Smoking banned in private homes.

[KittenKoder]

[YOUTUBE]uKcibsUqN2A[/YOUTUBE]

 

[KittenKoder]

If they lie about second hand smoke, then why should we listen about first hand smoke "facts"?

 

[tigerbob]

If they lie about second hand smoke, then why should we listen about first hand smoke "facts"?

Seriously, because first hand smoke is a killer, and nobody disagrees. Even the tobacco companies. The evidence is there, it's unambiguous and it's beyond doubt.

 

[tigerbob]

You are wrong to take that as a yes. I would have said yes, I agree, if I did. There is something fundamentally wrong with your statement. Which I though was clear from my post.

Hmmm. To be honest, I had expected you to agree with it rather than throw the whole thing out simply because I used the word "if". Or is it because I used the term "is proved" (i.e. implying future tense)?

I'll try rephrasing, as I wasn't trying to catch you out.

"Legislation is warranted to protect anyone from exposure to any substance that is proved to have a serious affect on their health". Hmmm, that won't do, because I could be trying to set up a ban on alcohol.

Ermmmm....

"If use of a product by one person has a serious negative health impact on others who are not intending to use that product, then it is fair and reasonable for legislation to be enacted that protects the non user".

I think that still covers it. Will that do as an alternative #6?

I somewhat agree but not entirely. We already have lots of different kinds of legislation concerning products with adverse effects on health that are considered fair and reasonable. For example, cars which burn gasoline must have catalytic converters and other technology to limit emissions. In the case of cigarette smoke it is not allowed in the workplace for much the same reasons that other dangerous substances are not allowed. No exception is made for bar staff as all employees are covered by OSHA regulations on quality of indoor air.

Also, the term "non user" is not clear. Do you mean 100% non user or if you mean some one not using the substance at the moment?

I'm not quite sure still where your degree of disagreement stems from.Your first 2 sentences are sort of preamble, and the third and fourth sentences (workplace / barstaff) don't seem to contradict my statement.

By the way, non user means what it says. Someone who does not use. Whether it is never used or used to use but has now stopped doesn't really make a difference as far as I can tell.

If you disagree or want to clarify further please let me know. Otherwise...

#8: Many media reports, and most STS legislation are based on studies generated by well respected organizations such at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

 

[KittenKoder]

If they lie about second hand smoke, then why should we listen about first hand smoke "facts"?

Seriously, because first hand smoke is a killer, and nobody disagrees. Even the tobacco companies. The evidence is there, it's unambiguous and it's beyond doubt.

Ever hear the claim "smoking pot aids terrorism?" When facts are blown out of proportion it's easy for many to just go along with it if they just simply don't like it. Fine, if you don't like it don't do it, but don't expect anyone to believe those claims. There is no hard evidence to support hysteria, none, all things we do have health risks, and serious ones at that. Coffee, alcohol, automobiles, most of our food, walking, hiking, skiing, etc.. We do these things knowing the risks, and no risk is greater than the other, living kills, it's a fact. But what people have done is instead of making living worth while, or at least worth it, they want to live forever, or force the rest of us to live longer than we are meant to or even want to. If I have to live without all my pleasures (I have so very few and smoking is one) then I see no point in living at all, which is a true health risk that has no cure.

 

[tigerbob]

If they lie about second hand smoke, then why should we listen about first hand smoke "facts"?

Seriously, because first hand smoke is a killer, and nobody disagrees. Even the tobacco companies. The evidence is there, it's unambiguous and it's beyond doubt.

Ever hear the claim "smoking pot aids terrorism?" When facts are blown out of proportion it's easy for many to just go along with it if they just simply don't like it. Fine, if you don't like it don't do it, but don't expect anyone to believe those claims. There is no hard evidence to support hysteria, none, all things we do have health risks, and serious ones at that. Coffee, alcohol, automobiles, most of our food, walking, hiking, skiing, etc.. We do these things knowing the risks, and no risk is greater than the other, living kills, it's a fact. But what people have done is instead of making living worth while, or at least worth it, they want to live forever, or force the rest of us to live longer than we are meant to or even want to. If I have to live without all my pleasures (I have so very few and smoking is one) then I see no point in living at all, which is a true health risk that has no cure.

What hysteria? Primary tobacco smoke will, as likely as not, result in the death on the user. I have no problem with you (or anyone else) smoking if that's what you want to do. You're an adult and you should be allowed to make your own decisions.

As for your comment about other things being bad for us as well, sure they are, but...c'mon.

 

[KittenKoder]

Seriously, because first hand smoke is a killer, and nobody disagrees. Even the tobacco companies. The evidence is there, it's unambiguous and it's beyond doubt.

Ever hear the claim "smoking pot aids terrorism?" When facts are blown out of proportion it's easy for many to just go along with it if they just simply don't like it. Fine, if you don't like it don't do it, but don't expect anyone to believe those claims. There is no hard evidence to support hysteria, none, all things we do have health risks, and serious ones at that. Coffee, alcohol, automobiles, most of our food, walking, hiking, skiing, etc.. We do these things knowing the risks, and no risk is greater than the other, living kills, it's a fact. But what people have done is instead of making living worth while, or at least worth it, they want to live forever, or force the rest of us to live longer than we are meant to or even want to. If I have to live without all my pleasures (I have so very few and smoking is one) then I see no point in living at all, which is a true health risk that has no cure.

What hysteria? Primary tobacco smoke will, as likely as not, result in the death on the user. I have no problem with you (or anyone else) smoking if that's what you want to do. You're an adult and you should be allowed to make your own decisions.

As for your comment about other things being bad for us as well, sure they are, but...c'mon.

Alcohol will kill you and many others as likely as not, liver disease is just as bad and the organ just as vital and drunk driving is responsible for more deaths than most people want to know. Tanning will kill you more than not, skin cancer is a HUGE problem in many areas (those with a lot of sun) and usually results in death. Car exhaust is almost identical to cigarette smoke, though we are in contact with much more of it, the same things that cause cancer in smokes is in car exhaust. The campaign from many years ago used this fact once, to attempt to curb the rising number of smokers at the time. The reason the campaign was dropped was because auto companies forced them to stop using it ("if you want to smoke you may as well just wrap your mouth around a tail pipe" was the slogan), however, auto companies are also covering up the health effects of their cars (more so than tobacco companies ever did) and no one ever suspects it because of the over-dependency on the machines. You are breathing in a cartons worth of smoke from cars alone in most medium to large cities, and not from cigarettes. Actually, a smoker only gets about 1% of their carcinogens from cigarettes. But shhh ... don't tell people that fact because cigarettes are the evil we just have to stop.

 

[Ravi]

Life is fatal.

 

[KittenKoder]

Life is fatal.

Exactly.

 

[tigerbob]

Ever hear the claim "smoking pot aids terrorism?" When facts are blown out of proportion it's easy for many to just go along with it if they just simply don't like it. Fine, if you don't like it don't do it, but don't expect anyone to believe those claims. There is no hard evidence to support hysteria, none, all things we do have health risks, and serious ones at that. Coffee, alcohol, automobiles, most of our food, walking, hiking, skiing, etc.. We do these things knowing the risks, and no risk is greater than the other, living kills, it's a fact. But what people have done is instead of making living worth while, or at least worth it, they want to live forever, or force the rest of us to live longer than we are meant to or even want to. If I have to live without all my pleasures (I have so very few and smoking is one) then I see no point in living at all, which is a true health risk that has no cure.

What hysteria? Primary tobacco smoke will, as likely as not, result in the death on the user. I have no problem with you (or anyone else) smoking if that's what you want to do. You're an adult and you should be allowed to make your own decisions.

As for your comment about other things being bad for us as well, sure they are, but...c'mon.

Car exhaust is almost identical to cigarette smoke, though we are in contact with much more of it, the same things that cause cancer in smokes is in car exhaust.

Actually, that's not true. I'm not saying that car exhaust is less bad for you (I don't know whether it is or isn't), but the chemistry is very different. Just because both are combusted doesn't mean the result is the same.

 

[KittenKoder]

What hysteria? Primary tobacco smoke will, as likely as not, result in the death on the user. I have no problem with you (or anyone else) smoking if that's what you want to do. You're an adult and you should be allowed to make your own decisions.

As for your comment about other things being bad for us as well, sure they are, but...c'mon.

Car exhaust is almost identical to cigarette smoke, though we are in contact with much more of it, the same things that cause cancer in smokes is in car exhaust.

Actually, that's not true. I'm not saying that car exhaust is less bad for you (I don't know whether it is or isn't), but the chemistry is very different. Just because both are combusted doesn't mean the result is the same.

I was talking carcinogens specifically. The radioactive particles that cause cancer in cigarettes are also present in much higher doses in car exhaust.

 

[del]

Car exhaust is almost identical to cigarette smoke, though we are in contact with much more of it, the same things that cause cancer in smokes is in car exhaust.

Actually, that's not true. I'm not saying that car exhaust is less bad for you (I don't know whether it is or isn't), but the chemistry is very different. Just because both are combusted doesn't mean the result is the same.

I was talking carcinogens specifically. The radioactive particles that cause cancer in cigarettes are also present in much higher doses in car exhaust.

thanks, cliff

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, that's not true. I'm not saying that car exhaust is less bad for you (I don't know whether it is or isn't), but the chemistry is very different. Just because both are combusted doesn't mean the result is the same.

I was talking carcinogens specifically. The radioactive particles that cause cancer in cigarettes are also present in much higher doses in car exhaust.

thanks, cliff

Again, coming from you that means more than being right could ever mean.

 

[manifold]

thanks, cliff

...and in related news, you don't actually need a digital converter to convert digital signals.

 

[tigerbob]

Car exhaust is almost identical to cigarette smoke, though we are in contact with much more of it, the same things that cause cancer in smokes is in car exhaust.

Actually, that's not true. I'm not saying that car exhaust is less bad for you (I don't know whether it is or isn't), but the chemistry is very different. Just because both are combusted doesn't mean the result is the same.

I was talking carcinogens specifically. The radioactive particles that cause cancer in cigarettes are also present in much higher doses in car exhaust.

Ah. Agree more now.

 

[KittenKoder]

thanks, cliff

...and in related news, you don't actually need a digital converter to convert digital signals.

Um ... only if your TV is older than 1998, otherwise they can already receive the signal without converting ... but of course people love wasting taxes on stupid things.

 

[manifold]

thanks, cliff

...and in related news, you don't actually need a digital converter to convert digital signals.

Um ... only if your TV is older than 1998, otherwise they can already receive the signal without converting ... but of course people love wasting taxes on stupid things.

Funny thing about this is I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt and checked into this myself. Conclusion: FOS.

 

[del]

I was talking carcinogens specifically. The radioactive particles that cause cancer in cigarettes are also present in much higher doses in car exhaust.

thanks, cliff

Again, coming from you that means more than being right could ever mean.

how would you be able to make the comparison?

 

[tigerbob]

#7. If STS is not proved to be harmful (i.e. smokers are still harming themselves through Primary Tobacco Smote - PTS, but are merely inconveniencing non smokers by subjecting them to an atmosphere they find unpleasant), then legislation would be as unconstitutional as, say, legislation that tries to ban meat being on the menu in restaurants that may be patronized by vegetarians.

No. It is not unconstitutional nor is it wrong to expect people to conform to certain behaviors in order to keep the peace and to make public places as well as private places safe and enjoyable for all. If a grumpy smoker bitches that he can't light up, too bad for him, he is out numbered. He'll have to use one of the other,another non invasive ways to feed his habit.
Your analogy to meat on menu is ludicrous.

Thank you, though I can't take all the credit. I was inspired.

At this point your are arguing a different issue. I do thank you for publicly admitting that you don't respect private property rights.

Property rights are determined by the nation within which the property is located. You can't set up a nuclear power plant in your condo either.

 

[KittenKoder]

...and in related news, you don't actually need a digital converter to convert digital signals.

Um ... only if your TV is older than 1998, otherwise they can already receive the signal without converting ... but of course people love wasting taxes on stupid things.

Funny thing about this is I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt and checked into this myself. Conclusion: FOS.

Derailing ... and for something this stupid. Check harder, better yet, actually test the equipment yourself. Truth in advertising has never existed and yet you think it does now.