Tobacco user persecution growing

[rightwinger]

Failure to see his point on radon, only proves you are terribly uninformed or just plain.......

As a zealot, you are unable to see the truth. It is a common trait with zealots

Absolutely, this is about the persecution of smokers. Some of the information used in that persecution is directly attributed to radon. Even the American Cancer Society warns of it's dangers, but the information is often overshadowed because the zealots don't want it stated because it diminishes their hatred of people using a legal product.

Why must it be either or?

We can limit both second hand smoke AND exposure to Radon. Doing one does not stop you from doing the other

Second hand smoke is an intentional act performed by smokers. NOBODY is blowing Radon in your face

Yet you pass laws requiring the less of the two.

Explain?

Radon occurs naturally in our environment. Nobody is spewing Radon. When I sold my house, it had to be tested for Radon. Nasty Nanny Government

OK, your turn.
What Radon laws do you want the Government to pass? If the answer is none, there is no reason not to pass public smoking laws

At least as draconian as second had smoke associated laws, or, eliminate both.

Have a nice day

Oh, and it appears the OP didn't think I was hijacking the thread.

Appears you were wrong again.

Again you duck the question

You obviously want the Government to get involved in Radon remidiation. What laws do you want passed?

 

[Pop23]

Absolutely, this is about the persecution of smokers. Some of the information used in that persecution is directly attributed to radon. Even the American Cancer Society warns of it's dangers, but the information is often overshadowed because the zealots don't want it stated because it diminishes their hatred of people using a legal product.

Why must it be either or?

We can limit both second hand smoke AND exposure to Radon. Doing one does not stop you from doing the other

Second hand smoke is an intentional act performed by smokers. NOBODY is blowing Radon in your face

Yet you pass laws requiring the less of the two.

Explain?

Radon occurs naturally in our environment. Nobody is spewing Radon. When I sold my house, it had to be tested for Radon. Nasty Nanny Government

OK, your turn.
What Radon laws do you want the Government to pass? If the answer is none, there is no reason not to pass public smoking laws

At least as draconian as second had smoke associated laws, or, eliminate both.

Have a nice day

Oh, and it appears the OP didn't think I was hijacking the thread.

Appears you were wrong again.

Again you duck the question

You obviously want the Government to get involved in Radon remidiation. What laws do you want passed?

I was specific, your reading skills seem limited.

And about the sale of your house and the required test, was that a law prohibiting the transfer of the Real Estate without a radon test, or a mortgage requirement?

 

[rightwinger]

Why must it be either or?

We can limit both second hand smoke AND exposure to Radon. Doing one does not stop you from doing the other

Second hand smoke is an intentional act performed by smokers. NOBODY is blowing Radon in your face

Yet you pass laws requiring the less of the two.

Explain?

Radon occurs naturally in our environment. Nobody is spewing Radon. When I sold my house, it had to be tested for Radon. Nasty Nanny Government

OK, your turn.
What Radon laws do you want the Government to pass? If the answer is none, there is no reason not to pass public smoking laws

At least as draconian as second had smoke associated laws, or, eliminate both.

Have a nice day

Oh, and it appears the OP didn't think I was hijacking the thread.

Appears you were wrong again.

Again you duck the question

You obviously want the Government to get involved in Radon remidiation. What laws do you want passed?

I was specific, your reading skills seem limited.

And about the sale of your house and the required test, was that a law prohibiting the transfer of the Real Estate without a radon test, or a mortgage requirement?

I apologize...must have missed it

Please point to your proposed Radon laws

I sold my house over twenty years ago, don't remember who required the radon test but I do remember those little charcoal cannisters

 

[Pop23]

Yet you pass laws requiring the less of the two.

Explain?

Radon occurs naturally in our environment. Nobody is spewing Radon. When I sold my house, it had to be tested for Radon. Nasty Nanny Government

OK, your turn.
What Radon laws do you want the Government to pass? If the answer is none, there is no reason not to pass public smoking laws

At least as draconian as second had smoke associated laws, or, eliminate both.

Have a nice day

Oh, and it appears the OP didn't think I was hijacking the thread.

Appears you were wrong again.

Again you duck the question

You obviously want the Government to get involved in Radon remidiation. What laws do you want passed?

I was specific, your reading skills seem limited.

And about the sale of your house and the required test, was that a law prohibiting the transfer of the Real Estate without a radon test, or a mortgage requirement?

I apologize...must have missed it

Please point to your proposed Radon laws

I sold my house over twenty years ago, don't remember who required the radon test but I do remember those little charcoal cannisters

Lol, I've been doing a bit of research, the only laws I've found is the inclusion of a radon testing disclosure form. There may be laws prohibiting sale when the radon level is unacceptably high, but I haven't run across it yet.

These don't prohibit sale or occupancy, simply demand disclosure.

I like that, making people aware of a potential health risk, then let adults make informed decisions seems reasonable to me.

Like a sign on a bars front door disclosing that smoking is allowed and the potential health risk by entering, which, by the way far less than the potential health risk of radon!

Thanks, your questions have now all been answered

 

[rightwinger]

Radon occurs naturally in our environment. Nobody is spewing Radon. When I sold my house, it had to be tested for Radon. Nasty Nanny Government

OK, your turn.
What Radon laws do you want the Government to pass? If the answer is none, there is no reason not to pass public smoking laws

At least as draconian as second had smoke associated laws, or, eliminate both.

Have a nice day

Oh, and it appears the OP didn't think I was hijacking the thread.

Appears you were wrong again.

Again you duck the question

You obviously want the Government to get involved in Radon remidiation. What laws do you want passed?

I was specific, your reading skills seem limited.

And about the sale of your house and the required test, was that a law prohibiting the transfer of the Real Estate without a radon test, or a mortgage requirement?

I apologize...must have missed it

Please point to your proposed Radon laws

I sold my house over twenty years ago, don't remember who required the radon test but I do remember those little charcoal cannisters

Lol, I've been doing a bit of research, the only laws I've found is the inclusion of a radon testing disclosure form. There may be laws prohibiting sale when the radon level is unacceptably high, but I haven't run across it yet.

These don't prohibit sale or occupancy, simply demand disclosure.

I like that, making people aware of a potential health risk, then let adults make informed decisions seems reasonable to me.

Like a sign on a bars front door disclosing that smoking is allowed and the potential health risk by entering, which, by the way far less than the potential health risk of radon!

Thanks, your questions have now all been answered

Funny radon story

When I sold my house they made me do a radon test. The guy walked around and placed charcoal cannisters in places that might trap radon. He told me not to disturb them for a week

Now, I'm trying to sell my house. If I were worried about a radon problem, I would run a fan over the cannisters or place them outside

 

[Pop23]

Is the test a requirement to sell by law or is it for a disclosure requirement? Meaning that the form can read, no radon test done.

Please link youre states requirement for a radon test requirement prior to sale. You can call a RE Broker to find out.

 

[Pop23]

Is the test a requirement to sell by law or is it for a disclosure requirement? Meaning that the form can read, no radon test done.

Please link you states requirement for a radon test requirement prior to sale.

Oh, don't run a fraudulent test. Not a good idea

 

[whitehall]

The bi-polar thing about it is that the hypocrite "stars" who smoke and campaign against tobacco also promote the use of marijuana. Hardly any character in a movie smokes a cigarette anymore but you can hardly find a "comedy" directed at the teenage audience that doesn't include copious marijuana abuse.

 

[rightwinger]

Is the test a requirement to sell by law or is it for a disclosure requirement? Meaning that the form can read, no radon test done.

Please link youre states requirement for a radon test requirement prior to sale. You can call a RE Broker to find out.

What they explained to me at the time was that Radon was a problem in areas over bedrock (I was over sand). The bedrock trapped the naturally occuring radon and it would seep through cracks up into homes. Remediation was no big deal. If they found radon you would put in some positive ventilation system and the home was no health threat

Now.....can we get back to public smoking bans?

 

[Pop23]

Is the test a requirement to sell by law or is it for a disclosure requirement? Meaning that the form can read, no radon test done.

Please link youre states requirement for a radon test requirement prior to sale. You can call a RE Broker to find out.

What they explained to me at the time was that Radon was a problem in areas over bedrock (I was over sand). The bedrock trapped the naturally occuring radon and it would seep through cracks up into homes. Remediation was no big deal. If they found radon you would put in some positive ventilation system and the home was no health threat

Now.....can we get back to public smoking bans?

We are. Smoking in public places is less dangerous than radon. If simple disclosure is required for the sale of a home or a commercial property (no such disclosure is required for simple occupancy that I am aware of), the same rule should apply to second hand smoke. WHICH IS FAR LESS DANGEROUS.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The British fought a war against China, because the Chinese government tried to prohibit the importation and sale of opium to the Chinese people. The British won, and China had to hand over Honk Kong for 99 years. Franklin Roosevelt's grandfather on his mother's side became rich selling opium to the Chinese, and passed the fortune down to FDR. Nobody at the Hyde Park Library and museum brags about this.

But, I am constantly amazed at how some posters can see no evil in corporate America, anywhere they look. I have read that the failure rate from trying to get over the addiction to nicotine is 10 times the failure rate from quitting opium. America has been in the business of addicting people all over the world with nicotine for hundreds of years. We raise and sell tobacco, which has absolutely no purpose, other than to feed addictions, which the tobacco industry intentionally created in the first place. Tobacco is the only product that we produce that, when used correctly, is likely to kill you. We have legislated it (after 400 years) to the extent that the tobacco industry now must seek addicts in other countries in order to survive. They are in the business of addiction and death, for a profit. There is really no difference between a guy who runs a meth lab, and a tobacco company.

Yet, here we have people willing to stand and defend them.

Absolutely fricking amazing!

 

[Pop23]

The British fought a war against China, because the Chinese government tried to prohibit the importation and sale of opium to the Chinese people. The British won, and China had to hand over Honk Kong for 99 years. Franklin Roosevelt's grandfather on his mother's side became rich selling opium to the Chinese, and passed the fortune down to FDR. Nobody at the Hyde Park Library and museum brags about this.

But, I am constantly amazed at how some posters can see no evil in corporate America, anywhere they look. I have read that the failure rate from trying to get over the addiction to nicotine is 10 times the failure rate from quitting opium. America has been in the business of addicting people all over the world with nicotine for hundreds of years. We raise and sell tobacco, which has absolutely no purpose, other than to feed addictions, which the tobacco industry intentionally created in the first place. Tobacco is the only product that we produce that, when used correctly, is likely to kill you. We have legislated it (after 400 years) to the extent that the tobacco industry now must seek addicts in other countries in order to survive. They are in the business of addiction and death, for a profit. There is really no difference between a guy who runs a meth lab, and a tobacco company.

Yet, here we have people willing to stand and defend them.

Absolutely fricking amazing!

Man

Can't you deflect in less words?

Tobacco IS legal. Change THAT. Until then, quit your bitching.

The negative social costs of alcohol, which includes crime, destruction of property, broken families and on and on and on is FAR greater than the cost of second hand smoke and possibly smoking, yet we still allow BARS to exist.

Good Lord

 

[rightwinger]

Is the test a requirement to sell by law or is it for a disclosure requirement? Meaning that the form can read, no radon test done.

Please link youre states requirement for a radon test requirement prior to sale. You can call a RE Broker to find out.

What they explained to me at the time was that Radon was a problem in areas over bedrock (I was over sand). The bedrock trapped the naturally occuring radon and it would seep through cracks up into homes. Remediation was no big deal. If they found radon you would put in some positive ventilation system and the home was no health threat

Now.....can we get back to public smoking bans?

We are. Smoking in public places is less dangerous than radon. If simple disclosure is required for the sale of a home or a commercial property (no such disclosure is required for simple occupancy that I am aware of), the same rule should apply to second hand smoke. WHICH IS FAR LESS DANGEROUS.

Actually, smoking is a voluntary act in which one group is inflicting a hazard on others. It is easy enough just to tell them no
The rules are different because nobody is going into bars and releasing radon

 

[Vandalshandle]

The British fought a war against China, because the Chinese government tried to prohibit the importation and sale of opium to the Chinese people. The British won, and China had to hand over Honk Kong for 99 years. Franklin Roosevelt's grandfather on his mother's side became rich selling opium to the Chinese, and passed the fortune down to FDR. Nobody at the Hyde Park Library and museum brags about this.

But, I am constantly amazed at how some posters can see no evil in corporate America, anywhere they look. I have read that the failure rate from trying to get over the addiction to nicotine is 10 times the failure rate from quitting opium. America has been in the business of addicting people all over the world with nicotine for hundreds of years. We raise and sell tobacco, which has absolutely no purpose, other than to feed addictions, which the tobacco industry intentionally created in the first place. Tobacco is the only product that we produce that, when used correctly, is likely to kill you. We have legislated it (after 400 years) to the extent that the tobacco industry now must seek addicts in other countries in order to survive. They are in the business of addiction and death, for a profit. There is really no difference between a guy who runs a meth lab, and a tobacco company.

Yet, here we have people willing to stand and defend them.

Absolutely fricking amazing!

Man

Can't you deflect in less words?

Tobacco IS legal. Change THAT. Until then, quit your bitching.

The negative social costs of alcohol, which includes crime, destruction of property, broken families and on and on and on is FAR greater than the cost of second hand smoke and possibly smoking, yet we still allow BARS to exist.

Good Lord

I want to get this straight. Your sentence number 1 accusing me of deflecting on this thread about tobacco.

Your sentence 3 changes the topic to alcohol.

OooooooKAY!

 

[Pop23]

Is the test a requirement to sell by law or is it for a disclosure requirement? Meaning that the form can read, no radon test done.

Please link youre states requirement for a radon test requirement prior to sale. You can call a RE Broker to find out.

What they explained to me at the time was that Radon was a problem in areas over bedrock (I was over sand). The bedrock trapped the naturally occuring radon and it would seep through cracks up into homes. Remediation was no big deal. If they found radon you would put in some positive ventilation system and the home was no health threat

Now.....can we get back to public smoking bans?

We are. Smoking in public places is less dangerous than radon. If simple disclosure is required for the sale of a home or a commercial property (no such disclosure is required for simple occupancy that I am aware of), the same rule should apply to second hand smoke. WHICH IS FAR LESS DANGEROUS.

Actually, smoking is a voluntary act in which one group is inflicting a hazard on others. It is easy enough just to tell them no
The rules are different because nobody is going into bars and releasing radon

By not testing, the property owner IS inflicting the hazard (if radon is present of course). When it enters his property, he owns that.

The rules appear to be different because you hate smoking.

22,000 lung cancers deaths are attributed to radon each year. 3,000 to second hand smoke.

There in NO comparison.

 

[Pop23]

The British fought a war against China, because the Chinese government tried to prohibit the importation and sale of opium to the Chinese people. The British won, and China had to hand over Honk Kong for 99 years. Franklin Roosevelt's grandfather on his mother's side became rich selling opium to the Chinese, and passed the fortune down to FDR. Nobody at the Hyde Park Library and museum brags about this.

But, I am constantly amazed at how some posters can see no evil in corporate America, anywhere they look. I have read that the failure rate from trying to get over the addiction to nicotine is 10 times the failure rate from quitting opium. America has been in the business of addicting people all over the world with nicotine for hundreds of years. We raise and sell tobacco, which has absolutely no purpose, other than to feed addictions, which the tobacco industry intentionally created in the first place. Tobacco is the only product that we produce that, when used correctly, is likely to kill you. We have legislated it (after 400 years) to the extent that the tobacco industry now must seek addicts in other countries in order to survive. They are in the business of addiction and death, for a profit. There is really no difference between a guy who runs a meth lab, and a tobacco company.

Yet, here we have people willing to stand and defend them.

Absolutely fricking amazing!

Man

Can't you deflect in less words?

Tobacco IS legal. Change THAT. Until then, quit your bitching.

The negative social costs of alcohol, which includes crime, destruction of property, broken families and on and on and on is FAR greater than the cost of second hand smoke and possibly smoking, yet we still allow BARS to exist.

Good Lord

I want to get this straight. Your sentence number 1 accusing me of deflecting on this thread about tobacco.

Your sentence 3 changes the topic to alcohol.

OooooooKAY!

Did you not bring up opium dens?

I compared bars to opium dens.

Do you actually have problems with people responding to your posts?

Seriously?

 

[rightwinger]

Is the test a requirement to sell by law or is it for a disclosure requirement? Meaning that the form can read, no radon test done.

Please link youre states requirement for a radon test requirement prior to sale. You can call a RE Broker to find out.

What they explained to me at the time was that Radon was a problem in areas over bedrock (I was over sand). The bedrock trapped the naturally occuring radon and it would seep through cracks up into homes. Remediation was no big deal. If they found radon you would put in some positive ventilation system and the home was no health threat

Now.....can we get back to public smoking bans?

We are. Smoking in public places is less dangerous than radon. If simple disclosure is required for the sale of a home or a commercial property (no such disclosure is required for simple occupancy that I am aware of), the same rule should apply to second hand smoke. WHICH IS FAR LESS DANGEROUS.

Actually, smoking is a voluntary act in which one group is inflicting a hazard on others. It is easy enough just to tell them no
The rules are different because nobody is going into bars and releasing radon

By not testing, the property owner IS inflicting the hazard (if radon is present of course). When it enters his property, he owns that.

The rules appear to be different because you hate smoking.

22,000 lung cancers deaths are attributed to radon each year. 3,000 to second hand smoke.

There in NO comparison.

Doesn't mean we should not try to stop 3,000 deaths

 

[Pop23]

Is the test a requirement to sell by law or is it for a disclosure requirement? Meaning that the form can read, no radon test done.

Please link youre states requirement for a radon test requirement prior to sale. You can call a RE Broker to find out.

What they explained to me at the time was that Radon was a problem in areas over bedrock (I was over sand). The bedrock trapped the naturally occuring radon and it would seep through cracks up into homes. Remediation was no big deal. If they found radon you would put in some positive ventilation system and the home was no health threat

Now.....can we get back to public smoking bans?

We are. Smoking in public places is less dangerous than radon. If simple disclosure is required for the sale of a home or a commercial property (no such disclosure is required for simple occupancy that I am aware of), the same rule should apply to second hand smoke. WHICH IS FAR LESS DANGEROUS.

Actually, smoking is a voluntary act in which one group is inflicting a hazard on others. It is easy enough just to tell them no
The rules are different because nobody is going into bars and releasing radon

By not testing, the property owner IS inflicting the hazard (if radon is present of course). When it enters his property, he owns that.

The rules appear to be different because you hate smoking.

22,000 lung cancers deaths are attributed to radon each year. 3,000 to second hand smoke.

There in NO comparison.

Doesn't mean we should not try to stop 3,000 deaths

I might agree if I actually thought that was the reason for the persecution. But obviously when we ignore the 22,000 by attacking those who say, let's look at this realistically, there are bigger concerns. I question the motivation.

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers are getting the treatment they deserve

Social ostracism and banishment from public areas. But on the bright side, they have the option to not engage in their filthy habit and still associate in public.

It is more of an option than they gave to non-smokers

"If you don't like my smoking, then leave"

 

[Vandalshandle]

Pop, you and I are simply on different pages. Yes, tobacco is legal. Yes, we all know that prohibition does not work. No, I would not make it illegal. I have no problem whatsoever in taxing it out of existence, which has worked well so far. 10 years ago in Alaska, a pack of cigarette's cost $10. There are not many smokers in Alaska. Who knows what they charge today.

My post is not about tobacco laws. My post is about the lack of morality and ethics of the producers and distributors of tobacco, as well as the Tea Party types who worship corporate America and find it to be as pure as the driven snow. I mention opium because of the addiction aspect that it shares with tobacco. I smoked for 37 years, up to 2 1/2 packs per day, so I know exactly how addictive nicotine is. I repeat my central theme, which is that there is a legalized corporate industry in this country that sells addiction and death for a profit, and there are many fools in this country that just don't see what is wrong about that.