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.
You don't have to take the risk of entering a smoking establishment either. Just as with a tunnel, there are alternatives you can take.
The point is that if your position is based upon the principle that all SHS, in any quantity, is a health risk, you need to be consistent and avoid it in every circumstance. Otherwise, your position looks false and contrived.
The arrogance of smokers is amazing! "You don't like smoke, don't go there!" The burden should be on the smokers; they are the ones who are doing something injurious to public health.
Exactly. My old soldiers reunion this year will be in Door County, WI and I will not attend.
Why? Because I will not spend my money in a state which doesn't want my business.
See? That's how the free market works! What's wrong with that?
That is stupid, to deny yourself the pleasure of the company of your friends, just b/c you can't smoke in the hotel/motel! Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
Trimac, banning smoking can be a bigger fire hazard: hidden smoking without proper fire-safety devices like ashtrays is far more hazardous. Go back over the news stories on fires in the last ten years and check out the increasing numbers of fire-deaths caused by the intentional disabling of smoke alarms after bans are instituted. Smoking never normally sets those things off, but once a ban is in place smokers become paranoid about them (because they might face eviction or a $500 "fine" if somehow they DID set one off) and disable them.
Should the smokers who do that be excused? Of course not. But if it's actual fire safety rather than social engineering that you're concerned about it then you should work with Free Choice groups to get rid of the mandated bans.
That is stupid, to deny yourself the pleasure of the company of your friends, just b/c you can't smoke in the hotel/motel! Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
It's a matter of principle. You do understand principles, don't you? Just as I said in a previous post, either your principles mean something, or they don't. At least mine are genuine. Unlike those anti-smoker's who will tolerate some level of SHS when it's convenient for them, mine don't vacillate depending upon the circumstance.
But, don't worry. I'll see them somewhere else another time.
You don't have to take the risk of entering a smoking establishment either. Just as with a tunnel, there are alternatives you can take.
The point is that if your position is based upon the principle that all SHS, in any quantity, is a health risk, you need to be consistent and avoid it in every circumstance. Otherwise, your position looks false and contrived.
SHS in in any quantity is a health risk.
I do avoid wherever I can, so There is no inconsistency in my approach.
If smokers would be more considerate, it would be easier.
Am I supposed to stay home because I cannot get into stores and restaurants because the smokers feel they must stand right in front of the entrances to smoke? Am I supposed to not get out of my car in a parking lot because the smokers light up and walk to their cars, trailing smoke behind them? Am I not supposed to walk down a sidewalk because the smokers feel it is all right to light up even when they are in a crowd?
A lot of the animosity felt by non-smokers for smokers is due to the lack of consideration many (not all) smokers have for others. When they stand in front of the entrance to a grocery store and smoke, it pretty well defeats the purpose of banning smoking inside. Every person who enters or leaves, including babies and children, has to pass through that curtain of smoke.
Your position is the one that is contrived, unless you mean to support outdoor bans, too.
Any exposure that I have to SHS is not voluntary.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 01-05-2012 at 09:10 AM..
It's a matter of principle. You do understand principles, don't you? Just as I said in a previous post, either your principles mean something, or they don't. At least mine are genuine. Unlike those anti-smoker's who will tolerate some level of SHS when it's convenient for them, mine don't vacillate depending upon the circumstance.
But, don't worry. I'll see them somewhere else another time.
Accusing people of lack of principles is coming close to a personal attack.
Katiana, good to see you back and admiring my "mental gymnastics" as you call them, but you seem to have missed the last posting I made to you:
===
Katiana, it's fun watching you continue to complain about people "deflecting" from the main discussion while you yourself have continuously avoided the main question posed to you: cite and defend even just a few specific scientific studies that are freely available online showing any real harm to health that would come to people from staying in a hotel where some rooms allowed smoking.
Without that, all you've got are your obviously extreme "feelings" about a distaste for smoke and off-topic comments about the harm of smoking to smokers themselves.
===
Wouldn't want anyone to accuse you of "deflecting" or anything so I thought I'd repost it for you as a favor.
Katiana, good to see you back and admiring my "mental gymnastics" as you call them, but you seem to have missed the last posting I made to you:
===
Katiana, it's fun watching you continue to complain about people "deflecting" from the main discussion while you yourself have continuously avoided the main question posed to you: cite and defend even just a few specific scientific studies that are freely available online showing any real harm to health that would come to people from staying in a hotel where some rooms allowed smoking.
Without that, all you've got are your obviously extreme "feelings" about a distaste for smoke and off-topic comments about the harm of smoking to smokers themselves.
===
Wouldn't want anyone to accuse you of "deflecting" or anything so I thought I'd repost it for you as a favor.
A favor my left, uh, foot!
You are showing you don't understand research, even though you have a PhD (I think). Several of us have poste numerous threads about the harmfulness of second hand smoke. It doesn't matter if the smoke was generated in a motel or in a brothel or where. It's the second hand smoke that's harmful, not the setting!
Let me get this straight: Since non-smoking casino's are losing money to neighboring states which allow smoking, the solution is to make those other states go non-smoking too?
What a great idea! That way, they can ALL lose money! That's insane.
You are assuming that all the smokers will stop gambling. Do you think that is true? Will they stop gambling altogether because they cannot sit at the slot machine and smoke, but have to go outside?
You are showing you don't understand research, even though you have a PhD (I think). Several of us have poste numerous threads about the harmfulness of second hand smoke. It doesn't matter if the smoke was generated in a motel or in a brothel or where. It's the second hand smoke that's harmful, not the setting!
I do not have a doctorate. I had a full fellowship for a doctoral program at Wharton and I studied under it for two years. I left because I felt I could be more effective in promoting peace as an activist than as a researcher. At that point in history time seemed to be of the essence, and waiting fifty years for computer to catch up to the sort of statistical and behavioral modeling we were doing didn't seem to be the best course.
I agree that it doesn't matter where smoke is "generated." What matters is its concentration and the duration of exposure to it -- just as with exposure to any other potentially harmful or carcinogenic element in our environment. Which is exactly why I've asked you to cite the research you have read that shows the exposures and durations of exposure you would get from the smoke from people smoking in other rooms, particularly rooms on other floors or in other wings (I believe it was you who talked about the smoke from other wings yesterday, was it not?) is harmful. If you have posted "on numerous numerous threads about the harmfulness of second hand smoke" then I'm sure you must have done such research and read such studies: why the reluctance to share and defend them?
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.