Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dos Equis on June 28, 2006, 12:42:44 PM
-
Yet another one of those pesky scientists declaring that a debate is settled. This time about the effects of 2nd hand smoke.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606280182jun28,1,5258945.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
Who do these scientists think they are? No debate is over if there is one quack willing to stand up and present contrived evidence. Isn't that AH rule #13 or something?
Maybe, just because these scientists say so, smoking will be banned in all restaurants. By state law. Wouldn't that be something? Stupid public health concerns.
-
I've been reading those stories, and feeling guilty because i KNOW they track hits on stories.... i don't want to promote the story at all. it is a crock. if an establishment wants to allow smoking, it is an adults CHOICE to choose to patronize that establishment. they can choose not to.
******* anti-smoking nazi's piss me off more than anything i can think of right now.
all it is is prohibition all over again, we all know how well that worked out.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
I've been reading those stories, and feeling guilty because i KNOW they track hits on stories.... i don't want to promote the story at all. it is a crock. if an establishment wants to allow smoking, it is an adults CHOICE to choose to patronize that establishment. they can choose not to.
******* anti-smoking nazi's piss me off more than anything i can think of right now.
all it is is prohibition all over again, we all know how well that worked out.
The smoking nazi's began by making a small request..."All we are asking for is no smoking on flights shorter than 1 hour".... now is that really asking to much of smokers?
The next time someone says "All we are asking for is......remember this.
-
any of you anti anti-smokers non-smokers yourself?
I'm all for whatever stops me and my family from smelling someone elses nasty habit
it's great to see a crowd of smokers balled up in the smoking rooms at airports & arenas
-
God created cigarettes to kill the dumb.
-
Eagler,
Both my wife and I smoked in the past. We are dedicated non smokers and have a medical reason for it. My wife cannot tollerate the smoke after having gone through a very aggressive chemo series a few years back. Exposure to it causes a rather painful situation much like an asthma attack. This means every time we are out in public she has to use something to screen out the smoke if someone nearby or upwind is smoking. We have asked smokers to refrain at times and gotten mostly negative reactions. Some of them instead lit up another while still smoking the original cigarette them told us we had to leave if we didn't like it.
It all comes down to this. She has a right to be able to breath when out in public and particularly when in a building. No one has yet been able to proivide a medical necessity for someone to smoke at the risk of anothers health. There is no reason to tell another that they cannot go out in public just because another person wants, does not have any viable NEED, to smoke. If you cannot hold out from smoking while near others, perhaps you should seek treatment for your addiction.
-
psst.. Mav .. I am on your side :)
-
Psst, I know, I just added a reason to support what you were saying from real life. ;) :p
-
Smoking is the stupidest of all things. You don't even get high from it....just ill.:rolleyes:
-
Smoking is illegal in any food place or bar in Western New York.
One thing I can be proud of in this area.
-
mav... what I think it boils down to is that in any building that you own you have the right to ban smoking in it.
In any building that you help pay for (public building) you have a right to vote on if smoking should be banned or not.
In any private building, business or not.... you have no right to dictate if the owner bans it or not.
You do have the right to have signs posted at the entrances of buildings that allow smoking that say that it is indeed a smoking area.
as for socialist dos ekk.... I could not open your blue city rag... So maybe you could just give me the gist of it..... did the article/scientists say exactly how getting a much dilluted dose of something was worse for the person getting the dilluted dose than it was for the person who got the full dose?
How can second hand smoke be worse for the person than for the smoker who is getting not only first hand but.... obviously 2nd hand smoke as well...
and then... what about third and fourth hand... certainly the smoker and non smoker exchange 3rd and fourth and so on.... does the risk increase with every dillution?
maybe it is just that the lungs are some sort of evil reverse catlytic converter taht converts relatively harmless smoke into something much more deadly?
lazs
-
Lazs... here's the yahoo story from yesterday:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_he_me/involuntary_smoking_11
gist of the article:
"This could be the most influential surgeon general's report in 15 years," said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "The message to governments is: The only way to protect your citizens is comprehensive smoke-free laws."
bunch of manure.
Originally posted by lazs2
...In any private building, business or not.... you have no right to dictate if the owner bans it or not.
You do have the right to have signs posted at the entrances of buildings that allow smoking that say that it is indeed a smoking area....
most important point IMHO
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mav... what I think it boils down to is that in any building that you own you have the right to ban smoking in it.
as for socialist dos ekk.... I could not open your blue city rag... So maybe you could just give me the gist of it..... did the article/scientists say exactly how getting a much dilluted dose of something was worse for the person getting the dilluted dose than it was for the person who got the full dose?
lazs
I snipped the rest of your drivel.
My blue city rag? The Chicago Tribune is a lefty rag? To whom? You and David Duke?
At least get it right. Crain's Chicago Business and the Tribune are hardcore conservative papers owned by major news syndicates. The Sun Times is the lefty rag with socialists like Mike Royko (before he died) and Studs Terkel (another one who would get on your Commie list probably)
-
Well at least if you go out to dine, when you walk out the door of a non-smoking eatery, you can rest assured that you have received no second hand smoke to harm your health while you were dining.
You might not want to get too smug about it if you were to consider the steroid produced meat accompanied with doses of perservatives, chemicals, isecticides and artificial coloring and flavor enhancers.
In most cities you probably also wouldn`t want to consider the toxics you are breathing, once you exit, in plain sight that are you are breathing that are being expelled by the factories . You would probably wish to overlook the paving machine down the street or even consider what was in the water you drank while you were dining.or....or........or.... ...
But hey.................you didn`t get any second hand smoke. You can also feel proud that by supporting such idiotic laws that you have became a proud member of those willingly to give up their own rights and to turn your well being over to those more qualified than the ordinary citizen...that being the government.
But hey........you didn`t get any second hand smoke.
Stand proud.
Now if you can manage not to get killed by the crackhead on the corner willing to kill you and your family to get ten bucks for a rock or the drunk cab driver using the sidewalk as a street or......or...........or...... .......................
Nanny laws. They are great. Vote NO on freedom and common sense.
-
The world has gone nuts..
I agree with mav, yeager and eagler :eek:
Ill go one step further... It should be illegal to smoke in _your own home_ IF you have kids living there. Smoking while beeing pregnant or breastfeeding should also be illegal.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Ill go one step further... It should be illegal to smoke in _your own home_ IF you have kids living there. Smoking while beeing pregnant or breastfeeding should also be illegal.
Agreed.
-
so far only Lazs and Jackal get it.
let's let the govenrment regulate your diet, where you work, where you live, what you watch, when you sleep, when you wake up, and every other thing that happens in your life.
of course they and the appointed surgeon general know exactly how to keep you alive and out of the hospital forever. pretty soon they will regulate everything, we just might as well roll over and take it up the pooper right now.
-
If this outlawed the eating of oreos and milk Id care about the goverment running my life.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
so far only Lazs and Jackal get it.
let's let the govenrment regulate your diet, where you work, where you live, what you watch, when you sleep, when you wake up, and every other thing that happens in your life.
of course they and the appointed surgeon general know exactly how to keep you alive and out of the hospital forever. pretty soon they will regulate everything, we just might as well roll over and take it up the pooper right now.
No... i get your point, i just dont agree. Tougher laws on smoking will save lives and by the thousands. A life, and in this case thousands of them (many of them innocent like kids and other passive smokers) is worth more than taking a stand on something so retarded as smoking.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
so far only Lazs and Jackal get it.
let's let the govenrment regulate your diet, where you work, where you live, what you watch, when you sleep, when you wake up, and every other thing that happens in your life.
of course they and the appointed surgeon general know exactly how to keep you alive and out of the hospital forever. pretty soon they will regulate everything, we just might as well roll over and take it up the pooper right now.
Diet - FDA
Workplace - OSHA
Where you live - zoning ord, usually by county
What you watch - FCC
Are you sure you're not really Ted Kaczynski with internet access?
-
Wait a minute....
1. Definitive evidence shows second hand smoke is killing people and making them sick.
2. Mustaine is pissed that he can't smoke and make people sick.
Kinda like lazs arguing that he should be able to point and shoot his gun wherever he pleases... even lazs would frown on that.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kinda like lazs arguing that he should be able to point and shoot his gun wherever he pleases... even lazs would frown on that.
Well...
-
Bandwagons get bigger and bigger , and latley they all say the same thing on the side.
Government Ride.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wait a minute....
1. Definitive evidence shows second hand smoke is killing people and making them sick.
2. Mustaine is pissed that he can't smoke and make people sick.
Kinda like lazs arguing that he should be able to point and shoot his gun wherever he pleases... even lazs would frown on that.
oh of course that's my gripe.
all i hope to do in this world is harm others with my vices. i forgot you know me so well.
maybe, just maybe what my concern is law makers trying to dictate what john q smith does with his own personal life and space. alcohol kills hundreds of thousands too. drunk drivers kill thousands of innocent bystanders every year. it must be teh evil booze to blame, it must be banned.
or
if john q smith wants to open a smoking club where patrons can have a smoke, beer, and watch the game or something they can. our lovely liberals though think i need to be protected from such a place. it doesn't matter that i may choose to patronize such a place, my choice is irrelevant. since it may be bad for me, i can not be allowed to do it.
-
I can avoid a drunk driver when Im eating a fish fry alot easier then smoke.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
if john q smith wants to open a smoking club where patrons can have a smoke, beer, and watch the game or something they can. our lovely liberals though think i need to be protected from such a place. it doesn't matter that i may choose to patronize such a place, my choice is irrelevant. since it may be bad for me, i can not be allowed to do it.
by that reasoning (or lack of) let's legalize heroin, pcp, cocaine etc...
nice rational thinking there:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
by that reasoning (or lack of) let's legalize heroin, pcp, cocaine etc...
nice rational thinking there:rolleyes:
Wait so now it is just as leagal to have the above substances just like smokes?
Yup nice rational thinking there:rolleyes:
Bronk
Edit: Makeing hardcore drugs legal is separate issue.
-
bropnk do you have comprehension problems?
-
HEHE no just fat fingers.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Edit: Makeing hardcore drugs leagal is separate issue.
YES...because they cause harm!
GET IT?
-
Here in RI they have a nice exception for the smoking ban.
The 2 gambling establishments that the state gets large amounts of $$ from.
Kinda like why they don't make cigs illegal.
Remember it's only bad for you not the state.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by BlueJ1
I can avoid a drunk driver when Im eating a fish fry alot easier then smoke.
so go eat your fish fry at your voluntary non-smoking estabilshment, and i'll go have mine at my local smoking allowed estabilshment.
wtf is so hard about that concept???
you want to come into my place, you live with it. you don't have the "right" to force you will upon anyone you wish. i want to try the fish at your place i have to not smoke while there.
i think alot of you non-smokers think people like me want to be allowed to light up wherever and whenever we want. NO. i want the business owner to have the right to choose if smoking should or should not be allowed. that is all. straight, to the point, simple. that's it.
-
Actually Bronk I never thought about our casinos here...and I just checked...we also allow smoking in them!!!
(guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering the $$$)
source (http://www.ocat.org/onlegislation/casinos.html)
-
Casinos around here are on indian territory. Therefore allowed to ignore the smoking ban.
-
good thing is, modern people just realize how dangerous this crap is,
i say modern people not left or right. Smokers become extinct, they die faster, smokers are a leftover stinking (mainly from mouth) Dinosaurs from the old millenium.
-
in case you didn't know.... most casinos (non-Vegas ones) are Native American run, and the casino property is considered part of their reservation territory. they are exempt from most federal and state laws regarding things like this.
talking about msmoking in a casino is a completely different discussion because of this fact. you can not compare a native american run casino to billy-bob's country bar where billy-bob and maybe 2 other employees run the whole thing.
-
I see...
In CA no public bar or restaurant allows smoking, not because the patrons don't allow it, but because it is a hazardous environment for the employees. There was a bar in my town (recently went OOB) that allowed smoking because they had no employees. It was owner operated.
-
Ban smoking? Because it is dangerous? Driving is dangerous...maybe that should be banned? More people are killed annually on the roads than by second hand smoke. Ban cars. Yeah, that's the ticket.:aok
-
Originally posted by Curval
Ban smoking? Because it is dangerous? Driving is dangerous...maybe that should be banned? More people are killed annually on the roads than by second hand smoke. Ban cars. Yeah, that's the ticket.:aok
Im gona invest in bycycles in the stock market game then.
-
Ban pink shorts!:p
-
Just to clarify the RI gambling establishments are NOT indian affiliated.
Yup these gov $ traps must have magical air that makes cigarette smoke null and void.
Funny how it's ok for the state to make $ and not the people.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Curval
Ban smoking? Because it is dangerous? Driving is dangerous...maybe that should be banned? More people are killed annually on the roads than by second hand smoke. Ban cars. Yeah, that's the ticket.:aok
Can't just ban the car they would just move to the next vehicle.
You have to ban the wheel , only way to be safe.
:noid :noid
Bronk
-
Government intervention is like coitus interruption.
-
One 747 produces more toxins on takeoff than all of the cigarettes smoked in a day. Ban Boeing!
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
so go eat your fish fry at your voluntary non-smoking estabilshment, and i'll go have mine at my local smoking allowed estabilshment.
wtf is so hard about that concept???
you want to come into my place, you live with it. you don't have the "right" to force you will upon anyone you wish. i want to try the fish at your place i have to not smoke while there.
i think alot of you non-smokers think people like me want to be allowed to light up wherever and whenever we want. NO. i want the business owner to have the right to choose if smoking should or should not be allowed. that is all. straight, to the point, simple. that's it.
If I went to your house. I wouldnt mind if you smoked. Its your house. You come to my house, you can smoke. Its a house, its meant to be enjoyed for all.
I guess that makes me a hypocrite.
EDIT: If there were kids around I wouldnt let you. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The world has gone nuts..
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
-
Come to my place and you can smoke outside...and gargle before you re-enter:)
-
Stinkin' fluff'n foul smokers... HAR freakin HAR.
I remember the pre-antismoking days, when we had 'smoke free' areas in restaurants, some stinking filthy smoker would always light up in the non-smoking area and give you a foul look if you asked them to put it out.
Its karma baby... karma.
Now the filth all stand outside our building, I have to hold my breath as I pass through their cloud of stink onto the footpath covered in cigarette butts.
Smokers.... are freakin lower life forms.
-
Ban this ban that...
Would it be too much to ask to make it 50/50? Smoking restaurants and non-smoking restaurants? What's next? They gonna ban smoking in coffee shops in the netherlands I tell you.
bleh.
*blows cigar smoke in yer general direction and lifts middle finger*
-
"they can stop me from smoking in planes, restaurants & elevators, but they'll never prevent me farting in those same places"
you know who said that?
Patrick Henry
-
Wow, am I witnessing the 1st intelligent sentance ever made by a soccer player?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
good for you..
Smokers can live to be over 100 or they can die at 30. If you wanna risk it then fine, just make sure your kids have the choise.
Not beeing forced to smoke second-hand while in the womb or thru your food should be your right. Earlyer people actually didnt know better, but now we do and exposing your kids to the **** is the most selfish thing a parent could do... just below "abuse".
-
ex-smokers make the best nazis :D
edit: teh linkification is added (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107776&highlight=Smoking)
-
Maybe i am an aniti-smoking nazi :D
If both me and my dad can quit than everybody can. I think they should be allowed to smoke if they want to, but do it away from other people and sign a document that waves any right to free healthcare ;)
If they quit and manage to stay away from them for three years then they could get all their healthcare benefits back.
-
beside the smoke and smell (nice odor when a co-worker gets in your face to discuss something right after his 5th cig break that morning), it is great to see a smoker flick his/her cig out the window of their car or just drop it on the ground before they go inside somewhere ..
do the majority of smokers actually believe the world is their personal ash tray? I think they do ..
-
I'm an ex smoker, and if ever I start acting as sanctimonious as some of the Nazis here - shoot me.
Life was more fun when we had more freedom.
-
Originally posted by BTW
I'm an ex smoker, and if ever I start acting as sanctimonious as some of the Nazis here - shoot me.
Life was more fun when we had more freedom.
freedom is good...
many second-hand smokers dont have that freedom that you like so much ;)
so its a question of bad freedom vs good freedom.
-
go live in the woods or somethin':p
-
I smoked for over 20 years.... 3 packs a day... I haven't smoked in a very long time... I hate the smell of smoke. I have no doubt that it is probly harmful to me.
That does not give me the right to ban it on private property. That does not mean that people who smoke or allow smoking in a private business shouldn't follow some simple rules like post that they are a smoking environment and hire only employees who are aware that they will be working in one.
I can't believe how much government banning people here are willing to take so long as it is on the other guy and might save em a buck.
I am not fat and don't eat fast food but I won't vote for more government to curtail it.... I don't swim much and it costs me money for all the people who drown but I won't ban that...
Get a grip.... the only way government can expand is to make a crisis and then tell you how much it will cost you if they "don't do something"
more taxes more laws...
suckers...
You all only want freedom so long as it doesn't cost anyone anything.... that is really...
no freedom at all... exactly what government wants.
you are SUCKERS.
Don't vote for any new taxes or any new laws.... No matter how much they claim to "save lives" or "save you money" .
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The world has gone nuts..
I agree with mav, yeager and eagler :eek:
Ill go one step further... It should be illegal to smoke in _your own home_ IF you have kids living there. Smoking while beeing pregnant or breastfeeding should also be illegal.
Tell you what Nilsen, you post the names of the children killed or maimed by second hand cigarette smoke, and I'll post the names of the children killed or maimed by alcohol...I may not be able to post them all, I'm not sure Hitech has the bandwidth.
-
And.... as for saving you all money.....
Sooo... now that smoking is allmost gone.... All of your insurance and expenses all went way down right? How did you like that huge rebate that the insurance companies sent you? Bigger even than the rebate they sent for the seatbelt law and helmet law eh?
We are talking about a legal substance here. If it is that evil..... go ahead and try to ban it.... you are doing such a great job on drugs. How many ATF agents would it take to raid a "smoking compound"?
LOL what a bunch of dos ekks you guys are..... all you hand wringing suckers and womenly men will get is more cops..... more laws.... and more expense....
you probly deserve it tho...
lazs
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Tell you what Nilsen, you post the names of the children killed or maimed by second hand cigarette smoke, and I'll post the names of the children killed or maimed by alcohol...I may not be able to post them all, I'm not sure Hitech has the bandwidth.
why dont you post a list of all the kids you know have not been damaged in any way by second hand smoking in some form
its comon knowledge that its damaging for the fetus to get nicotine thru the mother or living in a home filled with smoke
-
weaze.... you can't call em on that!!!!
when they wanted to pass a helmet law in kalifornia... they told of all the injury brain dead bikers in public institutions being cared for in their vegetative states by the pooor public...
They claimed that it cost billions a year to care for these scum who would not wear helmets.
When asked for a list or a count of all these brain dead wards of the state...
No ONE could be found. they did not exist.
Soon as the law passed....
Motorcycle and car insurance went up 20%.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
And.... as for saving you all money.....
Sooo... now that smoking is allmost gone.... All of your insurance and expenses all went way down right? How did you like that huge rebate that the insurance companies sent you? Bigger even than the rebate they sent for the seatbelt law and helmet law eh?
We are talking about a legal substance here. If it is that evil..... go ahead and try to ban it.... you are doing such a great job on drugs. How many ATF agents would it take to raid a "smoking compound"?
LOL what a bunch of dos ekks you guys are..... all you hand wringing suckers and womenly men will get is more cops..... more laws.... and more expense....
you probly deserve it tho...
lazs
if everyone stopped today it would take years for the full effect to apear.. is that to hard for you to understand? do i have to explain it to you?
-
nielsen... it is up to you to prove it.
And...if it is so bad that you can't even do it in your home then...
Try to get it banned.
I know for a fact that booze is far worse than smoke... costs me a fortune and I don't even drink anymore.
Why should I put up with all the tragedy and killing and expense of a bunch of ignroant boozers?
oh.... and years? Here in the states we have had no smoking laws for decades in some places..... where are the success stories?
Bet a ban on booze would have instant results if you could enforce it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nielsen... it is up to you to prove it.
And...if it is so bad that you can't even do it in your home then...
Try to get it banned.
I know for a fact that booze is far worse than smoke... costs me a fortune and I don't even drink anymore.
Why should I put up with all the tragedy and killing and expense of a bunch of ignroant boozers?
lazs
no doubt that alcohol is bad for you.
here 398 died of alcholo related injuries, while 4669 died of tobacco related injuries or diseases in 2002
-
tobaco related INJURIES?
so... does burning one's nipples with a cigar count in that?
-
I find that really hard to believe.... allmost every murder here involves booze.... allmost every assault involves booze... most auto fatalities involve booze... most domestic violence involves booze.
Yet... you can sell it allmost anywhere and drink it in public places and even have it in your system around your wives and children and even while driving..
people even wreck boats on it and it never gets into the stats.
peoples lives are shortened by it... is that booze related? I want to see what they call smoke related deaths.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I find that really hard to believe.... allmost every murder here involves booze.... allmost every assault involves booze... most auto fatalities involve booze... most domestic violence involves booze.
Yet... you can sell it allmost anywhere and drink it in public places and even have it in your system around your wives and children and even while driving..
people even wreck boats on it and it never gets into the stats.
peoples lives are shortened by it... is that booze related? I want to see what they call smoke related deaths.
lazs
acohol related injuries as they call it includes car accidents, murders, liver illness, "streetfights" etc etc. Smoking related are mostly cancer and other resporatory illnesses and actually car accidents. Yes.. some loose their cigs or whatnot and crashies trying to find the things or put it out.
Im not questioning the dangers of alcohol, but smoking is by far a more dangerous activity. Ill say it again.. People can smoke as much as they want to, but dont bother others with it and dont send the bill to everyone else for it.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
tobaco related INJURIES?
so... does burning one's nipples with a cigar count in that?
i doubt it will kill you ;)
in your case it prolly gives you loads of pleasure :D
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
Again you prove your worth in any discussion by lowering yourself to namecalling and throwing insults around. Come back when you mature abit lazs.
Have a nice day.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Alcohol consuption is already restricted lazs. The line is drawn.
You cant be caught drunk while caring for children, you cant force kids to drink, you cant be viloent against kids drunk or sober.. You cant disturb people on the street drunk or not.
All of the above are illegal and will get you fined, in jail and/or loose custody of your kids.
My drinking has not affected anyone lazs, except maybe annoy a few folks here... They dont have to read my drunken posts tho ;)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
any of you anti anti-smokers non-smokers yourself?
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
-
Another good ban might be to ban people who can`t handle their booze to the point of cracking boats up on rocks while blasted from speaking on the subject of what is and isn`t safe for everyone else. :)
Just a thought.
-
nielsen... your drinking does indeed harm other people... you crashed a boat because you were drunk....
You could drink legally and still die of liver disease.... but not before you cost us a fortune.... you can drink legal amounts and still be belligerant.
drunks are annoying and potentialy dangerous yet..... I am forced to be around them in public places.. they don't even have to be legally drunk to cause problems.
Should not all bars and homes have a limit? say......08? That is the limit that you are impaired to drive... I bet it would stop a lot of deaths and domestic violence and expense to just limit the legal amount in any public place or private residence that had other people living in it to .08
What would be wrong with that? You have no right to go around impaired if it endangers or annoys others.....
What gives you the right to tell a private business that it can't allow smoking? You do have the right to not enter and patronize.
Would you be ok with smokeing if they put in those magic filters that gambling joints use to filter out all the smoke and make them exempt from the laws?
lazs
-
I crashed my own boat.. how does that harm anyone lazs?
Dunno how things are over were you live, but if you bother people here drunk you get driven home, or put in jail til you sober up and then fined. Are one allowed to bother others were you live and behave as one pleases towards others?
Smoking in a bar, pub, resturant or whatever here is illegal now. That is great. Some places it is allowed to smoke indoors, but only if there is a non-smokin area available and the people that work at the place never have to enter or leave the room.
We may not have the same "freedoms" here as you have, but we have the "freedom" to go were we like without beeing subjected to second-hand smoking. You can take your family and kids to any place and be sure that nobody will light up next to you. You may not like it, but I dont really care that much. The vast majority of the people here like the new law, and since we live in a democracy then it proves that the system works.
Since the law has passed the ammount of tobacco sold has really gone down alot and more people than ever have quit. That is a good thing.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Would you be ok with smokeing if they put in those magic filters that gambling joints use to filter out all the smoke and make them exempt from the laws?
lazs
Only if they pay the "magic filter" tax.
:rolleyes:
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
no doubt that alcohol is bad for you.
here 398 died of alcholo related injuries, while 4669 died of tobacco related injuries or diseases in 2002
Give me the name of one person that the cause of death was second hand smoke. Or show me one person that went to prison for killing someone while under the influence of cigarettes. I don't know about your country, but no one here is incarcerated for harming anyone by cigarettes, But we have locked up an awful lot of people for harming or killing children while under the influence of alcohol. By your logic we should deny pregnant women the right to indulge in a perfectly lawful product, would this be before or after they chose to kill the baby by aborting it?
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Give me the name of one person that the cause of death was second hand smoke. or show me one person that went to prison for killing someone while under the influence of cigarettes. I don't know about your country, but no one here is incarcerated for harming anyone by cigarettes, But we have locked up an awful lot of people for harming or killing children while under the influence of alcohol. By your logic we should deny pregnant women the right to indulge in a perfectly lawful product, would this be before or after they chose to kill the baby by aborting it?
Dont know were to find names of individuals weaselsan.. sorry. But you knew that.
Nobody is put in jail here either for for harming anyone wiht cigs, and yes they are for alcohol related stuff.
Yes, and my logic is sound. Pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke even if its a legal product. But here is a twist... You have to be 18 here to be allowed to smoke. A fetus is not 18, but it gets the nicotine and stuff thru the mother.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes, and my logic is sound. Pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke even if its a legal product. But here is a twist... You have to be 18 here to be allowed to smoke. A fetus is not 18, but it gets the nicotine and stuff thru the mother.
No, your logic is not sound. Fact: Millions of people smoked when I was a kid.. far and away the majority of the population. And they bore children. None of 'em popped out with three heads, black lung and a 2 pack a day nicotine habit. Never saw a baby buying smokes at the drug store.
Now, being a young parent, naturally you want the best for your kids. That's great. But, that does not give you the right to make decisions for anybody else.
So.. protect YOUR kid. Admonish if you like foolish people that endanger their young by smoking... but don't assume that passing a law is gonna make that endanged child safer. That's the parents responsibilty. A law does not make irresponsible people responsible.
Society needs to grow some testicles.. some dickwad steps on your rights, caution the guy.. he gets nasty about it, punch his bellybutton out.
Simple, really.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
no doubt that alcohol is bad for you.
here 398 died of alcholo related injuries, while 4669 died of tobacco related injuries or diseases in 2002
Er, how many died of alcohol related disease (e.g., diabetes, stroke, heart disease, domestic violence etc.)?
Are you claiming ignorance of the many alcohol related diseases that plague the world?
-
Well.. sure, many made it even if the parents smoked. But there is damage done to the fetus that may not manifest itself until later in life.
Read this, or google for yourself.
http://www.hazelden.org/servlet/hazelden/cms/ptt/hazl_alive_and_free.html?sf=t&sh=t&page_id=25436
-
Originally posted by BTW
Er, how many died of alcohol related disease (e.g., diabetes, stroke, heart disease, domestic violence etc.)?
Are you claiming ignorance of the many alcohol related diseases that plague the world?
The number is there BTW.. didnt you see it?
Where have I defended alcohol? Its not even an issue in the debate. We are talking about second-hand smoking
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The number is there BTW.. didnt you see it?
Where have I defended alcohol? Its not even an issue in the debate. We are talking about second-hand smoking
Yea I saw the number but if you note in the quote you qualify the alcohol number as "alcohol injuries" and the smoking number as "tobacco injuries and disease."
If the 398 number includes all the alcohol related disease, I'd be very suspicious. That's awfully low. Aside from being responsible for about 1/3 or ALL (not just auto accidents) accidents, it is responsible for many diseases as posted before. That 398 seems low in comparison to the 4000+ you posted as tobacco related. I'd investigate it to see if a group is cooking the books - unless no one actually wants to know..
-
Ban smokers while u can get 2 liter coke and super mega sized hamburgers.
Im just waiting for the fat bann smoke banning is getting oldschool.
And remember if u where born between the 60-80 our parent took us to places where everybody smoked.
Its to late anyway.
Another option is the bann on alcoholics wich is hard drugged poison
common guys we got to be consequent.
-
<--- taking great pleasure in the squeeling of the filthy smoker brigade
karma....
-
Originally posted by BTW
Yea I saw the number but if you note in the quote you qualify the alcohol number as "alcohol injuries" and the smoking number as "tobacco injuries and disease."
If the 398 number includes all the alcohol related disease, I'd be very suspicious. That's awfully low. Aside from being responsible for about 1/3 or ALL (not just auto accidents) accidents, it is responsible for many diseases as posted before. That 398 seems low in comparison to the 4000+ you posted as tobacco related. I'd investigate it to see if a group is cooking the books - unless no one actually wants to know..
well ok i may have formulated myself wrong.. the 398 is total and those books are not cooked. They are dull statistics from the SSB. Maybe drinking culture is different or more people smoke here than there.
-
I find it ironic that adherants of two addictive substances are arguing the merits of one over the other.
-
btw AH pwns il-2
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Dont know were to find names of individuals weaselsan.. sorry. But you knew that.
Nobody is put in jail here either for for harming anyone wiht cigs, and yes they are for alcohol related stuff.
Yes, and my logic is sound. Pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke even if its a legal product. But here is a twist... You have to be 18 here to be allowed to smoke. A fetus is not 18, but it gets the nicotine and stuff thru the mother.
Nasty nicotine through the mother? How about a sharp instrument through the brain during a partial birth abortion? Of course if mama didn't smoke they'll have a nicotine free dead baby.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I find it ironic that adherants of two addictive substances are arguing the merits of one over the other.
who is?
-
If you've read the thread you know the answer to that question Nilsen. FWIW not everything, nor every thread nor every response to a thread is about you.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Nasty nicotine through the mother? How about a sharp instrument through the brain during a partial birth abortion? Of course if mama didn't smoke they'll have a nicotine free dead baby.
Why are you bringing abortion into this? Cant you find any good arguments for letting pregnant women smoke? ;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
If you've read the thread you know the answer to that question Nilsen.
Do you mean that somene is defending alcohol over tobacco?
-
Philip Morris:" thank you for all the $, theyr are well spend, thank you again! may god bless you"
*cough, cough*
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Why are you bringing abortion into this? Cant you find any good arguments for letting pregnant women smoke? ;)
Simple "Point of Fact" My mother smoked, I did for over 50 years, She is still here and healthy for her advanced age, I have diabetes and hemochromatosis, cigarettes apparently did Nada. However had abortion been legal maybe I couldn't have enjoyed smoking for 50 years. In other words smoking is a lot healthier for babies than abortion. Another way to look at it is keep your anti smoking laws off their reproductive rights.
-
How do you know that the diabetes didnt come from the smoking?.. Not saying it did, but how can you be sure?
If we wanna drag abortion into this, then actually im for abortion, but against smoking while preganant. Does that sound abit strange perhaps?.. Let me explain why and then ill let this debate go. Its only opinions anyway and this one is dragging out..
Im pro abortion, but against smoking while pregant for the simple (for me anyway) reason that If you decide to go ahead with a pregnancy then you should make every effort to make sure the baby is healthy. If you dont want to have the baby then im fine with that too.
This was my closing argument.. go ahead and make yours and we can call this one dead.
Have a nice day :)
-
nielsen.... under my rules you would be free to go anywhere you liked without seeing or breathing smoke.... you just couldn't go to a private owned business that wanted to have it a smoking area unless you were willing to be around smoke... just like you have to risk seeing a clown if you go to a circus or hear loud noises if you go to a concert.
You are indeed defending one addiction that kills at least as many people (and causes a lot more difficulty for most of us) over another.
most sane people hate drunks... they are annoying in the extreme and you have to be careful around em cause they are extremely dangerous... they are allowed to get to toxicaly impaired levels of intoxication in public places.... Where is our "freedom" to not be around em?
You are indeed a hypocrite. Rock climbers, hikers and campers and cyclists and swimmers all cost me money.... why shoud I have to pay for their habits? They drown and get lost and eaten and injured and cost fortunes in search parties..
you never answered..... how many lost lives and/or how much expense should a product or activity have before you feel it should be banned?
not only are you a hypocrite but a selfish one at that (a trait of alcoholics btw)....
You claim your drunken crashing of your boat hurt no one? how selfish is that? either that or you don't have any family.... Your drinking affects every one of your family members.... it probly contributes to killing them from stress. You don't care in the least.
When you get sober and off the booze you will probly realize it but then....
We will probly all have to hear all about it on this BB along with some new preachy crap and some new alcohol restriction recomendations from you.
It is not your business what a private bar or resteraunt does so far as smoking or non smoking just as it is not my business if they serve booze.
Why don't you mind your own business?
lazs
-
Im not selfish,a hypocrite, alcholic nor do you have any insight into my drinking or family so stop speculating on it.
I have commented in the past on your questions. If you cant see them then that is your problem, and not mine.
-
Yeah... sure your not.
You have never answered the question either.... How many lives or how much money lost should an activity have before you feel that it should be banned?
Drunks annoy everyone....drunks are about 100% of the reasons for domestic violence. No drinking should be allowed in public or in homes with spouses or children.
more than 50% of our auto accidents involve alcohol impaired drivers and another 7% have some alcohol involved. Any amount of booze impairs a person. None should be allowed in public.
Not if you are gonna use your smoking rules anyway.
lazs
-
Study Shows a ‘Tidal Wave’ of Underage Drinking Costs (http://www.pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=6815&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)
Each year, underage drinking leads to almost 3,200 deaths and 2.6 million other harmful events, from serious injury to high-risk sex among youth, according to the study published in the July edition of Journal of Studies on Alcohol.
When assigning dollar totals to alcohol-related problems among youth, violence and traffic crashes dominate the costs. The study estimates that youth traffic crashes attributable to alcohol cost $13.7 billion a year while violence costs $34.7 billion. Violence includes the 500,000 incidences of rapes and assaults each year related to underage drinking. Alcohol-related problems cost an average of $4,680 per underage drinker each year.
Let the banning begin!!
If it saves a single life.
-
Maybe you should get some rules on drinking then. Over here, and any other civilized society has rules on how to behave in public, both drunk and sober. Those numbers you mention must be be very locally surrounding your dwelling.
Are you about done, or do you want to make up a few more things?
-
Toad... I believe the estimate is about 180,000 lives a year... and if they used the smoking way of estimation(any premature death of a drinker).... it would be closer to 400,000... the amount of missery booze inflicts on innocent bystanders is monstrous.
My only point is that if you are contributing and condoning this missery then you are a frigging hypocrite to talk about anyone elses bad habits that may cost you some inconvienence and/or money.
Freedom costs. that is all their is to it. you can't just pick and choose it has to be freedom for all.
You have the right to vote on a ban on anything you want in public buildings but you have no right to do so in private property.... even if it is open to the public.
It's like the guy who get's religion and goes around wearing a huge cross jewelry and preaches at you no matter what the subject. Not all reformed smokers are like that but..... we got one here.
lazs
-
so nelson... what is the legal limit for booze in a public place like a bar?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so nelson... what is the legal limit for booze in a public place like a bar?
lazs
no legal limit as long as you behave and can sit upright
-
Nilsen,
Since you mentioned protecting the unborn and stuff. Did your wife consume any alcohol while she was carrying your child? Did you allow that to happen?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Nilsen,
Since you mentioned protecting the unborn and stuff. Did your wife consume any alcohol while she was carrying your child? Did you allow that to happen?
No she didnt.. why?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
How does it help if the fetus has balls? Not like it can tell mommy to stop smoking can it?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Freedom costs.
lazs
yup. it costs us our selfishness. if we be desirous and willing.
hap
-
Hap... who is selfish? the person who participates in an activity as a willing adult with willing adults or the one who would curtail his activity by putting restrictions on private property?
I would say it is the person who would impose selfish rules on other peoples property and activities simply because they don't like to be around that activity.
I think that there is not one of us that has not been annoyed or even endangered by people who were drinking.... if you haven'... then either you are a drunk yourself and don't notice or... you are pretty darn young and fortunate.
nel;son... you claim that it is ok for people to drink as much as they like in a home or bar so long as they behave...
behave?? it is far to late by then... booze by it's very nature shuts down the ability to think clearly... a drunk is simply a dangerous child in an adults body with car keys and fists.....with no control over his emotions.
Take away booze and the show "cops" wouldn't even have a story.
You must admit that much of the violence in any country is booze related and much of the missery in spousal abuse so.....
By your logic we should ban it in the home where spouses and children live and ban it in public places such as bars. After all.... I might go into a bar and I certainly don't need to be exposed to a bunch of brain impaired and dangerous a holes...
Where is my freedom?
Where is my freedom to drive when about half the fatalities are caused by these booze zombies and another 7% of the fatalities someone has booze in their system?
I don't drink or smoke but....
It is obvious in the extreme that drunk or impaired people are 100 times more of a threat to me than people smoking in their own home or private business...
And yet.... I don't call for a ban on booze. I figure that the freedom for adults to drink is worth the expense and risk to me. The loss of that freedom and the government imposition is far more dangerous than even deadly alcohol to me.
You are indeed a selfish hypocrite by wanting to ban one dangerous activity (that you recently quit) while at the same time defending an equaly dangerous and much annoying activity simply because you, as a drunk, don't want to give it up.
lazs
-
If you as a parent is caught here beeing drunk while caring for a baby then child services gets called.
If you smoke near your baby or while pregant then nothing happens.
Stop acting like a kid lazs.. its getting old.
You can frawn, attempt to insult, and try to annoy all you want but you better find someone else to play with.
Have a nice day.
-
Freedom includes the freedom to do things that are stupid. If you want to smoke, smoke. If it were that bad I'd say the government should ban it altogether instead of taxing it to the point that they make more money off tobacco than the farmers and tobacco companies combined.
Maybe the government should ban stupidity instead. Start in Congress - make it illegal to run for elective office with less than half a brain. This should cut the government payroll by 50% and provide laborers to shovel the rest of the 'bovine excrement' that the government will try to shove down our throats.
No, I don't smoke - I just hate hypocrisy.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Freedom includes the freedom to do things that are stupid. If you want to smoke, smoke. If it were that bad I'd say the government should ban it altogether instead of taxing it to the point that they make more money off tobacco than the farmers and tobacco companies combined.
Maybe the government should ban stupidity instead. Start in Congress - make it illegal to run for elective office with less than half a brain. This should cut the government payroll by 50% and provide laborers to shovel the rest of the 'bovine excrement' that the government will try to shove down our throats.
No, I don't smoke - I just hate hypocrisy.
EagleDNY
$.02
freedom is good.. that should also apply to the fetus who has no freedom to decide if it gets those toxins or not. Whos freedom is most important? The mother who does not feel like quitting, or the fetus who gets nicotine etc at a crucial state in its life?
-
Time to tax it into oblivion, someone has to pay for this......Booze is bad (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2006-06-30T164954Z_01_COL060531_RTRUKOC_0_US-ALCOHOL-ENGLAND.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)
-
Well, since under current law a fetus has no rights, not even the right to life, that point doesn't go very far. Mom can drink herself comatose, go skydiving, or do any number of stupid things that can cause damage to that fetus - and they are all perfectly legal.
Again - it's hypocrisy that I object to. If it is that bad, the government should be banning it instead of making cash off it.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Well, since under current law a fetus has no rights, not even the right to life, that point doesn't go very far. Mom can drink herself comatose, go skydiving, or do any number of stupid things that can cause damage to that fetus - and they are all perfectly legal.
Again - it's hypocrisy that I object to. If it is that bad, the government should be banning it instead of making cash off it.
EagleDNY
$.02
fair enough.. i never called for taxes on smoking while pregnant anyway.
-
Exactly instead they make alot of money from it.
If cigarettes where forbidden u would pay 50% more on ur fuel bill they gonna have to get from something else.
Its big money involved.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
No she didnt.. why?
Why? Given your past as an example I figured it may have been the case.
Why is it a concern? Three words, fetal alcohol syndrome.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Why? Given your past as an example I figured it may have been the case.
Why is it a concern? Three words, fetal alcohol syndrome.
Given my past? What does that have to do with my wife?
-
If you can't figure out how your background and choices impacts on your family, I can't help you.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
If you can't figure out how your background and choices impacts on your family, I can't help you.
Background as what? Someone who gets drunk now and then? Stretching it abit there Maverick arent you..
-
why this debate here ends on private thing? this topic is about
what?
i have no problem if someone is smoking and killing himself slowly,
its your life, do it.
But if i sit with my Gf & baby in a restaurant or a pub to eat something
and a person starts to smoke, 1 sec. later i ask that person if they can
stop smoking as long as we sit there. In 99% people are friendly and
understand it, they see our baby and stop smoking, no problem here so far.
-
I wouldnt go with a baby in a pub and than go ask people to quit smokin.
Otherwise there always non smokin areas, more than smokin.
I hope they do not allow smoking in pubs soon.
Many wil go bankrupt.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
I wouldnt go with a baby in a pub and than go ask people to quit smokin.
i was talking about mainly midays, where restaurans and/or pubs are
mostly empty anyway. Trust me i dont enter pubs at night with our baby
LOL.
Even at McDoanlds there are smoking/non-smoking areas, so far it works,
so whats the problem at all?
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
Maybe, just because these scientists say so, smoking will be banned in all restaurants. By state law. Wouldn't that be something? Stupid public health concerns.
In Jersey it just has been in ALL bars, resturants and public buildings.
Oh BTW there is ONE exeption. ONE exculsion to the ban....
Casinos.
hmmmm I wonder why
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Even at McDoanlds there are smoking/non-smoking areas, so far it works,
so whats the problem at all?
ROFLMAO
If you are eating the crap at Mickey Dee`s, second hand smoke is the least of your health concerns.
:rofl
-
I know 3 mothers that chainsmoked during pregnancy.
All had a baby with problems, traceable to the smoking.
(heart development, gut development, etc).
So, what Nilsen said is true, - an unborn cannot defend itself. Freedom, yeah, of course.
I know a lot of people who smoked them selves to death, and I know some others that shortened their lives considerably with it. I don't know anyone yet that was shot dead though.
I also know people who have lung problems from indirect smoking in the working place, - my mother being one of them. She was a telephone operator with some 9 others who smoked at the spot, so no getting away, - and balls? She was the only non-smoker.
Some of them are dead from it AFAIK.
So, who's freedom is it? Freedom to NOT breath someones stinky tobacco, or freedom to smoke the place? Freedom to be born healthy or poisoned?
Many people live to a long age despite of smoking. But very many don't and the rate is rather unacceptable. The cost is also unacceptable, - for someone always pays, insurance, be it public or private for instance. Loss from the work market at a good age, etc etc.
So, - when the law about smoking is being tightened, I rather chuckle :D
-
LOL... now the people who tell us in other threads that a fetus is a malignant lump are getting all teary eyed about the possibility that smoking may damage it?
this is hypocracy unbounded.
Drinking is a huge killer of people.... smoking is a huge killer of people... both in the hundreds of thousands a year range here in the U.S.
Both addictions cost us billions of dollars a year.... drinking is also dehumanizing and causes untold cruelty and damage to those not drinking.
Both are addictions that are entered into willingly and both have restrictions and taxes.
the taxes from both are spent to grow government... no ones taxes or expenses go down when alcohol or tobacco taxes go up.
And yet.... the hypocrits here that don't do one... want to ban that one in private business and private homes... they sooth their concience by saying they are doing it for the children when...... their addiction kills and destroys the lives of hundreds of thousands of children a year.
Ask any kid raised in an alcoholic family what it was like.
And yet... If we want to be a free people with a government that does not overwhelm us...
We have to allow people to act as they wish... punishing only when they infringe on our rights.
Our rights do not include telling a bar owner if he can allow smoking or drinking or even drugs in his business tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL... now the people who tell us in other threads that a fetus is a malignant lump are getting all teary eyed about the possibility that smoking may damage it?
this is hypocracy unbounded.
nope
i think i have to explain things one more time to you... maybe this time it sinks in... prolly not.
a fetus is a lump.. but if you decide to carry it through to a baby then you should do anything to keep it healthy. if a mom does not quit then she is the selfish one.
Did you get it this time? or must i go again?
-
My opinion on this is that some of the points that are being brought up are common sense/respect issues.
Pregnant women that smoke, drink, or do drugs, know that it's dangerous to there baby.
If your in your OWN home with kids, you don't close all the windows, sit there and chain smoke in front of a tied up seven year old, and blow smoke in his face.
If your in a public place, like under the shelter at a bus stop in the rain, and a woman is standing next to you holding her baby, you don't smoke right next to her.
Banning smoking is a really dumb idea, especially in bars. I think taking away a bar owners ability to make his own rules for his establishment is putting too much control in the gov't hands. Why can't there be bars that allow smoking, and bars that don't?
In manhattan it's mostly a bunch of higher than thou yuppies that have the attitude that people have to live according to the way that they want you to live. If you don't then they look down on you. These are the same people that live in 10 million dollar condo's, with doormen, maids, personal drivers, that probably couldn't change the oil on there car. They live in a fantasy world.
I smoke, and have for 15 years. I've been thinking of quitting recently, and when i do i'll still keep the same opinion. Banning smoking is wrong.
my OPINION...... :D
-
Originally posted by Speed55
My opinion on this is that some of the points that are being brought up are common sense/respect issues.
Pregnant women that smoke, drink, or do drugs, know that it's dangerous to there baby.
If your in your OWN home with kids, you don't close all the windows, sit there and chain smoke in front of a tied up seven year old, and blow smoke in his face.
If your in a public place, like under the shelter at a bus stop in the rain, and a woman is standing next to you holding her baby, you don't smoke right next to her.
Banning smoking is a really dumb idea, especially in bars. I think taking away a bar owners ability to make his own rules for his establishment is putting too much control in the gov't hands. Why can't there be bars that allow smoking, and bars that don't?
In manhattan it's mostly a bunch of higher than thou yuppies that have the attitude that people have to live according to the way that they want you to live. If you don't then they look down on you. These are the same people that live in 10 million dollar condo's, with doormen, maids, personal drivers, that probably couldn't change the oil on there car. They live in a fantasy world.
I smoke, and have for 15 years. I've been thinking of quitting recently, and when i do i'll still keep the same opinion. Banning smoking is wrong.
my OPINION...... :D
Your opinion is noted and respected. It was presented in a mature way. :D
-
I quit smoking almost a year ago, and I still think that a ban on smoking is a completely unwarranted intrusion by the government into private citizens lives.
If you don't want to smoke, don't. If you don't want to be around smoke, find a bar/restaraunt where the owner has decided to not allow smoking. If someone is smoking near you and you don't like it, ask them to quit. If they don't quit, leave. If you feel like "making a point" I guess you could get in a fight over a cigarette, but I think that'd be pretty stupid.
Nilson, don't take it personally. Both Lazs and Maverick are fond of personal attacks/insinuations, making cogent arguments appears to be difficult for them.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We have to allow people to act as they wish... punishing only when they infringe on our rights.
We gtave smokers a chance, they blew it... now majority rule says its time for them to take whats been coming to them. Ha bloody ha.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Exactly instead they make alot of money from it.
If cigarettes where forbidden u would pay 50% more on ur fuel bill they gonna have to get from something else.
Its big money involved.
Bull****, they don't need that money for anything.
We just allow them to take a lot of money from us.
Oh how I long for the days free of communism from all governments.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
If someone is smoking near you and you don't like it, ask them to quit. If they don't quit, leave. If you feel like "making a point" I guess you could get in a fight over a cigarette, but I think that'd be pretty stupid.
So in other words the person who smokes has the right to force others to leave. Is that what you are advocating? In more than a few cases the issue is not one of simply being uncomfortable.
-
"Drinking is a huge killer of people.... smoking is a huge killer of people... both in the hundreds of thousands a year range here in the U.S."
Empty a lager next to me. NP.
Smoke a cigarette next to me, - oops. I have to breath the stuff.
Should I leave?
Should everyone leave?
IMHO smokers should just whiff their own stuff where nobody is affected by it.
over & out
-
(http://www.pbase.com/bug322/image/62763448/large.jpg)
hehe
dutch freedom
:noid
-
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
I am amazed at what is passed off for science these days. We had a saying in the military: "If you were run off the road and crashed into a tree that had a beer can sitting next to it, it would be considered a alchohol related accident." It seems to be the same argument for smoking.
I typed in "second hand smoke" and "study" and couldn't find a single study on the subject. I found several sites that were pro/con and all of them referenced studies that were not linked. This argument is so abstract that it is pathetic. One site, did describe the methods used to attain the data and I found it to be anything but science. A questionare is not science. A study of the health of smoker's spouses vs non-smokers is not science (BTW... that one showed no difference). Science would tell you why this is happening, not that the person said they breathed second hand smoke and that's what did it.
I'm getting pretty disgusted with the level of government meddling in some of these things. It's one of the reasons why I'd prefer abortion be legal: If it were illegal because the baby had rights then any consumption of alchohol, cigarettes, lack of excercise, sudden movements or anything else that would put the baby at risk would be considered child abuse. That's the legal system the world is moving to. The super-nanny system.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I typed in "second hand smoke" and "study" and couldn't find a single study on the subject.
search for "smoking stinks" and you will find enough info hehe
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I am amazed at what is passed off for science these days. We had a saying in the military: "If you were run off the road and crashed into a tree that had a beer can sitting next to it, it would be considered a alchohol related accident." It seems to be the same argument for smoking.
I typed in "second hand smoke" and "study" and couldn't find a single study on the subject. I found several sites that were pro/con and all of them referenced studies that were not linked. This argument is so abstract that it is pathetic. One site, did describe the methods used to attain the data and I found it to be anything but science. A questionare is not science. A study of the health of smoker's spouses vs non-smokers is not science (BTW... that one showed no difference). Science would tell you why this is happening, not that the person said they breathed second hand smoke and that's what did it.
I think I can clear the scientific thing up for you. The most recent reports from the latest studies have been released and they have made rock solid, definite decisions stating...Maybe/maybe not ....Could be/Could not be........Possibly/posibly not........IF.....and then there is one privatley funded group that stands fast with their original findings of......We have a gut feeling.
You can pretty well assign that to any funded scientific study. I know it cleared it all up for me.