Austin Council plans to ban smoking in city parks (Howe: tax, to move)

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

HTownLove, you wrote, "how does someone drinking hurt me???" I thought I had addressed this earlier, but maybe not. I'm not sure how to do it without a URL, but if you Google "Secondary Smoke, Alcohol, and Deaths" you'll eventually find a piece I wrote in the RR section of the British Medical Journal several years ago. Is it a crazy idea? Of course. But as I point out there, no crazier than secondhand smoke if you believe the Antismokers' "no safe level" mantra. Of course they may be lying. P.S. Please remember to share your source on the fire statistics, OK? Thank you.

.

A google search gives you tons of results.
saw one from 2006 that gave a figure of almost 2000 cig fires that year.

Here is another
Fire Standard Compliant Cigarettes in Texas

Cigarettes ignited at least 6799 fires and caused more than $37 million in property losses in Texas between 2003 and 2006; 37 civilians lost their lives, 163 civilians and 36 firefighters were injured due to fires that could be directly attributed to cigarettes

many major fires round the state were caused by stupid people tossing out fire butts into bushes. Don't see any hard in banning the things in parks.

Cigarette blamed in 15-acre Gregg County fire - Longview News-Journal: Local News


Texas drivers spark fires with cigarette littering - KYTX CBS 19 Tyler Longview News Weather Sports

Several fires since Labor Day have been sparked by discarded cigarettes.

"I find it extremely odd that with the fires recently in Bastrop and the drought conditions that we're currently under, that people are still showing a blatant disregard for the safety of others,"

^^ that is just it with cigarette smokers. They have no respect for the health and safety of others. It is a nasty habit and smokers are insensitive pigs

[Michael J. McFadden]

HTown, Thank you for those background stats, but what I specifically had asked for was a source backing up your statement that "Cigarette ignited fires were rampant this summer." In terms of "this summer" one of your article spoke of a fire that was still under investigation while the other simply talked of the possibility of cigarette caused fires and added the unreferenced claim that "everal fires since Labor Day have been sparked by discarded cigarettes." I certainly wouldn't dispute that it's a fire hazard, or that some fires have been caused, but I thought you might have something specific to base your claim on.

2) Did you reference my BMJ piece on alcohol? I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on that. As noted, I think it's basically just as silly as secondhand smoke.

3) I'd question your statement about the "little harm" from BBQs. Barbecues put off dioxins, naphthaline, benzene, benzo(a)pyrenes and some other rather nasty things... and that doesn't even get into all the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons when meat is tossed on the grill. And that's not even mentioning the CO emissions of hundreds or even thousands of cigarettes. I can provide references if you like and if I'm able to yet.

P.S. I didn't see anything in your 2006 reference that referred to wildfires at all. While there *may* have been a few included in your rounded figure of 2,000, my guess is that 95%+ of those were home fires.

[austinrebel]

Here's another reference to the second hand effects of alcohol, including fires. It turns out it kills way more people than second hand smoke:

http://alcoholjustice.org/images/sto...atedharm_1.pdf

[JayBrown80]

Originally Posted by austinrebel

Here's another reference to the second hand effects of alcohol, including fires. It turns out it kills way more people than second hand smoke:

http://alcoholjustice.org/images/sto...atedharm_1.pdf

Jeez...do you think maybe that's why alcohol is banned in some public places, just like cigarette smoke is?

So what is this new argument your coming up with? "Alcohol is worse than cigarette smoke, so why not ban it too?"

Because if so..

1) Thank you for finally admitting that it is not healthy to inhale cigarette smoke.
2) Alcohol IS Banned in certain public places just like smoking is banned in certain public places
3) So what? This thread is about the smoking ban in Austin Parks, not the dangers of alcohol.

You pro smoking people are running on steam at this point. I know that you and others have claimed that cigarette smoke is healthy, but even if you ignore that fallacy, numerous other reasons have been given for why having a smoking ban is good policy.

Feel free to keep on going "but what about.....but what about....but what about.....it's not fair!!!" Keep on bringing up alcohol, and grill smoke and people throwing up b/c they are drunk. Because all of these examples you are bringing up are REGULATED and PROHIBITED and it has benefited society, just like cigarette smoke now is regulated and benefiting Austinites.

You are proving our point for us by pointing out the positive societal effects of prohibiting cigarette smoke.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Originally Posted by JayBrown80

You pro smoking people are running on steam at this point. I know that you and others have claimed that cigarette smoke is healthy, but even if you ignore that fallacy, numerous other reasons have been given for why having a smoking ban is good policy. ... cigarette smoke now is regulated and benefiting Austinites.

Jay, I find it absolutely incredible that after the amount of debate here you have evidently not even bothered to do the most basic research that would have brought you to even the third sentence of my book. Let me quote the first three sentences here, OK? Heck, I'll even throw in the 4th and 5th as a bonus so you don't have to Google the dreadful website.

I am not now, nor have I ever, been a member of the Communist Party.

I am also not now, nor have I ever, been affiliated with Big Tobacco or their stocks, nor do I have any plans to be.

I also do not here, nor have I ever, tried to claim that smoking is generally good for you, although many find enough enjoyment in it to justify its risks. I do however argue that long-term risk from normal contact with other peoples’ smoke are virtually non-existent. Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains will show clear evidence that the risk of secondary smoke to nonsmokers has been twisted and exaggerated beyond all reason purely as a tool of social engineering.

Note, in particular, the italicized portion. I do NOT appreciate having my clearly stated position twisted or manipulated for effect.

Now more directly in terms of the Austin park ban you say, "... cigarette smoke now is regulated and benefiting Austinites." while you still have not, despite repeated requests, managed to produce even ONE study, much less two or three, that you believe show that cigarette smoke in parks has any detrimental effect on people (even Austinites). Without that there is no claim to be made that its regulation there is benefitting Austinites.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by JayBrown80

Which statement? His statement that cigarette butts can't burn, or cause fires? That ashes are burnt out and can't start fires?

Or your statements? Calling people whiners?

You are a name caller and a hypocrite in this thread THL, so I don't see you having any moral authority to bring up the pot/kettle argument. In fact, you were the first one to start calling names in this thread. Why should anyone listen to you when you can't back up your argument without calling someone a "whiner"?

+1. Especially about HorseLady calling another person a whiner and then saying to you pot meet kettle, lol. Some people just don't see.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

I have to agree that a line has to be drawn. We can't be legislating things just because someone doesn't like them (which is what CptnRn's post very clearly advocates). Not and still make ANY of the claims about being a free country that we're so proud of.

Now, if you WANT to live in a country where things that someone doesn't like are legislated against solely on that basis, there are plenty out there, I'm sure. You don't need to go trying to make the United States into one of them. Though there are plenty of people out there that seem to want to do that, forgetting in their zeal to make sure that they never run any risk of being offended by something someone else is doing that if they advocate that, they are subject to the same in their turn. I personally find that kind of self-righteousness and "I'm the center of the universe" attitude grossly offensive and if I thought that way would like to legislate against it. Come to think of it, it's precisely that kind of attitude that led some to be so offended and threatened by someone doing something they didn't approve of that they flew airplanes into buildings just to try to make that point.

It's all a matter of degree, but the attitude is the same.

You are really out of line IMHO. It's a shame because I used to respect you quite a bit but this thread has been shameful. Just let it go TexasHorseLady, just let it go.

Austin is about love, peace, and barbeque. Just let it go, just let it go...

[cBach]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

It IS regulated. Our government has many other things to do more important than another smoking regulations. The US already has the lowest smoking rate of any industrialized country. An occasional whiff of second hand smoke outdoors isn't worth worrying about.

As I said before - if we want to save lives, fix obesity.

Anyone here complaining about second hand smoke outdoors because of its tiny danger to their health should look in the mirror and make sure they like the size of their waist.

I do like the size of my waist. Next question.

[cBach]

JayBrown, arguing with Austinrebel is like talking to a wall. Let this post be closed off, it's not going anywhere. Like I said to TexasHorseLady, just let it go.

I realized the futility of debating with smokers when a Red Cross worker at a shelter was there and she asked me how the Steiner Ranch fires were started and I told her I thought it was a cigarette butt that someone threw out the window. She was a smoker and her body posture and face immediately turned defensive and the conversation soured.

And she was supposed to be comforting me in my time of need but her "smoking rights" triumphed that I guess, at least in her mind.

Probably the best way to get to the smokers is to keep the "sin" taxes super high so it hurts smokers each time they have to feed their addiction.

Peace out.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Originally Posted by cBach

JayBrown, arguing with Austinrebel is like talking to a wall. Let this post be closed off,

cBach, you know what's interesting? I'd be willing to bet a helluva lot o' beans that if you wander around CityData, you will NEVER find a Free Choice advocate asking for a debate to be closed off -- for any reason, even the most vile and nasty slurs.

But for some reason, those in favor of bans, restrictions, and taxes, seem all too eager to always close off that avenue of free, non-funded, communication.

Care to comment on why that might be?

And then think about what groups in Austin might be promoting this particular "limited ban" (which actually, in and of itself, is a ban I might agree with in terms of fire hazards) and what their funding associations/background is.

Things are not quite so black and white as you might think.