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.
Socially, politically, arguably morally you may be different.
As an addict, you are just as addicted.
I AM a real addict, with 23 years under my belt being clean and sober from a cross-addiction to alcohol and drugs. I have posted that here in this thread earlier and on other threads and other message boards. I was also a smoker who smoked primarily unfiltered Camels for 20 years. and if I live until August, I will have been quit for 20. I am still an addict and always will be. The difference is, I am not currently a practicing addict.
not a matter of being superior. It's a matter of knowing what I'm talking about, and the education was expensive.
Do you drink coffee? then you are an addict to caffeene
Which means we're still on an even playing field. I've shown you my "inconclusive" studies (that nonetheless point STRONGLY to harm from SHS) - you show me yours.
That is an evasion, pure and simple. I have commented on the methodology, none of it is even remotely conclusive as I pointed out and you simply wave off any direct comments with silly fallacy based responses. You think it is correct, but then facts and evidence are not your bag which is why you confuse scientific evidence with assumptive guess work. This is an emotional position for you and no amount of reason will get through.
As for me showing you research? Why? Your research is the one that makes the claim, I have already shown you where it lacks and why it is inconclusive. Your links did it for me.
It's not always feasible or economical to break a lease. I'm here until my lease expires later this year. By the way, I've lived here for so long that moving would automatically raise my rent by several hundred dollars due to the fact that I'm paying under market value. By the way, I don't know of any non-smoking apartment complexes so there's really no guarantees that I won't experience this again.
And nowhere in there do I see where you are forced to do anything. Sure, it isn't a choice you prefer, but then we were talking about being forced. You aren't forced to do anything.
Don't rent, buy a home with enough property where this isn't an issue. Save your money, buy up an apartment complex and make it a no-smoking one.
Again, all choices but then you don't seem to be complaining about being free to choose, merely that it isn't what you want the way you want it.
What about the laws that require doggie owners to clean up after little FuFu? What's a little poop on the ground here and there ... It's not going to kill anybody?
What about it? It is a known fact that feces is a incubator for disease and infection. It is kind of why we don't dump the chamber pots outside of the window onto the street. There are countless cases verified and validated where someone with an infection or disease passed it on through feces on them while preparing food, coming into contact with others, etc...
That is a health risk which has been proven through real science, not questionnaires and number manipulation.
Ahh, don't worry about it, pay no heed to the confusion, SHS is bad, you know it is, it smells bad, makes your eyes water
.
If it (SHS) has that effect on the majority of people then it should be banned to certain areas. I doubt I would be allowed to walk around with a stinking colostomy bag open in crowds either so why should the majority of people have to put up with the smell and burning eyes of SHS?
I thinks that this needs reposting because most of us are just damn tired of the nanny state that many of you seem to want.
THOSE BORN 1920-1979 TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's!!
First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.
They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.
We had no child proof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat. We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank Kool-aid made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because, WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day.And we were OK.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or chatrooms........
WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.
We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we did not poke out very many eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!
These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!
If YOU are one of them CONGRATULATIONS!
You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good .
While you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave (and lucky) their parents were.
Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!
Report of the Surgeon General: The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0749-3797/PIIS0749379707001237.pdf (broken link)
Spousal Smoking and Incidence of First Stroke
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0749-3797/PIIS0749379708005023.pdf (broken link)
Don't know where the SG is? Why link a required payment or subscription site for this report when it is free?
Yep, I read it. Because I know no amount of discussion or anything I point out will be read, I will keep this comment small.
If you read the research, it reads like....
This study found evidence of... This study did not find any association, this study showed this, this study did not show anything. This study links this with that, but this study finds no links at all. All through the report it states the "difficulty" in ascertaining any definitive or even a strong link. Often it refers to the evidence as inconclusive and complicated in any possible delineation.
Yet....
When you make it to the conclusions, the administrative summaries, etc... Its all business as somehow that "weak", "complicated" and "inconclusive" research somehow turned out to be "strongly indicative".
In over 700 posts in this thread, and thousands of posts in other, similar threads, not a single shred of scientific evidence has been posted which proves that SHS is actually the threat that the politically correct claim it to be.
That's just a lie.
In the studies you have actually responded to (only half), your main qualm was the way in which the statisticians accounted for differences among the participants.
NO study of any health-related outcomes would be valid or repeatable without doing so. You can't call it a representative sample of the population if everyone being studied had the same background and lifestyle. At the same time, you can't compare the results of various studies by different people/organizations if the experimental groups are too varied from each other. So, in order to show that the outcomes are not only internally valid, but externally consistent, you HAVE to show statistically that it is due to the variable being studied, and not due to confounding variables.
If it (SHS) has that effect on the majority of people then it should be banned to certain areas. I doubt I would be allowed to walk around with a stinking colostomy bag open in crowds either so why should the majority of people have to put up with the smell and burning eyes of SHS?
Might makes right ehh? As long as the majority deems it annoying, then its ok to restrict individual freedoms?
Besides, SHS doesn't just have that effect, so does normal smoke, cleaners, perfumes, onions, etc... Shall we ban those as well or maybe just the stupid people first?
In the studies you have actually responded to (only half), your main qualm was the way in which the statisticians accounted for differences among the participants.
NO study of any health-related outcomes would be valid or repeatable without doing so. You can't call it a representative sample of the population if everyone being studied had the same background and lifestyle. At the same time, you can't compare the results of various studies by different people/organizations if the experimental groups are too varied from each other. So, in order to show that the outcomes are not only internally valid, but externally consistent, you HAVE to show statistically that it is due to the variable being studied, and not due to confounding variables.
Go back to your elementary statistics textbook.
Now Mearth, your post reads like you think you've read all my posts in this thread, but clearly, you haven't.
Oh well. I don't really care enough about you or your opinion of anything to bother explaining what you missed.
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.
