Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I don't want is people flicking their butts on the ground. Use an ashtray or stick them in your pocket until you get to a trashcan.
Too bad ashtrays have been systematically removed from everywhere.
Also, the people who say that a business should be allowed to do what they want never address the issue of parents forcing their children to go into a place that allows smoking.
Too bad ashtrays have been systematically removed from everywhere.
Also, the people who say that a business should be allowed to do what they want never address the issue of parents forcing their children to go into a place that allows smoking.
I think business that only allow adults should be able to permit indoor smoking if they want.
But noooooooooo, they want to control everything! And now outside too.
I think business that only allow adults should be able to permit indoor smoking if they want.
But noooooooooo, they want to control everything! And now outside too.
I'm an adult, and my wish is for smoking to made completely illegal. I don't want to ever inhale any cigarette smoke. And I don't want that nasty smell clinging to my hair and my clothing. Plus, I hate co-workers who have to take frequent smoking breaks which add up to at least an hour of unproductivity. And that's not fair to the non-smoking workers who through their day without these extra breaks.
Secondhand cigarette smoke is carcinogenic and a lung irritant. Plus it ages the skin. So not interested in potentially walking through a cloud of your nasty burning tobacco vapour.
And cigarette smokers also bring up the cost of everyone's health insurance premiums. Another reason to not tolerate cigarette smoking.
I'm an adult, and my wish is for smoking to made completely illegal. I don't want to ever inhale any cigarette smoke. And I don't want that nasty smell clinging to my hair and my clothing. Plus, I hate co-workers who have to take frequent smoking breaks which add up to at least an hour of unproductivity. And that's not fair to the non-smoking workers who through their day without these extra breaks.
Secondhand cigarette smoke is carcinogenic and a lung irritant. Plus it ages the skin. So not interested in potentially walking through a cloud of your nasty burning tobacco vapour.
And cigarette smokers also bring up the cost of everyone's health insurance premiums. Another reason to not tolerate cigarette smoking.
Soda and all meat eating should be banned as well because I'm a vegan and I feel no one should be eating animals, and drinking soda causes obesity and insurance premiums will go up.
Cell phones should be banned as well people irritate me when they text or talk on their phones in public holding up lines, driving.
Children under the age of 10 should not be allowed on airplanes they irritate me as well.
Good. This topic is gonna take some adult-level thinking skills.
Quote:
My wish is for smoking to made completely illegal.
You're advocating banning TWO billion-dollar industries.
People like to smoke.
Cigarettes bring in significant revenues for state and federal government. In 2010 alone, the federal excise tax on cigarettes brought in $15.5 billion in revenue.
As for smoking other substances, here is a breakdown of the revenue generated in Colorado over the past 4 years, with major increases every year (this includes other forms of cannabis, not just the smoked variety). Note the significant upward trend.
Marijuana Taxes, License, and Fee Revenue
2014: $67,594,323
2015: $130,411,173
2016: $193,604,810
2017: $247,368,473
2018, so far (Jan - Feb): $42,816,302
Of course, most states will eventually join Colorado in repealing the ban on marijuana.
Quote:
I don't want to ever inhale any cigarette smoke. And I don't want that nasty smell clinging to my hair and my clothing.
This is why smokers should be corralled indoors. If smoking is kept indoors, nobody will be forced to share airspace with smokers. The way things are now, you can't avoid cigarette smoke, because all of the smokers have been forced out onto the sidewalks.
Quote:
I hate co-workers who have to take frequent smoking breaks which add up to at least an hour of unproductivity. And that's not fair to the non-smoking workers who work through their day without these extra breaks.
I hate coworkers who take frequent phone call breaks or conduct personal business online while at work.
Quote:
Secondhand cigarette smoke is carcinogenic and a lung irritant. Plus it ages the skin. So not interested in potentially walking through a cloud of your nasty burning tobacco vapour.
This supports my point. There ought to be a ban on outdoor smoking, not indoor smoking. Outdoor smoking is shared airspace. Indoor smoking is not, unless you choose to enter an establishment that permits smoking.
Quote:
And cigarette smokers also bring up the cost of everyone's health insurance premiums. Another reason to not tolerate cigarette smoking.
Yep. Smoking is bad for you.
Other legal activities that are bad for you:
alcohol abuse
opiod abuse
sedentary lifestyle
eating high-sugar foods
eating high-fat foods
eating processed foods
having unprotected sex with strangers
playing football
A thread that I read yesterday stated that researchers have discovered that drinking just one high-fat milkshake can quickly transform a healthy person's red blood cells into small, spiky cells that wreak havoc in blood vessels, setting the stage for cardiovascular disease. In addition, four hours after drinking a high-fat milkshake (made of whole milk, ice cream, and heavy whipping cream), blood vessels are less able to relax, and the immune system responds as if the body has suffered an infection.
Last edited by AguaDulce; 04-01-2018 at 07:49 AM..
Good. This topic is gonna take some adult-level thinking skills.
You're advocating banning TWO billion-dollar industries.
People like to smoke.
Just because an industry is profitable, doesn't justify its existence.
Quote:
This supports my point. There ought to be a ban on outdoor smoking, not indoor smoking. Outdoor smoking is shared airspace. Indoor smoking is not, unless you choose to enter an establishment that permits smoking.
What? Both outdoor and indoor air is shared space, since it's occupied by other people. But your car's interior and around your house and private property could be considered private non-shared space.
Quote:
Yep. Smoking is bad for you.
Other legal activities that are bad for you:
alcohol abuse
opiod abuse
sedentary lifestyle
eating high-sugar foods
eating high-fat foods
eating processed foods
having unprotected sex with strangers
playing football
So what? Apples and oranges.
Your alcoholism isn't going to give me cirrhosis of the liver.
Your opiod abuse will also not affect my personal health in a negative way. And if you read my posts of the subject, I don't approve of wasting so much expensive Narcan on anyone who has OD'd more than once in a 24 hour period.
You eating poorly or being sedentary doesn't affect my health directly. Hopefully in the future insurance premiums will be discounted for those leading a healthy lifestyle or higher for those living a stupid lifestyle.
As a smart person, I have never had unprotected sex with strangers, and for those who do, well again it doesn't affect me.
I don't play football. And others playing football isn't going to affect my brain health. Do we need to make football illegal? Maybe how the game is played will change. And it's new medical findings and that is causing many parents to not let their children play football and even soccer. So who knows what the future has in store for the game of football and the NFL. I certainly won't miss the game.
Quote:
A thread that I read yesterday stated that researchers have discovered that drinking just one high-fat milkshake can quickly transform a healthy person's red blood cells into small, spiky cells that wreak havoc in blood vessels, setting the stage for cardiovascular disease. In addition, four hours after drinking a high-fat milkshake (made of whole milk, ice cream, and heavy whipping cream), blood vessels are less able to relax, and the immune system responds as if the body has suffered an infection.
There is a lot of research going on with inflammatory diseases. Yes. Americans eat too much fat (and sugar) and our overall population is obese. First world problems which we've passed along to Third World countries with our export of fast food chains like KFC and McDonalds.
Humans should be smart enough to want to live a healthy lifestyle, but unfortunately, most people live in the moment and don't care about their future. And the young feel invincible and don't want to think about old age.
So as a society should we not care at all and let everyone do whatever they feel like doing? But the problem is that we have too many people with health issues like obesity and cancer, AND... because of factors such as our generous treatment of illegals and their DACA children and anchor babies, and refugees and welfare, food stamp and Section 8 payouts, IMO America can't afford to let this slow moving trainwreck of our national collective health crisis crash and burn. And that's why we have these successive restrictive nanny laws created and in greater numbers.
These laws are only because not enough people are use commonsense in their personal lives.
Actually, no. There is no conclusive evidence that secondhand smoke causes cancer. Life kills people, and sadly, many people get cancer, no matter what they do (or don't do). But the proof via scientific studies is slim to none. The American Cancer Society says it does, but when I actually attempt to pull up scientific studies demonstrating correlation, I find zip. People tout the 46,000 or 53,000 death figure per year from people exposed to secondhand smoke, but these individuals can suffer from recall bias: People who develop a disease that might be related to passive smoking are more likely to recall being exposed to passive smoking. Some people just get lung cancer. There is no rhyme or reason to it. They just have hellish bad luck.
"So does secondhand smoke cause lung cancer or not? 'We can’t say it’s not a risk factor,' said Wang."
The number of cases of lung cancer was relatively small, and the increased risk of lung cancer due to secondhand exposure in the home just missed being statistically significant.
There are plenty of studies showing secondhand smoke increases lung cancer risk.
"The synthesis of primary studies revealed significant effect sizes for the association between SHS [secondhand smoke] exposure and all three outcomes. The highest RR for both sexes combined was found for COPD (RR = 1.66, 95 % CI: 1.38–2.00). The RR for both sexes combined was 1.35 (95 % CI: 1.22–1.50) for stroke and 1.27 (95 % CI: 1.10–1.48) for IHD. The risks were higher in women than in men for all three outcomes."
That's a 66% increased risk for COPD, 35% for stroke, and 27% for ischemic heart disease.
I doubt there is significant recall bias concerning exposure to secondhand smoke. It's kind of hard to forget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
Then there was the brave doctor who asked the question that for some strange reason had not occurred to anyone else to ask:
why do 80% of smokers NOT get lung cancer?
The resulting study discovered something previously unknown - a gene that about 20% of smokers have that increases their likelihood of getting lung cancer whether they ever smoke or are exposed to tobacco smoke or not. That gene also impacts their reaction to nicotine (as I recall, it was a while go that I read it, it makes them more likely to get addicted than someone without the gene). The truly great thing about the discovery, however, was that it was a clue not just for lung cancer but for a direction to look in seeking prevention of other types of cancer, as well.
This does not mean that other diseases are not caused by/exacerbated by smoking, simply that post hoc ergo propter hoc is not always the right answer (rarely is, in fact), and that ignoring statistics like 80% of smokers DON'T get lung cancer has more to do with politics and less to do with science.
You are using the wrong statistic.
The proper question is, "What percentage of lung cancer victims are smokers?"
"Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers."
Yes, there is probably a genetic factor involved, but smoking is also involved.
Smoking causes the majority, but not all lung cancer.
Your alcoholism isn't going to give me cirrhosis of the liver.
No, but selling alcohol is an extremely profitable industry that isn't going anywhere. And people who abuse it are a huge drain on healthcare, thus causing premiums to skyrocket for the rest of us.
They tried to outlaw it once. Have you not learned anything?
This topic is gonna take some adult-level thinking skills.
Anyone with adult-level thinking skills should be able to accept the evidence that smoking is not good for the smoker or for people who are exposed to secondhand smoke.
For those who do smoke, the time has come to switch to an e-cigarette, preferably on the way to ditching smoking altogether. If you cannot walk down the street without smoking, at least with an e-cig you are not trailing the stench behind you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
