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.
I second that motion. If a person is fully aware they are smoking cancer sticks, although everyone else might want them to stick around they are free to chose which way they might leave here. My issue is the fact of second/third hand smoke. I know people that smoke that act like crack heads about it. They can't relax for an hour or two without smoking a cigarette. It's also annoying to go out in social scenes and have to hold down the bar so they can go outside and smoke. I'm like are you outside, or here with me talking/socializing because this isn't working for me.
Yeah! Outlaw it!
I second that motion. If a person is fully aware they are smoking cancer sticks, although everyone else might want them to stick around they are free to chose which way they might leave here. My issue is the fact of second/third hand smoke. I know people that smoke that act like crack heads about it. They can't relax for an hour or two without smoking a cigarette. It's also annoying to go out in social scenes and have to hold down the bar so they can go outside and smoke. I'm like are you outside, or here with me talking/socializing because this isn't working for me.
Yeah! Outlaw it!
The only issue with second/third hand smoke is the simple fact that there is NO peer reviewed clinical tests proving it is harmful.
Also, ANY legal addiction, smoking, coffee, C-D.com is a personal matter. It is quite outside of our g'ment's mandate to legislate habits and or addictions out of existance.
Can you tell me what peer review means to you? I am sorry if i have trouble believing evidence presented by OTHER tobacconist corporations.
SO stop repeating yourself and give an actual retort.
While I cannot stand cigarette or cigar smoke or the effects that second hand smoke has on non-smokers, I do not feel that smoking should be banned altogether. I also do not believe that there is any chance that it would ever happen. Smoking is a personal choice and a person's right to do.
However, people that do not smoke and don't want it around them also have rights.
I am glad that many states are banning it in restaurants and other public places, because people who do not smoke should be able to enjoy themselves without smelling like an ashtray, or have health problems brought on by somebody else. In a restaurant situation, having one side of the room smoking vs. the other side non smoking never worked. 9 times out of 10, the smoke will drift over into the non smoking section.
The largest and longest study (Enstrom & Kabat) followed more than 35,000 subjects for almost 40 years and found no significant risk associated with second-hand smoke. Similarly, the World Health Organization spent seven years at a dozen research centers in seven countries and came to the same conclusion. This must have been very embarrassing to the WHO because they subsequently tried to do an about face with a paper titled Don't Let them Fool You. I read it carefully and had to wonder just who was trying to fool whom?
Anyway, think for a moment about how very hard it is to measure one's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The exposure of a woman married to a two-pack a day guy living in sunny SoCal where doors/windows remain open for much of the year will differ significantly from a similar wife living in Vermont where houses are sealed tight for the six-month winters. It's extremely difficult to design a valid experiment when you wind up comparing apples with oranges.
So I called the American Cancer Society and spoke with several people. My question seemed simple - "Why haven't we seen a decline in lung cancer deaths despite Draconian anti-smoking legislation?" - but it went unanswered. The ACS representatives didn't know and were clearly uncomfortable talking to the media. Eventually I reached a PR VP who, alas, also had no clue. Of course, I got a promise of "I'll get back to you on that." but I never heard another word. The tricky bit here is obvious. If they say deaths have decreased, they're looking at cuts in contributions. If they say deaths haven't decreased then one must wonder if their assumptions regarding tobacco are just plain out wrong.
I don't smoke, and I don't appreciate having to breathe in someone else's cancerous exhalations. But let's face it: how do you pass a law and declare cigarette smoking illegal? If prohibition didn't work (and it didn't!), then how much more difficult would it be to enforce a ban on cigarettes?
This concept of "hey, let's pass a law and then everything will be peachy" gets kind of ridiculous sometimes.
(I wrote this for a different forum this morning, but perhaps it is relevant to this discussion, so I'll post it here, too.)
.
When I was growing up in the 40s and 50s, I didn't know a single kid who had allergies or asthma, and there wasn't even a word for 'inner ear infection', even though almost every kid grew up in a house full of cigarette smoke.
We played outdoors, maybe that had something to do with it. Something is making our indoor environment toxic, but it must not be tobacco, because kids growing up now in tobacco-free houses have a much, much higher incidence of allergies and asthma than back when they played outdoors in the sunshine and walked to school when it was 20 below.
Maybe it's plastic. Nothing then was made of plastic, which is constantly giving off fumes, inside every house and building. Similar to what you get when you burn plastic, but slower. But the global economy would grind to a halt if we banned plastic.
Can you tell me what peer review means to you? I am sorry if i have trouble believing evidence presented by OTHER tobacconist corporations.
SO stop repeating yourself and give an actual retort.
Peer review?
You're obviously not into science, I take it.
Peer review means everything.
Findings by one scientist, or even a group, means nothing until it has passed the peer review process, where their collegues examine not only the findings, but the methodology as well, such as testing criteria.
There are NO peer reviewed clinical testing which proves some inherent danger in second hand smoke, let alone "third hand" smoke.
Until such time as peer reviewed clinical testing is accomplished (if ever), the War on Smokers is bunk, probrably the very reason WHY we do not see such firm evidence.
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.
