Quote:
i can't think of any other activity that is immediately detrimental to other human beings that is currently lawful, except smoking.
Nickobub, however, due to the smoking bans, it now becoming unlawful bit by bit, thereby turning your argument into a moot point.
On the link I posted above from the Revised Code of Washington, all indoor, non-tribal businesses are now prohibited from being smoking establishments. There is a "bubble" of 25 feet from the entrance where it is smoke-free.
Now, take a major city... I don't care which one...
Your average road lane is 12 feet wide (I think...) sidewalks are minimum of 36".
This means that the entirety of the business districts have now become smoke-free due to the distance rule. Light up, get fined. Doesn't sound legal to me, does it?
FReQ Z wrote:simple. find another establishment that has the products/services you require that is non-smoking.
some of the best wings in Phoenix are made in a gay bar and grill... I don't go in there. I find other places.
that's not really the point. what if we're talking about people who aren't so conscious of the detriments of second-hand smoke? they aren't going to avoid a danger they don't consider to be present. many people will likely still choose a certain business for reasons despite the smoking policy. yet, should they still be exposed?
i think we're also talking about the whole premise of why drunk-driving is outlawed. do we, as a society, accept drunk drivers as just another hazard of life, something that can be avoided by taking certain roads? certainly not, and smoking should be no different.
Nickobub wrote:FReQ Z wrote:simple. find another establishment that has the products/services you require that is non-smoking.
some of the best wings in Phoenix are made in a gay bar and grill... I don't go in there. I find other places.
that's not really the point. what if we're talking about people who aren't so conscious of the detriments of second-hand smoke? they aren't going to avoid a danger they don't consider to be present. many people will likely still choose a certain business for reasons despite the smoking policy. yet, should they still be exposed?
if people these days are unaware that second hand smoke causes health issues, then they deserve the consequences. with all of the commercials, billboards, magazine ads, etc., the entire populace should be well aware. while I'm not a major fan of humanity, it seems I give them more credit than you are. no offense.
Quote:
i think we're also talking about the whole premise of why drunk-driving is outlawed. do we, as a society, accept drunk drivers as just another hazard of life, something that can be avoided by taking certain roads? certainly not, and smoking should be no different.
that's apples and oranges. cigarettes do not impair my ability to the point where I become a danger to myself and others around me. if you want to look up statistics, be my guest. I doubt second hand smoke deaths do not come anywhere near alcohol-related fatalities. if anything, smoking bans encourage drunk driving. I know quite a bit of people that drive longer distances to bars in order to find one that allows smoking.
Desert Tuners
“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”
Kardain wrote:This means that the entirety of the business districts have now become smoke-free due to the distance rule. Light up, get fined. Doesn't sound legal to me, does it?
Drink and drive, get caught, get fined/go to jail --> helps prevent the death of innocent people
Smoke in public, get caught, get fined --> helps prevent the death of innocent people
everything sounds good and legal to me.
Nickobub wrote:Kardain wrote:This means that the entirety of the business districts have now become smoke-free due to the distance rule. Light up, get fined. Doesn't sound legal to me, does it?
Drink and drive, get caught, get fined/go to jail --> helps prevent the death of innocent people
Smoke in public, get caught, get fined --> helps prevent the death of innocent people
everything sounds good and legal to me.
so I'm going to fine you for driving your car, using electricity, generating garbage, etc.
then I'm going to shut down every major factory, including generating stations, oil refineries, paper mills, etc.
on top of that, I'm going to shut down all airports and public transportation. I'm going to kill every cow because of the methane output that's killing the ozone.
Desert Tuners
“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”
About the drunk driving bit, not necessarily.
I know for a fact that it is unavoidable, however, there are things that I do to prevent it..
1) Don't be on the roads between 1am - 4am
2) Drink at home.
Quote:
yet, should they still be exposed?
For generations, they were. In fact, it was deemed "socially unacceptable" not to smoke. I still have my great-grandfather's pipe (somewhere in storage) that he had when he was my age (25).
Every smoker out there knows the danger of smoking. Why? People like you that have been swayed to now think that it is socially unacceptable
to smoke.
Those same smokers continue to smoke. Why? Because they don't care. They know the dangers, however do not fear death. (well, maybe, but not from smoking)
FReQ Z wrote:if people these days are unaware that second hand smoke causes health issues, then they deserve the consequences. with all of the commercials, billboards, magazine ads, etc., the entire populace should be well aware. while I'm not a major fan of humanity, it seems I give them more credit than you are. no offense.
i don't believe people should be punished for making decisions they don't realize can affect/hurt them. it's not that i don't give society credit, but i also know that there are a lot of unreasonable, unintelligent people out there. people that couldn't continue a conversation like you and i. our job as humanitarians, as people, is to care for the people who can't help themselves.
FReQ Z wrote:that's apples and oranges. cigarettes do not impair my ability to the point where I become a danger to myself and others around me. if you want to look up statistics, be my guest. I doubt second hand smoke deaths do not come anywhere near alcohol-related fatalities. if anything, smoking bans encourage drunk driving. I know quite a bit of people that drive longer distances to bars in order to find one that allows smoking.
and yeah, i know smoking cigarettes doesn't impair you the same way alcohol does. but the smoke that is inhaled by bystanders can hurt others, just as severely as a drunk driver can hurt innocent motorists. and yeah, i doubt smoking deaths come near to alcohol-related fatalities. but we still consider drunk-driving to be wrong, don't we? that's all i'm getting it. why do we still not yet consider public smoking to be wrong?
FReQ Z wrote:then I'm going to shut down every major factory, including generating stations, oil refineries, paper mills, etc.
on top of that, I'm going to shut down all airports and public transportation. I'm going to kill every cow because of the methane output that's killing the ozone.
this seems all a little off-topic from what we've been talking about. crimes against humanity are different than crimes against the earth.
Kardain wrote:About the drunk driving bit, not necessarily.
I know for a fact that it is unavoidable, however, there are things that I do to prevent it..
1) Don't be on the roads between 1am - 4am
2) Drink at home.
Quote:
yet, should they still be exposed?
For generations, they were. In fact, it was deemed "socially unacceptable" not to smoke. I still have my great-grandfather's pipe (somewhere in storage) that he had when he was my age (25).
Every smoker out there knows the danger of smoking. Why? People like you that have been swayed to now think that it is socially unacceptable to smoke.
Those same smokers continue to smoke. Why? Because they don't care. They know the dangers, however do not fear death. (well, maybe, but not from smoking)
it's not that anyone has swayed me to believing it's socially unacceptable to smoke, i believe it intrinsically. i believe it because it's dangerous, and damaging to me. such things i deem socially unacceptable, yet i recognize they still happen.
Ok, you say they are dangerous, explain this:
I am a 2 pack a day smoker.
My blood pressure, heart rate and lung capacity are all comparable to non-smokers, if not better. My cholesterol is on par w/ a healthy non-smoker.
Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
The sedation effects of cigarettes allows me to focus on tasks at hand. If I were not to smoke, I would be unable to function in my daily job duties.
I also live off a McD's diet and don't exercise, yet not overweight... in fact, near the bottom of the IBW for my height.
Nickobub wrote:John Wilken wrote:Nickobub wrote:the bottom line is that non-smokers should never be unwillfully exposed to smoke, because it kills thousands every year.
How is it "unwilling" if you decide to walk into a business that allows smoking?
Name one place where someone would be forced to inhale second hand smoke that the person didn't volutarily enter. Even prisons are non-smoking. So where is it that all these non-smokers are "unwillfully" exposed to second hand smoke? Surely you're not suggesting that walking past someone smoking outside will kill you, are you?
the action is unwilling because i don't enter businesses to inhale second-hand smoke. i go to places that allow smoking because i want to consume their product and/or services.
If you enter an establishment with full knowledge that they allow smoking, you are no longer "unwilling". You have made a concious, well-informed decision. In doing so, you have accepted the consequences of the environment that you enter of your own free will. As a reasonably intelligent human being, this is not an "unwilling" act.
Nickobub wrote:and yes, i am stating that it is fact that even casual exposures to smoke are exteremly detrimental to your health. (refer to my conclusion from the surgeon general above)
Ok, let's review:
Nickobub wrote: "the current Surgeon General's Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack."
So just from walking past someone smoking outside, you're going to drop dead... Interesting premise. Not factual, but definately interesting. It's like saying that walking past the opening of a coal mine will give you black lung disease. Or walking past McDonalds will give you high cholesterol from the french fry smell. Or walking past a hooker will give you VD.
.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
Kardain wrote:Ok, you say they are dangerous, explain this:
I am a 2 pack a day smoker.
My blood pressure, heart rate and lung capacity are all comparable to non-smokers, if not better. My cholesterol is on par w/ a healthy non-smoker.
Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
The sedation effects of cigarettes allows me to focus on tasks at hand. If I were not to smoke, I would be unable to function in my daily job duties.
I also live off a McD's diet and don't exercise, yet not overweight... in fact, near the bottom of the IBW for my height.
In the long run it WILL cause you problems!!! And how can you say that you couldn't do your duties if you don't smoke???? You're probably too addicted to it that it would make it impossible to work while you're shaking and going nuts because of lack of nicotine... I just can't bring myself to think that it's vital for you to smoke!! Even if you have a chronicle disorder..
Quote:
You're probably too addicted to it that it would make it impossible to work while you're shaking and going nuts because of lack of nicotine...
Bout right... 13 years of smoking will do that.
What I find funny is that those people will be screwed this winter when it will be -30 outside!!!
The whole fines thing sound right to me.... but only if the money goes into health services.
the only innocent people about second hand smoke are the kids....as such, if you make it through 18 years of life and not know to stand upwind of a smoker, then you shouldn't be polluting the genepool. Further, if a child is exposed to second hand smoke in a public place to a lever that is adherently dangerous (remeber, a brief exposue, your body can heal from), then i think that's the fault of the parent's guardians, and only the smoker if the bastard/bitch did something like blow the smoke directly in their face.
so please, spare the the innocent people bull@!#$. life is not a game of candy land, with rainbown and guumdriops and teddy bears...life is f-ing brutal
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
John Wilken wrote:If you enter an establishment with full knowledge that they allow smoking, you are no longer "unwilling". You have made a concious, well-informed decision. In doing so, you have accepted the consequences of the environment that you enter of your own free will. As a reasonably intelligent human being, this is not an "unwilling" act.
the act of entering the establishment is not unwilling, but rather, it is the exposure. i, as a person, feel it is wrong to be exposed to smoke no matter where i am. i don't believe that accepting the risks of an environment should include being exposed to second-hand smoke. such a thing is so easily prevented.
John Wilken wrote:So just from walking past someone smoking outside, you're going to drop dead... Interesting premise. Not factual, but definately interesting. It's like saying that walking past the opening of a coal mine will give you black lung disease. Or walking past McDonalds will give you high cholesterol from the french fry smell. Or walking past a hooker will give you VD.
no, i am not saying that walking past a smoker will instantly kill anyone, although it might be possible for someone with asthma. what i am saying is that no exposure to smoke is safe, and that each exposure adds to the collective risk of developing disease. the pathology of disease from exposure to smoke involves a slow progression over time. for example, as i walk to class in the morning every day i pass a smoking section outside of the building. you might say then, every morning, i am breathing in smoke. over a period of time, i will have been exposed to more than just a few cigarettes. it is the cumulative exposure that is deadly, and that causes disease. this is why just casual exposure to cigarettes is deadly. people die from second hand smoke, and that is a fact.
Kardain wrote:Ok, you say they are dangerous, explain this:
I am a 2 pack a day smoker.
My blood pressure, heart rate and lung capacity are all comparable to non-smokers, if not better. My cholesterol is on par w/ a healthy non-smoker.
Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
The sedation effects of cigarettes allows me to focus on tasks at hand. If I were not to smoke, I would be unable to function in my daily job duties.
I also live off a McD's diet and don't exercise, yet not overweight... in fact, near the bottom of the IBW for my height.
i think it's great that your BP, HR, lung capacity, cholesterol check out ok. (i hope you know this based on what doctors are telling you) the bad deal comes later in life when you develop health problems as a result of your current lifestyle. that's why diseases like hypertension are considered to be "silent killers." if you choose to disregard recommendations that are based on our collective knowledge of health and healthy lifestyles, well, that's just too bad. i guess i'm not sure why you don't believe in it. do you honestly not believe that your lifestyle will ever impact your health? it's always going to be a combination of genetics and environment. we can't do much about genetics, but we can improve our living conditions.
as far as the "sedation" effects of nicotine...that's partly the nicotine, and mostly the addiction. if you can kick the addiction, you won't have the withdrawal side effects any longer, although the craving will likely never be completely gone.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]the only innocent people about second hand smoke are the kids....as such, if you make it through 18 years of life and not know to stand upwind of a smoker, then you shouldn't be polluting the genepool. Further, if a child is exposed to second hand smoke in a public place to a lever that is adherently dangerous (remeber, a brief exposue, your body can heal from), then i think that's the fault of the parent's guardians, and only the smoker if the bastard/bitch did something like blow the smoke directly in their face.
so please, spare the the innocent people bull@!#$. life is not a game of candy land, with rainbown and guumdriops and teddy bears...life is f-ing brutal
i guess i'll try and say it again... there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. just an occasion or two will always stack up in the long run, with the potential to cause disease. and i agree that life is brutal, but just ignoring problems doesn't help anyone. it's all about confronting one problem at a time.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]
so please, spare the the innocent people bull@!#$. life is not a game of candy land, with rainbown and guumdriops and teddy bears...life is f-ing brutal
Keeper: This brutal? http://itsaf-ingbrutallifecuzKOTLsaidso.ytmnd.com
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Nickobub wrote:John Wilken wrote:If you enter an establishment with full knowledge that they allow smoking, you are no longer "unwilling". You have made a concious, well-informed decision. In doing so, you have accepted the consequences of the environment that you enter of your own free will. As a reasonably intelligent human being, this is not an "unwilling" act.
the act of entering the establishment is not unwilling, but rather, it is the exposure. i, as a person, feel it is wrong to be exposed to smoke no matter where i am. i don't believe that accepting the risks of an environment should include being exposed to second-hand smoke. such a thing is so easily prevented.
It's very easy to prevent... DON'T GO TO PLACES THAT ALLOW SMOKING! If you really felt there was such a terrible risk to your health to inhale second-hand smoke, you would find another strip bar or whatever to frequent.
Your statement that you "feel it's wrong to be exposed no matter where you are" is as rediculous as saying you want to attend drag races, stand on the starting line and not hear noise, just to appease YOU. Nevermind the hundreds in attendance who enjoy eardrum damaging noise, let's put mufflers on everything so it doesn't bother one person.
The world won't bend to your will, if you decide to go to a gay bar, you will find gay people. If you decide to go to a biker bar, you will see bikers, who will no doubt be more than happy to stop smoking if you ask them...
As long as you voluntarily decide to go to places that allow smoking, you're going to inhale second hand smoke. At the very least you're a hypocrite for complaining about it and going back there again. Maybe you've become addicted to second hand smoke and you don't know it.
.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:[quote=Keeper of the Light™]
so please, spare the the innocent people bull@!#$. life is not a game of candy land, with rainbown and guumdriops and teddy bears...life is f-ing brutal
Keeper: This brutal?
http://itsaf-ingbrutallifecuzKOTLsaidso.ytmnd.com.
DOH!!!!
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
John Wilken wrote:It's very easy to prevent... DON'T GO TO PLACES THAT ALLOW SMOKING! If you really felt there was such a terrible risk to your health to inhale second-hand smoke, you would find another strip bar or whatever to frequent.
Your statement that you "feel it's wrong to be exposed no matter where you are" is as rediculous as saying you want to attend drag races, stand on the starting line and not hear noise, just to appease YOU. Nevermind the hundreds in attendance who enjoy eardrum damaging noise, let's put mufflers on everything so it doesn't bother one person.
The world won't bend to your will, if you decide to go to a gay bar, you will find gay people. If you decide to go to a biker bar, you will see bikers, who will no doubt be more than happy to stop smoking if you ask them...
As long as you voluntarily decide to go to places that allow smoking, you're going to inhale second hand smoke. At the very least you're a hypocrite for complaining about it and going back there again. Maybe you've become addicted to second hand smoke and you don't know it.
.
well...lets take an example and see if you still feel the same way about it. lets say you enjoy sniffing benzene to get high. benzene is an aromatic, hazardous, carcinogenic chemical solvent with a high vapor pressure (it will dissolve in air easily) you walk around with a flask of it, occasionally opening it to get high. then, lets say you decide to go to the bowling alley with some friends and you decide to take a few more hits, releasing the smell into the rest of the bowling alley for everyone to be exposed. do you still think people would accept this? people only disregard the smell of smoke because they are used to it. but i assure you, people will not think favorably of a bowling alley that allows people to expose others to hazardous, noxious chemicals. people don't expect to smell such things when they go to a bowling alley, and it wouldn't be accepted.
and again, the sole purpose of the bowling alley isn't to allow people to sniff benzene, it's to bowl. so sure, i wouldn't ever go into a smoking bar, if that's all anyone did. but i might decide to go to a bowling alley where people bowl. it's not unreasonable, it's not hypocritical, it's my right to be in public without having to worry about being exposed to a hazardous substance.
No it's not your right, though it is your right to open a bowling alley that doesn't allow smoking. It is the onwers right to choose what he allows in his place of business.
The rights of a person end up where those of someone else begin!!!
Killing yourself is your right, killing other people is not.
I don't have a problem with people taking their butts outside. No one said it's your right to foul the indoor air with your guilty pleasure.
Think of it this way... same bowling alley, same people, one erson withdraws a butt-plug and pops it in, in full view of others... Sick? Certainly... illegal? unless someone gets uptight about exhibitionism... not really. In poor taste and offensive? Definitely... would someone call the police if something like this happened? Probably if it were only one person... Take it to the level of absurdity... EVERYONE does this. One republican sees this and starts crying bloody murder, what happens?
Butt-plugs don't hurt anyone (unless you go too large and use too little lubricant) but they're offensive.
Cigarettes DO hurt people, and they're also offensive.
Why is it more acceptable to light up in a place than it is to insert a butt plug?
BTW, Kardain: Smoking's effects are cumulative. You mightn't have hardening of the arteries, cardiovascular or pulmonary disease or cancer yet, but in 30 years you probably will... If your family has a pre-disposition to cancer to begin with, you're not helping your chances any.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Nickobub wrote:
well...lets take an example and see if you still feel the same way about it. lets say you enjoy sniffing benzene to get high. benzene is an aromatic, hazardous, carcinogenic chemical solvent with a high vapor pressure (it will dissolve in air easily) you walk around with a flask of it, occasionally opening it to get high. then, lets say you decide to go to the bowling alley with some friends and you decide to take a few more hits, releasing the smell into the rest of the bowling alley for everyone to be exposed. do you still think people would accept this? people only disregard the smell of smoke because they are used to it. but i assure you, people will not think favorably of a bowling alley that allows people to expose others to hazardous, noxious chemicals. people don't expect to smell such things when they go to a bowling alley, and it wouldn't be accepted.
and again, the sole purpose of the bowling alley isn't to allow people to sniff benzene, it's to bowl. so sure, i wouldn't ever go into a smoking bar, if that's all anyone did. but i might decide to go to a bowling alley where people bowl. it's not unreasonable, it's not hypocritical, it's my right to be in public without having to worry about being exposed to a hazardous substance.
I'll gladly answer this hypothetical... If such a bowling alley existed, that the owners didn't object to people huffing, and I went there for the first time, yes I'd leave. But I WOULDN'T GO BACK. I'd find another bowling alley, even if it wasn't as close to home. You continue to go to establishments that the owners allow smoking, therefore you have no one to blame but yourself. Because you're complaining about it, that makes you a hypocrite.
Let's try this hypothetical... Let's say there's an Italian restaurant that is known for using a lot of garlic. Garlic is legal, natural, and some say actually has health benifits. But for the sake of this question, let's say that I don't like garlic. What would you say if I ate there twice a week, but complained the whole time about my "dislike of garlic" and how it's "going to make my breath stink"? Total hypocrite.
Another hypothetical.. Let's say that I am allergic to eggs. I go to Denny's and order a breakfast, eat the eggs and have to be rushed to the hospital so I don't die. Next week I go back to Dennys, order another breakfast, eat more eggs and return to the hospital... What you're saying about going into smoking establishments doesn't make any more sense to me than that. You are choosing to expose yourself to something that according to your quote of the surgeon general will kill you.
.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
GAM, to answer your part of your question,
http://www.junkscience.com/news/newets.htm
To answer another part, if a smoker goes into a bowling alley where the owner wants his customers to be able to smoke, then yes someone did say you have a right to foul up the air there.
Eric Esler wrote:GAM, to answer your part of your question, http://www.junkscience.com/news/newets.htm
To answer another part, if a smoker goes into a bowling alley where the owner wants his customers to be able to smoke, then yes someone did say you have a right to foul up the air there.
Thake your article that is probably commandited by the cigarettes companies and show it to that woman that worked in as an hostess in planes during the time it was ok to smoke in a plane. Let her tell you by the hole she have in her throat what she think about it!!!
