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 love not having to choke down other people's smoke. When it was proven that second hand smoke is not good for you, that seals it with me. Take the carcinigen outside where you can slowly murder yourself. Keep it suicide, not homocide.
It is not though and if you are willing to accept what they claim is proven, then I can make anything and everything "proven" harmful. The problem with their "proven" is that it is nothing more than poor application of statistical evaluation.
You know the saying about the three types of lies? "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics".
You are both right and wrong here. You're right that freedom isn't free, but you are dead wrong in the inane idea that the cost of freedom must be paid by giving up a little piece of freedom.
I agree with pretty much everything you are saying. I get the 1984 angle. I agree that lots of ban supporters are trying to take it way too far, thus creating the vitriolic response from smokers. The texting ban sounds really dumb. But regarding the above quote, I don't see it (the smoking ban) as giving up one's freedom, I see it as respecting others' freedom as equal to my own. What happens when 2 freedom bubbles intersect? Something has to give, and in my opinion it should be the one creating the intersection, not the one doing nothing. I'm not even saying I support the bans, just that I can see why this particular issue came to a head.
I agree with pretty much everything you are saying. I get the 1984 angle. I agree that lots of ban supporters are trying to take it way too far, thus creating the vitriolic response from smokers. The texting ban sounds really dumb. But regarding the above quote, I don't see it (the smoking ban) as giving up one's freedom, I see it as respecting others' freedom as equal to my own. What happens when 2 freedom bubbles intersect? Something has to give, and in my opinion it should be the one creating the intersection, not the one doing nothing. I'm not even saying I support the bans, just that I can see why this particular issue came to a head.
No freedoms are being infringed of those who are annoyed by the smoke. They are free to remove themselves from the offender if it is in a public place and they are free to avoid private establishments that allow it.
Try to define exactly which freedom is being infringed upon with the non-smoker? What freedom is it they have concerning this and why is that a freedom?
The problem here is that the offended party is taking liberty with what freedom means.
It would be like me complaining that your form of discussion offends me and by me going anywhere and having the chance of briefly encountering it, then that is an infringement on my freedom. So, naturally, so there is never any chance of me encountering your nuisance, you should be banned from ever discussing anything.
Do you see the absurdity of it? There is no responsibility on the part of the person who is offended. Everyone else must cater to their demands and in what world does that = freedom?
Well we've already had this back and forth so I guess I have to agree to disagree. You think people minding their own business need to take it upon themselves to avoid a smoker, while I think smokers' should take the initiative and control their own habit which is well known to disturb others. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances around, so they don't. Often they can't, they just need a fix and to hell with everyone else.
If 2 people are doing nothing but standing next to each other, there is no issue. Now one of them starts smoking. Why is it incumbent on the person doing nothing to resolve it? Why can't the smoker resolve it? They created the issue. Now most likely, the person doing nothing WILL resolve the issue, if it bothers them enough, and leave. But why should they have to? They aren't doing anything. The smoker created the issue. In a world without common courtesy, some have resorted to bans in this case to REQUIRE courtesy, because this particular nuisance is so particularly objectionable.
Well we've already had this back and forth so I guess I have to agree to disagree. You think people minding their own business need to take it upon themselves to avoid a smoker, while I think smokers' should take the initiative and control their own habit which is well known to disturb others. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances around, so they don't. Often they can't, they just need a fix and to hell with everyone else.
If 2 people are doing nothing but standing next to each other, there is no issue. Now one of them starts smoking. Why is it incumbent on the person doing nothing to resolve it? Why can't the smoker resolve it? They created the issue. Now most likely, the person doing nothing WILL resolve the issue, if it bothers them enough, and leave. But why should they have to? They aren't doing anything. The smoker created the issue. In a world without common courtesy, some have resorted to bans in this case to REQUIRE courtesy, because this particular nuisance is so particularly objectionable.
I agree and make the same points all the time! I am completely befuddled by the whole "if they don't like it they can leave" argument. Anyone with a twinkle of logic and common sense can see that is flat out wrong. It's not even a difference of opinion, it the difference between logic and .... I don't know, whatever smokers tell themselves I suppose.
As a continuation from post (#530), I'm going to continue the shock therapy by making a statement that is likely to have everyone's head spinning, followed by irrational anger and a storm of insults ... so be it
There is credible evidence that suggests that smoking actually protects the lungs from cancer ... in absolute 180 degree opposition to everything you've been told all of your life, cigarette smoking doesn't cause, but helps (slightly) to prevent lung cancer.
Now the way the human mind works, it automatically wants to reject this without a moment's consideration .. totally uninterested in the underlying reasoning or facts for such a challenge to well established beliefs ... so as you are experiencing that automatic response, you can allow yourself to remain trapped in it, or exercise personal autonomy and self control long enough to satisfy curiosity.
The anecdotal evidence of this truth can be seen in Japan and Greece, who have the largest per capita adult smoking populations in the world, while enjoying the lowest lung cancer rates, while America, Australia and Russia have the lowest numbers of smokers and the highest rates. This would seem to fly in the face of logic, given the claims that smoking causes lung cancer. If that claim be true, one would expect a correlating level of lung cancer to smokers, and not the opposite, which is what is actually seen.
And this also is reflected in the slightly higher rates of lung cancer seen in non smokers versus smokers overall (by percentages and not raw numbers), which would indicate that if there is any association between smoking and lung cancer, it would be a protective factor, rather than a causitive factor, however slight. And this is not evidence that second hand smoke is more dangerous than first hand ... that was the lie promoted to address this inconvenient inverse relationship seen between smokers and lung cancer victims that directly challenge the smoking=cancer claims. They had to come up with some answer .. and that's what they came up with, even though it really is preposterous on the surface, and makes no sense, accept that it does serve to enroll the masses of non-smokers into an army of anti-smoking soldiers to attack tobacco, with the "dangers" of second hand smoke as their trusty war banner.
Again, you can choose to dismiss this outright ... turn off the brain's thinking sections and just grasp tightly to beliefs that have been slowly and deliberately fed you ... but why would you? Are you that trapped .. having no control over your own mind ... a life long victim of instilled dogma that you've become so psychologically attached to that you are afraid to let go of, and compelled to reject any outside threat .. even if it might be true?
Or is it just that you find the idea hard to believe that government would ever lie to you? Or that you believe that government really does care about your health? If you believe either of those two things, you might be a hopeless case. I dare say the majority of thinking persons already accept the fact that government lies quite often, and that the track record suggests something less than deep concern for your well being. And if that be true, why would it not be possible for them to lie to you about smoking and lung cancer? If you realize the long history of government dishonesty, you must at least acknowledge the possibility with regard to tobacco. Otherwise, your thoughts are not rational.
So, let's agree that government lies, since it would be silly to suggest it doesn't. And let's assume that government's concern for your well being is "exaggerated". Why then has government spent so much time and resources demonizing tobacco and convincing you that smoking is the major cause of the Millions of deaths from lung cancer? Glad you asked.
Aside from the most recent downplaying of the real danger of radiation (in response to the significantly elevated levels of radiation in the US and Canada from Japan's multiple nuclear disasters that are still ongoing), as the EPA has increased the safe levels by as much as a 1000 fold just recently ... it's been long accepted and proven scientific fact that radiation causes cancer. Well, radiation causes lung cancer too.
You see, radiation is actually the primary suspect in the vast increases in lung cancer seen from the 1950's moving forward, and the likely source of that radiation is open air nuclear weapons testing that began and continued throughout the 1940's, 50's 60's onward. Prior to the nuclear age, lung cancers were not that prevalent, even though cigarette smoking was. The fact is, one particle of radioactive material inhaled into the lung will result in lung cancer. And the atmosphere is littered with such radioactive particulate from nuclear weapons testing, and accidental releases from nuclear power plant accidents such as Chernobyl, which is estimated to have caused a Million deaths to date, and may affect human health for decades to come.
Well, some explanation for this rise in lung cancers had to be offered, and smoking became the logical and believable scapegoat. Smoke ... inhale that into your lungs ... causes lung cancer ... totally makes sense. That is, until someone studies the raw data, and says ... wait a minute ... why do greater percentages of non smokers get lung cancer ... it seems to be the opposite .... which inevitably receives the SHUT UP ... that's crazy, we know smoking causes cancer ... that's not even debatable ... I don't care what the data says ... it's wrong ... what is wrong with you ... blah, blah, blah. That's how scientific debate works today. There is consensus opinion, and then there is immediate character assassination for anyone who dares challenge the consensus, much like science has always been .. just ask Galileo, if you don't believe me. But I digress ...
Anyway, the reality is, smoking is an irritant, and causes increases in mucus inside the lungs. The hypothesis is that this mucus layer actually protects the lungs from this radioactive particulate, and if a particle is by chance inhaled, it get's trapped in the mucus and expelled, rather than becoming lodged in the lung tissue, causing cancer, as might be more likely to occur in those non smokers who don't have that protective mucus layer. This would indeed explain this inverse relationship between smokers and the numbers developing lung cancer which is seen to occur in greater frequency in non smokers. This also makes sense, and it also fits the data, when the smoking=cancer does not.
Now I can anticipate the next response ... "So you mean to suggest that government doesn't want us to smoke because it wants us to get lung cancer?" Well, that's not necessarily the only possible motive ... it could be as simple as not wanting it to be discovered that most all of those cancers were caused by government conducted nuclear weapons testing, in spite of the known dangers (and the dangers were known at the time, and were covered up ... surprise surprise). But I wouldn't dismiss the idea either .. given the massive revenue for the medical establishment in treating cancer as huge bonuses all the way around. A trifecta for the New World Order psychopathic murders that they are, who also advocate the idea of over population and the need to reduce it. Lung cancer is just as effective, and much less overt than war when it comes to killing people and reducing population numbers.
Think these ghouls who have invaded several countries and killed Millions of people would care about a half a million lung cancer victims that represent Billions in revenue to the medical industry ? (which they also own).
I know all of this is just too much for many to get their head around .. and that's to be expected. Like I said, the human mind does work in predictable ways, and once the mind totally accepts an idea as true, it takes a significant effort to deprogram itself, and accept new, contradictory information.
It takes time ... no one can actually tell you the truth, one can only point you to it, and then you must discover that truth for yourself.
I agree and make the same points all the time! I am completely befuddled by the whole "if they don't like it they can leave" argument. Anyone with a twinkle of logic and common sense can see that is flat out wrong. It's not even a difference of opinion, it the difference between logic and .... I don't know, whatever smokers tell themselves I suppose.
Oh yes indeedy ... it's such a night and day difference ...
Smoker- Hey, don't like the smoke ... you can always sit over there or leave ...
Non-Smoker- Hey smoker .. quit smoking or leave .....I'm more important.
Big difference my arse ... it's the same freaking argument .. the only difference is the smoker is not the whiny baby constantly complaining about the rest of the solar system not agreeing to revolve around them. How dare they not recognize the superiority of the rights of the non smoker?
Liberals aren't licensed or qualified to discuss logic ... so stop.
Oh yes indeedy ... it's such a night and day difference ...
Smoker- Hey, don't like the smoke ... you can always sit over there or leave ...
Non-Smoker- Hey smoker .. quit smoking or leave .....I'm more important.
Big difference my arse ... it's the same freaking argument .. the only difference is the smoker is not the whiny baby constantly complaining about the rest of the solar system not agreeing to revolve around them. How dare they not recognize the superiority of the rights of the non smoker?
Liberals aren't licensed or qualified to discuss logic ... so stop.
Smokers aren't whiny? This whole backlash comes from what? The indignity of having to walk a short distance and stand outside of an establishment for a few minutes? Oh but it's too far, and it's cold outside waah!
Every bartender I've spoken to (and I am at a bar at least 4 afternoons/nights a week), loves the smoking ban and that's enough to convince me. Also, many smokers appreciate the chance to socialize and strike up conversations with random strangers who also stepped outside for a smoke. In fact, at my Friday night bar there's a group of friends who otherwise wouldn't know of each other's existence if they didn't all meet while smoking in front of the bar.
Oh yes indeedy ... it's such a night and day difference ...
Smoker- Hey, don't like the smoke ... you can always sit over there or leave ...
Non-Smoker- Hey smoker .. quit smoking or leave .....I'm more important.
Big difference my arse ... it's the same freaking argument .. the only difference is the smoker is not the whiny baby constantly complaining about the rest of the solar system not agreeing to revolve around them. How dare they not recognize the superiority of the rights of the non smoker?
Liberals aren't licensed or qualified to discuss logic ... so stop.
It's not the same since smoking is the ACTION..it's not the normal state, it takes someone to pick up a cig and light it and then pollute (yes, pollute) the air everyone there is breathing. That is not the actions of a thinking person.
If they want to smoke that's fine, although it's only fine because it hasn't been illegal and people got used to doing it wherever they damn well please and now it feels like a takeaway to not get to keep doing it forever, everywhere. You can't expect everyone else to clear the room or say it's the same arguement. It's not even close, it's the OPPOSITE arguement. How does your brain not grasp that?
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.
