U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 02-02-2012, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,796,204 times
Reputation: 7242

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Nomander, I'll agree 100% that people are more apt to speak out against something they themselves do not like. And people should fully understand both the moral and scientific aspects of something before suggesting it be made illegal. This isn't even the most important reason I'm not for making it illegal or forcing businesses to ban it from their stores, etc., but it is a good one!

I think what pushes people over the line in any case, however, is the fact that SHS is an example of one person deciding what another person should breathe in. People who happen to be nearby when someone else lights a cigarette are suddenly taking it into their lungs against their will, with no alternative other than leaving the area. No other drug use has this characteristic, as with every other form of use, what you put into your body is ONLY put into your body. Not true of smoking something around someone else.
But see, this isn't the case. If we were talking about locations where people had no choice to be in, then you would have a point. Now the thread is about children in cars, so in that sense, you are right for the most part. But your above comment seemed to have been made in a more general sense, correct me if I'm wrong. When we expand the argument to places like bars, diners, ballparks, casinos, parks, beaches, and the like, anyone who is there is there by choice. Now if they know there is a possibility of SHS in the area, they would be well advised to stay away from these places. Would you agree?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2012, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,796,204 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
I'm on my phone so I can't respond how I would like (hopefully later), but I did want to comment on how funny I find that a few of you determine that medical science is not a science. I imagine pharmaceutical science is not science either.
I know your not talking about me because I have never made that claim but I want to say that I don't hold that position all the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2012, 06:05 PM
 
Location: TX
6,491 posts, read 5,244,242 times
Reputation: 2619
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
When we expand the argument to places like bars, diners, ballparks, casinos, parks, beaches, and the like, anyone who is there is there by choice. Now if they know there is a possibility of SHS in the area, they would be well advised to stay away from these places. Would you agree?
Sure, they could do that. Or smokers could simply not smoke in public places around people who may not want SHS filling up their lungs. It only takes a couple minutes to smoke a cigarette in a parking lot or in your car, and then you go back into the building where EVERYONE is suddenly allowed to go in without having to risk breathing in secondhand smoke
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2012, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,796,204 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Sure, they could do that. Or smokers could simply not smoke in public places around people who may not want SHS filling up their lungs. It only takes a couple minutes to smoke a cigarette in a parking lot or in your car, and then you go back into the building where EVERYONE is suddenly allowed to go in without having to risk breathing in secondhand smoke
You raise a good point. The choice however, should not be left to the smoker or the non smoker, but rather, the business owner. If he decides to permit smoking, the non-smoker should make their choices accordingly and likewise, if he chooses not to permit smoking, the smoker should make their choice whether to patronize accordingly. From what I gather, you agree.

{ all this though, without adressing the "no-leave" policy that some stadiums and parks have in place }
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2012, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Georgia
1,258 posts, read 2,079,311 times
Reputation: 668
Well it depends...Are you a Republican? If so then isn't it your right to do whatever you damn well please regardless of the effects on anyone around you?

Aren't those 'big goobermint' laws like banning smoking in closed quarters environments a product of the big-goobermint liberals? Shouldn't we as conservatives/tea baggers/Republicans be able to give our children lung cancer if we want?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:36 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia
608 posts, read 506,606 times
Reputation: 377
Default Of benzene and more...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
As I mentioned in the past, you can break the elements of tobacco smoke down to its core elements and the same agencies proclaiming SHS as "no safe level of exposure" will list each element separately as safe under certain levels.

Benzene is the most toxic elements within tobacco smoke and the NCI, EPA, and SG all claim a certain level (250 micrograms) is acceptable to have each day. What is interesting is that it would take roughly weeks of exposure to being around smokers in a decent ventilated room to reach even that 250 micrograms of exposure.

This is the loophole in their claims, but few pay attention to the problems with their double statements concerning the toxins (the EPA is notorious for having conflicting research in its claims).

The reason we never see this level of evaluation done in the research or discussed by the medical institutions is that if we start paying close attention at this level, then it destroys their case outright. I mean, if SHS is bad due to the exposure, well... then how can all of these same elements be "safe" as they claim? They never want to go into those details.
Excellent points Nomander, and well-stated! However it would take a lot more than "weeks of exposure" for a nonsmokers to reach the 250 mcgms of benzene exposure. From "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" (not a copyright violation -- I own the copyright):

The average cigarette produces roughly 300 micrograms of benzene (1986 Report of the Surgeon General. p.130). If the estimates of smoke exposure for the average nonsmoker in Appendix B hold true, then such exposure would equal roughly three tenths of a microgram per hour of sharing a space with a reasonable number of smokers in a decently ventilated public indoor setting.

Benzene is normally found in fruits, fish, vegetables, nuts, dairy products, beverages, and eggs. The National Cancer Institute estimates that an individual may safely ingest up to 250 micrograms in their food per day, every single day of the year. Thus, the “safe” exposure to benzene from one day of a normal diet is roughly equal to the exposure experienced by a nonsmoker sharing an airspace with smokers for over 750 hours. Another way of looking at it would be to compare it to the normal work exposure of a waiter in a decently ventilated Free-Choice restaurant: the waiter would have to work there for four months to receive the equivalent benzene dosage ingested in one day of a “safe” diet.

In 1994, the Air Resources Board of California estimated that California vehicles emitted close to 50 million pounds (i.e. about 23 billion grams) of benzene per year into the atmosphere of California. At 300 micrograms per cigarette, it would take 70 trillion cigarettes to produce what California's vehicles produce in a single year. Try to imagine all the smokers of the entire world, with each and every one of them smoking well over two hundred cigarettes a day, and all crowded into California, and you’ll have a rough comparison to California’s normal vehicle emissions.


For the other elements Antismokers like to play a cherry-picking game, isolating one or two items with nasty implications (e.g. "formaldehyde, used to preserve corpses) and ignore the fact that cooking a good healthy vegetarian meal for one's family on a gas stove exposes them to the formaldehyde output of over a hundred cigarettes.

Last edited by Michael J. McFadden; 02-03-2012 at 02:37 AM.. Reason: spacing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:49 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia
608 posts, read 506,606 times
Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Does exceeding 250 micrograms of benzene daily pose a threat of the same specific harm as exceeding what they deem acceptable of another element in tobacco smoke? Just curious. Because maybe they're thinking that the small amounts of benzene alone isn't enough of a threat of a specific harm, but the amounts of other elements added to it is. And is it possible that one element in tobacco smoke combines with another to form a particular threat not found in either element alone?
Vic, you're correct, but the same thing can be said for ANY level of exposure to ANY workplace regulated element: after all, no workplace is ever going to just produce a single "possible threat" in all its activities. Heck, ordinary exhaled human breath contains several thousand VOCs (volatile organic chemicals) that might be killing you right now if you're in a building with another person!

Reasonable guidelines are reasonable guidelines though, and that's why they have things like PELs and TLVs (permissible emission levels and threshold limit values) and if you look at exposures to tobacco smoke even in quite smokey conditions the levels never even come close to reasonable levels of concern. See the table at the end of:

ETS Exposure

and note how many smokers would have to crowd into a corner bar to even BEGIN to approach levels considered to be unsafe for 8 hour per day exposures every workday. Also note the care I took in building a model that was proof against charges of cherry-picking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:54 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia
608 posts, read 506,606 times
Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
SHS is an example of one person deciding what another person should breathe in. People who happen to be nearby when someone else lights a cigarette are suddenly taking it into their lungs against their will, with no alternative other than leaving the area. No other drug use has this characteristic, as with every other form of use, what you put into your body is ONLY put into your body. Not true of smoking something around someone else.
Not true Vic. SHS is a very NOTICEABLE example, but it certainly isn't the only one. If you read the third element down in the Rapid Responses of the British Medical Journal at:

Home | BMJ

(The one titled, "Secondary Smoke, Alcohol, and Death" -- you need to click "read responses") you'll find another example, carcinogenic and highly volatile ethyl alcohol, which you're "forcing" everyone around you, even "the children," to inhale in comparatively very large quantities if you happen to have a drink while in a family pub.

Sounds like a sick joke right off the bat, eh? But read the full argument at that link and see if there are any holes in it.

Last edited by Michael J. McFadden; 02-03-2012 at 02:55 AM.. Reason: added directions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 07:39 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,434,902 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Nomander, I'll agree 100% that people are more apt to speak out against something they themselves do not like. And people should fully understand both the moral and scientific aspects of something before suggesting it be made illegal. This isn't even the most important reason I'm not for making it illegal or forcing businesses to ban it from their stores, etc., but it is a good one!

I think what pushes people over the line in any case, however, is the fact that SHS is an example of one person deciding what another person should breathe in. People who happen to be nearby when someone else lights a cigarette are suddenly taking it into their lungs against their will, with no alternative other than leaving the area. No other drug use has this characteristic, as with every other form of use, what you put into your body is ONLY put into your body. Not true of smoking something around someone else.
There are many things people run into daily to which they do not wish to be exposed to, but the only thing we can do is respect their freedom to remove themselves from those situations (nobody should be forced to stay around such, but at the same time they do no have the right to expect never to come into brief contact with it before they make that decision).

For instance, my wife is extremely sensitive to many perfumes and colognes. Some are so bad that they make her light headed and cause a strong allergic reaction to them. She can go on and on about how people use too much and she ends up having to deal with it in various situations through work and the like, but she recognizes that her reaction is not normal and that it would be unreasonable to demand people adjust to fit her demands. So she deals with it when she has to and removes herself from it anytime she can when she encounters it.

The problem with many people and smoking these days is that they forget where their rights begin and end. Public open space is freely available to all. As long as one is able to choose to experience such once they encounter it, then there is no infringement. I encounter numerous odors, occurrences, and behaviors daily within public life to which I would prefer not to, yet this is the what I must accept if I am to respect other peoples rights. As long as I am not required to be around it, I deal with it and then remove myself from it as soon as I can.

Now when it concerns public buildings and the like, I think a fair argument could be made that these places can be restricted from allowing such (as long as people realize this can encompass many things to which they may object being banned). This is the trade off of a public establishment; however in private establishments, many people think they have the right to dictate their experience there as well. They overstep their freedoms and infringe on others by demanding the private establishment function in a manner to which they require. This is unreasonable and a violation of the rights of the business owner.

We can't expect to never come in contact with things we dislike. This is a child view, a socially immature expectation. All we can expect is to not be forced to experience it when we do encounter it and many people confuse "forced" with what they want. That is, the person in the park "wants" to be in a certain area without experiencing such, but the fact is, if they stay in that area when they encounter something they dislike, they are actually choosing to accept it.

Certainly you can object saying that you may have no other park or place in the park to avoid such, but going to the park in the first place is a choice and if a person wishes to have an experience as such without such intrusion, there are means to achieve it without infringement, though the options of such may not be to their liking (private parks that disallow smoking or numerous other avenues to obtain such without such experiences).


We really can't respect freedom and then demand subservience from others for things we dislike as this is a disregard of for freedom. Respecting freedom means we accept that we will not have our way in everything we desire. This truly is the core of the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 07:42 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,434,902 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
I'm on my phone so I can't respond how I would like (hopefully later), but I did want to comment on how funny I find that a few of you determine that medical science is not a science. I imagine pharmaceutical science is not science either.
Medical practice is not science.

Chemistry of elements is a science.

The interaction of the elements with the human condition is not science, its a practice.

There is a difference, please note the delineation to which I speak.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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