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.
If you watch films that predate the 90's, you can see that smoking was virtually allowed anyplace in America: planes, restaurants, bars, public buildings, offices, etc. Now this is almost impossible to find, except for some particular places. I think smoking gives men that macho attiude and makes women sexy. What do you think? If America doesn't have socialized healthcare, why should the Government (stateside, county, local) prevent its citziens to smoke wherever they want?
Personally, I just miss -- terribly -- the era as a whole before Nannyism.
I don't care if it's smoking policy, salt/trans fat legislation, not hiring the obese, whatever....we're giving up our rights in order to legislate and subtly dictate personal behavior, period. After each new ban or restriction is passed, we find a new behavior that we don't like, and we go after it with pitchforks and torches.
The 'annoyed' feel satisfied...until the mob comes after them.
The result has been the creation of a country filled with arrogant, self-righteous whiners who feel that anything they don't like is automatically subject to restriction, taxation, or villification at their whim and pleasure.
And now almost no one has any semblance of tolerance of anything they find the least bit displeasing.
What few people who rally behind these bans and restrictions realize is that the push for them is usually a lot of incentive in the way of cash.
Your intolerance and whining = Someone raking it in (and laughing at the unrest and anger the legislation caused)
If the person that is doing nothing, continued to do nothing, there would be no conflict to resolve. It is the person initiating the OBJECTION that is creating a conflict.
OMG..this is everything that's wrong with the world right here. The "I can do whatever I want" attitude.
THe person can continue to do nothing and suffer and die. Then there would be no conflict either but I'm not living my life that way and either is anyone else. Smoking sucks and it's unhealthy and nasty and dirty and shouldn't be inflicted on anyone. Can't argue with facts just becasue you used to be able to do it.
If I feel like smoking I just go outside. That's it. I don't understand the big deal. Here in Seoul, it sucks because everything reeks of cigarette smoke. Coming home at 6:30am (the metro stops at 12:00 and starts at 5:30...taxis are 20 bucks or so) is tough enough. I don't want to smell like the club I was just in. The only reminders I want are embarrassing pictures and possibly the Noraebang (singing room) songs stick in my head.
Even in the dead of winter, I simply go outside...yes even in a place where there is no smoking ban. I firmly believe that my liberties end at the tip of your nose and vice-versa.
If I feel like smoking I just go outside. That's it. I don't understand the big deal. Here in Seoul, it sucks because everything reeks of cigarette smoke. Coming home at 6:30am (the metro stops at 12:00 and starts at 5:30...taxis are 20 bucks or so) is tough enough. I don't want to smell like the club I was just in. The only reminders I want are embarrassing pictures and possibly the Noraebang (singing room) songs stick in my head.
Even in the dead of winter, I simply go outside...yes even in a place where there is no smoking ban. I firmly believe that my liberties end at the tip of your nose and vice-versa.
Well said !!!!
Smoking is not like drinking or any other vice. It is intrusive into other people's lives, and that is why people shouldn't have a "right" to do it in public places.
Smokers argue that drinking is more dangerous because someone can get drunk and potentially kill someone in their car. But there are laws ALREADY in existence which deal with DUI.
Smokers argue that their "liberties" are being taken away. That is total BS.
People don't have the right to make loud noise in the middle of the night. You can call the police and they will be forced to stop.
Are those people who like to blast their stereos after midnight having their "liberties" taken away as well when the police show up at their door?
Smoking not only bothers those who have to smell it, but it also creates serious health problems for those who inhale it.
When manufacturing plants pollute the air of residential neighborhoods, the plants are forced to correct the situation, otherwise they are fined or shut down.
That is what the citizens of our country have decided the laws should be concerning air pollution.
We don't want to be forced to smell foul odors outside our homes or breath in toxic chemicals.
And cigarette smoking isn't any different. It's just another form of toxic air pollution.
You failed to respond to my mention of your first post of this information:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Of the chemicals you have listed, which one has the lowest PEL/ highest TLV? (hint:benzene)
Now, how many cigarettes need to be burning in a 10x10x10 room with no ventilation in order to meet the PEL/TLV of those listed chemicals?
Compare them to the most harmful in the list and that of the safely ingested allowance established by those same agencies. How does it fare?
Lastly, review the chemicals found in various other products you may encounter daily and the levels of exposure to which you encounter with them (cooking smoke, cleaning chemicals, air quality, etc...)
Are you seeing the problem yet?
edit:
Frank pointed out the problem with the studies which is why my above mention about the problems exist. The problem is that they did not apply proper scientific process to establish their conclusion and because of such, there are numerous conflicts with their findings, most notably, the double speak of their position on individual chemical hazards and that of SHS. That is, if we properly evaluate exposure, then SHS is well under their safety levels according to the individual chemical exposure limits they have established. They say one thing when it concerns SHS, but another when it is something else. (warning bells should be going off now)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
Think what you will about the National Cancer Institute, but that group along with the EPA (both agencies of the US government), have concluded that Second Hand Smoke is dangerous to your health.
Setting the Record Straight | Smoke-free Homes | US Environmental Protection Agency
You can dispute statistics all you'd like, argue against methodology used, assume it's large corporations who are paying to have their own desired results used as final conclusions in the studies, act as if government agencies are all corrupted, etc.
You imply that my objection is a subjective one, it is not. The evidence of poor application of science in their studies is not an opinion, it is a well documented fact. This has even been taken to court to show this and was noted by another poster specifically.
You are demanding appeals to authority in the face of conflicting evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
But I will simply use common sense ... and avoid second-hand smoke whenever possible. It doesn't require a Mensa level IQ to conclude that if direct cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, then second-hand smoke is also very likely carcinogenic as well.
So, when the science fails to support your position, you will use common sense? How convenient for you. You aren't even using common sense, as if you were, you would consider the issue of PEL/TLV concerning exposure in relation to what you encounter in other sources daily. What you are doing is clinging to your bias. You thought that by simply cutting and pasting links to political activist agencies would be plenty, that most would nod like sheep accepting the authority. You didn't expect that some people actually think and look deeper into the issues and so now you are left with fallacious reasoning to defend your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
So argue all you want .... however, I fully support the smoking ban in ALL public places ... both indoors and outdoors.
Taking your ball and going home ehh? You don't care if the science is wrong, you don't care if the common sense of the issue doesn't support you, you are just going to believe what you want and continue to demand that laws be put into place according to that desire.
You are confirming the argument of people here concerning this issue and that is the fact that this issue was never about health, never about infringement of your rights, it was simply about using government and mob mentality to dictate individual self interests to others.
It is a lose/lose for you. Either eventually people will catch on to fraud of your position or you will get your way leading to the removal of your rights eventually. That is ok though, I mean, at least you can say you got your way for a while? /boggle
So argue all you want .... however, I fully support the smoking ban in ALL public places ... both indoors and outdoors.
So then why don't you and the other anti-smoking zealots lobby to make tobacco products illegal?! Oh, but no, you need that tax money that it brings in, so you can't do that! Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
If I feel like smoking I just go outside. That's it. I don't understand the big deal. Here in Seoul, it sucks because everything reeks of cigarette smoke. Coming home at 6:30am (the metro stops at 12:00 and starts at 5:30...taxis are 20 bucks or so) is tough enough. I don't want to smell like the club I was just in. The only reminders I want are embarrassing pictures and possibly the Noraebang (singing room) songs stick in my head.
Even in the dead of winter, I simply go outside...yes even in a place where there is no smoking ban. I firmly believe that my liberties end at the tip of your nose and vice-versa.
Then we should ban perfumes/colonge, smoke of any kind (no more grilling at the park), people with poor hygiene or who pass gas in public. We also will need to ban cleaning products used in various environments, food/drink that smells offensive to some. The list goes on and on... since your concept of liberty is to never encounter such (as opposed to having the freedom to avoid/remove yourself from it), then this means we will have to ban many many things (if not everything).
Then we should ban perfumes/colonge, smoke of any kind (no more grilling at the park), people with poor hygiene or who pass gas in public. We also will need to ban cleaning products used in various environments, food/drink that smells offensive to some. The list goes on and on... since your concept of liberty is to never encounter such (as opposed to having the freedom to avoid/remove yourself from it), then this means we will have to ban many many things (if not everything).
This is the flaw in your argument.
Colognes and perfumes do not cover as large an area as smoke does. Smoking outdoors is different than in a confined space. If you want to argue about types of smoke, you might to stick with the same situations. Try to avoid apples to oranges comparisons.
It is different. Sorry if I smoke outside out of consideration? I think smoking inside is a weird thing to argue. I smoke outside and others don't smell it. It's a win win.
But i don't see why any proprietor can't have smoking in his own place. It's his loss if folks simply can't stand the smoke.
I've smoked most of my life, and I don't believe in smoking in any restuarant, or closed in building...if you need a cigerette that bad, go outside...as it is awfully offensive to those who do not smoke, plus those with lung problems, like my mother had. I also believe they should ban cell phones...
When one pays money to go out to eat, I don't want to smell smoke, or listen to someone else's conversation on a cell phone.
As far as banning cigerettes in open outside areas, I think that is just down right idiotic...as well as 2nd hand smoke can kill ya. It's another way to deter people into thinking that so many people are dying from cigerette smoking/cancers...that is a lie....there are less people smoking today then ever before...then ever before...yet, people who never ever smoked, are getting cancers...even tons of children...and they don't want anyone to know why.
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.
