Smoking Ban part 2, original by Timber Loftis

[Cloudbringer]

Here's the first part if you wish to review.


KEEP THIS CIVIL! Take personal disputes to pm and please avoid insulting other posters if you are irritated or angry over the issues discussed.

[ 05-12-2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: Woohoo! Another convert! Sorry you feel that way. 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...

no, quite the contray. The anti-regulation people love to pull out the slippery slope arguement and carry it to extremes (the next thing you know they will say you can't even have a hamburger!), or pull out studies by fringe scientists saying there is no proof it's bad for you. Or claim that before we can take action we must have undeniable proof that it causes harm. By these reasonings nothing would ever be done (which is just want some people seem to want). Living in the modern world requires trade-offs of all types. Lately the big trade-offs have been the erosion of civil liberties against the chance of another terrorist attack. If we are so willing to give up civil liberties for a very statisicly small chance of death, certainly we can ask smokers to step outside and pollute only their lungs and not the lungs of everyone else in the room.

It is impossible to due a truely controlled study of the dangers of second-hand smoke. And even if it was possible would it be ethical? It took the tobacco companies decades to admit that they knew there product was killing people. Are we going to wait even more decades to remove the risk of second hand smoke?

A note on the comparisons of smoking being as dangerous as drinking to non-particapents. Society has said that drinking under the influnce is against the law and punishable. So that behaviour is controlled, even to the extent of having sobriety checkpoints to stop people of doing it. So asking smokers to smoke outdoors or in specially ventalated rooms is not that big of a stretch.

[Rokenn]

Magik wrote:

LOL Rokenn 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.

Well if we are to through off the shackles of the 'nanny government' we should go all the way. If I want to drive a 57 chevy and use leaded fuel I should be able to. If my company wants to dump arsonic in the water why shouldn't I be able to? Also according to the california smoking ordenences if you want to create a private dues paying club that allows smoking you can. They are pretty few and far between though. I guess there is no market for them.

Rokenn, you are purposely mixing things that affect the publc at large and those that are confined to a specific location that can be freely and easily avoided.

I suppose when you write regulations about what color Oranges must be before sold, that you would disqualify all the macintoshs too.

[WillowIX]

Teehee I hate to say I told you so Timber but I told you so! [img]tongue.gif[/img] Cloudy beat you to it though.

Originally posted by MagiK: [qb]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. qb]

All cancers are genetically tested to retrieve information about what genes are mutated and how. Nicotine for instance can bing DNA and thus induce a tumor. Hence it is possible to show the cause of cancers. This technique is under rapid development so in a few years we will probably be able to show what substance did what. Does this answer your question? I would also like to give you a [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] on your comment about scientists. That's why I never trust "scientific" articles or literature by laymen.

Note: Couldn't copy your font color. And the " [img]tongue.gif[/img] " is directed towards Timber.

[ 05-12-2003, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by MagiK: Rokenn, you are purposely mixing things that affect the publc at large and those that are confined to a specific location that can be freely and easily avoided. I suppose when you write regulations about what color Oranges must be before sold, that you would disqualify all the macintoshs too.

Yes I am. To try and make the point that living in a complex, modern environment trade-offs are the order of the day. Not saying we can not take action till we have undeniable proof that something is bad before taking action.

[Thorfinn]

As for your hamburger being regulated away, you are aware of Mr Cesar et. al. who are arguing precisely for that, don't you? That they really did not know that hamburgers were dangerous, and they need to be protected from Big Macs...

And, no, I don't demand undeniable proof. I doubt anyone does. None of us worries when he gets out of bed that we will suddenly fly to the ceiling, gravity having changed its mind about what it wants to do today. We all expect that our car will probably be in the driveway in the morning, though we have no undeniable proof of that. What I do demand is that if you are going to try to regulate away freedom, at the very least, you should not have a study based on false premises.

Can you make a true, double blind study on humans. No, of course not. The same human will not exist the second time around. But you can make an attempt to get as close as you can. For instance, virtually all smoking studies use a group who have lung cancer, then figure out how many of them smoked. The scientific method would say that you should propose a mechanism for smoking to cause harm, then you can pick a group of smokers, and a control group as alike in all other respects as possible, then check for indicators that mechanism is active in smokers, yet not active in non-smokers. That would be verificiation of an a priori hypothesis.

You could try to formulate some deductive statistics to compare a group of people exposed to second-hand smoke to a group not exposed to second hand smoke, and as alike in all other respects as possible, but you have to bear in mind that correlation is not causation. For instance, virtually all of the decline in Northern Spotted Owl occurred during the time there was a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives. That does not mean that Democrat control causes extinction pressure, but that is the logic that people accept without question when you use smoking, or industrial chemicals, or trauma-induced cancer, or pretty much any of the other activist-driven causes.

Yes, you could come up with a study that may reveal that passive smoke bears higher risks of certain afflictions than people without exposure. To the best of my knowledge, no one has done any work to show that passive smoke engenders higher risk factors, though.

Incidentally, we have already done that with AIDS transmission and rectal intercourse, for instance, so under precautionary principle, we should be justified in banning anal intercourse. But for a change, liberals in America are shying away from applying the principle here...

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: Incidentally, we have already done that with AIDS transmission and rectal intercourse, for instance, so under precautionary principle, we should be justified in banning anal intercourse. But for a change, liberals in America are shying away from applying the principle here...

lol. well there is also proof that AIDS is transmitted by regular intercourse as well, so maybe we should just outlaw sex in general.

Knowing how something is spread, is only half the issue. Haivng that knowledge lets you take precautions to avoid risk. That is why one of the first facts doctors were looking for in the recent SARS outbreak was to find how it is transmitted.

So, we know that smoking increasing your chance of a whole host of cancers and lung diseases. It's resonable to assume, imo, that the same smoke that comes out of the smokers lips is still dangerous. Not to the same extent as the original smoke, but still a risk.

[Thorfinn]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Magik wrote: quote: LOL Rokenn 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.

Well if we are to through off the shackles of the 'nanny government' we should go all the way. If I want to drive a 57 chevy and use leaded fuel I should be able to. If my company wants to dump arsonic in the water why shouldn't I be able to? Also according to the california smoking ordenences if you want to create a private dues paying club that allows smoking you can. They are pretty few and far between though. I guess there is no market for them. [/QUOTE]Well, let me start by agreeing with you. If we are going to throw off the nanny state, we should be consistent and get rid of every nanny-state regulation and agency.

First, on your '57 Chevy, I assume you are going to blend your own gasoline? Leaded gasoline is pretty rare anymore... I guess if you want to do so, fine, but there are far better anti-knock compounds than tetra-methyl lead anymore. BTW, rest assured that if I can prove you have harmed me through the use of your motor fuel, you will be paying me damages. This contrasts with gov't mandated MTBE, which has caused a huge problem in California, and y'all have to just live with it. Gov't is not responsible for anything when it harms you.

If you want to dump arsenic in your water, go for it. But you better not let that arsenic-laden water to get off your property, or that is going to cost you a fortune, far more than it would cost you to have dealt with it properly in the first place. BTW, compare that to gov't regulation, where the company is legally allowed to release a certain amount of arsenic, and there is not a thing you can do about it. Gov't tells you to like it or lump it.

And, by the way, there was no reason that people couldn't band together and form a non-smoking bar before, was there? Since there were not too many of them, I would guess your argument would hold that there was no market for non-smoking establishments, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by WillowIX: All cancers are genetically tested to retrieve information about what genes are mutated and how. Nicotine for instance can bing DNA and thus induce a tumor. Hence it is possible to show the cause of cancers. This technique is under rapid development so in a few years we will probably be able to show what substance did what. Does this answer your question? I would also like to give you a [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] on your comment about scientists. That's why I never trust "scientific" articles or literature by laymen. Note: Couldn't copy your font color. And the " [img]tongue.gif[/img] " is directed towards Timber.

Thanks for the info Willow [img]smile.gif[/img] cool stuff being done, however the second hand smokers use highly suspect data to prove their point and have not done even even an attempt to do their research. P&T had people interviewing the supposed "Top" scintists and doctors leading the charge against second hand smoke...and they were very very unbelievable and could produce no good evidence and were reduced to "Hey we are trying to do a good thing here" as their defense andproof of what they were claimng was fact.

As for the [img]tongue.gif[/img] you can stick it out at me any time [img]smile.gif[/img] Im not that thin skinned.

Edit: Had to remove some smileys due to limitations.