CSA_TX said:Seeing how the majority of liberals want to outlaw the use of cell phones while driving.
To RatsPassive smoking has been demonstrated to be harmful,
Don't get in my face, and you won't.and therefore non-smokers should not be forced to inhale the smoke of others.
You could, but it wouldn't make it a valid argument.Of course I could also make the same argument about pollutions and the USA's refusal to sign up to Kyoto!
Squawker said:To Rats
Squawker said:You could, but it wouldn't make it a valid argument.
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.The issue of safety is surely not a right versus left issue,is it?
CSA_TX said:the issue is government infringment.
CSA_TX said: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.
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)."
shuamort said: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]
Squawker said: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.
VSThe 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).
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.
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".I blame the military for promoting smoking and increasing my intake.
Hoot said: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)
Squawker said: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".
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.In fact they're a bunch that say it does and this is the first I seen that say it doesn't.
Naughty Nurse said: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.
CSA_TX said: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 said:No, the issue is safety.
Hoot said: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)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?