U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-29-2009, 06:35 PM
 
10,485 posts, read 22,575,918 times
Reputation: 6611

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
My wife and child were killed by a drunk driver. I probably understand more about the issue than you do with all respect.

The difference is - if you get behind the wheel and drive drunk - you are putting potentially many people at risk.

On the other hand - if I'm in the woods - have a cigarette, or in my home or on my patio - the only one at risk is me.

If I want to go to a casino and drink and smoke while playing cards - and the property allows it - so be it.

The Government has in many locales tried to "outlaw" smoking in a lot of public areas - and guess what - it is practically unenforceable - as would outlawing smoking altogether be.
That is horribly sad , I have sympathy for you on that situation. I do not condone drunk driving in any way, I was only using it as an analogy. The thing is, Chris Reeve's wife was killed by smokers. She never smoked a day in her life, but still died of lung cancer which was attributed to her singing in smoke filled lounges.

 
Old 07-29-2009, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,671,678 times
Reputation: 35885
We have outlawed way too may things already.
 
Old 07-29-2009, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,395,642 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by las vegas drunk View Post
She never smoked a day in her life, but still died of lung cancer which was attributed to her singing in smoke filled lounges.
AND, she had a choice to sing in those lounges - no one forced her.
 
Old 07-29-2009, 07:20 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,057 posts, read 29,753,954 times
Reputation: 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
We have outlawed way too may things already.
Then we should consider a swap! Let's outlaw cigarettes in exchange for legalizing something that probably shouldn't be against the law.
 
Old 07-29-2009, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,671,678 times
Reputation: 35885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
Then we should consider a swap! Let's outlaw cigarettes in exchange for legalizing something that probably shouldn't be against the law.
OK, here are a few contenders:

Reselling used children's clothing.

Marijuana

Horse meat

Doctor Kevorkian

Re-filling the same plate at a buffet

Painting a ladder

Removing the label from a mattress
 
Old 07-29-2009, 07:45 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,402 posts, read 10,013,203 times
Reputation: 9144
We do not need the government intrusion on this issue. We have enough of that. If you don’t want to smoke or drink or whatever... don’t. It’s your responsibility to decide for yourself--not for everyone else. If you don’t want to breath smoke in clubs, stay out of them. One big problem too many people have these days is this attitude: ‘if I don’t like it... nobody should be allowed to do it.’

Also the argument that only 20% of the populace smokes and 65% drinks, so screw the smokers, is not a good one. A republic is supposed to protect the rights of everyone, including the minority. In fact, one big selling point for a republic rather than a pure democracy is to protect the rights of the minority.

So yeah, you just keep having the government whittling away at our rights... until finally they make it around to one of the rights that you cherish. Then let’s see how you feel about it. By that time, there will be nothing to do but bend over.
 
Old 07-29-2009, 07:46 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
32,173 posts, read 39,297,084 times
Reputation: 40671
I'll go for outlawing cigarettes if we outlaw, hmmmmmmmmm, I know:
all forms of legalized gambling like you find in, say, Vegas. Along with all state-run lotteries. It's a fair trade.
 
Old 07-29-2009, 08:37 PM
 
37,073 posts, read 38,367,172 times
Reputation: 14840
Quote:
Originally Posted by las vegas drunk View Post
The difference is 64% of Americans drink alcohol, while only 20% smoke cigarettes. There are not enough cigarette smokers for the serious consequences you talked about to happen.
Apples and oranges, how many of those 64% are alcoholics?

Assuming 20% that's roughly 60 million smokers, lets say 10% can't stop or 6 million people. You don't think 6 million nicotine addicts are going to pose a problem?

That's all besides the fact what business is it of yours what I do?
 
Old 07-29-2009, 09:44 PM
 
1,122 posts, read 1,969,524 times
Reputation: 731
I don't care if people smoke as long as they aren''t upwind of me. I have asthma thanks to my chain smoking father and other various relatives who smoked around me heavily while I was a kid. I can't even run and play with my kids today without hacking and weezing. Walking by someone smoking on a day when my lungs are particularly sensitive can send me into an asthma attack...all at the cost of protecting their "rights." Personally, if they want to do it on their own property, fine but in public, my children and I should not have to walk through a crowd of smoke thanks to obsessive, addict personality type people who can not control their bad habits in public every time we want to go into a store. Put it out out back and then come around. Sheesh. Largely, there is little to no respect given to none smokers by smokers and if you dared tell them you have asmthma, please stop, they'll just get vicious and blow it in your face.
 
Old 07-29-2009, 10:06 PM
 
5,905 posts, read 5,084,395 times
Reputation: 4534
Quote:
Originally Posted by las vegas drunk View Post
I used to say that cigarettes should be banned in all public places, but now I say they should be banned completely. I was watching a show called "The Dr's" today, and they were talking about "third hand smoke." I never heard of this term before today. It seems that even people that smoke outside, and away from us are making all of us sick. Here are some links on this....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/he...h/03smoke.html

Is Third-Hand Smoke A Hazard? : NPR

'3rd-hand smoke' poses risk to infants, doctors say

I say enough is enough already. I remember having friends who were so addicted to cigarettes, they would literally beg to smoke in my car like they would die if they did not have one. I remember going to nightclubs and bars and coming home smelling like smoke and being sick from it. I remember my eyes burning. Sorry for the ranting and all, but what are everyone else's opinion on this issue?
We live in a society that is punch-drunk on breeding hysteria stemming from junk science.

There is NO truth to the lies being thrown around regarding secondhand or "third-hand" smoke exposure.

OSHA did a study without being funded by the pharmaceutical or insurance industries (or lobbyists) and concluded that it would take something like 12,000 smokers smoking 60-odd packs a day inside a small room to have ANY effect on nonsmokers' health.

That's SECONDHAND exposure. 'Third-hand' smoke is an utter fabrication.

A major anti-smoking nutcase had attempted to sue OSHA for publishing its findings, then dropped the suit.


Quote:

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.
Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.

-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

*****
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."

-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

*****

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

Chart (Table 1)
-"Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel
The Case Against Smoking Bans - OSHA

What? You've never heard of the OSHA study (or, if you have, you refuse to believe it)?

Well whaddaya know...I guess propaganda DOES work.

Truth rules. Junk science has got to stop...the world is turning into a mob of whining hypochondriacs.

Last edited by rayneinspain; 07-29-2009 at 10:34 PM..
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top