Smoking Ban part 2, original by Timber Loftis

[WillowIX]

Cerek I was not talking about your allergies, nor was I talking about the respiratory problems of others. I'm sorry if my post was confusing. And what I meant by "scared" was that some people instantly devlops anxiety of cancer when finding out some facts. [img]smile.gif[/img] Therefore cancer is a more touchy subject than one would imagine. [img]smile.gif[/img]

OK now I´m going off topic.

I did not know that Cerek. I hope you will have a long and healthy life. Now your allergies can most certainly be diagnosed and treated. Even though you may feel that you can cope with them. Most allergies can be diagnosed with a "simple" blood test. And treatment can be adjusted to serve you the best. If you haven't had your allergies examinated, then go do so. If you have but didn't receive a proper answer, IYO, press your doctor to run further testing. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-13-2003, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Thorfinn]

Nice try, Willow, but in order to do that, you must assume:

1. 2000 hazardous chemicals in sidestream smoke,
2. All 2000 have a PEL of 1 ppm, and,
3. All 2000 have emission levels of 313 micrograms per cigarette.

I don't believe you have established any of these, let alone any one of them. Actually, we did establish one of them. Or at least, I did. I'll leave the rest for someone else...

BTW, PELs are established based on concurrent exposure. For instance, the level for benzene also assumes exposure to toluene, xylene, and cyclohexane, the common, relatively closely related solvents. For occupational exposure, we figure each component independently, and any additive effects are assumed to be covered within the low level of the PEL established, and the 1-in-1 million chance of increased risk. That may not be a safe assumption, but if you don't, you start combining multiple order of magnitude margins of error, and you end up with the ludicrous conclusion that eating an apple is 100% lethal...

[ 05-13-2003, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: I don't understand. Why does a story about a totalitarian government walking all over the people ("Imagine a boot stomping on a human face forever." or something like that. Or am I remembering the wrong book?) mean small, limited government is a bad thing? It seems to me it was an argument against strong central government and its commensurate ministries of disinformation...

Thorfinn, it is I who should apologize. I had the wrong book in MY memory. I was thinking Animal Farm. [img]graemlins/doh.gif[/img] I realized this later, when I was on my way home.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: As I read through the previous thread, I was struck by an ironic thought. Most of those supporting the ban say that smokers should be forced to take their "habit" outside since it is offensive to the majority of the patrons. Yet most of these same people were OUTRAGED a few months ago when a mall in NY tried to force two men to remove T-shirts that were considered "offensive" by the majority of it's patrons or vacate the premises. In one case, the rights of the individual supercedes the rights of the majority, in the other case it is the exact opposite.

That is because most people have a preference and argue TOWARD their preference rather than based on logic.

[Timber Loftis]

Willow, sorry for laughing, but I find it funny all the talk of benzene when cars are most certainly the major source for this pollutant. I know this harkens back like 8 or 9 pages to the "stop driving" points, but benzene was ceretainly the wrong nit to pick. It did give Thorfinn a great math workout, however. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: As I read through the previous thread, I was struck by an ironic thought. Most of those supporting the ban say that smokers should be forced to take their "habit" outside since it is offensive to the majority of the patrons. Yet most of these same people were OUTRAGED a few months ago when a mall in NY tried to force two men to remove T-shirts that were considered "offensive" by the majority of it's patrons or vacate the premises. In one case, the rights of the individual supercedes the rights of the majority, in the other case it is the exact opposite. [/QB]

Ummm in one case you have people exercising their right to political speech, in another you have people poluting their bodies and the air of everyone near them. Apple meet orange.

Unless smoking is now a form of political speech.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: People who do not like smoke..should not visit establishments that allow it...it is very simple.

So we become second class citizens. Denied jobs, entertainment and access because of the inconsiderate choices of others?

Let's get this clear. The smoking ban makes everyone equal. Smokers and nonsmokers can go to the same bars, get on the same planes, have the same jobs, and no-one is affected any more or less.

What is easier MagiK? Having the life of a monk with zero access to bars, public transport, entertainment or reasonably paid service jobs OR WALKING OUTSIDE FOR TWO MINUTES. The blatant disregard for others is astounding me here. The violent anger towards those who care enough about their health to battle addiction and quit is frightening.

There is NO REASON why a person whop decides not to smoke should be effeectively barred from entering a place. NO REASON why a person should have two careers - music and service - closed to them because of others choices.

The argument "you can always leave" is the rudest, stupidest, most inconsiderate and totally discriminatory solution I've seen.

One side can never visit
or
The other side can walk out for two minutes.

Which is fairer? Get over the RIGHTS offense and have some concern for the health of your fellow human beings. Your children. You may make the decision to kill yourself with tobacco but HOW DARE YOU make that decision for another, and DEMAND it is a RIGHT to do so!!??

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Willow, sorry for laughing, but I find it funny all the talk of benzene when cars are most certainly the major source for this pollutant. I know this harkens back like 8 or 9 pages to the "stop driving" points, but benzene was ceretainly the wrong nit to pick. It did give Thorfinn a great math workout, however. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

*sighs*

Posted by me: No no I agree with the above. But let's compare with a cigarette. Benzene isn't very good for you, neither is benzoate plus another 100 or 200 toxic substances

You will just have to argue the above with yourself since IIRC you brought up benzene first. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Thorfinn, multiplying with 2,000 would give an approximate, not an accurate estimate.

[Thorfinn]

Nonsense, Yorick, it does not make everyone equal. Or thinking of Timber's reference to Animal Farm, it may make all people equal, but some more equal than others...

You have had your way imposed upon them, with government guns being used to enforce it. Congratulations. Step One on the road to tyranny...