Why is secondhand smoke not considered a form of assault? (ethical, lawyers)
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.
I want marijuana included in all smoking laws of where you can and can't do it. I don't care if you eat it anywhere. Just want it treated the same as cigarettes and cigars. Waiting for the no smoking ads on TV to include it. Think that will happen?
I want marijuana included in all smoking laws of where you can and can't do it. I don't care if you eat it anywhere. Just want it treated the same as cigarettes and cigars. Waiting for the no smoking ads on TV to include it. Think that will happen?
There does seem to be a certain group of people who think that cigarette smoke wafts across oceans and that smoking is responsible for all our healthcare costs yet if you say the same about marijuana they'll say, "private prisons".
If you do not wish to query the website about sources that is your choice. However, the absence of citations at that site is not the same as the absence of sources. I suspect the references would be happily supplied if you chose to ask.
What I said was that my personal experience was in line with the level of exposure described in the article. I have made it clear that that is a personal observation. It is much more in line with what I have experienced than the poster here who is claiming to have done his own calculations and come up with a laughably low level of exposure.
Sorry, but the body of evidence of harm from secondhand smoke is convincing. It is not "overestimated". The adverse effects of exposure to secondhand smoke are cumulative, and I choose not to be exposed at all.
I continue to be amused by your assertion that cigarette smoke does not stink. I think even smokers agree that it does.
The whole point of the thread is that many smokers do inconvenience others. If they did not, all of us non-smokers would be very happy.
Again...if a site seeks to inform responsibly, they use proper references...I'm not going to go through the entire website and look it up myself - YOU can do better than that...especially for this forum.
Your exposure will sadly never be zero...and please, stop putting words in my mouth - i never said smoke doesn't have an odor so stop turning it around.
The whole point of the thread was about ASSAULT - you've now reduced it to how people should not even be "inconvenienced" by smokers when that is a matter of opinion? Well, that certainly makes your case a lot easier to prove! I hope you're not saying someone should be sentenced for assaulting someone if that person walks by them on the sidewalk and they are exposed to second hand smoke for 2 seconds. You could also convict all the vehicles on the road spewing exhaust - we all know that can kill you in an enclosed space so it's all just a matter of degree. I choose zero exposure!
Again...if a site seeks to inform responsibly, they use proper references...I'm not going to go through the entire website and look it up myself - YOU can do better than that...especially for this forum.
Your exposure will sadly never be zero...and please, stop putting words in my mouth - i never said smoke doesn't have an odor so stop turning it around.
The whole point of the thread was about ASSAULT - you've now reduced it to how people should not even be "inconvenienced" by smokers when that is a matter of opinion? Well, that certainly makes your case a lot easier to prove! I hope you're not saying someone should be sentenced for assaulting someone if that person walks by them on the sidewalk and they are exposed to second hand smoke for 2 seconds. You could also convict all the vehicles on the road spewing exhaust - we all know that can kill you in an enclosed space so it's all just a matter of degree. I choose zero exposure!
As I said, I am sure the references are available. If it is so important to you, ask for them. You could do so in the time it takes to write one post here.
Your response to me is frankly bizarre. You have insisted that walking through cigarette smoke will not cause the odor to stick to clothing, when that is not true. Sorry, but I have the right to dislike smokers imposing that inconvenience on me even if it is not going to kill me on the spot.
Exposure to motor vehicle exhaust is the price we pay for rapid transportation and getting goods and services delivered to us, and in fact there are ongoing efforts to reduce exhaust emissions. Smoking in the presence of people who do not want to be exposed to it has no redeeming value at all.
As I said, I am sure the references are available. If it is so important to you, ask for them. You could do so in the time it takes to write one post here.
Your response to me is frankly bizarre. You have insisted that walking through cigarette smoke will not cause the odor to stick to clothing, when that is not true. Sorry, but I have the right to dislike smokers imposing that inconvenience on me even if it is not going to kill me on the spot.
Exposure to motor vehicle exhaust is the price we pay for rapid transportation and getting goods and services delivered to us, and in fact there are ongoing efforts to reduce exhaust emissions. Smoking in the presence of people who do not want to be exposed to it has no redeeming value at all.
Again, silliness - I'm not going to ask a website to provide what they don't have - if they had the references they would proudly display them for the benefit of all. And if you wanted to make your case you'd have come up with a better source but that is not for me to do for you.
And now this debate about you being allowed to DISLIKE smokers? Certainly! You can dislike whatever you want. No one here has disputed that you can't be annoyed, irritated or even hate smokers (or their smoke, if you will - hate the sin, not the sinner ) It's all in the degree of harm and whether that "harm" is enough for you to infringe on a smoker's rights to the pursuit of happiness. If the degree of harm isn't pertinent, then wearing perfume is an assault to those with allergies. Me having a peanut butter sandwich is an assault to someone with a peanut allergy if I'm talking and standing too close to them...I could go on but it only becomes sillier.
People are inconvenienced every day in every way...that is not notable...and certainly not equivalent to assault - which is again the topic of this great debate. As usual, after a couple pages the debate inevitably devolves...where oh where are the moderators when you need them?
Again, silliness - I'm not going to ask a website to provide what they don't have - if they had the references they would proudly display them for the benefit of all. And if you wanted to make your case you'd have come up with a better source but that is not for me to do for you.
And now this debate about you being allowed to DISLIKE smokers? Certainly! You can dislike whatever you want. No one here has disputed that you can't be annoyed, irritated or even hate smokers (or their smoke, if you will - hate the sin, not the sinner ) It's all in the degree of harm and whether that "harm" is enough for you to infringe on a smoker's rights to the pursuit of happiness. If the degree of harm isn't pertinent, then wearing perfume is an assault to those with allergies. Me having a peanut butter sandwich is an assault to someone with a peanut allergy if I'm talking and standing too close to them...I could go on but it only becomes sillier.
People are inconvenienced every day in every way...that is not notable...and certainly not equivalent to assault - which is again the topic of this great debate. As usual, after a couple pages the debate inevitably devolves...where oh where are the moderators when you need them?
Where have I said I dislike smokers?
What I said was, "I have the right to dislike smokers imposing that inconvenience on me ..."
English lesson:
smokers imposing that inconvenience on me is a dependent clause which is the object of the verb dislike.
What I dislike is described by the entire clause: smokers imposing that inconvenience on me.
To clarify: I meant I dislike the the inconvenience imposed upon me by smokers.
Stating it the first way uses four fewer words.
I do not dislike smokers. I feel sorry for them. They will die early and be miserable in the process. They just need to learn not to impose their secondhand smoke on other people, even when they are outdoors, because those other people do not want to be exposed to it.
Guess what: the reason someone does not want to be exposed to your smoke is none of your business. You do not get to tell them to accept the inconvenience and live with it.
By the way, the OP may have framed the debate in terms of assault - a form of hyperbole - but the real issue is smokers who are inconsiderate when smoking around other people in public spaces. The "smoker's rights to the pursuit of happiness" end where my body begins. I am the one who defines how much "harm" I am willing to accept, not the smoker, even if the only "harm" is the need to shower and wash my clothes to get rid of the stink.
"But what do such exposure levels really mean? It is difficult to make exact comparisons, and equating a workers’ exposure to carcinogenic chemicals with that worker smoking “x†number of cigarettes is an uncertain science: intake and toxicity are functions of a variety of factors, and second-hand smoke itself contains higher levels of some toxic substances compared to “mainstream†smoke.
Still, for broad comparative purposes, it is useful to draw some sort of equivalency. The best data available suggests ... the customer or worker who spends two hours in a smoky bar has inhaled the equivalent of four cigarettes.10"
References at the link.
In your effort to convince yourself that your smoking does not hurt anyone else you are greatly under-estimating the effect secondhand smoke has.
a) I'm not a smoker and I think anyone who smokes is quite foolish. By the same token, I think anyone who thinks second hand smoke is dangerous is ignorant of the facts, and if they are trying to impose their values on the smokers, then they are just as rude as the smokers who are imposing their smoke on others.
b) Your references can say anything they like, but my calculations expose the real situation. Your references are patently wrong according to the math I presented. Can you point out any weakness in the numbers I presented?
c) It is in fact difficult to draw general conclusions about the effects of smoking on health because there are so many other factors involved: individual genetic resistance to damage caused by the chemicals, individual genetic ability to repair the damage caused by the chemicals, other factors of lifestyle that negate or counter-balance the effects of smoking, the way the smoker indulges in his habit, etc etc
d) Please present bona fide evidence that second hand smoke is detrimental. The only papers attempting to do this have pretty dubious methods, unimpressive data, statistical analyses that are of borderline significance and do not adequately account for confounding variables-- in short, junk science.
a) I'm not a smoker and I think anyone who smokes is quite foolish. By the same token, I think anyone who thinks second hand smoke is dangerous is ignorant of the facts, and if they are trying to impose their values on the smokers, then they are just as rude as the smokers who are imposing their smoke on others.
b) Your references can say anything they like, but my calculations expose the real situation. Your references are patently wrong according to the math I presented. Can you point out any weakness in the numbers I presented?
c) It is in fact difficult to draw general conclusions about the effects of smoking on health because there are so many other factors involved: individual genetic resistance to damage caused by the chemicals, individual genetic ability to repair the damage caused by the chemicals, other factors of lifestyle that negate or counter-balance the effects of smoking, the way the smoker indulges in his habit, etc etc
d) Please present bona fide evidence that second hand smoke is detrimental. The only papers attempting to do this have pretty dubious methods, unimpressive data, statistical analyses that are of borderline significance and do not adequately account for confounding variables-- in short, junk science.
a) The smoker who smokes where there will be people who do not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke is the one who is rude. There is no necessity to smoke at all. If you cannot go without your nicotine fix for more than ten seconds, get some Nicorette gum.
b) Dear heart, I will take the "numbers" from the lab geeks over your "numbers." Sorry.
c) The conclusions about the effects of smoking on health are based on studies of millions of people in different scenarios and are unequivocally established.
Im quite in shock at any response saying passive smoking is an inconvenience, grow up for gods sake its dangerous to us all , selfish to the extreme and kills.. Passive smoking | Cancer Research UK
Choose references from c) and d) and rip 'em apart. Tell us exactly what makes them "junk science."
I usually don't like to attack the messenger, but really, quoting the govt on anything factual really detracts from your argument. When have they ever been right about anything? We don't even fight wars well anymore.
I have read the research papers on a regular basis for almost 50 yrs. You pick one and I'll pick it apart. I defined junk science in my last post. Well known example: Well accepted data: yearly risk of MI in those with no risk factors: 4 in 1000; risk in those with chol >300mg%: 8 in 1000. Twice the risk! ( 4 compared to 8) Statistically significant! BUT: same numbers viewed "in reverse"-- risk of NOT having an MI: 996/1000 vs 992/1000- a difference of only 0.4%--clinicallyinsignificant.
I do agree with you that it's rude behavior to smoke in public, imposing your smoke on others. But is that any different than you opiniating in public and imposing those opinions ion others? Smoke may smell foul to some, but so do some opinions.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
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.
) It's all in the degree of harm and whether that "harm" is enough for you to infringe on a smoker's rights to the pursuit of happiness. If the degree of harm isn't pertinent, then wearing perfume is an assault to those with allergies. Me having a peanut butter sandwich is an assault to someone with a peanut allergy if I'm talking and standing too close to them...I could go on but it only becomes sillier. 
