Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....

[Anguille]

Seriously, I can understand non-smokers not wanting smoking in restaurants etc, I gotta admit I appreciate the freshness,

Do you think it's fair to ban smoking in bars and restaurants?

Bars, no - that should be up to the owner.

Restaurants...I gotta say yes. I'd rather it was left up to the owner but restaurant owners can't afford to tick off all the smokers so their hands are kinda tied. And non-smoking sections don't work because smoke floats where it will.

And I differentiate bars from restaurants because I know most smokers can easily handle an hour without a smoke, long enough for a meal. Bars are a different story. I tended bar for a short time and that clientele by and large don't mind smoke, its part of the territory. It WAS amazing, though, how much my clothes smelt like smoke after a shift.

So your reasoning is based on how long a smoker should have to put up with withdrawal pangs. Do you think it's fair that smoking is banned on planes, trains and buses?

I agree the non smoking section idea never worked.

 

[JenT]

I am not against a person's right to get high on nicotine so long as the smoker is not infringing on anyone else's right to not to have to breathe it in.
When a woman has an abortion she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion.

well I think the abortee might have an objection, if he/she had the chance to live long enough to voice it

Well that's not fair-----since women are stuck with being the world's baby sitters they outta be able to decide what their workload is.

Kill a human being to lighten the load of 9 months, 3 of which you don't even show? Did you know that NOT carrying a child to term increases cancer in a woman? Women pay HUGE when we abort, emotionally, physically...and if she never has more she's minus those kids to surround her in her old age

(okay I won't be waiting at the door for THAT to happen...)

I KNEW I should have had my kids sign tickets every time they needed me to go above and beyond..."One visit to mom in the old folks home", "one drive to the mountains" etc.

I MISSED MY CHANCE!

 

[dilloduck]

I was right. You are a kook.

Yep, that's always your response. It must be awful not to be able to defend your position because you don't understand it Ang.

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

no---I want the FDA to control everything that is sold in America.

 

[JenT]

Do you think it's fair to ban smoking in bars and restaurants?

Bars, no - that should be up to the owner.

Restaurants...I gotta say yes. I'd rather it was left up to the owner but restaurant owners can't afford to tick off all the smokers so their hands are kinda tied. And non-smoking sections don't work because smoke floats where it will.

And I differentiate bars from restaurants because I know most smokers can easily handle an hour without a smoke, long enough for a meal. Bars are a different story. I tended bar for a short time and that clientele by and large don't mind smoke, its part of the territory. It WAS amazing, though, how much my clothes smelt like smoke after a shift.

So your reasoning is based on how long a smoker should have to put up with withdrawal pangs. Do you think it's fair that smoking is banned on planes, trains and buses?

I agree the non smoking section idea never worked.

Planes, yes. Buses and trains? open a window, no big deal.

 

[Anguille]

Yep, that's always your response. It must be awful not to be able to defend your position because you don't understand it Ang.

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

no---I want the FDA to control everything that is sold in America.

I hope you never get a bad batch of Viagra, dillo.

 

[dilloduck]

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

no---I want the FDA to control everything that is sold in America.

I hope you never get a bad batch of Viagra, dillo.

I know--you tell me that everytime we have our after-sex cigarette.

 

[JenT]

Yep, that's always your response. It must be awful not to be able to defend your position because you don't understand it Ang.

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

no---I want the FDA to control everything that is sold in America.

Are you guys really serious? They can manipulate the numbers to mean just about anything in "studies". I just don't buy that second hand smoke is such a big deal except maybe to a child in the womb. It's got to be such a FRACTION of what a smoker smokes, I'd be more concerned about breathing in hair spray or the air from a blowdryer or diesel smoke as a secretary working in one of those yards or my gosh, my job FORCED me to go to one of those recycling centers, talk about air hazards, it sure looks to me like workers at those places are seriously selling their health. You KNOW people throw hazardous stuff in the trash all day long and there they are, sorting it by hand. That's gotta be the pits.

 

[dilloduck]

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

no---I want the FDA to control everything that is sold in America.

Are you guys really serious? They can manipulate the numbers to mean just about anything in "studies". I just don't buy that second hand smoke is such a big deal except maybe to a child in the womb. It's got to be such a FRACTION of what a smoker smokes, I'd be more concerned about breathing in hair spray or the air from a blowdryer or diesel smoke as a secretary working in one of those yards or my gosh, my job FORCED me to go to one of those recycling centers, talk about air hazards, it sure looks to me like workers at those places are seriously selling their health. You KNOW people throw hazardous stuff in the trash all day long and there they are, sorting it by hand. That's gotta be the pits.

me ? serious ?? rarely

 

[tigerbob]

I was right. You are a kook.

Yep, that's always your response. It must be awful not to be able to defend your position because you don't understand it Ang.

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

No, I wouldn't. But cigarettes are not untested. They've been a legal product for hundreds of years. Their risks to the smoker are well known and these risks have to be disclosed to the user, just as any drug would be.

And it is not the research that has been done that is potentially flawed. It is the interpretation of the data. You can conduct cohort studies and meta analyses until the cows come home, but if the statistical analysis of the findings is flawed then you may as well not have bothered.

Here's a question for you. The current smoking bans are all built upon pretty much a single foundation - the 1993 EPA report. What is it about that report and the methodology used that makes the conclusions it reaches so sound and inescapable that there is no alternative to the introduction of widespread public smoking bans?

 

[Immanuel]

You insinuate that I am for murder by using misleading language.

To say I am for the right of killing a defenseless humans being is a lie.

Why are you trying to derail this thread into a discussion of abortion anyway?

Have you run out of things to say in defense of your argument that people can do whatever they want on private property?

You claim to be pro-choice, but in fact you are only for one choice. And again, I did not, nor do I use the word murder. Murder is the illegal killing of a human being. Abortion is not at this time and probably never will be murder.

The analogy is there and it is truthful. If you can't handle it, then maybe you should think about your stance on the issue of choice.

Are you or are you not for the right of a woman to choose to abort her child? If so, why are you against the right of a person to choose to smoke. Both choices infringe on the rights of other human beings, so how do you justify the hypocrisy of your two stances?

Immie

I am not against a person's right to get high on nicotine so long as the smoker is not infringing on anyone else's right to not to have to breathe it in.
When a woman has an abortion she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion.

You're right she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion, however, she is infringing on someone else's most important right of all, the right to live. In fact, she is denying all rights to that other individual including the right to have an abortion in the future.

Immie

 

[JenT]

You claim to be pro-choice, but in fact you are only for one choice. And again, I did not, nor do I use the word murder. Murder is the illegal killing of a human being. Abortion is not at this time and probably never will be murder.

The analogy is there and it is truthful. If you can't handle it, then maybe you should think about your stance on the issue of choice.

Are you or are you not for the right of a woman to choose to abort her child? If so, why are you against the right of a person to choose to smoke. Both choices infringe on the rights of other human beings, so how do you justify the hypocrisy of your two stances?

Immie

I am not against a person's right to get high on nicotine so long as the smoker is not infringing on anyone else's right to not to have to breathe it in.
When a woman has an abortion she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion.

You're right she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion, however, she is infringing on someone else's most important right of all, the right to live. In fact, she is denying all rights to that other individual including the right to have an abortion in the future.

Immie

and the right to smoke

 

[Anguille]

Yep, that's always your response. It must be awful not to be able to defend your position because you don't understand it Ang.

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

No, I wouldn't. But cigarettes are not untested. They've been a legal product for hundreds of years. Their risks to the smoker are well known and these risks have to be disclosed to the user, just as any drug would be.

And it is not the research that has been done that is potentially flawed. It is the interpretation of the data. You can conduct cohort studies and meta analyses until the cows come home, but if the statistical analysis of the findings is flawed then you may as well not have bothered.

Here's a question for you. The current smoking bans are all built upon pretty much a single foundation - the 1993 EPA report. What is it about that report and the methodology used that makes the conclusions it reaches so sound and inescapable that there is no alternative to the introduction of widespread public smoking bans?

People have known that secondhand smoke makes them sick even before the EPA studied it. I think you know it makes other people sick too. It's in the nature of the addict to try and wiggle out of any responsibility for harm that his habit causes others.

 

[Anguille]

Bars, no - that should be up to the owner.

Restaurants...I gotta say yes. I'd rather it was left up to the owner but restaurant owners can't afford to tick off all the smokers so their hands are kinda tied. And non-smoking sections don't work because smoke floats where it will.

And I differentiate bars from restaurants because I know most smokers can easily handle an hour without a smoke, long enough for a meal. Bars are a different story. I tended bar for a short time and that clientele by and large don't mind smoke, its part of the territory. It WAS amazing, though, how much my clothes smelt like smoke after a shift.

So your reasoning is based on how long a smoker should have to put up with withdrawal pangs. Do you think it's fair that smoking is banned on planes, trains and buses?

I agree the non smoking section idea never worked.

Planes, yes. Buses and trains? open a window, no big deal.

Why on planes? Isn't a long plane ride a lot of agony to put a addict through?

 

[tigerbob]

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

No, I wouldn't. But cigarettes are not untested. They've been a legal product for hundreds of years. Their risks to the smoker are well known and these risks have to be disclosed to the user, just as any drug would be.

And it is not the research that has been done that is potentially flawed. It is the interpretation of the data. You can conduct cohort studies and meta analyses until the cows come home, but if the statistical analysis of the findings is flawed then you may as well not have bothered.

Here's a question for you. The current smoking bans are all built upon pretty much a single foundation - the 1993 EPA report. What is it about that report and the methodology used that makes the conclusions it reaches so sound and inescapable that there is no alternative to the introduction of widespread public smoking bans?

People have known that secondhand smoke makes them sick even before the EPA studied it. I think you know it makes other people sick too. It's in the nature of the addict to try and wiggle out of any responsibility for harm that his habit causes others.

So, as usual, you choose not to answer because you don't know your subject well enough.

And I'm a non smoker.

 

[dilloduck]

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

No, I wouldn't. But cigarettes are not untested. They've been a legal product for hundreds of years. Their risks to the smoker are well known and these risks have to be disclosed to the user, just as any drug would be.

And it is not the research that has been done that is potentially flawed. It is the interpretation of the data. You can conduct cohort studies and meta analyses until the cows come home, but if the statistical analysis of the findings is flawed then you may as well not have bothered.

Here's a question for you. The current smoking bans are all built upon pretty much a single foundation - the 1993 EPA report. What is it about that report and the methodology used that makes the conclusions it reaches so sound and inescapable that there is no alternative to the introduction of widespread public smoking bans?

People have known that secondhand smoke makes them sick even before the EPA studied it. I think you know it makes other people sick too. It's in the nature of the addict to try and wiggle out of any responsibility for harm that his habit causes others.

Things that you say drive me crazy. Is your phsyical health more important than my mental health ?

 

[Immanuel]

I am not against a person's right to get high on nicotine so long as the smoker is not infringing on anyone else's right to not to have to breathe it in.
When a woman has an abortion she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion.

You're right she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion, however, she is infringing on someone else's most important right of all, the right to live. In fact, she is denying all rights to that other individual including the right to have an abortion in the future.

Immie

and the right to smoke

I don't really believe that Anquille believes anyone has the right to smoke regardless of her claim a post or two ago that they can smoke in their own homes. She will be supporting the ban on smoking in the home and in cars as they come about as well.

California has already begun such actions.

California Town Approves Ban Making Smoking Illegal in Condos, Apartments - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

No More Smoking In Your Home? - RapidNewsWire.com

Smoking ban with kids in car now a go - Healthzone.ca

Immie

 

[Anguille]

You claim to be pro-choice, but in fact you are only for one choice. And again, I did not, nor do I use the word murder. Murder is the illegal killing of a human being. Abortion is not at this time and probably never will be murder.

The analogy is there and it is truthful. If you can't handle it, then maybe you should think about your stance on the issue of choice.

Are you or are you not for the right of a woman to choose to abort her child? If so, why are you against the right of a person to choose to smoke. Both choices infringe on the rights of other human beings, so how do you justify the hypocrisy of your two stances?

Immie

I am not against a person's right to get high on nicotine so long as the smoker is not infringing on anyone else's right to not to have to breathe it in.
When a woman has an abortion she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion.

You're right she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion, however, she is infringing on someone else's most important right of all, the right to live. In fact, she is denying all rights to that other individual including the right to have an abortion in the future.

Immie

If I agreed with your opinion that fetuses have a right to live, you would be right but I do not. I would also have to agree that you have right of attorney for any fetus which I do not.
Only the woman carrying the fetus has the right to decide if the pregnancy will come to term or not.
If you are concerned about people's right to live, why do you not care about the right to live of people who are subjected to secondhand smoke?

 

[Anguille]

No, I wouldn't. But cigarettes are not untested. They've been a legal product for hundreds of years. Their risks to the smoker are well known and these risks have to be disclosed to the user, just as any drug would be.

And it is not the research that has been done that is potentially flawed. It is the interpretation of the data. You can conduct cohort studies and meta analyses until the cows come home, but if the statistical analysis of the findings is flawed then you may as well not have bothered.

Here's a question for you. The current smoking bans are all built upon pretty much a single foundation - the 1993 EPA report. What is it about that report and the methodology used that makes the conclusions it reaches so sound and inescapable that there is no alternative to the introduction of widespread public smoking bans?

People have known that secondhand smoke makes them sick even before the EPA studied it. I think you know it makes other people sick too. It's in the nature of the addict to try and wiggle out of any responsibility for harm that his habit causes others.

So, as usual, you choose not to answer because you don't know your subject well enough.

And I'm a non smoker.

You were during our last discussion on the subject. Congratulations!

 

[Immanuel]

I am not against a person's right to get high on nicotine so long as the smoker is not infringing on anyone else's right to not to have to breathe it in.
When a woman has an abortion she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion.

You're right she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion, however, she is infringing on someone else's most important right of all, the right to live. In fact, she is denying all rights to that other individual including the right to have an abortion in the future.

Immie

If I agreed with your opinion that fetuses have a right to live, you would be right but I do not. I would also have to agree that you have right of attorney for any fetus which I do not.
Only the woman carrying the fetus has the right to decide if the pregnancy will come to term or not.
If you are concerned about people's right to live, why do you not care about the right to live of people who are subjected to secondhand smoke?

So again, you are saying that you are the one that decides what rights the rest of us have.... wait you ignored comment the last time. I suspect you will do so again.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

You're right she is not forcing anyone else to have an abortion, however, she is infringing on someone else's most important right of all, the right to live. In fact, she is denying all rights to that other individual including the right to have an abortion in the future.

Immie

and the right to smoke

I don't really believe that Anquille believes anyone has the right to smoke regardless of her claim a post or two ago that they can smoke in their own homes. She will be supporting the ban on smoking in the home and in cars as they come about as well.

California has already begun such actions.

California Town Approves Ban Making Smoking Illegal in Condos, Apartments - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

No More Smoking In Your Home? - RapidNewsWire.com

Smoking ban with kids in car now a go - Healthzone.ca

Immie

i have no problem with people smoking anywhere were it does not harm another person.
I welcome laws that prevent people from smoking around children. In fact, I find it disgraceful that so many bans are already in place that protect adults but bans to protect children are so few. If our society cares so much about kids, why do we allow smoking around them?

Except in certain cases where adult asthmatics can die within minutes of exposure to cigarette smoke, it's really more heinous to smoke around a child than an adult because their lungs and heart are still developing and they are more at risk for harmful longterm effects.