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 02-03-2012, 02:01 PM
 
13,757 posts, read 14,586,093 times
Reputation: 11461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
I am not saying that any of the chemicals in SHS aren't "possibly" harmful, I am saying that at the levels one is exposed to, they do not reach harmful levels. Think of radiation. People freak out about it, there are movies of all the dangers, your hair falling out, and people getting extremely sick, but did you know we are exposed to radiation from just about everything? Point is not that it is radiation, it is the levels we are exposed to. So in the case of SHS, it is the "levels" to which we are exposed to and that is the issue. If one is going to get upset about SHS, they might as well freak out and place themselves in a clean room (and even then, that isn't going to suffice their delusions) as toxin exposure is a part of life, it is how much that is the real issue.

I agree it is very easy to distort info especially if it suits your agenda. that goes both ways for sure.

Because it is the right thing to do. Lying is lying. Misinformation do not serve the better good, the end does not justify the means. Just because someone thinks smoking is bad for an individual does not validate their distortions to get it removed. If you have to lie to get someone to agree, it is because your position is flawed in the first place. They know they can't get people on board to ban/tax/regulate smoking if it was simply (it hurts the individual that makes the choice), they need people to see it as a threat to others. Only then can they get people on board to justify infringing on the choice of others.

this is where you have to believe 1/2 of what you read. only a fool would think SHS & FHS are harmless just as it is only a fool who thinks walking by someone is gonna kill them or that sitting behind a BBQ doing up a couple of racks of ribs isn't also a risk at some level. there is a happy medium and in this case many people prefer to keep as far away from SHS as possible.
This is the problem with people who think like this. They aren't concerned people trying to make society better, they are arrogant busy bodies attempting to form society to a position they find acceptable. If that means lying, cheating, and stealing, then to them... it is acceptable because the end justifies the means. these types are not limited to anti smoking but anti choice as well. that list is long

We need to get back to where we respect the individual and their choice to decide for themselves. If they want to put their hand in the fire, by all means, its their choice, they will deal with the consequences. should they be informed of the facts? Absolutely, but those facts need to be actual facts, not half-truths attempting to purport some agenda. I agree

Otherwise, we simply end up with ignorant people being driven around like sheep doing the work for the controllers who lie to them. we also don't want people to be ignorant of facts because we thought it best just not to inform them. you will also have the person who just doesn't believe it no matter how accurate the info. this is especially true with smokers because they are addicted and really think with an addictive mindset that does not allow for any truth other then the one the addicton tells them.
smoking is a hot button issue because it goes to personal liberty. you should be free to do what you want, when you want to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,609,662 times
Reputation: 7720
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
the variable of SHS an individual is exposed to is huge. small kids with small lungs in an enclosed car is different then sitting down wind or walking by a person smoking. one of the reasons why people are exposed to less SHS is because more places are now non smoking, cars, planes, malls.

nullifying the argument by trying to equalize it? if you play it that way then you would also support that smoking was dangerous both to the smoker and non smoker alike

Variables like that apply to everybody, in every circumstance and in regards to every conceivable air pollutant, so what's your point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
1,075 posts, read 820,973 times
Reputation: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayneb View Post
I have asthma, second hand smoke causes me to have an asthma attack. One thing I am glad about is that very few people in California smoke, IMO smoking is a waste of money with no positive benefits but if you want to smoke, please do it away from other people and don't act like a jerk if someone doesn't want to breathe your smoke. I have had people around me throw a fit when they light up a cigarette and I start coughing.

I don't have a problem with anyone smoking as long as they are not bothering anyone else, it's your life, do what you want but don't act like it's your right to smoke wherever you want.
I have asthma, perfume and flowers cause me to have a severe asthma attak. I wish MORE poeple in the country didn't use perfume or have flowers around their houses and businesses because it would make MY life better. If you want to wear perfume or have flowers around, do it where I don't have to breathe in that kind of toxin into my lungs. You could kill me! People think I'm rude when I have to put a cloth over my face when I'm around someone who's wearing perfumes, but THEY Are the ones being rude to me because I'm the one having trouble with their smell!

That was hard to write with a straight face!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,609,662 times
Reputation: 7720
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
perhaps I should of used the world unhealthy instead of dangerous. if it is the amount that is in question where do you draw the line to avoid it? should we allow smoking in planes again?
I'll let Michael McFadden speak to what is a safe standard as he has far more information on that than I do. Suffice it to say that an unsafe level of exposure far, far exceeds anything you'll encounter in your daily life.

Unhealthy? Sure it is. A lot of things are unhealthy, but we don't ban them all, do we? What makes tobacco smoke so "special" other than the publicity about it?

As for airplanes? I'm sort of mixed about that. While I sure would like a cigarette on a trans-Pacific flight, I do realize I'm locked into a tiny metal tube with a lot of other people. On the other hand, the air in that tube is exchanged many, many times during a long flight, so I don't know how concentrated it would become. Back in the old days, when everybody smoked on airplanes, I never saw a cloud of it hanging near the ceiling, nor do I remember anybody dropping dead from it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
1,075 posts, read 820,973 times
Reputation: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Unhealthy? Sure it is. A lot of things are unhealthy, but we don't ban them all, do we? What makes tobacco smoke so "special" other than the publicity about it?
That depends on where you live! California and NY are trying to ban just about everything that they can deem unsafe... fast food restaurants, salt, circumcision... I don't see how anyone who likes to think for themselves can live in those states. I never will again... which is sad, because CA is such a beautiful state!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:20 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,396,728 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayneb View Post
I have asthma, second hand smoke causes me to have an asthma attack. One thing I am glad about is that very few people in California smoke, IMO smoking is a waste of money with no positive benefits but if you want to smoke, please do it away from other people and don't act like a jerk if someone doesn't want to breathe your smoke. I have had people around me throw a fit when they light up a cigarette and I start coughing.

I don't have a problem with anyone smoking as long as they are not bothering anyone else, it's your life, do what you want but don't act like it's your right to smoke wherever you want.
Bothering is a subjective means these days. I would constitute bothering is that I am subjected to a certain situation with no means to escape or resolve it through my choices. That means, If I am sitting quietly in a park and some family comes and sits next to me with their loud and obnoxious kids, I can get up and move on to get away from it. If the park is filled with these people, I can go home to my private property and enjoy my own back yard. If I don't have a back yard, I can purchase property that has one, or pay to go to a private park that disallows kids obnoxious kids, etc...

See the point? I am given the choice to do as I please without ever requiring another to attend to me by changing their mannerisms.

You are abnormal in your disposition (this isn't an insult) and because of this, you have certain requirements. This isn't a normal issue and so because you are special in your needs, you must attend to those needs through special steps. That means you avoid residing in public places where you may encounter this and avoid private establishments to which allow it. The choice is completely yours and by exercising these decisions to your requirements, you do not infringe on any others and because you choose to avoid them, they are not infringing on you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,609,662 times
Reputation: 7720
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
why the need to "compare" it to other things? apples and oranges. is smoking cigs harmful to your health? you shouldn't have to qualify the answer. is SHS harmful to humans health? again it shouldn't need qualifying. yes or no is all the answer it needs

ASDS or people that believe either extremes of the issue is another matter all together. you either believe some or all of the research or not.

as an ex smoker I know well people who are anti smoking, most of them don't need a disorder to be rude, they just hate smoking. with that being said there is also a mental disorder people who do smoke. they refuse to believe that smoking is addictive or harmful. some even acknowledge it is harmful to their health but continue smoking anyway because they deep into addiction. some smokers refuse to acknowledge they are addicted. or who ignore all the "research" so they can continue to smoke.

as to the public being brainwashed to think smoking is bad, to what degree have we been fooled? give me a general 1 to ten if you can

Of course smoking is harmful. ANYTHING you take into your lungs besides fresh, clean air is harmful. That includes your deodorant, exhaust fumes, perfume, air "cleaner," the smell from your tool degreaser, anything from a spray can. The list is endless.

But, the question isn't whether or not it's harmful. The question is whether or it's dangerous and in usual, every day concentrations, the answer is no.

What's instructive to this whole issue is that we're willing tolerate non-dangerous exposure to those other harmful substances on a daily basis, but not tobacco smoke. Why do you think that is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:24 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,396,728 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
smoking is a hot button issue because it goes to personal liberty. you should be free to do what you want, when you want to do it.
1) Try using the quote aspects to respond, your blue text within the quote is a problem as it does not allow the tracking of your responses, nor does it make it easy to even respond to each of your points. Look at the quote tags, cut and past them between each response, it makes discussions much easier.

2) Your second blue response, is a dismissal. You do not attend to any of the logical merit of my discussion. Your response and reasoning is then based on no logical rebuttal and is invalid. Sorry, but I am not going to argue your subjective opinion of objectively and verifiable topics, it is pointless. Try answering to the scientific logic of my response if you would like a response. As it is now, you are just rambling with no logical point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,609,662 times
Reputation: 7720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayneb View Post
I have asthma, second hand smoke causes me to have an asthma attack. One thing I am glad about is that very few people in California smoke, IMO smoking is a waste of money with no positive benefits but if you want to smoke, please do it away from other people and don't act like a jerk if someone doesn't want to breathe your smoke. I have had people around me throw a fit when they light up a cigarette and I start coughing.

I don't have a problem with anyone smoking as long as they are not bothering anyone else, it's your life, do what you want but don't act like it's your right to smoke wherever you want.

Where is "away from other people?" As you well know, in California smokers have been sent outside, run out of parks and even off the beach. Where would a smoker have to go to get "away from other people" in California?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,609,662 times
Reputation: 7720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyndsong71 View Post
Ya know, I was really trying to think of the least harmful thing on the planet.... I knew milk would probably not fit the bill.. maybe should have said breast milk, instead of cows milk!
Breast milk is statistically one of the most dangerous substances on the planet. It can be categorically proven that the death rate from drinking it is 100%. Everybody who ever had it has died, or will die at some point in the future.
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. The time now is 10:07 PM.

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