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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-22-2009, 08:37 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,396,728 times
Reputation: 2608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siouxcia View Post
The tables have turned. For years, non-smokers were told, 'Don't like it don't go there.' Now the shoe is on the other foot. You want to smoke do it at home, outside, in your car or anywhere else it's allowed.

1. I do my job the best that I can. I don't shut anyone down. I do support banning smoking tobacco products in open to the public businesses. YOU can choose not to frequent those establishments.
A business by a private owner is private property. You have no right to demand anything of them. It is you who has to seek permission to access their property as they have the right to remove you without giving reason. That is a fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2009, 08:43 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,396,728 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by karfar View Post
Actually, the point of science is to disprove. If you can't do that after numerous experiments, you've got your answer. So you need to disprove that secondhand smoke is detrimental.
It doesn't work like that. First they must test their hypothesis and it must succeed all tests or at least have any divergence explained.

Since none of the research used to make the claim is actually a tested hypothesis and is merely theoretical probability, it is up to them to first provide consistent quantifiable results to support their claim. Otherwise we could make claims all day about things we can not test and proclaim them facts. I could state there are people living on planets in areas where we can not properly validate this and using your suggested methodology, I would be correct and it would be a fact until you could otherwise prove me wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Hangin' with the bears.
3,811 posts, read 4,338,991 times
Reputation: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
A business by a private owner is private property. You have no right to demand anything of them. It is you who has to seek permission to access their property as they have the right to remove you without giving reason. That is a fact.
Yes, you are a guest in a business establishment but the owner does NOT have carte blanc. Even if the business owner allows it, you can't fornicate openly, you can't beat anyone up, you can't steal from other customers, you can't use crack/pot/meth, etc., you can't start a fire,(those are just a few of the things I've seen people do in public establishments), lot's of things you can't do in an 'open to the public business' even if the business owner allows it. The cops will close them down if they do allow it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 08:49 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,396,728 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siouxcia View Post
Yes, you are a guest in a business establishment but the owner does NOT have carte blanc. Even if the business owner allows it, you can't fornicate openly, you can't beat anyone up, you can't steal from other customers, you can't use crack/pot/meth, etc., you can't start a fire,(those are just a few of the things I've seen people do in public establishments), lot's of things you can't do in an 'open to the public business' even if the business owner allows it. The cops will close them down if they do allow it.
Correct, but... those exist as tested and validated situations that are known to endanger people.

As I have been explaining, the ETS studies are merely estimations of probability, not tested and validated conclusions. None of the science is conclusive, it is suggestive with many variables unexplained or accounted for without using statistical manipulation.

People are not allowed to defecate in public because it is a known and tested fact that this creates conditions for the spread of disease and bacteria. It has been validated and proven over and over through quantifiable results throughout history. The same is for fire dangers which are regulated based on actual test environments that provide results. Each of the regulations imposed are tested, known, and verified. ETS is just a guess by correlation.

Edit:

Also, did you know that the difference between ETS and other smoke (burning wood, etc..) are very similar? Many contain acetone, benzene, etc... and are very dangerous. We come in contact with these constantly every day. Ever order a Fajita platter at a restrant and they brought out the smoking hot plate? How about attending a barbque? Do you clean your house? Ever walked into a freshly painted business a week later and you can still smell the paint? What about the air freshner used or the bleach or cleaning product on the tables you can smell?

All of these chemicals have permissible exposure levels (PEL) and their threshold limit vales (TLV) are determined for safe exposure. Did you know that many of these chemicals (which are also believed to cause cancer) are come in contact daily by everyone and often in higher amounts than that of ETS? As I stated in a previous post to you, if we are to ban ETS based on the evidence used and the claims made, then we must also ban such a large amount of chemicals out there that I doubt anyone would be able to function. Why do they get a pass and ETS is the fall guy? Could it be because this is a political issue motivated by personal bias and agenda? Food for thought.

Last edited by Nomander; 09-22-2009 at 08:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 09:19 AM
 
Location: Hangin' with the bears.
3,811 posts, read 4,338,991 times
Reputation: 915
I don't believe waiting for the inrefutable evidence is conducive to a healthy community. We can argue about this until the cows come home (which is illegal in my community) and we're not going to agree. There is enough 'proof' to support my medical judgement.
We have air emmision regulation, etc. which have been in place for decades.

One city, Juneau, did ban wood buring last winter because of the increased levels of air pollutants. I was living on an island in SE AK at that time, not part of the ban. There may have been other communities that did or do likewise but I don't have the inclination to research that for anyone.
Juneau enforces first Valley burn bans in years - Juneau Empire
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Hangin' with the bears.
3,811 posts, read 4,338,991 times
Reputation: 915
Quote:
Could it be because this is a political issue motivated by personal bias and agenda? Food for thought.
It always comes down to that, doesn't it?

Here's another study. Mayhap the resistance to evidence based data is related to a politically motivated personal bias and agenda related to a more than $9.2 billion loss to date rather than to the savings in personal health care expenditures?
Tobacco control programs reduce health-care costs | Eureka! Science News
Quote:
The researchers found savings of US$86 billion in personal health care expenditure between 1989, the start of the tobacco control program, and 2004.
Quote:
Glantz and colleagues found that 3.6 billion fewer packs of cigarettes were sold during the 5 years of the tobacco control program, which represents a loss of $9.2 billion to the tobacco industry in pre-tax cigarette sales.
But, they shouldn't worry if this is true,
Tobacco use will continue, possibly grow, during recession, Georgia State expert says | Eureka! Science News
Quote:
Even though tobacco use is expected to kill 6 million people worldwide and drain $500 billion from the global economy each year according to a new report co-authored by a Georgia State University tobacco expert the recession will most likely do nothing to reduce use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 10:18 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
8,388 posts, read 8,319,691 times
Reputation: 4070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
All of that evidence is provided by the lack of ability of the sources claim to properly validate their results.
In your not-so-unbiased opinion.

Quote:
Follow the source list to the research from the posters links. The CDC, ALA, EPA, etc... all list citations to research (actually, its a citation to administrative summaries which cite previous summaries and are often statistical methodology of the sum of research done) for you to verify. I do not need to refute with like research because the research being presented is assumptive and inconclusive. As I said, this is the problem with epidemiological studies. They are not based on verifiable fact, rather they are the culmination of circumstantial evidence to provide an estimate probable causation, not causation itself.

Quote:
Just personal experience within the hard sciences, nothing officially stated, merely the fact that epidemiology lives under the cover of pure assumption, estimation, and prediction as it can not properly test and validate its results. It is simply a tool to assist more tangible research, identifiying probablity and is not accepted under legal standards unless it contains an overwhelming consistency of support and only then is it accepted as supporting evidence (this is its acknowledged definition).

Look at the research (if you can wade through all of the administrative summaries that lack any proper details of methodology and process (it is quite vast and bureaucratic in its display). You can find the original research though and once you do, it often contradicts between that of the administrative summaries and the actual research conclusions.

Just follow the posters sources I listed. All the proof of poor test beds, weak methods, statistical manipulation and so forth are all in their own sources.

I think you're turning yourself inside out to avoid an inescapable conclusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Hangin' with the bears.
3,811 posts, read 4,338,991 times
Reputation: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Correct, but... those exist as tested and validated situations that are known to endanger people.
The late teens/20 somethings I saw going at it in a resturant booth during the noon rush (it was in the back, difficult to see unless you were going to the restrooms) were genuinely pizzed off and believed their right to 'f****** isn't anyone else's business' when the owner came, pulled the guy off the girl and kicked them out. I thought it was hilarious, other's in the resturant had varying degrees of 'outrage', 'disgust', 'amusement', 'anger', 'jealousy', 'indifference' but I didn't see anyone whose life was endangered. I've also seen couples going at it on the T in Boston and on a bus in Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 10:36 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,396,728 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siouxcia View Post
I don't believe waiting for the inrefutable evidence is conducive to a healthy community. We can argue about this until the cows come home (which is illegal in my community) and we're not going to agree. There is enough 'proof' to support my medical judgement.
We have air emmision regulation, etc. which have been in place for decades.

One city, Juneau, did ban wood buring last winter because of the increased levels of air pollutants. I was living on an island in SE AK at that time, not part of the ban. There may have been other communities that did or do likewise but I don't have the inclination to research that for anyone.
Juneau enforces first Valley burn bans in years - Juneau Empire

There is no proof, that is the issue. All that exists is assumptions and when it concerns individual liberties, they come first and foremost for as I stated previously, any claim of danger can be made with assumptions to support a bias or agenda.

When a society disregards individual liberties, it walks a path of slavery to oppressive ideals and if we are not to let facts guide us and protect us, then there is no limit to the suffering that will be caused through good intentions and empty calls for the common good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2009, 10:45 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,396,728 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siouxcia View Post
The late teens/20 somethings I saw going at it in a resturant booth during the noon rush (it was in the back, difficult to see unless you were going to the restrooms) were genuinely pizzed off and believed their right to 'f****** isn't anyone else's business' when the owner came, pulled the guy off the girl and kicked them out. I thought it was hilarious, other's in the resturant had varying degrees of 'outrage', 'disgust', 'amusement', 'anger', 'jealousy', 'indifference' but I didn't see anyone whose life was endangered. I've also seen couples going at it on the T in Boston and on a bus in Chicago.
Sexually transmitted diseases can be passed through such open contact and depending on the type of such can contaminate a surface which has been validated in quantifiable tests.

That said, there are many environments in some states which allow private display of such acts as a business. Again though, these are "allowed" while a private establishment who wishes to allow smoking is considered endangering all contrary to verifiable scientific evidence and chemical knowledge.

It really is simply that there is enough social might behind the bans and the taxes and so people think they are justified to impose demands on others private or otherwise.

A society that dictates right and wrong simply by social opinion is one that care little of individual freedoms and one that is incompatible with personal liberty and personal property.

A mob of opinion or a single dictator oppressing for their own personal desires are no different, they are one and the same.
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