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 12-26-2009, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Mayacama Mtns in CA
14,523 posts, read 7,565,906 times
Reputation: 11313

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
.... The EPA's classification on SHS being such is about as valid as Co2's classification. It is based on sloppy science and promoted out of political push, not scientific finding. Epidemiology is not science, it is creative statistics used to correlate findings to support agenda. I have argued the science of this issue many times on this board with the result being that those who claim otherwise are unable to support their claims and simply wave it off. The simple fact is, you are wrong on this issue concerning the science. . .
You're absolutely correct on this one. And it wasn't only the EPA, but was also the USPHS (US Public Health Service). At the time when those 'studies' came out, true scientists & microbiologists knew it was a "cooking of the books" but the political correctness and lure of huge federal grants won out. Now there's a whole generation of people who weren't around at that time, and they believe "smoke & mirrors" stuff. . .pun intended.

There is a true science of epidemiology, it's just that the truth didn't come out in the SHS issue. So I think your statement above of "Epidemiology is not science, it is creative statistics used to correlate findings to support agenda" is a bit wide-sweeping, and not quite accurate. There are true, honest & accurate epidemiologists, just as there are law-makers and lawyers who are legitimate; one just doesn't often hear about them! And their in the minority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2009, 10:49 AM
 
2,352 posts, read 1,807,801 times
Reputation: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
2 pages later still none of you anti-smoking zealots can give me a legitimate answer?
I have no problem with the idea of "smoking only bars"

Those that smoke should have a place to go and kill themselves. I'm fine with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 10:51 AM
 
2,352 posts, read 1,807,801 times
Reputation: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
A law made a law for the sake of being a law serves no purpose and no reason.

The EPA's classification on SHS being such is about as valid as Co2's classification. It is based on sloppy science and promoted out of political push, not scientific finding.
Right out of the Tobacco lobby play book. Nice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Mayacama Mtns in CA
14,523 posts, read 7,565,906 times
Reputation: 11313
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC View Post
Right out of the Tobacco lobby play book. Nice.
Actually, it's not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 10:58 AM
 
2,352 posts, read 1,807,801 times
Reputation: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macrina View Post
Actually, it's not.
At the end of the day, nothing makes me happier than smoking bans. So frankly I could care less what those who oppose the bans think.

They have made my life much better. I can fly without that crap, eat a decent meal without having to smell that crap, go to concerts without it, and I can work without breathing and smelling the foul smell.

Yep, great idea. All for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 11:12 AM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,202,495 times
Reputation: 823
I'm a casual smoker in California. I'm fine with California's laws...and we have the strictest smoking laws in the nation. I just go outside to the bar patios. Okay, I understand that it's warmer here so the prospect of smoking outside is not that bad...but if you got a good buzz going, it'll be fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 12:32 PM
 
10,494 posts, read 23,130,618 times
Reputation: 6667
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
I'm a casual smoker in California. I'm fine with California's laws...and we have the strictest smoking laws in the nation. I just go outside to the bar patios. Okay, I understand that it's warmer here so the prospect of smoking outside is not that bad...but if you got a good buzz going, it'll be fine.
If all the smokers were like you, there would not be a problem. I just do not want to be directly affected by it is all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 12:35 PM
 
10,494 posts, read 23,130,618 times
Reputation: 6667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Just as long as we are clear where you stand. You serve your self interest at the expense of others individual freedom. You do not believe in what the Constitution stands for, you believe in what "you" stand for and make sure to impose that on everyone else. Such is the nature of tyrants and the lackeys that serve them.
The Constitution is outdated for the current times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 02:39 PM
 
39,194 posts, read 40,587,898 times
Reputation: 16081
How can you justify saying this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC View Post
I have no problem with the idea of "smoking only bars"
Then follow it up with this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC View Post
At the end of the day, nothing makes me happier than smoking bans. So frankly I could care less what those who oppose the bans think.

They have made my life much better. I can fly without that crap, eat a decent meal without having to smell that crap, go to concerts without it, and I can work without breathing and smelling the foul smell.

Yep, great idea. All for it.

Those two statements or ideas are the polar opposite of each other because the bans are what took that decsion out of the hands of owners. If a bar owner wanted to make his establishment smoke free they certainly had that choice in the past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2009, 02:48 PM
 
2,352 posts, read 1,807,801 times
Reputation: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
How can you justify saying this:



Then follow it up with this:





Those two statements or ideas are the polar opposite of each other because the bans are what took that decsion out of the hands of owners. If a bar owner wanted to make his establishment smoke free they certainly had that choice in the past.
Rather simple to justify it. If a bar is smoking only, then every single patron and worker enter knowing they'll be around smoke.

It's not really that tough.

And that the bans err on the side of the non smoker, I'm also fine with that. Better that way if I had to choose.
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