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'll say the same thing conservatives say to gays: If you don't like it, get out of the state.
Indiana is just south and were a major destination for Fleeing Michiganaders.
Oh well Corruption Destroyed Detroit.
Corruption will destroy Chicago and then LA.
The owner does not want you smoking in any room. They have to because idiots like you will find some place that is falling apart but dangles the you can smoke here to lure you in. They have to compete, with a law no looser hotel can use it as a way of baiting in smokers.
That has got to be one of the most ridiculsous things I've heard in any of these anti smoking threads. Just so I have it clear in your opinion we have to ban smoking so because better motels/hotels can't compete with flea bag places?
Quote:
You do not have the right to smoke in places where others have to breath it
You may have a point here if someone was holding a gun to your head forcing you to enter an establishment that allows smoking but as it this would be your choice and therefore your responsibility as well.
Quote:
Don't blow smoke up my a s s and I wont spit on yours.
You stay in your no smoking bar and I'll go to my smoking bar, problem solved. Was that so hard?
No need to do all that for the sake of this discussion, but glad to hear your library card is well loved!
I guess some public libraries have limited scientific journals, and I'm probably spoiled because of where I've lived... the library where I work is in a small town (with limited funding), but I've resided in big cities & held their library cards for years. San Jose Public is particularly fabulous, as they're a joint institution with San Jose State University - which happens to have the only LIS program in northern CA, and which also happens to be my alma mater. So they have ALL the good journals, full text and everything.
Here's a tip, if you aren't finding what you need (in terms of electronic resources) at your local library... next time you're visiting a city with better library subscriptions, go in and get a card. Some libraries these days are charging for non-resident cardholders, but most do not. I have cards from cities I've only visited once or twice, and never plan to visit again! Eventually they will expire, but in the meantime it gives you access to their databases.
Sorry, back to the topic at hand.
I'm afraid to get what I need I would have to be either a student or a faculty member at a medical school. My card is good at most of the public libraries in GA. They are linked through a program called PINES, which gives you access to GALILEO. Just for kicks, I called UGA and I cannot get remote access through them. You have to be current student, faculty, or staff.
You're citing something for reference and admittedly have not read it and suggested Mr. McFadden purchase it to refute the claims your referencing. Let me ask you this, suppose Mr. McFadden purchases said study and begins discussing it. How are you supposed to defend your position then?
I think my point is it's a bit out of line to request someone to do something you have not done yourself.
It was Mr. McFadden who asked me to do something he had not done himself. I am content with what is available online for free.
You tell me to start another thread and then ask what is it?
There is various proposals up to and including tax on junk food like soda, limitations on salt in prepared food, limiting the amount of fast food restaurants in a given area etc. I forget which but it was either proposal or a law in one city in California that required convenient stores to sell fresh produce whether they sold it or not. These are all done under the guise of the public good and are meant to shape your habits by either directly controlling what you can do or taxing it into oblivion.
While some of the things *may* be sensible, I'm using that term loosely, just as with the smoking laws where does it end? Just as with the smoking bans these types of proposals are just another stake in the heart of freedoms and liberties we enjoy.
If you don't know what legislation you are even disussing, perhaps it's too soo to start a thread on it! As suzy_q pointed out, obesity only affects the health of the individual, not everyone around him/her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
Just as some people can smoke and live to be 100, while others die in their 40's. The same can be said of those who are exposed to SHS. In short, there is no way to accurately tell who will suffer from what or when. There are only the odds.
The point is that even with smoking, it's difficult, if not impossible, to make generalizations because every person is different. Yet, we're willing to base public policy on generalizations.
You are correct that no one can predict just who individually will be affected by SHS, but it's well documented that many are. That's the basis for most recommendations. More pro-smoking deflection.
Actually your argument points out the slippery slope does it not? We've gone from banning an activity that *may* have potential to effect others to an activity that only effects the individual participating both under the guise of "the public good".
You may suggest some of these modest proposals are really irrelvant but I would beg to differ, if 30 years ago I suggested to someone that smoking would be banned in private establishments and even some homes they would have laughed at me.
Thirty years ago there were no laptop computers and cable television was just getting its start. (HBO's thirtieth anniversary is this year.) The effects of smoking were just beginning to be understood.
SHS does affect others. Saying "*may* have the potential to do so" is just popping smoke.
A healthy population is a worthy goal for a government. If not, then we need to abandon all discussion of reforming our health care system and let every citizen fend for himself.
For tobacco, I say raise the taxes until they are high enough to discourage people from starting to smoke. Current smokers would pay the higher price or quit.
Since people have to eat, and there is no single food that could be heavily taxed to discourage people from eating it, taxing food will not work to reduce obesity.
My insurance company has an incentive program. Healthy activities, like quitting smoking or losing weight or controlling diabetes earn points which can be redeemed for cash. It in essence gives you a discount on your insurance to be healthy. the amounts of money are not large, but apparently they do not have to be to make some people change their behavior.
If you buy health insurance outside of a group, you are penalized with higher rates if you smoke or are obese. The playing field is level there.
I am sure there could be incentives to encourage restaurants to provide healthier meals and serve portions that are not as gargantuan as what you get now.
But many people just do not understand basic nutrition. It will take a massive educational program to change that.
When hospitals have to have bigger beds, operating tables designed for large animal veterinary use, and toilets that can support a quarter of a ton, something needs to be done.
You cannot ban eating, but you sure can ban smoking in public areas.
Just as some people can smoke and live to be 100, while others die in their 40's. The same can be said of those who are exposed to SHS. In short, there is no way to accurately tell who will suffer from what or when. There are only the odds.
The point is that even with smoking, it's difficult, if not impossible, to make generalizations because every person is different. Yet, we're willing to base public policy on generalizations.
There appears to be a gene which makes some people more susceptible to lung cancer. That may be why some smokers never get lung cancer.
There are genetic factors in cardiovascular disease. That may be why some smokers never get heart attacks.
We cannot use statistics to tell what will happen to an individual. We use them to tell the probability of what will happen to groups of people. Probablility tells us that smokers on average will not live as long as non-smokers.
Look at Dr. Pearl's data from 1938. Given groups of non-smokers, light smokers, and heavy smokers, at age 95 there are slightly more light smokers than non-smokers alive. Interesting, no? But the majority of deaths in light and heavy smokers come in the earlier age groups. So you may be a smoker and live to be 95, but the odds are the majority of smokers will die at earlier ages than non-smokers.
In 1938, about 43% of non-smokers died before age 65. About 62% of heavy smokers did. Light smokers were in between.
Today, adult smokers die about 14 years earlier than non-smokers. Since there is no way to know what factors protected the 95 year old smokers, it behooves us to remove tobacco from the equation.
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.
So they have ALL the good journals, full text and everything.
