CDZ Smoker's Rights

[9thIDdoc]

Smoking causes cancer and exacerbates a ton of other illnesses. That is not even subject to debate

Of course it's subject to debate. This is the CDZ and you're trying to beg the question. You a missing the words "prove" and "cause". If you know of any way to prove what caused someone's cancer please let us all know. And please explain how people who have never smoked got lung cancer. And why everyone who smokes doesn't.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can move to a desert, live off-grid, exercise like a fiend and not smoke or drink sodapop and die at 45 from a brain anneurysm.

Rather than trying to live forever, which you're never gonna, live happily.

"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

 

[paddymurphy]

I quit 10 years ago. I'm pro smoker all the way. My dad died from smoking Camels. Still, I'm all for it if you like it. This is just silly ...

No one's ever died from smoking. Would be banned overnight if that were true.

With literally thousands of carcinogens in our enviroment, the ones that actually start a cancer is impossible to determine. You'd have to eliminate everything else then expose someone to tobacco smoke and see if they get cancer to say with certainty, smoking causes cancer. Lots of of things cause cancer. Flame retardants in our clothes and furniture are huge causes as well. Lot of our food cause cancers as well. Tobacco use is 1 risk factor among thousands of others.

For 'smoking causes cancer' to be true, every smoker would have to get cancer. In fact according to the CDC itself, only about 40% of smokers develop lung cancer. And whether it was the smoking, or some other combination of things that caused it can't be determined.

Smoking causes cancer and exacerbates a ton of other illnesses. That is not even subject to debate. Saying that since only 40 % of smokers get lung cancer proves there is no causal relationship cause the other 60 % don't has to be about the silliest thing I have read. How many people who don't smoke get lung cancer? Not many. If you want to smoke, go right ahead but do not lie and claim there is no connection between smoking and serious health problems and early death. That is offensive.

"Lung cancer mainly occurs in older people. About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are 65 or older; fewer than 2% of all cases are found in people younger than 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 70."
What are the key statistics about lung cancer

Given the median life expectency is 70-80, you were going to die anyway. So really, did smoking kill you, or did you just hit your avg life expectency where you were going to die from something regardless.

Great source. Here is something else from that website:


Are any types of cigarettes safe to smoke?
What kinds of illness and death are caused by smoking cigarettes?
About half of all Americans who keep smoking will die because of the habit. Each year about 480,000 people in the United States die from illnesses related to tobacco use. Smoking cigarettes kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.

Cancers caused by smoking
Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It’s linked with an increased risk of these cancers:

• Lung
• Larynx (voice box)
• Oral cavity (mouth, tongue, and lips)
• Nose and sinuses
• Pharynx (throat)
• Esophagus (tube connecting the throat to the stomach)
• Stomach
• Pancreas
• Cervix
• Kidney
• Bladder
• Ovary (a type called mucinous ovarian cancer)
• Colorectum (the colon and/or the rectum)
• Acute myeloid leukemia

Gotta die from something eventually. Think the impression people try to push that if you don't smoke, do exercise and eat well you'll live forever is so we are more blaise' about death. Think instead we should accept death as a necessary and inevitible result of having been born. If not preparing ourselves mentally for the deaths of loved ones, when that happens, and it will, it's just gonna negatively efect more than if we'd prepared ourselves for it by accepting it.

Death of people who live beyond 80 isn't an 'oh what a horrible tragedy they died' but a 'hurray they exceeded their life expectency!'

Gotta die from something? How profound. No one has ever suggested that if you don't smoke, exercise all of the time and eat right that you will live forever. You are likely to live a longer, healthier life and no one has ever suggested otherwise. Getting back to the point you seem to be abandoning, smoking causes cancer and other serious health problems. You have yet to produce a single thing to prove otherwise.

 

[Bonzi]

Death is not so bad. Has such a bad rap!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Barring accidents, when we die, and from what, is more about our genes than lifestyle factors. Many of the people living beyond 100 smoke, eat crap, and don't exercise. So how do we explain their longevity? Well, geneticists can tell you they almost always have 3 particular genes in the 'on' position enabling long life. Whereas the 'health nuts' who die early don't.

Hopefully, while usually afraid of anything beginning with 'gene...' we'll be able to do gene therapy for people in the womb and turn these 'longevity genes' on eventually.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Getting back to the point you seem to be abandoning, smoking causes cancer and other serious health problems. You have yet to produce a single thing to prove otherwise.

Where have you proven that it does?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Death is not so bad. Has such a bad rap!

View attachment 42576

Death sucks. But at the same time, it's absolutely crucial that we die. If we didn't, or if we lived significantly longer than we usually do (say about 75-80 years) then the problems we already experience due to population would be much worse. There's only so many places to live, and so many resources. If we lived twice as long we'd have several times the problems.

Only good news is nothing in creation lasts forever. Everything that is, eventually isn't. Even stars die.

 

[9thIDdoc]

 

[Bonzi]

Death is not so bad. Has such a bad rap!

View attachment 42576

Death sucks. But at the same time, it's absolutely crucial that we die. If we didn't, or if we lived significantly longer than we usually do (say about 75-80 years) then the problems we already experience due to population would be much worse. There's only so many places to live, and so many resources. If we lived twice as long we'd have several times the problems.

Only good news is nothing in creation lasts forever. Everything that is, eventually isn't. Even stars die.

Well we disagree again there.. but we'll find out when we die!

But, unless we do live eternally and all go to the same place, there won't be any "I told you so's"!!!

 

[Flopper]

If the best restaurant in town allows smoking, you just have a choice to make. Put up with the smoke or have the best meal in town.

Most restaurants would not allow smoking - because there are more people that DON'T smoke than people that do... that would never be an issue in current times.

Why is it absolutely necessary to foul the air in a restaurant when there is a car in the parking lot ready to smoke in?

Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!

It's always a judgement call whether individual rights of one group is more important than the rights of another group, in this case smokers and non-smokers.

Here how the states have decided the issue. 34 states have banned smoking in all workplaces. Of the remaining 16 states, most have banned smoking in all workplaces except bars and in some cases restaurants. But that's not the whole story. In every state that has not totally banned smoking in the work place, many cities and counties have. When you add in the number of businesses that have elected to ban smoking voluntarily, there are just not that many workplaces that one can smoke. Strange as it may seem, many smokers agree that smoking should be banned in the workplace because it will give them incentive to stop smoking.

List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[rightwinger]

Non-smokers are too self-centered to associate with. Bottom line is that they consider their comfort more important that anyone elses'.

Seems to be what smokers do

Which one is spewing filth and forcing others to breathe it?

 

[Liffy]

Should laws be changed so that stores and owner's of businesses get to decide if their establishment will allow smoking on the premises and inside the buildings?

I think smoke shops can allow smoking. And other smoking related stores. I remember seeing it on several occasions

 

[Christophera]

Should the employees of any establishment be forced to inhale second hand smoke?

They are free to wear scuba gear, or not work there in the first place.

It's called "self contained breathing apparatus". SCBA and firefighters use it. It would be proper and lawful that employers provide it. The average worker will get about 30 minutes per tank. Since the equipment is heavy they will need frequent rest periods. Each unit costs about $2k.

Since it is corporate manipulation of peoples wants and desires over media that makes smoking so popular, they can send the bill to the cigarette companies and sue them when they don't pay.

Nothing reasonable or practical
In any of that. Far better to not allow the stupid brainwashed smokers to destroy their respiratory systems and that of others in their businesses.

 

[Pogo]

Self contained berating apparatus....

Ah yes. Lotta posters have those....

 

[Bonzi]

If the best restaurant in town allows smoking, you just have a choice to make. Put up with the smoke or have the best meal in town.

Most restaurants would not allow smoking - because there are more people that DON'T smoke than people that do... that would never be an issue in current times.

Why is it absolutely necessary to foul the air in a restaurant when there is a car in the parking lot ready to smoke in?

Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!

It's always a judgement call whether individual rights of one group is more important than the rights of another group, in this case smokers and non-smokers.

Here how the states have decided the issue. 34 states have banned smoking in all workplaces. Of the remaining 16 states, most have banned smoking in all workplaces except bars and in some cases restaurants. But that's not the whole story. In every state that has not totally banned smoking in the work place, many cities and counties have. When you add in the number of businesses that have elected to ban smoking voluntarily, there are just not that many workplaces that one can smoke. Strange as it may seem, many smokers agree that smoking should be banned in the workplace because it will give them incentive to stop smoking.

List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I don't disagree with banning it... AT THE BUSINESSES CHOICE.

Like I said, most places will, at their option, be non-smoking.

I'm just saying allow people to have a smoking establishment if they so choose.

 

[Christophera]

Self contained berating apparatus....

Ah yes. Lotta posters have those....

In the ways some posters use this forum, it functions well that way.

 

[Carla_Danger]

A smoker's rights end where a non-smoker's rights begin. As with the non-smoker not having to breathe in smoke from another.

And the truth is you have no such right. You might as well claim that no one has a right to drive a car or bus or heat their homes or grow plants that produce pollen or wear perfume. "Second-hand" smoke has not been proven to be more dangerous than any of these.

Huh, whaaa?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Should laws be changed so that stores and owner's of businesses get to decide if their establishment will allow smoking on the premises and inside the buildings?

No.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Anyone can run their lungs, or their business, any way they like.

The issue comes in when you force it on other people -- which is what smoking does. If air-breathing were some kind of optional human behaviour we might have an opening here. But it isn't. As someone else here put it (I believe it was Rightwinger), a "no smoking" zone in a building as as effective as a "no peeing" zone in a swimming pool. We cannot legislate the laws of physics.

Don't you think a private business who operates a pool should get to decide if peeing is allowed?

Why do you hate freedom? We should let the free market decide if swimming in pee in hotel pools is OK.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Non-smokers are too self-centered to associate with. Bottom line is that they consider their comfort more important that anyone elses'.

I think you inserted "Non" in front of "smoker" by accident. Surely no moron would think that those imposing cancer causing gases on others are anything less than selfish.