ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:06 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:49 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
Green Owl wrote:
A person chooses to smoke...yes? Therefore they have the right and choice to smoke, so by various groups banning smoking in bars, it is possible that they are violating the smokers rights.

Read the Constitution buddy. It says "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Life is first. Second-hand smoke = !Life. Life trumps smoking.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:46 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
We've said it before, and the studies that said second hand smoke were bad are null. Unless you are Herbal's brother and have smoke blown in your face, second hand smoke won't harm or kill you. Saying that is equivalent to saying that a pedestrian on a busy motorway has the ability to get law passed that all cars go away, as their second hand combustion != life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:56 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
krylex wrote:
We've said it before, and the studies that said second hand smoke were bad are null. Unless you are Herbal's brother and have smoke blown in your face, second hand smoke won't harm or kill you.


Say it all you want that doesn't mean it's true. Just because I say that gravity doesn't exist, it's just a myth, and that the reason we don't fly off the planet is because it's flat doesn't mean I'm right. There is plenty of evidence stating that gravity does, in fact, exist and that the world is more or less round. Kinda like there is quite a bit of evidence, and research, showing that second hand smoke is bad for people.

krylex wrote:
Saying that is equivalent to saying that a pedestrian on a busy motorway has the ability to get law passed that all cars go away, as their second hand combustion != life.


which is why emissions laws keep getting stricter and why people are searching for better, cleaner fuel, so that we don't have to rely on gasoline.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:09 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
I've conducted a 1-man study into the effects of second-hand smoke on the general populous of myself.

I've found that stinkiness increases 300%, coughing increases 73%, eye watereiness increases 32% and enjoyment of breathing decreases 42%.

My study has come of a conclusion, and it concluded conclusivly that being around smokers sucks.

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:52 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
krylex wrote:
We've said it before, and the studies that said second hand smoke were bad are null. Unless you are Herbal's brother and have smoke blown in your face, second hand smoke won't harm or kill you.


Say it all you want that doesn't mean it's true. Just because I say that gravity doesn't exist, it's just a myth, and that the reason we don't fly off the planet is because it's flat doesn't mean I'm right. There is plenty of evidence stating that gravity does, in fact, exist and that the world is more or less round. Kinda like there is quite a bit of evidence, and research, showing that second hand smoke is bad for people.


You know that there has <b>never</b> been a scientific study that has ever proven that someone is going to die from problems related to second hand smoke? Never. Not once. The EPA's study from 1993 is the one that everyone cites, and it doesn't successfully link second hand smoke to deaths by lung cancer. If you ever watch 'Bullshit!', Penn and Teller had someone do the math:
Quote:
There is a 25% higher risk of dying of lung cancer from being regularly exposed to passive smoke. For those regularly exposed to ETS (environmental tobacco smoke), the death rate from lung cancer is 1 in 80,000. For those not exposed, it is 1 in 100,000. Looked at another way: For every million people exposed to ETS, there will be 12.5 deaths from lung cancer; for every million people not exposed to ETS, there will be 10 deaths due to lung cancer. This is statistically of no significance.


You aren't going to get lung cancer from second hand smoke. There are much worse pollutants in the air from other things. Just try to breathe in Los Angeles or Denver during heavy smog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 5:08 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Something else I just found while researching. The WHO actually has a study showing that ETS has nothing to do with lung cancer. Children in households where they are exposed to ETS actually have a 22% <b>less</b> likely chance to develop lung cancer.

An abstract of the WHO article is here.

A site that breaks down those numbers and has plenty of other information is here.

The site the WHO has up saying why the study is unavailable and gives a few numbers is here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:36 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
Herbal Enema wrote:
I've conducted a 1-man study into the effects of second-hand smoke on the general populous of myself.

I've found that stinkiness increases 300%, coughing increases 73%, eye watereiness increases 32% and enjoyment of breathing decreases 42%.

My study has come of a conclusion, and it concluded conclusivly that being around smokers sucks.


Which is the actual point in the end. And why I say smoking should be done in the privacy of one's home. Like certain other things nobody else wants to be around.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:09 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
Herbal Enema wrote:
I've conducted a 1-man study into the effects of second-hand smoke on the general populous of myself.

I've found that stinkiness increases 300%, coughing increases 73%, eye watereiness increases 32% and enjoyment of breathing decreases 42%.

My study has come of a conclusion, and it concluded conclusivly that being around smokers sucks.


Which is the actual point in the end. And why I say smoking should be done in the privacy of one's home. Like certain other things nobody else wants to be around.


I don't like it when Sam chews with his mouth open. Being around people who do as such sucks. Therefore, no one should be allowed to chew with their mouth open in a public place, and if so, in special rooms that are soundproofed from the others, so no one has to hear them smack their lips.


EDIT: I know that this idea is far fetched, but this is basically the argument you presented me. Now, you said studies show that SHS (second hand smoke) is harmful. You didn't actually provide the evidence, as you had the burden of proof to do, but I went ahead and refuted it anyways. So now that I have presented my evidence to the contrary, you must either refute the evidence itself or find another study that contradicts it, or cede the debate.

Am I starting to sound like MiB?


Last edited by krylex on Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:01 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 3:51 am
Posts: 671
Location: Senior Citizen Fortress, SD
I really think that smoking bans are rather strange. If I had the choice I'd leave it up to the businesses, if they want no-smoking they can post the signs and enforce it, if they don't mind then they're good. If they want both there should be a building code or something that smoking areas need to be separated in some way, I've seen plenty of restaurants that divide their smoking area with a waist height wall and call it good. Have it so you have to make a separate room for a smoking area (or non-smoking) so it doesn't drift across the entire restaurant.

I know that second hand smoke can be bad if it's always around you because my parents smoked for the first 12 years of my life, but when your only exposed to it every once and a while it's not horrible, there are certainly a lot deadlier gases out in the world, heck carburetor cleaner eats brain cells like candy and I have to wander around that stuff on a daily basis (I r doing god rit now) and I know it's a hell of a lot worse than smoke (even in a well ventilated building it gets bad).

So in summary it should be the choice of the people owning a business, not the government.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:39 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
krylex wrote:
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
Herbal Enema wrote:
I've conducted a 1-man study into the effects of second-hand smoke on the general populous of myself.

I've found that stinkiness increases 300%, coughing increases 73%, eye watereiness increases 32% and enjoyment of breathing decreases 42%.

My study has come of a conclusion, and it concluded conclusivly that being around smokers sucks.


Which is the actual point in the end. And why I say smoking should be done in the privacy of one's home. Like certain other things nobody else wants to be around.


I don't like it when Sam chews with his mouth open. Being around people who do as such sucks. Therefore, no one should be allowed to chew with their mouth open in a public place, and if so, in special rooms that are soundproofed from the others, so no one has to hear them smack their lips.


EDIT: I know that this idea is far fetched, but this is basically the argument you presented me. Now, you said studies show that SHS (second hand smoke) is harmful. You didn't actually provide the evidence, as you had the burden of proof to do, but I went ahead and refuted it anyways. So now that I have presented my evidence to the contrary, you must either refute the evidence itself or find another study that contradicts it, or cede the debate.

Am I starting to sound like MiB?

I should probably point out that part of the reason that I'm so strongly for the smoking ban is because I'm allergic to the smoke. I know a number of people who are also allergic to the smoke from cigarettes and cigars. I kinda doubt you're allergic to people that eat with their mouths open (and you can look away from those that do so, whereas it's very hard to stop breathing). And yes, I was using the study you "refuted" as part of my argument, so here's a new one (not that you really refuted it, the last article nulls your previous statements).

EDIT: getting statistically insignificant results doesn't mean that something isn't true. It could mean the sample was too small.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Yes, the last paragraph is tongue in cheek.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:51 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
It could also mean that the results are truly too small to matter. This was a 7 year study, afterall, and the WHO contradicting themselves with the last article doesn't null what I said. I said the facts. The overplay them on the last one.


Now, you are allergic to smoke. That is a much more valid reason to support a smoking ban. About your allergy, is it an actual allergy, as in you get sick and die from exposure, or is it you are simply not used to smoke and it makes you cough and or gag as it can do to anyone who isn't used to it? If it is the latter, it isn't a true alergy, per sey, but a general dislike, much akin to mine with the lip smacking.

Also, on the notion of allergies to smoke, plenty of people are allergic to peanuts. Some so violently so that if their food comes in contact with peanuts or peanut oil in any fashion, it could be lethal. Peanuts should be banned from resturants then, as we have to protect the minority. So who gets to decide. The minority or majority on this subject? I'm sure there are quite a few more smokers than there are people deathly allergic to smoke.

On the subject of lip smacking, I have an acute auditory disability that causes seizures when the sound of a smacking lip is heard. It is hazardous to my health and I can die from it. The lip smackers should still be banned!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:20 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:52 pm
Posts: 79
It's not the choice of the government to ban something like smoking. It really isn't, it's an individual choice, people choose to smoke, they're not seduced, they know what happens, they choose to do it. So...let them do it. Banning smoking is in some ways like saying 'let's ban alcohol' it's just as dangerous if not more so right? Why has no one done anything about it yet? Because it failed in 1933. The same effects would probably occur. It's a persons personal choice to smoke and to drink. People know the risks and they do it anyway; then they bitch about the effects. They knew it going in, and they did it anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:16 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Green Owl wrote:
It's not the choice of the government to ban something like smoking. It really isn't, it's an individual choice, people choose to smoke, they're not seduced, they know what happens, they choose to do it. So...let them do it. Banning smoking is in some ways like saying 'let's ban alcohol' it's just as dangerous if not more so right? Why has no one done anything about it yet? Because it failed in 1933. The same effects would probably occur. It's a persons personal choice to smoke and to drink. People know the risks and they do it anyway; then they bitch about the effects. They knew it going in, and they did it anyway.


Well, don't they have laws against being drunk in public? I'm having difficult finding the texts (except where in Australia), but I thought that's how the brown bag came to be so associated with drinking from the bottle. You had to have a brown bag over the bottle you were drinking out of, otherwise you were fined. >.>

http://www1.enoughisenough.com.au/pages/alcoholLaw.asp wrote:
It is illegal for any person to consume alcohol on unlicensed premises (e.g. someone’s house, the town hall) without the consent of the owner or group in control of those premises.


I assume the laws are in place do to personal responsibility matters. You can't do drugs (illegal, alcohol, or tobacco) on someone else's property without their permission. <b>Is it infringing on the smoker's rights if they're ignoring their <u>personal responsibility</u> to behave themselves on someone else's (or government) property?</b> The logic behind your arguement seems rather silly to me.

What law could you defend the freedom of the choice to harm yourself on someone else's property when they forbid you from doing so?

Though the fact that the government has to step in to enforce the whole situation is rather... unsettling when it deals with privately owned business. It forces every business owner/house owner to comply, whether or not the owner cares. Not that I imagine it'll be strictly enforced.

And KryKry, you're putting forth rather reasonable arguements, and getting stupidity back as a result. It's natural to be irritated, but I wouldn't say that you sound like MiB.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Last edited by Kali_Ava on Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:35 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 3:51 am
Posts: 671
Location: Senior Citizen Fortress, SD
What is interesting is the fact that South Dakota put a loophole in it's own smoking ban, any establishment with a liquor license can be a smoking establishment and liquor license's are remarkably easy to obtain. There are a number of restaurants back in my home town that have liquor licenses for the sole purpose of allowing smoking.

I also think the smoking ban isn't very heavily enforced (at least around here) they ban smoking in all establishments yet we've had the chief of police sit down and smoke in our shop. It sounds like the cops think it's a load of BS.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yes, the last paragraph is tongue in cheek.
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:58 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
krylex wrote:
Now, you are allergic to smoke. That is a much more valid reason to support a smoking ban. About your allergy, is it an actual allergy, as in you get sick and die from exposure, or is it you are simply not used to smoke and it makes you cough and or gag as it can do to anyone who isn't used to it? If it is the latter, it isn't a true alergy, per sey, but a general dislike, much akin to mine with the lip smacking.


real allergy. I can get pretty sick, but it's mild so I won't die.

krylex wrote:
Also, on the notion of allergies to smoke, plenty of people are allergic to peanuts. Some so violently so that if their food comes in contact with peanuts or peanut oil in any fashion, it could be lethal. Peanuts should be banned from resturants then, as we have to protect the minority. So who gets to decide. The minority or majority on this subject? I'm sure there are quite a few more smokers than there are people deathly allergic to smoke.


I may be misreading this, but it seems like this part of your argument is trying to state that smokers are the majority. I highly doubt this. It's true that the majority of people eat peanuts, it is NOT true that the majority of people smoke (in public places). Also, it is (as has already been stated) it is really hard not to breath, but fairly easy not to eat peanuts.

EDIT: sorry. did misread it. OK then, smokers aren't a majority either, they're simply a larger minority. And if the majority decides to support the health of the smaller minority then the smaller minority wins.

EDIT #2: I know I'm being a bit of a dick about this. sorry. But this is something I feel fairly strongly about and I tend to get a bit dogmatic. :oops:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:44 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
What if a peanut accidentally fell inside your salad with crutons? A little more crunch would be unnoticed, but the results could be deadly. Ever notice that all candy bars without peanuts have warnings on their wrappers about being manufactured with other things that have peanuts? So it is presumably easier to avoid cigarette smoke than a rouge peanut, as a smoker can sit in another part of a restaraunt or the non-smoker can move away and do the same. There just simply isn't a strong enough health risk to actually justify a ban.

Also, believe me, you aren't being a dick. Its also not a problem to get dogmatic about a subject, just be prepared to back yourself. That means that you have to actually put forth an argument and answer the others put forth. Do that, and you can preach on all you want. As long as you can back it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:42 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
krylex wrote:
What if a peanut accidentally fell inside your salad with crutons? A little more crunch would be unnoticed, but the results could be deadly. Ever notice that all candy bars without peanuts have warnings on their wrappers about being manufactured with other things that have peanuts? So it is presumably easier to avoid cigarette smoke than a rogue peanut, as a smoker can sit in another part of a restaraunt or the non-smoker can move away and do the same. There just simply isn't a strong enough health risk to actually justify a ban.


True. I suppose I wouldn't mind if smokers were given their own little room to smoke in, as long as they were seperated by something a little more substantial than a waist high wall. Though in retrospect I'd rather have the smokers inside the returaunt or bar than outside where I have no choice but to walk past them.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:17 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
True. I suppose I wouldn't mind if smokers were given their own little room to smoke in, as long as they were seperated by something a little more substantial than a waist high wall. Though in retrospect I'd rather have the smokers inside the returaunt or bar than outside where I have no choice but to walk past them.


I've been wondering... how far away do you have to be from an outdoor smoker in order to have no reaction? I would think that the smoke would thin to a harmless amount in all the vastness that is outdoors faster than if cooped up inside. (And the new ban does mean that smokers are not allowed to smoke near the entrances either, so you wouldn't have to make that choice.)

Also, what are the ventilation systems like in smoking areas? Even when I've sat close to a smoking section, I've never been particularly bothered by the smokers unless I went past the wall divider into the actual section. But I'm not hypersensitive to smoke of any kind anyways, so I don't know how this affects the allergic people.

As far a smokers to people allergic to smoke: I've met two or three people who've been allergic to smoke and maybe a couple hundred smokers in my life (83% of my schoolmates smoke).

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:52 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:25 pm
Posts: 294
Fact of the matter is there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the claim that second hand smoke increases the risk of contracting lung disease. The EPA study proved unreliable (cooked data) and was thrown out in federal court. The WHO study was self-contradictory in that their data showed no significant risk in second hand smoke yet their conclusion states that second hand smoke is deadly anyway. Organizations like the Surgeon General still use the EPA study as "evidence" that second hand smoke definately causes cancer which is so wrong.

The strongest anti second hand smoke argument is still the nuisance factor. I empathize with this a little. I had acute asthma when I was very young although it was usually strong "fragrance" that set me off - perfumes, air fresheners, anything aerosol. I wouldn't go so far as to advocate the banning of perfumes though, but some women should really cut down on the smelly crap they spray on themselves. But if the goverment wants to ban cigarettes they should be consistent and also ban internal combustion engines. I admit that I'd like to see a news story of a congressman getting lynched for proposing we should ban cars. That's what I would call entertainment.

So yeah, I agree with the people who thinks business proprietors should ultimately decide what to allow in their respective establishments with regards to smoking. But restaurants should atleast have the courtesy to have a non-smoking section and smokers should have the courtesy to put out their cigarette if the person their sitting next to in the bar politely asks them to. Open, outdoor areas are free game.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:27 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:52 pm
Posts: 79
There was a police officer who lived near me, he didn't smoke a day in his life, jogged, was physically fit, he kept himself in good condition. I guess about 4 years ago he just died, collapsed, autopsy revealed that his lungs were as black as a smokers, from breathing in all the pollution and smog of a suburban area.

Also if someone is caught smoking in a bar in New York originally the bar owner would have to pay the fine
Quote:
Supreme Court Justice Paul Baisley Jr., ruled for the taverns on Oct. 13. Tossing out $650 in fines, the judge noted that while bar owners must inform patrons of the law, they are not required to refuse service, toss them from the establishment or make the smokers extinguish their cigarettes.
Now after the issue went to court the smoker themselves face a $650 fine if they're caught.

I pulled my information from a site called smokersclubinc.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group