundaries. Is it at bars/restaurants/streets/national parks?

Bars and restaurants which are privately owned should make up their own mind if they want to be smoke-free or not. The patrons and the workers would be informed as to whether they want to dine or work at that establishment and market forces would decided if that working model was functional or not.

Streets are open air places and as such, it would be dubious to be that effected by second hand smoke on a regular basis.

National Parks, unless it would cause a fire hazard and that littering* is not allowed, I don't see the problem.

I am not a smoker. I can't stand smok. I do vote with my feet. If I'm at a bar and it's too smoky, I will tell the bartender the reason I'm leaving. Same way goes with a restaurant. The effects of second-hand smoke are still unsubstantiated, but until corroborating evidence says it's safe, I'm still staying clear. That's just my preference.

*[soapbox]To all the smokers out there, the world is not an ashtray, when you're done with your cigarrette it is YOUR responsibility to find a waste recepticle for it. The ground should not be littered with butts.[/soapbox]

 

[Pacridge]

Naughty Nurse made a quick reference to this, but I think we really need to define "public" more finitely. I wouldn't ban smoking anywhere but for some there are boundaries. Is it at bars/restaurants/streets/national parks?

Bars and restaurants which are privately owned should make up their own mind if they want to be smoke-free or not. The patrons and the workers would be informed as to whether they want to dine or work at that establishment and market forces would decided if that working model was functional or not.

Streets are open air places and as such, it would be dubious to be that effected by second hand smoke on a regular basis.

National Parks, unless it would cause a fire hazard and that littering* is not allowed, I don't see the problem.

I am not a smoker. I can't stand smok. I do vote with my feet. If I'm at a bar and it's too smoky, I will tell the bartender the reason I'm leaving. Same way goes with a restaurant. The effects of second-hand smoke are still unsubstantiated, but until corroborating evidence says it's safe, I'm still staying clear. That's just my preference.

*[soapbox]To all the smokers out there, the world is not an ashtray, when you're done with your cigarrette it is YOUR responsibility to find a waste recepticle for it. The ground should not be littered with butts.[/soapbox]

Good post. And agree with what I think your saying about defining "public." I believe you're speaking to the choices on the poll? I didn't vote one way or the other. Primarily because the options are far too limited. It's kind of like putting up a poll and asking "Should people be quiet?" Yes or No? The issues are a little more complex then that.

 

[Pacridge]

The true facts about second hand smoke have been suppressed for years to further the environmentalist agenda.



Source

Here's one from the WHO that says basically the opposite.

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

But really I don't care if it does or doesn't cause cancer. I don't want to be in a closed room with people smoking. It stinks. Just being in the same room with smokers makes you're clothes stink. Plain and simply- want to smoke? Go outside.

Though I do think business owners should be able to make their own rules. They own the d**n business not the government or the public. Let them and their customers, by voting with their wallets, decide if the bar/restaurant/store et el allows smoking. Not like you're forced to eat/drink/shop there. But in government buildings and places you don't have the option to choose whether or not you need to frequent, it should not be allowed.

 

[Hoot]

Actually, I'm a smoker, but I have set a date to quit very soon. Not really for health reasons, but it's just too damn expensive. I could have a Rickenbacher in a year from the money I saved! LOL ( If you don't know what a Rick is, never mind)

I just think it's a bummer that when I grew up, smoking was considered cool...the Beatles smoked, the Stones, James Dean smoked, famous actors were seen lighting up...etc. We didn't hear much about the hazards of smoking in my youth.

Before I joined the military a pack of cigs would last me a couple of weeks! But in basic training, ( which was no picnic) I can remember the drill sargeant giving us a break and saying...."Smoke 'em if you got 'em."

I was like..."Somebody give me a damn cigarette!" I blame the military for promoting smoking and increasing my intake. My father told me that C-Rations used to come with small packs of cigarettes!

The bottom line, smoking is legal. No business should be forced to ban smoking if they do not wish to...enough with big government.

 

[Squawker]

Pacridge said:

Here's one from the WHO that says basically the opposite.

The study in question is a case-control study on the effects of ETS on lung cancer risk in European populations, which has been carried out over the last seven years by 12 research centres in 7 European countries under the leadership of WHO's cancer research branch -- the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

VS

The enormous study covers 37 years, during which thousands of filght attendans have been followed and monitored for cancer. Furthermore, this is not a study based on questionnaires asking whether uncle Jack smoked more or less in 1956, as it's the case for most antismoking junk science -- nor it is something started and finished in a few months. Finally, it is neither financed by the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, nor is it supported by "public health" funds allocated to produce scientific frauds to support public health's frauds on smoking.

I can’t make up my mind. Should I believe a 7 year study by the biased/liberal WHO or an independent 37 year study of airline attendants?

I blame the military for promoting smoking and increasing my intake.

Hoot, the military didn't put that cigarette in your mouth. We all have free will. I hope you don't sue me, the taxpayer, for your "choice".

 

[Pacridge]

Actually, I'm a smoker, but I have set a date to quit very soon. Not really for health reasons, but it's just too damn expensive. I could have a Rickenbacher in a year from the money I saved! LOL ( If you don't know what a Rick is, never mind)

You and Petty both seem to like "Ricks."

 

[Pacridge]

Pacridge said:


VS


I can’t make up my mind. Should I believe a 7 year study by the biased/liberal WHO or an independent 37 year study of airline attendants?

Hoot, the military didn't put that cigarette in your mouth. We all have free will. I hope you don't sue me, the taxpayer, for your "choice".

Like I said in my post "I don't care if it does or doesn't" you guys can argue over the studies all you want. I was just saying there's other studies out there that contradict the one you've cited. In fact they're a bunch that say it does and this is the first I seen that say it doesn't. Again don't care, don't like smoke in my face whether it does or doesn't. Don't like it stinking up my clothes or ruining the taste of my meal. Want to smoke- go outside.

 

[Squawker]

In fact they're a bunch that say it does and this is the first I seen that say it doesn't.

That is really the point. The ones who support the political agenda are allowed to flourish and the others are suppressed. Something you usually see in third world countries. Laws are made on the basis of this "junk science". We don't make laws because something smells bad do we? Maybe we do. Lets say for the sake of argument a group doesn't like the smell of tobacco smoke. They can't get a law passed on that basis, so they fabricate statistical data to support something people would feel obligated to stop. Curing cancer is a noble cause, and because people are afraid of getting it, they buy into the second hand smoke causes lung cancer stories. The original group gets what they want accomplished, and the public is a willing partner in agreeing to lose their personal freedom.

 

[Windy]

:doh

No, the issue is safety.



So we can all do what we like, regardless of the effects on others?
That's not "conservative", it's plain irresponsible.

In any organised society we cannot have rights without responsibilities.

It seems that most folks do as they like these days. Why should smokers be any different?

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Seeing how the majority of liberals want to outlaw the use of cell phones while driving. Seeing how second hand smoke has more of a direct impact on my day to day life than if someone is talking and driving. I thought of something that I would like to propose and get your feedback.

I have almost been hit by someone talking on their cell phone while driving. My wife was hit bit someone talking on a cell phone. On the other hand I have never been hit or even almost hit by someone smoking & driving.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

No, the issue is safety.

It's about revenue. It's always about revenue. This issue primarily involves local governments. Would a local government shut down a place of business that was a large source of local revenue? Probably not. They'd be better off collecting a fine & continue to allow the business to operate. It creates more revenue. Even when considering pollution; our government does not shut down these factories that continually break pollution laws. They collect their fines & let them continue to operate. If pollution & smoking were really about safety then we'd see businesses shut down for violations; whether they be local smoking ban violations or federal pollution violations committed by corporations. Regardless; it's rather obvious that it's not about safety.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Actually, I'm a smoker, but I have set a date to quit very soon. Not really for health reasons, but it's just too damn expensive. I could have a Rickenbacher in a year from the money I saved! LOL ( If you don't know what a Rick is, never mind)

I'm kind of partial to the Fender "P" bass. But, the Rick will give you that distinct sound though.