Smoking Ban

Thorfinn...Democracy = Mob rule = Chaos at its finest.....and doesnt exisit in its pure form anywhere on earth (not at a national level that is) [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Mordenheim]

If that is the case then a physical including drinking , eating, smoking should be par for getting a job. Last time I got a job my heart, liver, and how much I eat fast food were not on the question list.

A Nazi term used in America is someone who tries to force their view on you no matter the cost. I think it fit's well in the context it is used here. Having said that I am not one to use it except on extreme circumstances.

There is no doubt smoking is bad. However if you look at a impact on society drinking has had a FAR bigger impact on the negative. To be honest the quit smoking campaign is pretty darn close to the hysteria created over marijuana in the 20s? I have not smoked marijuana since my teen's but I can tell you my experiences with alchohal were far worse. I find it funny drinking a poison is so easily a accepted and everything else is considered not bad but horrible. Alchohal has a huge negative impact on communities, families, and the ever growing people killed by a drunk driver. Think about that before someone comes back with "it don't hurt anyone but the person drinking" because frankly that is pure bs.

I understand second hand smoke is not a "nice" thing and can be dangerous. Yet to hear some talk people could easily be swayed to ban it outright had they a choice. That my friends is a very scary thought. No smoking in public? You kidding me? Last I checked this earth is every part of mine as well. I do not smoke but man let someone tell me I can not use a legal product in my own front yard or private owned pool hall. Define public and I might agree but that is a very broad term.

The idea that they can FORCE someone owning a bar to not allow the ue of a legal product scares the heck out of me. You don't tear down right's in one day or one ruling but a series of them. Freedom has never been free (anywhere in the world) and I think people in America have forgot that. Do not worry worry euro-s I join you in laughing at our legal system. While it has strong points it has been used, exploited, and twisted to about every degree possible. It is political to the extent a couple cases can destroy a company by giving sums that stupify logic.

I am sorry to rant off but really I see it as the same issue. Is it honestly such a far cry from not smoking in public anywhere? Is that not a far cry from showing gun's are a danger to the public and should be banned? This pick and choose where freedom is ok mentality is dangerous. The idea that freedom end's when it affects another person can be carried out to extremes unchecked in a ever growing political correct United States. TL is 100% correct in the damage done to EVERYBODYs air by our uncaring attitude or consumption of dirty oil and usage of dirty plants makes smoking seem like a non-factor. How about we be a little honest and drop the selfish want of big vehicles and cheap dirty plants and make some real change.

I have never been a smoker. I have had a few friends over time who smoked. I can tell you they say they get 1000 dirty looks a day. You might be a little rude to if you dealt with such obvious disdain. I guess they should take the visual abuse and smile. How snobby some people can be huh.

I think it's time ole Mordenheim put back on his green jacket and got all political. Seem's everyone is smarter then the next guy so I'll fit right in [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-12-2003, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Mordenheim ]

Originally posted by Mordenheim: I understand second hand smoke is not a "nice" thing and can be dangerous. Yet to hear some talk people could easily be swayed to ban it outright had they a choice. That my friends is a very scary thought. No smoking in public? You kidding me? Last I checked this earth is every part of mine as well. I do not smoke but man let someone tell me I can not use a legal product in my own front yard or private owned pool hall. Define public and I might agree but that is a very broad term. As exposed by Penn and Teller and many scientists who have not been hijacked either by the tobacco lobbys or the antio-tobacco nuts, there is NO valid statistical or scientific evidence that anyone is harmed by second hand smoke barring a preexisting condition, such as asthma...in which case naturally occuring pollen can be just as bad for you.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by MagiK: As exposed by Penn and Teller and many scientists who have not been hijacked either by the tobacco lobbys or the antio-tobacco nuts, there is NO valid statistical or scientific evidence that anyone is harmed by second hand smoke barring a preexisting condition, such as asthma...in which case naturally occuring pollen can be just as bad for you.

Well Penn & Teller are entertainers (and damded good ones) but I'll get my health related info from more reputable sources. 40 years ago they might well have been 'debunking' that cigrettes caused cancer.

[Thorfinn]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: As exposed by Penn and Teller and many scientists who have not been hijacked either by the tobacco lobbys or the antio-tobacco nuts, there is NO valid statistical or scientific evidence that anyone is harmed by second hand smoke barring a preexisting condition, such as asthma...in which case naturally occuring pollen can be just as bad for you.

Well Penn & Teller are entertainers (and damded good ones) but I'll get my health related info from more reputable sources. 40 years ago they might well have been 'debunking' that cigrettes caused cancer. [/QUOTE]Glad to hear it.

May I recommend Passive Smoke: The EPA's Betrayal of Science and Policy by Gio B. Gori and John Luik, which is an analysis of the science behind EPA's 1993 report, as well as a pretty good summary and bibliography of the papers that were published in refereed journals on the subject?

Or how about Slow Burn: The Great American Antismoking Scam (And Why It Will Fail) by Don Oakley?

I assume you are not going to automatically discredit any sources that disagree with you?

[ 05-12-2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[realbinky]

Hmm, so many points to cover, I could add a page to this post by myself, so summaries:
First, I applaud the ban, but DO empathize with the other side. If there were bars that were non-smoking, I would frequent them. I think a lot of the issue with this is not that there is no market, but many bars have "always been that way" and that any that changed to non-smoking would be forever linked negatively in the minds of smokers, just like the government is now. In this case, all the bars are being treated equally, and many bar owners and staff applaud the move (I work in Boston, it is Boston's ban I am referring to).

TL, too bad, if this ban makes you smoke 1 less every time you go out because it is a pain in the ass, and your life gets a little longer/better because of it, then I support it more, because I value your opinion (even now, when it is clearly wrong [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) and your person as well. This alone is society's gain (not just you, everyone who smokes less because it is a pain to do it).

John D (and others), relax man, but I give you the same warning, smoke in my house, and I will respond in kind. How about I piss in my portion of the water supply in your area? I'm not breaking the law, and I'm only affecting MY portion of the water, how can you be upset? If you could limit smoke to your (and it IS yours) portion of the air, I would have no problem, but you can't, and so shouldn't do such as you can't control the aftereffects of.

About 2nd hand smoke. OF COURSE it makes people sick. How can that NOT be common sense? If it is proven that smoking causes these sicknesses, how can someone else breathing the SAME things not get the SAME effects? Does HOLDING the cigarette make you many times more prone to the chemicals and effects? Sure it is less common, as the amount non-smokers get stuck with is less over time, but it is still there. Just like some smokers live to 100, some non-smokers need little to be affected.

I do drive a car, and I do light fires (both camping and my stove, not arson or anything) but I am 100% aware of what I am responsible for. I drive the less polluting car when I can, I walk when I can. I order on-line and therby don't drive to the store. I do my part to reduce, reuse, recycle when I can. so don't give me that.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: Glad to hear it. May I recommend Passive Smoke: The EPA's Betrayal of Science and Policy by Gio B. Gori and John Luik, which is an analysis of the science behind EPA's 1993 report, as well as a pretty good summary and bibliography of the papers that were published in refereed journals on the subject? Or how about Slow Burn: The Great American Antismoking Scam (And Why It Will Fail) by Don Oakley? I assume you are not going to automatically discredit any sources that disagree with you?

Or perhaps I should direct you to the real source, and not some "poking into governmental 'research'" research. Try Pubmed instead, National Library of Medicine's search service, a complete search engine with all research papers released the last 30 years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

Edit: Did I forget to mention? NO politics involved. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 05-12-2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: As exposed by Penn and Teller and many scientists who have not been hijacked either by the tobacco lobbys or the antio-tobacco nuts, there is NO valid statistical or scientific evidence that anyone is harmed by second hand smoke barring a preexisting condition, such as asthma...in which case naturally occuring pollen can be just as bad for you.

Well Penn & Teller are entertainers (and damded good ones) but I'll get my health related info from more reputable sources. 40 years ago they might well have been 'debunking' that cigrettes caused cancer. [/QUOTE]Glad to hear it.

May I recommend Passive Smoke: The EPA's Betrayal of Science and Policy by Gio B. Gori and John Luik, which is an analysis of the science behind EPA's 1993 report, as well as a pretty good summary and bibliography of the papers that were published in refereed journals on the subject?

Or how about Slow Burn: The Great American Antismoking Scam (And Why It Will Fail) by Don Oakley?

I assume you are not going to automatically discredit any sources that disagree with you? [/QUOTE]It seems Mr Oakley also feels that smoking itself is not harmful, which even the tobacco companies themselves acknowledge is true. Kind of casts some doubt on the rest of his assuretion. Just because someone writes a book about something does not mean it is true. Accroding to many books we never landed on the moon.

[Thorfinn]

So, realbinky, your point is that since others don't do what you think is best for them, government should step in and force them to do as you feel is correct? Presumably that means you believe you have some security interest in them that their self-destructive habits are compromising? To some extent, you have the right to control them? That to that extent you own them?

As for common sense and passive smoke, are you going to actually read what the science says, or just believe the propaganda?

The point is that you are being manipulated in what you hear, and have been sold on the idea that democracy should trump rights and freedom. You do realize this is identical in kind, though not extent, to what happened in the '30s in Germany, don't you?

[Mordenheim]

I am not going to make another long post (well at least try not to). I think I made my point clear.

It seems the issue is public saftey. Second hand smoke is a danger to the public. Using this analogy how can ANY honest person looking at REAL evidence say alchohol is not a danger to public saftey? I will even argue more so and would be happy to back it up with a whole host of actual deaths not scientific research that has not shown me ONE single case of death from second hand smoke (excuse the run-on).

Using logical thinking there is no way one can say second hand smoke is more dangerous then the consumption of alchohol at places like bars. I am glad some take a taxi but FACTUAL evidence show plenty do not. Those plenty cause a major risk to public saftey. There is no way to lie in the face of evidence.

Asking if you smoke before you get a job is pure discrimination. Obesity as well as alchohol addiction can be just as fatal. If we were half way honest we would call it what it is and that is discrimination. I find it funny in the most obese country in the world we have people screaming about health. Imagine that.

I mean show me people who have got cancer from second hand smoke. Show it to me, dont tell me, show me. Don't show me some report done by people in a lab.. show me real living people who have had life put in danger because of second hand smoke. I want to hear about bob the bartender and nancy the waitress. Then after you do let me show you the graves filled with children, mothers, fathers of people who died for that right called alchohol. Let's compare and see exactly what is more a danger to public saftey. This is such a political hysterical issue it is not even funny.

Both are dangerous but I argue where does it end? There will never be a utopia folks. We might want to think twice about banning things less we end up with logans run.