Author Topic: WTG Mass :) (Read 1154 times)

rpm · « **Reply #30 on:** July 06, 2004, 05:48:20 PM »

But they make as much sense.

loser · « **Reply #31 on:** July 06, 2004, 05:52:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
But they make as much sense.

Yup, then better watch out for those prescios bodily fluids too then. Us commies are after those as you already know.

rpm · « **Reply #32 on:** July 06, 2004, 06:11:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by loser
Yup, then better watch out for those prescios bodily fluids too then. Us commies are after those as you already know.

I do not avoid women, but I do deny them my essence.

Dago · « **Reply #33 on:** July 06, 2004, 08:46:39 PM »

I have always been kind of amazed at the way smokers jabber about their "rights" to smoke anywhere they want with total disregard to everyone elses rights and desires for clean air.

A smokers right to smoke ends where my right to breath clean air starts.

Instead of telling me to stay home if I don't want to breath your second hand stench, consider staying home and stinking up your own home instead of everyone elses lives.

dago

Boroda · « **Reply #34 on:** July 07, 2004, 08:00:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
My Dad smoked Pall Mall Reds (non-filters) from my birth till about age 19. Mom smoked Pall Mall Golds till age 17. I never smelled the smoke on me, now, I practically vomit after smelling cig. smoke.

Pall-Mall are probably one of the most stinking brands. My granny was almost crazy when I smoked Pall-Mall, saying that it stinks like burnt bones, and never complained when I smoked cheapest non-filtered Soviet stuf.

Quote

Originally posted by Modas
I bet people will stop smoking real quick when cigarettes are $15+ a pack.

In 1992, when Russia switched from Soviet state economics to "free market" - all the prices went up almost 5 times. Most of my fellow-students quitted smoking. I switched to "Galouises caporal" in soft packs from "humanitarian aid" - they were so strong that noone asked me for a cigarette twice

Most of the people didn't last for more then a month, and started smoking again. After 1998 "crisis" when prices went up 2 times in one month I only switched from "Mild Seven" to "Apollo-Soyuz" that were 3 times cheaper, and then to "XXI Century" that are much better then most of the imported cigarettes and cheaper too.

I am sure people will find the way to get tobacco at reasonable price in any case. Not letting people to smoke can lead to social disasters. You can ban alcohol, have problems with food on ration cards, but taking away tobacco will make people crazy.

lazs2 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 07, 2004, 08:19:07 AM »

loser... I understand about people and common sense and such but... who cares? My arguement is that a bar or resteraunt is NOT a public place.. it is privately owned. If there is a big sign on the entrance that says there is smoke in there then if you enter to drink or eat junk food... things you do willingly and really have no real NEED for... then hell with ya.. quit yer whinning or... tell the owner yu won't come back... public places? let the voters decide.

curly... even if the junk science of 40% health risk for second hand smoke was correct (and I have seen nothing that proves that)... so what? see above. If you want to ban smoking in private places then simply ban it all together. If it is that evil then by all means... protect that smoker and willing participants from themselves. it is exactly like a seatbelt or helmet law. yu restrict freedom to save a buck... or... to keep people from hurting themselves.... sorta makes you a female accountant liberal.

There are ways to make it so we don't pay for smokers. Let the insurance companies make them pay a preimim they do allready BTW on car and home and life insurance... they pay extra taxes just as sportsmen do.

I can't believe that curly goes to so many bars that his chance of cancer is increased 40% because of the smoke. Hell.... can anyone go that much? living by a street is a real danger tho. What kind of "scientist" would say that breating bus and jet fuel was perfectly healthy but getting a wiff of burning tobacco was instant cancer?

silly... more nanny crap. the only reason that flaming liberal rpm isn't on board is because it is his ox being gored this time.

lazs

AKcurly · « **Reply #36 on:** July 07, 2004, 03:36:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

curly... even if the junk science of 40% health risk for second hand smoke was correct (and I have seen nothing that proves that)... so what? see above. If you want to ban smoking in private places then simply ban it all together. If it is that evil then by all means... protect that smoker and willing participants from themselves. it is exactly like a seatbelt or helmet law. yu restrict freedom to save a buck... or... to keep people from hurting themselves.... sorta makes you a female accountant liberal.

There are ways to make it so we don't pay for smokers. Let the insurance companies make them pay a preimim they do allready BTW on car and home and life insurance... they pay extra taxes just as sportsmen do.

I can't believe that curly goes to so many bars that his chance of cancer is increased 40% because of the smoke. Hell.... can anyone go that much? living by a street is a real danger tho. What kind of "scientist" would say that breating bus and jet fuel was perfectly healthy but getting a wiff of burning tobacco was instant cancer?

silly... more nanny crap. the only reason that flaming liberal rpm isn't on board is because it is his ox being gored this time.
lazs

The Montana incident wasn't junk science. It was far too pervasive (entire town was a smoke free environment.) The rest of the first two paragraphs, yeah, I agree with the spirit (except for the liberal female accountant label)

BTW, the risk noted in Montana wasn't cancer, it was heart attack. Good that you read the article you labeled as junk science.

The difference between fuel and cigarettes is a simple one for me.

When you are confronted with a dangerous environmental issue, you have three choices:

1. Accept the health risk and make no changes.
2. compromise in some manner until the health risk is decreased.
3. Make a drastic change (for example, eliminate hydrocarbons as a fuel source.)

It's impossible to chuck hydrocarbons as a fuel overnight. But, there are acceptable alternatives that we can move towards which are pollution free (hydrogen/fuel cells.) With fuel, I believe we are currently using #2 and moving towards #3.

It's easy to eliminate second hand cigarette smoke as a hazard. There's no economic pain involved whatsoever.

curly

mosgood · « **Reply #37 on:** July 07, 2004, 04:08:42 PM »

hmmm... what about obesity? That is also a MAJOR health problem. Should we ration food? Or maybe we should put a large tax on food instead?

I like the idea of making smokers and obese people pay more taxes or more for health insurance (think they already are doing this arent they?). Really. They can still do it..... but it's gonna cost them more and the rest of us less.

Dago · « **Reply #38 on:** July 07, 2004, 04:12:38 PM »

Physically obesity affects just that one person. When he eats, it doesn't force food down anyone elses throat.

When someone smokes in the vicinity of others, he forces secondhand smoke down their lungs.

Quite an obvious differance. I am surprised you didnt pick up on that.

dago

mosgood · « **Reply #39 on:** July 07, 2004, 04:17:44 PM »

I was focusing more on the health care costs. Not the physical health effects on others.

AKcurly · « **Reply #40 on:** July 07, 2004, 06:11:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mosgood
I was focusing more on the health care costs. Not the physical health effects on others.

The health care costs from smoking related ailments (including second hand smoke) are going to put a serious dent in the medicare bank in the next 10 years or so. Tobacco related ailments are estimated by the year 2010 to cost the US taxpayer $800 billion / year.

And we continue to subsidize the American tobacco farmer.

curly

lazs2 · « **Reply #41 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:49:58 AM »

curly.. my concerns are not for cost but for goverment intervention in peoples private property. How is it a health risk for non smokers to read a sign and not enter a privately owned bar or resteraunt?

Also... how is one study in one town conclusive? What kind of science it that? that is like saying that some tibetian area that has smoking and 120 year lifespans proves that smoking increases lifespans... junk science is making conclussions without taking the variable into consideration.. The study may or may not be accurate but... what do you do about it?

Either make the product illegal based on the extreme expense and danger or allow people to do whatever they want on their own property about it.

lazs

AKcurly · « **Reply #42 on:** July 08, 2004, 04:15:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
curly.. my concerns are not for cost but for goverment intervention in peoples private property. How is it a health risk for non smokers to read a sign and not enter a privately owned bar or resteraunt?

Also... how is one study in one town conclusive? What kind of science it that? that is like saying that some tibetian area that has smoking and 120 year lifespans proves that smoking increases lifespans... junk science is making conclussions without taking the variable into consideration.. The study may or may not be accurate but... what do you do about it?

Either make the product illegal based on the extreme expense and danger or allow people to do whatever they want on their own property about it.

lazs

Concerning restaurants, do you think we should have health standards? Do you think the restaurants should be inspected? Do you think restaurant owners should be permitted to employ folks who have hepatitis? If not, why not? The restaurant is privately owned. If you think health standards should not be imposed, well, we have no common ground and the discussion is pointless.

Concerning: "Also... how is one study in one town conclusive?" Because they weren't studying towns, they were studying people.

But, the study needs to be repeated in other towns too. I suspect in large cities with significant air pollution, the hazard of second hand smoke will be decreased (compared to the Montana study.)

curly

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #43 on:** July 08, 2004, 04:28:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
boy... you guys are sure quick to ban what other people do so long as you don't enjoy it.... The best excuse is that it saves you money...

How much money would we save if we banned swimming? Or rock climbing... how bout parachuting or scuba diving? maybe overeating? or simply ban some types of foods?

lazs

None of the activities you suggest banning create a health hazard for others...except for skydiving and rock climbing...

Tax...tax..TAX the smoking bastages tax them back into the stone age.......I don't feel like seeing my healthcare spike because someone cant control their niccotine habit.

As I recall, lazs, you were rather adamant about not wanting to pay a surcharge for visiting mountain resorts where people have to be rescued from extreme climbing. I believe the thread had to do with mountain climbers having to be rescued...

Maybe it wasn't you who mentioned it, if it was, sorry for confusing you with someone else.

lazs2 · « **Reply #44 on:** July 08, 2004, 04:46:09 PM »

curly... are you seriously comparing unclean kitchen practices with smoking? If a sign is posted that states that the place is a smoking bar then anyone who enters is putting himself at risk of his own free will. No one is forced to drink in abar last I heard and... if smoking is so abhorent then non smoking bars will make a killing.

as for health standards and disease control in privately owned resteraunts... I am of the opinion that if you simply made it voluntary with no inspections except for those in the program and... made it mandatory that non members of the program post as such.... most would voluntarily comply... those who didn't would also be prone to lawsuits since they could not prove a safe product (food).

As for rock climbing... no redtail... I felt that if was worth the expense of rescuing them to allow for the freedom to do it but... they should have to foot the bill themselves if they were negligent.

obesity kills far more and... it affectds us all with the medical expense. It will be the next great nanny plan for limiting freedom.

lazs