I know why I feel the government should be involved. If left up to the discretion of the people smoking/drinking/peeing in the pool, those people will usually do as they want and have done in the past. I know my parents did (smoking and drinking). Was it wise to smoke around children with asthma or take them to smokey bars? NO! Can laws protect us from ourselves on every issue? NO! But do I now enjoy dining out and flying on aircraft that before would have sent me into bronchial spasms? What is the answer that can protect the rights of BOTH the non-smoker and the smoker?

If it was found a particular type of music I loved was found to be harmful to people, and the democratic process meant such music could not be played in public, I would play it in the privacy of my own home.

Fair enough. Have a good meeting.

Timber, you apparently misread my post. I did not say that smoking was not harmful. I did say that from the studies, you cannot make that determination. It is kind of a subtle distinction, maybe, but no more so than you must encounter on a daily basis. The defense may not disagree that they may have harmed someone else, but demand that the plaintiffs prove that. Obviously, polling the first 22 people out of the Hard Rock Cafe in Cancun would not be considered a methodologically rigorous proof of damage from dog poop in Hyde Park. If one wants to coerce another on the basis of some scientific study, at the very least, that study should not be flawed.

My point is not so much that passive smoke doesn't harm you. I, too, am a believer, though at least can appreciate that I don't have any real, solid proof to point at, making this more a matter of faith than of mind...

<font color="#f683ad">I would like to know what undeniable proof there is that this, that or the next cancer was caused by a smoke particle. Smoke is just one of thousands of pollutants found in night clubs, there is everything from molds and fungus in the air vetns to asbestos and other building materials...out side there are billions of pollens, dust, dirt and decayed flesh particles in the supposed "clean" air we breathe. There is to my knowledge no reliable impartial evidence that second hand smoke caused anything.

Just as I pointed out our pure water sources aren't all that pure when you realize that there are billions of rotting particulates in there from fish and wildlife and bugs...so too our air is anything but pure....and our lungs and respiratory systems are actually designed to filter out a lot of the pollutants and debris.

Edit: I believe smoking is bad for you because you are putting "concentrated" particulate matter into your lungs....second hand smoke is quite a bit less dense....</font>

[ 05-12-2003, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Yorick, you can make a very solid case that any loud noises contribute to hearing loss. I defy you to find more than a handful of bars where rock-n-roll is played at low volume. While classical and "elevator" music is often at background levels, I have only been to a handful of bars where the volume was not cranked enough that you had to yell at the guy next to you to be heard, and sometimes not even that worked.

Suffice it to say that I have experienced hearing loss at these establishments, though I actually only went there for a beer and companionship. You rockers and your inability to contain your noise forced a hearing loss on me, and I think it is high time the government threw the lot of you in jail...

<font color="#f683ad">LOL Thorfinn [img]smile.gif[/img] You know I actually have a high frequency hearing loss, due in all likelyhood to rock music and gun fire [img]smile.gif[/img] ...not necessarily at the same time....but then not necessarily at different time either [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Thorin/Magik, you have convinced with your arguements. Lets do away with all laws that having anything to do with protecting the environment, watersheds, personal behaviour. We should all be free to pollute, be rude, dump untreated sewage and toxic by-products any where we want. As there is no undeniable proof that any of this stuff harms anyone!
And if we are injured by any of these activities you can hire a neghboorhood lawyer at $200/hour to take on the giagantic multi-national corporation with a staff of 100+ laywers to get redress for any harm inflicted on you. Just be ready to provide undeniable proof that it was there product that harmed you. Since any of those myrids of other things floating around out there could have given you that cancer.

I wear earplugs to any concert to reduce damage to my ears. Those concerned about their hearing, can and do make choices that work. However I cannot wear "smoke filters" to reduce tobacco damage.

Woohoo! Another convert!

Sorry you feel that way, Rokenn. That is, though, rather typical when people's deeply held religion-like faith is called into question by facts contrary to the creed preached by their clergy. When true believers can't dispute the facts, they generally attempt to make an emotional assault on the argument or those who make them...

[ 05-12-2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

I wear earplugs to any concert to reduce damage to my ears. Those concerned about their hearing, can and do make choices that work. However I cannot wear "smoke filters" to reduce tobacco damage. </font>[/QUOTE]Nonsense. Smokers do. They are called "filtered cigarettes". Just buy yourself a pack of Marlboros, snap off a couple filters and slip one into each nostril. ;)

Actually, the fact you cannot just slip down to the chemists and pick up a set of smoke filters is a pretty good argument that either people don't truly care about second-hand smoke, or that the problem may be overblown in the first place...

[ 05-12-2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

<font color="#f683ad">LOL Rokenn [img]smile.gif[/img] we are talking smoking here...smoking in privately owned establishments...not chemical waste dumping or irresponsible disposal of nuclear material.

o one on here has yet explained to me why the government has the right to tell a tavern owner he cannot allow smoking. When I was a kid, I do remember smokey diners....I also remember places that didn't allow smoking and or drinking...and I was free to choose which I went into....now we want the nanny state to tell us...you can't open up a cigar bar, or a smoking pub...Neither of which I would enter....but I think those who want to should be free to do so. Im not advocating allowing smoking in places like restauraunts...however food may or may not be served at those smoking establishments.

In my eyes this is a clear case where a fringe group has multiplied and exacerbated an issue into such proportions that they are willing to give up some of my freedoms to suit their agenda...I don't like that, and that isn't what our constitution was based on. </font></font>

<font color="#f683ad">LLAO [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Touche`</font>

[ 05-12-2003, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

This is moving to a Part 2 thread now.