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.
True, as long as it's nowhere near another person. What non-smokers hate is when a smoker walks down a crowded sidewalk and blows it in our faces, or sits down on an already occupied bench and lights up, etc.
It's one thing to be already smoking in public - a nonsmoker shouldn't approach and then be upset that they have to smell it.
But when WE are just minding our own business and our personal space and health are violated through no fault of our own, and the smoker thinks he/she has every right to do so, THAT is where I draw the line.
Heck, just the other day, I stopped at a 7-11 on my way home with my dog, and left the car windows cracked for her. When I returned just a few minutes later, a couple of guys in an SUV had pulled up next to my car and were just sitting there smoking. Instead of using the ashtray in their own dang car, at least one of the guys was knocking ash off his cigarette outside his window, right next to the open window of MY car. When I saw this, I had no problem asking him, "What are you trying to do, get ash in my dog's eyes??"
He apologized right away, but it just goes to show, smokers don't THINK about anyone but themselves. Correction, anyone but their addiction.
They might be polite in every other aspect of their lives, but when it comes to their ADDICTION, they simply do not have access to the same part of their brain that controls judgment and consideration for others.
You and others really shouldnt lump every smoker into that same group.
I use to be a smoker and was very thoughtful of those that didnt smoke.
At the sametime though a smoker as the right to do something outside that is legal. Now if they are sitting next to you and fires up a joint thats another story. What you are saying is that a smoker doesnt have the right to sit down on a bench and do something that is legal.
So the non smokers rights are more important then the smokers.
Show me a study that supports your claim that second-hand smoke indoors isn't hazardous to people's health.
Requests have been made over and over and over and over for one that supports your claim that it is. The people that have responded to the requests have, by and large, not even supplied what was asked for, but rather they linked to pages or documents citing multiple studies, without links to the source studies at all. They don't even know what it is that they're claiming supports their position.
It's quite funny to watch the anti-smokers flailing around with no concept of how science actually works, but they'll rely on that same lack of knowledge and inability to understand the facts to defend their position to the end.
Requests have been made over and over and over and over for one that supports your claim that it is. The people that have responded to the requests have, by and large, not even supplied what was asked for, but rather they linked to pages or documents citing multiple studies, without links to the source studies at all. They don't even know what it is that they're claiming supports their position.
It's quite funny to watch the anti-smokers flailing around with no concept of how science actually works, but they'll rely on that same lack of knowledge and inability to understand the facts to defend their position to the end.
But we're the ones in denial.
We've provided study after study, you have provided nothing.
I have explained WHY studies are done the way that they are (across the board), and that post was IGNORED.
And since when are FEWER studies better than MORE?
You and others really shouldnt lump every smoker into that same group.
I use to be a smoker and was very thoughtful of those that didnt smoke.
At the sametime though a smoker as the right to do something outside that is legal. Now if they are sitting next to you and fires up a joint thats another story. What you are saying is that a smoker doesnt have the right to sit down on a bench and do something that is legal.
So the non smokers rights are more important then the smokers.
You can do whatever you WANT! But your right to do what YOU want ENDS when it affects ME. I like kickboxing, and it's legal, but I'm not going to practice near your FACE.
You hit the nail on the head. They can deny all they want, but they show it in most of their own posts. That would be why I don't post that much in here, like talking to high school kids a lot of the time.
I think I agree with Mearth that "certain" people really shouldn't post on this specific debate anymore. It seems like a certain someone has kind of "burnt all of their bridges down" regarding this issue. It seems like "a certain someone" is far too angry to properly give a cordial response. It is very sad when someone attacks someone who was defending them. It is even sadder when they never even admit to that person that they were wrong or give an apology. It shows very little character. I would think someone like that is really not civil enough to give an opinion on this matter. If that person did, I don't think many people would give that persons opinion very much validity. I know I wouldn't and don't, and I would never waist my time defending someone as volitile and hostile as that person has shown themselves to be.
Last edited by SlickRick1; 04-22-2009 at 09:53 AM..
Reason: change merth to mearth
We've provided study after study, you have provided nothing.
I have explained WHY studies are done the way that they are (across the board), and that post was IGNORED.
And since when are FEWER studies better than MORE?
Fewer studies aren't better than more. But when someone claims that a relatively small increase in risk of lung cancer and heart disease is a set in stone fact when there is indeed a fair bit of evidence against it. It's sort of like what Karl Popper once said, "The claim that every swan is white isn't proven by finding a million white swans, it is disproven by finding one black swan."
Also, all studies aren't created equal. Some secondhand smoke studies have tens of thousands of people studied and some have only a few dozen. Also, there is the issue of case control study versus cohort studies. Case control studies involve taking people who are already sick and working backwards (they are great for contagious diseases, but less effective with diseases like cancer). Cohort studies involve taking healthy people and over a period of time seeing who gets sick and doesn't. Case control studies suffer from flaws, for instance, if I were to ask you to give me a rough estimate for how much pork or soda or coffee or whatever food or whatever you may have consumed in 1997, how accurate do you think you would be? People often overestimate or underestimate such factors. When people get sick, they often try to think of what may have caused their illness. So you can have a nonsmoker who has lung cancer and is convinced that it was the period s/he worked as a waiter in a smoke-filled diner during his or her early twenties and completely forget about all the cooking fumes and barbeque smoke they were breathing since before they ever worked in that job. That's called recall bias.
Keep in mind that I did correct someone in this thread when they didn't believe that tobacco smoke had any connection to pink eye. I'm not the kind of person that sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "La la la la! Not listening!" whenever a fact that does not fit his world view is mentioned.
I saw numerous articles and studies confirming the hazards of passive smoking (second-hand smoke), but I don't have time to go through all of them. Google "second-hand smoke" or "passive smoking" or "studies on second-hand smoke", etc. There's a lot of decent reading and studies.
You hit the nail on the head. They can deny all they want, but they show it in most of their own posts. That would be why I don't post that much in here, like talking to high school kids a lot of the time.
I always wonder if they are just that dense or if they are actually that devious. Either way, I find it humorous that they complain about the air they breathe when that air isn't providing anything productive. /shrug
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.
