Smoking Bans

[rightwinger]

You realize your putting millions of people out of work by you last sentence.

No more freaky fast delivery

No more taxi drivers

No more Ebola doctors, firefighters, cops etc.

Yeah. Just like they put millions out of work in the Uranium mines when they expected Native Americans to wear protective stuff.

Uranium mining and the Navajo people - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Disregarding the known health risks imposed by exposure to uranium, the private companies and the United States Atomic Energy Commission failed to inform the Navajo workers about the dangers and to regulate the mining to minimize contamination. As more data was collected, they were slow to take appropriate action for the workers."

None of these mines are operational in the Navajo areas now, these people lost their jobs (mainly because they freaking died).

Drivers of any kind should stick to the laws of the road, and if they do so, then they are safe. So your delivery and taxi driver statements are rubbish.

Firefighters are provided with adequate equipment to be safe in their job. You can't ensure 100% safety, no one can ever. What you can ensure is adequate norms of safety, which in almost all cases will see people remain safe. We know that working in a smoking environment does not allow people to safe in most cases, in fact it probably doesn't allow anyone to be safe, even if you don't get cancer from smoking there are other effects that damage health.

But i guess the lives of plebs matter less than rich people making more money huh? The Iraq war is a PERFECT example of this. How many killed? Over 4,000. How many maimed and injured badly? 40,000 or more perhaps? How many Iraqis killed? Who cares, they're Iraqis right? And Muslims to boot?

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

Why should a non-smoker have to accept any risk at all?

He is not the one engaging in harmful behavior

 

[Pop23]

You realize your putting millions of people out of work by you last sentence.

No more freaky fast delivery

No more taxi drivers

No more Ebola doctors, firefighters, cops etc.

Yeah. Just like they put millions out of work in the Uranium mines when they expected Native Americans to wear protective stuff.

Uranium mining and the Navajo people - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Disregarding the known health risks imposed by exposure to uranium, the private companies and the United States Atomic Energy Commission failed to inform the Navajo workers about the dangers and to regulate the mining to minimize contamination. As more data was collected, they were slow to take appropriate action for the workers."

None of these mines are operational in the Navajo areas now, these people lost their jobs (mainly because they freaking died).

Drivers of any kind should stick to the laws of the road, and if they do so, then they are safe. So your delivery and taxi driver statements are rubbish.

Firefighters are provided with adequate equipment to be safe in their job. You can't ensure 100% safety, no one can ever. What you can ensure is adequate norms of safety, which in almost all cases will see people remain safe. We know that working in a smoking environment does not allow people to safe in most cases, in fact it probably doesn't allow anyone to be safe, even if you don't get cancer from smoking there are other effects that damage health.

But i guess the lives of plebs matter less than rich people making more money huh? The Iraq war is a PERFECT example of this. How many killed? Over 4,000. How many maimed and injured badly? 40,000 or more perhaps? How many Iraqis killed? Who cares, they're Iraqis right? And Muslims to boot?

Now that's funny!

I'll change part of your post just a bit

"Disregarding the known health risks imposed by exposure to Radon"

This isn't about health now, is it?

 

[Pop23]

You realize your putting millions of people out of work by you last sentence.

No more freaky fast delivery

No more taxi drivers

No more Ebola doctors, firefighters, cops etc.

Yeah. Just like they put millions out of work in the Uranium mines when they expected Native Americans to wear protective stuff.

Uranium mining and the Navajo people - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Disregarding the known health risks imposed by exposure to uranium, the private companies and the United States Atomic Energy Commission failed to inform the Navajo workers about the dangers and to regulate the mining to minimize contamination. As more data was collected, they were slow to take appropriate action for the workers."

None of these mines are operational in the Navajo areas now, these people lost their jobs (mainly because they freaking died).

Drivers of any kind should stick to the laws of the road, and if they do so, then they are safe. So your delivery and taxi driver statements are rubbish.

Firefighters are provided with adequate equipment to be safe in their job. You can't ensure 100% safety, no one can ever. What you can ensure is adequate norms of safety, which in almost all cases will see people remain safe. We know that working in a smoking environment does not allow people to safe in most cases, in fact it probably doesn't allow anyone to be safe, even if you don't get cancer from smoking there are other effects that damage health.

But i guess the lives of plebs matter less than rich people making more money huh? The Iraq war is a PERFECT example of this. How many killed? Over 4,000. How many maimed and injured badly? 40,000 or more perhaps? How many Iraqis killed? Who cares, they're Iraqis right? And Muslims to boot?

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

Why should a non-smoker have to accept any risk at all?

He is not the one engaging in harmful behavior

But they do, and willingly, every time they walk into a building without knowing the radon level within it.

Again though, you don't care about any health risk cuze you think cigarette smoke is icky.

I've linked to the EPA study showing radon causes 7 times more lung cancer deaths than second hand smoke. But you don't care

One theory is that, if this was well publicized, non smoking nannies would have to admit that they're blaming smokers for every woe would be exposed, making them look foolish.

 

[Pop23]

You realize your putting millions of people out of work by you last sentence.

No more freaky fast delivery

No more taxi drivers

No more Ebola doctors, firefighters, cops etc.

Yeah. Just like they put millions out of work in the Uranium mines when they expected Native Americans to wear protective stuff.

Uranium mining and the Navajo people - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Disregarding the known health risks imposed by exposure to uranium, the private companies and the United States Atomic Energy Commission failed to inform the Navajo workers about the dangers and to regulate the mining to minimize contamination. As more data was collected, they were slow to take appropriate action for the workers."

None of these mines are operational in the Navajo areas now, these people lost their jobs (mainly because they freaking died).

Drivers of any kind should stick to the laws of the road, and if they do so, then they are safe. So your delivery and taxi driver statements are rubbish.

Firefighters are provided with adequate equipment to be safe in their job. You can't ensure 100% safety, no one can ever. What you can ensure is adequate norms of safety, which in almost all cases will see people remain safe. We know that working in a smoking environment does not allow people to safe in most cases, in fact it probably doesn't allow anyone to be safe, even if you don't get cancer from smoking there are other effects that damage health.

But i guess the lives of plebs matter less than rich people making more money huh? The Iraq war is a PERFECT example of this. How many killed? Over 4,000. How many maimed and injured badly? 40,000 or more perhaps? How many Iraqis killed? Who cares, they're Iraqis right? And Muslims to boot?

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

It's a valid point. Smoke can be seen, and the risk accessed. Radon is a silent killer that can't be seen. But to nannies the risk that can be seen is unacceptable, but the risk that can't be seen, yet can be easily and cheaply tested for is absolutely acceptable, even though it causes 7 times more lung cancer deaths than second had smoke.

 

[rightwinger]

You realize your putting millions of people out of work by you last sentence.

No more freaky fast delivery

No more taxi drivers

No more Ebola doctors, firefighters, cops etc.

Yeah. Just like they put millions out of work in the Uranium mines when they expected Native Americans to wear protective stuff.

Uranium mining and the Navajo people - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Disregarding the known health risks imposed by exposure to uranium, the private companies and the United States Atomic Energy Commission failed to inform the Navajo workers about the dangers and to regulate the mining to minimize contamination. As more data was collected, they were slow to take appropriate action for the workers."

None of these mines are operational in the Navajo areas now, these people lost their jobs (mainly because they freaking died).

Drivers of any kind should stick to the laws of the road, and if they do so, then they are safe. So your delivery and taxi driver statements are rubbish.

Firefighters are provided with adequate equipment to be safe in their job. You can't ensure 100% safety, no one can ever. What you can ensure is adequate norms of safety, which in almost all cases will see people remain safe. We know that working in a smoking environment does not allow people to safe in most cases, in fact it probably doesn't allow anyone to be safe, even if you don't get cancer from smoking there are other effects that damage health.

But i guess the lives of plebs matter less than rich people making more money huh? The Iraq war is a PERFECT example of this. How many killed? Over 4,000. How many maimed and injured badly? 40,000 or more perhaps? How many Iraqis killed? Who cares, they're Iraqis right? And Muslims to boot?

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

Why should a non-smoker have to accept any risk at all?

He is not the one engaging in harmful behavior

But they do, and willingly, every time they walk into a building without knowing the radon level within it.

Again though, you don't care about any health risk cuze you think cigarette smoke is icky.

I've linked to the EPA study showing radon causes 7 times more lung cancer deaths than second hand smoke. But you don't care

One theory is that, if this was well publicized, non smoking nannies would have to admit that they're blaming smokers for every woe would be exposed, making them look foolish.

Your attempts to deflect the argument are noted

 

[Papageorgio]

Restaurants casinos and bars should have the freedom to allow smoking sections or not. People should have the freedom to eat in those restaurants. Freedoms are what we are about.

You have no right to force others to breathe your filth

And you have a right to choose where you eat, you don't have to pick a smoking restaurant.

I only went to non-smoking establishments before the state ban took effect. If they allowed smoking, they didn't want me in there.

I didn't go to bars because I didn't like smoke. No problem.

I also don't go to tanning parlors because I don't like what I offer.

You got your freedom.

 

[rightwinger]

Restaurants casinos and bars should have the freedom to allow smoking sections or not. People should have the freedom to eat in those restaurants. Freedoms are what we are about.

You have no right to force others to breathe your filth

And you have a right to choose where you eat, you don't have to pick a smoking restaurant.

I only went to non-smoking establishments before the state ban took effect. If they allowed smoking, they didn't want me in there.

I didn't go to bars because I didn't like smoke. No problem.

I also don't go to tanning parlors because I don't like what I offer.

You got your freedom.

Yes

You have the freedom to go into public spaces without deciding whether of not you want to risk your health

 

[Pogo]

Good point. Now, hows that different from "we do not hire smokers"?

Actually, under the context it would be "we do not hire people who smoke at work"......

I stand with what I said.

Do you think an employee should be able to smoke while carrying out their duties? Do you think one employee should be able to endanger the life of another employee while at work?

You realize your putting millions of people out of work by you last sentence.

No more freaky fast delivery

No more taxi drivers

No more Ebola doctors, firefighters, cops etc.

He's trying to say, "Yes, because it's all about Numero Uno. Evade personal responsibility at any cost".
Happy to help.


Ebola doctors all smoke, do they? This place is so edumacational.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Businesses should decide.

I'd love to compare stats from 1940-1970 when smoking was allowed everywhere to those of today. My hypothesis is cancer rates were considerably lower than they are today even with smoking restrictions.

So many things can contribute to the chance of developing cancer, blaming the overt and obvious one as with smoking is simply bad science. The brown food coloring in many sodas causes cancer. Whether someone develops cancer isn't about eliminating things, but minimizing risk factors. Smoking is 1 of many risk factors but it's inaccurate to claim "smoking causes cancer." It doesn't. For that statement to be true every smoker would have to get cancer, whereas according to CDC less than 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.

 

[Pop23]

Restaurants casinos and bars should have the freedom to allow smoking sections or not. People should have the freedom to eat in those restaurants. Freedoms are what we are about.

You have no right to force others to breathe your filth

And you have a right to choose where you eat, you don't have to pick a smoking restaurant.

I only went to non-smoking establishments before the state ban took effect. If they allowed smoking, they didn't want me in there.

I didn't go to bars because I didn't like smoke. No problem.

I also don't go to tanning parlors because I don't like what I offer.

You got your freedom.

Yes

You have the freedom to go into public spaces without deciding whether of not you want to risk your health

No you can't, unless the radon level is posted.

I might reming you that Radon causes 7 times more lung cancer deaths than second hand smoke.

Did you know that?

 

[Pop23]

Good point. Now, hows that different from "we do not hire smokers"?

Actually, under the context it would be "we do not hire people who smoke at work"......

I stand with what I said.

Do you think an employee should be able to smoke while carrying out their duties? Do you think one employee should be able to endanger the life of another employee while at work?

You realize your putting millions of people out of work by you last sentence.

No more freaky fast delivery

No more taxi drivers

No more Ebola doctors, firefighters, cops etc.

He's trying to say, "Yes, because it's all about Numero Uno. Evade personal responsibility at any cost".
Happy to help.


Ebola doctors all smoke, do they? This place is so edumacational.

You should address that to frigidwierdo, he brought risk at work issue after all

You have a tough time keeping up aye?

 

[Pop23]

Businesses should decide.

I'd love to compare stats from 1940-1970 when smoking was allowed everywhere to those of today. My hypothesis is cancer rates were considerably lower than they are today even with smoking restrictions.

So many things can contribute to the chance of developing cancer, blaming the overt and obvious one as with smoking is simply bad science. The brown food coloring in many sodas causes cancer. Whether someone develops cancer isn't about eliminating things, but minimizing risk factors. Smoking is 1 of many risk factors but it's inaccurate to claim "smoking causes cancer." It doesn't. For that statement to be true every smoker would have to get cancer, whereas according to CDC less than 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.

Restaurants casinos and bars should have the freedom to allow smoking sections or not. People should have the freedom to eat in those restaurants. Freedoms are what we are about.

You have no right to force others to breathe your filth

And you have a right to choose where you eat, you don't have to pick a smoking restaurant.

I only went to non-smoking establishments before the state ban took effect. If they allowed smoking, they didn't want me in there.

I didn't go to bars because I didn't like smoke. No problem.

I also don't go to tanning parlors because I don't like what I offer.

You got your freedom.

^^^^^ Bravo. A true free American speaks ^^^^^^

 

[Pop23]

You realize your putting millions of people out of work by you last sentence.

No more freaky fast delivery

No more taxi drivers

No more Ebola doctors, firefighters, cops etc.

Yeah. Just like they put millions out of work in the Uranium mines when they expected Native Americans to wear protective stuff.

Uranium mining and the Navajo people - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Disregarding the known health risks imposed by exposure to uranium, the private companies and the United States Atomic Energy Commission failed to inform the Navajo workers about the dangers and to regulate the mining to minimize contamination. As more data was collected, they were slow to take appropriate action for the workers."

None of these mines are operational in the Navajo areas now, these people lost their jobs (mainly because they freaking died).

Drivers of any kind should stick to the laws of the road, and if they do so, then they are safe. So your delivery and taxi driver statements are rubbish.

Firefighters are provided with adequate equipment to be safe in their job. You can't ensure 100% safety, no one can ever. What you can ensure is adequate norms of safety, which in almost all cases will see people remain safe. We know that working in a smoking environment does not allow people to safe in most cases, in fact it probably doesn't allow anyone to be safe, even if you don't get cancer from smoking there are other effects that damage health.

But i guess the lives of plebs matter less than rich people making more money huh? The Iraq war is a PERFECT example of this. How many killed? Over 4,000. How many maimed and injured badly? 40,000 or more perhaps? How many Iraqis killed? Who cares, they're Iraqis right? And Muslims to boot?

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

Why should a non-smoker have to accept any risk at all?

He is not the one engaging in harmful behavior

But they do, and willingly, every time they walk into a building without knowing the radon level within it.

Again though, you don't care about any health risk cuze you think cigarette smoke is icky.

I've linked to the EPA study showing radon causes 7 times more lung cancer deaths than second hand smoke. But you don't care

One theory is that, if this was well publicized, non smoking nannies would have to admit that they're blaming smokers for every woe would be exposed, making them look foolish.

Your attempts to deflect the argument are noted

Typing that out while looking in the mirror?

 

[rightwinger]

Restaurants casinos and bars should have the freedom to allow smoking sections or not. People should have the freedom to eat in those restaurants. Freedoms are what we are about.

You have no right to force others to breathe your filth

And you have a right to choose where you eat, you don't have to pick a smoking restaurant.

I only went to non-smoking establishments before the state ban took effect. If they allowed smoking, they didn't want me in there.

I didn't go to bars because I didn't like smoke. No problem.

I also don't go to tanning parlors because I don't like what I offer.

You got your freedom.

Yes

You have the freedom to go into public spaces without deciding whether of not you want to risk your health

No you can't, unless the radon level is posted.

I might reming you that Radon causes 7 times more lung cancer deaths than second hand smoke.

Did you know that?

Your attempts at deflection are noted

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You realize your putting millions of people out of work by you last sentence.

No more freaky fast delivery

No more taxi drivers

No more Ebola doctors, firefighters, cops etc.

Yeah. Just like they put millions out of work in the Uranium mines when they expected Native Americans to wear protective stuff.

Uranium mining and the Navajo people - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Disregarding the known health risks imposed by exposure to uranium, the private companies and the United States Atomic Energy Commission failed to inform the Navajo workers about the dangers and to regulate the mining to minimize contamination. As more data was collected, they were slow to take appropriate action for the workers."

None of these mines are operational in the Navajo areas now, these people lost their jobs (mainly because they freaking died).

Drivers of any kind should stick to the laws of the road, and if they do so, then they are safe. So your delivery and taxi driver statements are rubbish.

Firefighters are provided with adequate equipment to be safe in their job. You can't ensure 100% safety, no one can ever. What you can ensure is adequate norms of safety, which in almost all cases will see people remain safe. We know that working in a smoking environment does not allow people to safe in most cases, in fact it probably doesn't allow anyone to be safe, even if you don't get cancer from smoking there are other effects that damage health.

But i guess the lives of plebs matter less than rich people making more money huh? The Iraq war is a PERFECT example of this. How many killed? Over 4,000. How many maimed and injured badly? 40,000 or more perhaps? How many Iraqis killed? Who cares, they're Iraqis right? And Muslims to boot?

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others.

Your rights end where mine begin.

Smoke if you want but not where I am breathing.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Branson, Missouri just got bitch slapped trying to implment draconian anti-smoking measures. Town wanted to ban it in the entire town. And that's probably where we're headed.

Banning something never happens outright, it's the frog dropping into a pot of boiling water thing. Instead, when people wanna ban something they do it incrementally, why resisting such attempts at banning things needs to be done at every step.

 

[dblack]

I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others.

Do you? Really? So should people have the right to work in an office where smoking is allowed? Eat in a restaurant where smoking is allowed?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

 

[AquaAthena]

Businesses should decide.

I'd love to compare stats from 1940-1970 when smoking was allowed everywhere to those of today. My hypothesis is cancer rates were considerably lower than they are today even with smoking restrictions.

So many things can contribute to the chance of developing cancer, blaming the overt and obvious one as with smoking is simply bad science. The brown food coloring in many sodas causes cancer. Whether someone develops cancer isn't about eliminating things, but minimizing risk factors. Smoking is 1 of many risk factors but it's inaccurate to claim "smoking causes cancer." It doesn't. For that statement to be true every smoker would have to get cancer, whereas according to CDC less than 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.

I agree, businesses should decide. Let them rise or fall from their own choices, not the governments.

The best way to help reduce the numbers of children smoking is not to smoke around them.

Example is not only the main thing, it is the only thing.

CDC - Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking - Smoking Tobacco Use

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others.

Do you? Really? So should people have the right to work in an office where smoking is allowed? Eat in a restaurant where smoking is allowed?

Sure, but smokers are now a minority. If the majority vote to ban smoking in the workplace and restaurants, there is no longer a question.

Smokers are free to smoke where others are not breathing.

And no one has the right to force me to smoke at my work or public places.