Smoking Ban part 2, original by Timber Loftis

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: 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.

I agree. And, I am NOT willing to trade my civil liberties based on a statistically small chance of death. So, I am dead set against all of the post-9/11 pro-governmental intrusion BS laws.

On the proof that 2nd hand smoke will kill you and the demand for proof, I must say that Penn & Teller know about as much about science as they do about being polite or having a meaningful dialogue between themselves. Seriously, though, in court the defense will demand you prove that you were in proximity to my smoke, that it actually was inhaled by you, and that my smoke particles were the actual cause of the harm. If my smoke particles were combined with dust, pollen, benzene, PAH, formaldehyde, asbestos, CK Be, cookout grill smoke, and/or fart odor particles, you must separate out the relative percentages of each and how it harmed you. The plaintiff will argue since you were near me once upon a time at a rock concert when I smoked a cigarette, I should buy you a new home and yacht. Because absolute 100% proof is VERY SCARCE indeed, we trust the jury to sort it out. Thus, I haven't joined this science debate because I well know that it just results in each side trotting out info espewed by folks who are funded by those with political agendas. So, I use COMMON SENSE to tell me that cigarette smoke can hurt people -- based on the notion that while dense smoke (as magic mentioned) can really harm you, not-so-dense smoke still harms you some. I only need look at my watering eyes in a smokey room to know the truth of this.

However, private places of business are privately owned. Period. I should not be able to force your bar to ban cigarettes any more than I should be able to force my local Jewel grocery to carry my favorite brand of eco-friendly dishwashing soap. It is in fact more logical to ban smoking OUTSIDE than it is to ban it in privately-owned bars, as non-smokers can't *choose* to never venture outside. You could also do it through land-use and zoning regulations -- which would be done at the local level where we could all have a voice on the issue. (And, it is actually laws occuring at the local level that are being passed.)

However, an ABSOLUTE BAN in incredulous. The government is simply stepping on our toes too close. Next it will be banning noxious perfumes. Now, while I might like to see this happen to some of the old biddies in my office, it is certainly too far.

Originally posted by Rokenn: 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.

You lost me...whats that got to do with makinglaws so that property owners cannot allow legal activities they wish to on their premises?

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: 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.

But my army of 100+ corporate lawyers will keep you tied up in court for so long you will never get redress. The point is 'nanny regulations' are not the demon you try and make them out to be. Besides if the pollution spewing out of my factory shortens your life by 30 years or causes your child to die of cancer is there any form of redress that can truly pay that back? I don't think so.

[Larry_OHF]

My grandmother died of Lung Cancer, due to smoking. I learned in this whole ordeal that women are more likely to develop lung cancer than men are, due to genetics that I really do not understand well enough to explain...

One good thing came of her death...
her son, my father, stopped smoking the day she died. The change in his health is very noticeable.

Bottom line...smoking is kinda like suicide.
Second-hand smoke could be considered involuntary manslaughter!

[Thorfinn]

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.

NO, NO, NO!!!

Any toxicologist will tell you that the toxin is in the dosage. Too much potassium in your body will kill you, as will too little. You need a certain amount to operate properly. I am not saying that you need second-hand smoke, but that it is not reasonable to assume that a low dosage is also risky, just less so.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: On the proof that 2nd hand smoke will kill you and the demand for proof, I must say that Penn & Teller know about as much about science as they do about being polite or having a meaningful dialogue between themselves. This is just a specious argument and beneath you guy. P&T may not be scientists, however the researchers and people probing the issues are, and the P&T component is also useful in spotting common scams and dodges used by conmen and econuts alike. Come on you can do better at attacking the issue. There is no "smoking gun" (pun intended) pointing to secondhand smoke being a danger to anyone...You conveniently side step the issue that there is crap in any air you breathe. (I see you address this below...) Seriously, though, in court the defense will demand you prove that you were in proximity to my smoke, that it actually was inhaled by you, and that my smoke particles were the actual cause of the harm. If my smoke particles were combined with dust, pollen, benzene, PAH, formaldehyde, asbestos, CK Be, cookout grill smoke, and/or fart odor particles, you must separate out the relative percentages of each and how it harmed you. The plaintiff will argue since you were near me once upon a time at a rock concert when I smoked a cigarette, I should buy you a new home and yacht. Because absolute 100% proof is VERY SCARCE indeed, we trust the jury to sort it out. Thus, I haven't joined this science debate because I well know that it just results in each side trotting out info espewed by folks who are funded by those with political agendas. So, I use COMMON SENSE to tell me that cigarette smoke can hurt people -- based on the notion that while dense smoke (as magic mentioned) can really harm you, not-so-dense smoke still harms you some. I only need look at my watering eyes in a smokey room to know the truth of this. errr I tried to avoid the fart particle and fish shit aspects of my dirty air and water argument.....guess It was a wasted effort However, private places of business are privately owned. Period. I should not be able to force your bar to ban cigarettes any more than I should be able to force my local Jewel grocery to carry my favorite brand of eco-friendly dishwashing soap. It is in fact more logical to ban smoking OUTSIDE than it is to ban it in privately-owned bars, as non-smokers can't *choose* to never venture outside. You could also do it through land-use and zoning regulations -- which would be done at the local level where we could all have a voice on the issue. (And, it is actually laws occuring at the local level that are being passed.) However, an ABSOLUTE BAN in incredulous. The government is simply stepping on our toes too close. Next it will be banning noxious perfumes. Now, while I might like to see this happen to some of the old biddies in my office, it is certainly too far. I can agree about that perfume issue...altho it isn't limited to old biddies here...we have some sweet young ladies who just don't know when to say "Enough".

[Timber Loftis]

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

Um.... I know this is a joke, but just to be pointy-headed I'm going to note that there is a difference. The lining of the rectum tears MUCH more easily than the vaginal lining, and even tears during its more "normal" universally-accepted functions. Point is, it being distinct, it could be banned without banning normal sex. Just like cigarettes could be banned without banning pipe tobacco or cigars.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by MagiK: Thanks for the info Willow 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. Since I agree with you on your post in the first thread, as I stated in my post above, I will stick my head out and say that they have lost their reputation as a scientist. A scientist would instantly direct you to statistics based on facts, be them positive or negative. However I still believe P&T presented "faulty" facts since they based their show on a governmental research. [img]smile.gif[/img] The faulty facts arose from that research of course. Why relay the whole truth when you can manipulate it to serve your purposes. 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. I know MagiK. But had I not posted the remark to Timber you would have gotten a " [img]smile.gif[/img] " instead. [img]smile.gif[/img] Edit: Had to remove some smileys due to limitations.

Edited due to the fact that my font was indistinguishable from MagiK's.

[ 05-12-2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: My grandmother died of Lung Cancer, due to smoking. I learned in this whole ordeal that women are more likely to develop lung cancer than men are, due to genetics that I really do not understand well enough to explain... One good thing came of her death... her son, my father, stopped smoking the day she died. The change in his health is very noticeable. Bottom line...smoking is kinda like suicide. Second-hand smoke could be considered involuntary manslaughter!

You have my sympathies Larry, but does yourpersonal tragedy give you or the government right to force your desires on others who don't wish to learn from your tragedy? Sort of like helmet lwas..they save lives but are a clear violation of personal rights...and seatbelt laws little by little the state is taking your liberties...the land of the free is already the most legislated and regulated....

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: lol. well there is also proof that AIDS is transmitted by regular intercourse as well, so maybe we should just outlaw sex in general.

Um.... I know this is a joke, but just to be pointy-headed I'm going to note that there is a difference. The lining of the rectum tears MUCH more easily than the vaginal lining, and even tears during its more "normal" universally-accepted functions. Point is, it being distinct, it could be banned without banning normal sex. Just like cigarettes could be banned without banning pipe tobacco or cigars. [/QUOTE]Outside the US the main vector of AIDS is not anal intercourse, but vaginal.