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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-27-2013, 10:17 PM
 
Location: SGV
24,859 posts, read 9,681,823 times
Reputation: 9737

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
The analogy is a perfect example of your twisted view of reality and your rather inflated opinion of your worth and rights.

The reverse of that might be a better analogy .... say there is group of historic football helmet collectors gathered at a fair, and they are all spray painting their football helmets, getting them ready for sale. You enter, and demand that they all stop immediately, because you don't want to breathe the fumes?

According to you, they should all relocate out of your area ... though there is no guarantee that wherever they relocate to, you, or someone like you won't show up demanding the same thing. The answer is far more simple ... if you happen to be in a public place, you are free to come and go as you desire. Obviously, if you are annoyed by things being done there, you are free to leave and go somewhere else. The onus is on you to either stay, or leave if other people are bothering you. The public has no obligation to accommodate your rather whiny whims and desires. You may sequester yourself at home where you do have the right to dictate what goes on. In public, you have no such authority to dictate.
Wait, so smoking in government buildings (schools, courthouses, libraries) should be allowed?

 
Old 04-27-2013, 11:09 PM
 
9,105 posts, read 5,616,936 times
Reputation: 3852
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Sorry, you're wrong.

Research shows "3rd hand smoke" is dangerous.

What is third-hand smoke? Is it hazardous?: Scientific American

Scientific American is pretty reputable. I will quote many others if you like of like ilk. Unlike the pro-smoking group.
An excerpt from your linked article:

Of the 1,500 smokers and nonsmokers Winickoff surveyed, the vast majority agreed that second-hand smoke is dangerous. But when asked whether they agreed with the statement, "Breathing air in a room today where people smoked yesterday can harm the health of infants and children," only 65 percent of nonsmokers and 43 percent of smokers answered "yes."

"Third-hand smoke," a term coined by Winickoff's research team, is a relatively new concept but one that has worried researchers and nonsmokers for several years. "The third-hand smoke idea—concern over that—has been around for a long time. It's only recently been given a name and studied," says Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. "The level of toxicity in cigarette smoke is just astronomical when compared to other environmental toxins [such as particles found in automobile exhaust]," he adds,
but notes that he is not aware of any studies directly linking third-hand smoke to disease [as opposed to second-hand smoke, which has been associated with disease].

So, we have a FEW problems here:

1) What conclusions should we expect from a group whose name is TOBACCO CONTROL ? Is it not likely they have an AGENDA ?

2) So the article admits that there is no research evidence showing that "third hand smoke" poses any danger whatsoever, though there have been "fears" that have ben around for a long time. Nevertheless, the good doctor goes on to insinuate a plethora of terrible health effects of third hand smoke ... a term he and his "team" coined. How can that be? How does he reach such conclusions, when there is no scientific data to support his claims? The truth is, he's just passing his opinions as scientific fact, when no such evidence exists. Even the link to second hand smoke and disease as been shown to be a fraud, as was presented earlier by Claudhopper. Hell, even the health risks of 1st hand smoke has no definitive evidence of causation, but only theories based on loosely interpreted, selective data that shows correlation. Correlation does not prove causation.

The hard cold reality is this is just part of the anti-tobacco nazi movement, who like many other leftist authoritarian special interests think nothing of lying through their teeth to further their goals. They exist solely through funding by those hostile to tobacco, so there is no other conclusion that such groups will ever find, except the ones they want to manufacture. This is not even close to being independent research ... but is nothing more than pure paid for propaganda.

3) The piece was published in the Journal of Pediatrics, which itself publishes enough mainstream propaganda to wall paper China, all of which is promoted by the pharmaceutical industry. As they go on about the toxic chemical components of third hand tobacco smoke as akin to chemical weapons, they hypocritically are the driving force behind the disastrous poisoning of children with real, very harmful and very toxic brews injected into infants at birth, and continuing into adolescence. Not one word of this crap coming from this group of witch doctors possesses one ounce of credibility.

4) If one has any intellectual capacity at all, they need only study some of the conclusions of these so called study groups whose conclusions are published in these journals to realize what a load of lies they promote .... such as how injecting mercury laced vaccines into children is perfectly safe.

Reputable? No ... the exact opposite is the truth ... and the proof is in the link you provided. If you know how to read, you can see what liars these people are, and the agenda driven tripe they promote can be seen by a blind man.
 
Old 04-27-2013, 11:23 PM
 
Location: SGV
24,859 posts, read 9,681,823 times
Reputation: 9737
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
An excerpt from your linked article:

Of the 1,500 smokers and nonsmokers Winickoff surveyed, the vast majority agreed that second-hand smoke is dangerous. But when asked whether they agreed with the statement, "Breathing air in a room today where people smoked yesterday can harm the health of infants and children," only 65 percent of nonsmokers and 43 percent of smokers answered "yes."

"Third-hand smoke," a term coined by Winickoff's research team, is a relatively new concept but one that has worried researchers and nonsmokers for several years. "The third-hand smoke idea—concern over that—has been around for a long time. It's only recently been given a name and studied," says Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. "The level of toxicity in cigarette smoke is just astronomical when compared to other environmental toxins [such as particles found in automobile exhaust]," he adds,
but notes that he is not aware of any studies directly linking third-hand smoke to disease [as opposed to second-hand smoke, which has been associated with disease].

So, we have a FEW problems here:

1) What conclusions should we expect from a group whose name is TOBACCO CONTROL ? Is it not likely they have an AGENDA ?

2) So the article admits that there is no research evidence showing that "third hand smoke" poses any danger whatsoever, though there have been "fears" that have ben around for a long time. Nevertheless, the good doctor goes on to insinuate a plethora of terrible health effects of third hand smoke ... a term he and his "team" coined. How can that be? How does he reach such conclusions, when there is no scientific data to support his claims? The truth is, he's just passing his opinions as scientific fact, when no such evidence exists. Even the link to second hand smoke and disease as been shown to be a fraud, as was presented earlier by Claudhopper. Hell, even the health risks of 1st hand smoke has no definitive evidence of causation, but only theories based on loosely interpreted, selective data that shows correlation. Correlation does not prove causation.

The hard cold reality is this is just part of the anti-tobacco nazi movement, who like many other leftist authoritarian special interests think nothing of lying through their teeth to further their goals. They exist solely through funding by those hostile to tobacco, so there is no other conclusion that such groups will ever find, except the ones they want to manufacture. This is not even close to being independent research ... but is nothing more than pure paid for propaganda.

3) The piece was published in the Journal of Pediatrics, which itself publishes enough mainstream propaganda to wall paper China, all of which is promoted by the pharmaceutical industry. As they go on about the toxic chemical components of third hand tobacco smoke as akin to chemical weapons, they hypocritically are the driving force behind the disastrous poisoning of children with real, very harmful and very toxic brews injected into infants at birth, and continuing into adolescence. Not one word of this crap coming from this group of witch doctors possesses one ounce of credibility.

4) If one has any intellectual capacity at all, they need only study some of the conclusions of these so called study groups whose conclusions are published in these journals to realize what a load of lies they promote .... such as how injecting mercury laced vaccines into children is perfectly safe.

Reputable? No ... the exact opposite is the truth ... and the proof is in the link you provided. If you know how to read, you can see what liars these people are, and the agenda driven tripe they promote can be seen by a blind man.
Ok. If I give you this point will you answer my question?

*bites lip in anticipation*
 
Old 04-27-2013, 11:59 PM
 
3,742 posts, read 2,595,113 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
That is your opinion and you know what they say about opinions, right?

I personally know several non-smokers who really have no problem at all with cigarettes, and many people who actually like the smell of pipes and cigars. Cheap cigars can smell bad, while fine cigars have a very pleasant fragrance.

It's all a matter of subjective opinion and personal tastes and preferences, of which you are entitled to yours, just as I am entitled to mine. And I promise you, my smoking doesn't annoy you any more than your maniacal and hateful attitude annoys me.

But there is no right that I'm aware of that guarantees you or anyone else of being free from annoyance. You just seem to have developed this extreme sense of self entitlement that makes you think you have the right to declare what is acceptable and what is not. You have no such rights. If other people annoy you so much, it is your right and obligation to avoid them, rather than everyone else alter their behavior to please you. If that's what you desire ... buy an island, name it Rossiland, and declare yourself supreme high ruler. But here in America, you're just another pimple on a flea's butt .... no more important than the next person who probably finds you every bit as annoying as I do.
It is rare, extremely rare, that such a degree of obtuseness can be contained in a single post(er).

Let me lay it out one more time for you. Have someone with reading comprehension skills read and explain this to you since it goes over your head like a 777 at Flight Level 35/Mach .9.

When you burn tobacco, it discharges an effluent, i.e. "smoke" that contains many products of combustion, nicotine (a deadly poison) and other carcinogens that cause several types of distress on others.

Respiratory Distress including wheezing, shortness of breath and physical chest pain

Olfactory Distress due to the grossly-foul stench of the tobacco being burned.

Occular Distress The toxins and etc., in tobacco smoke are readily absorbed by the wet membranes of the eye cause burning and itching in the eyes.

Headache The toxins etc., in tobacco smoke cause headaches in many people.

None of these are "opiinons", but, rather, medically observed facts.

Now let's talk about the crime of battery.

When you cause someone to be contacted by something that causes them pain, discomfort, illness, pain etc., that is the crime of battery. For example, If I sprayed mace in your face, that would be battery. Ditto, if I sprayed Raid or other toxic compounds into the air you are surrounded by and breathing.

Simply put, I don't have the right to poison you, i.e. to inflict toxins on you, whether or not it is a fatal dose.

The foul toxic effluent smoking produces comes into contact with people against their will and causes the aforementioned and described discomforts etc., and you have, in effect, battered them.

Is it your intent to cause pain and discomfort in others?
Are you a sadist who enjoys hurting others?
Or are you just a selfish narcissist who just doesn't give a damn.

The rest of your post was pre-pubescent gibberish.
 
Old 04-28-2013, 12:04 AM
 
3,742 posts, read 2,595,113 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
The analogy is a perfect example of your twisted view of reality and your rather inflated opinion of your worth and rights.

The reverse of that might be a better analogy .... say there is group of historic football helmet collectors gathered at a fair, and they are all spray painting their football helmets, getting them ready for sale. You enter, and demand that they all stop immediately, because you don't want to breathe the fumes?

According to you, they should all relocate out of your area ... though there is no guarantee that wherever they relocate to, you, or someone like you won't show up demanding the same thing. The answer is far more simple ... if you happen to be in a public place, you are free to come and go as you desire. Obviously, if you are annoyed by things being done there, you are free to leave and go somewhere else. The onus is on you to either stay, or leave if other people are bothering you. The public has no obligation to accommodate your rather whiny whims and desires. You may sequester yourself at home where you do have the right to dictate what goes on. In public, you have no such authority to dictate.
So when you cut through all of your psychobabble, gibberish etc., you chose

B. Everyone must move to avoid your spray-paint overspray

You chose poorly, but typical of the typical tobacco-addict pig.
 
Old 04-28-2013, 12:09 AM
 
Location: SGV
24,859 posts, read 9,681,823 times
Reputation: 9737
Boy is that going to tick off people in here: smoking as battery.

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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:06 AM.

© 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