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'm sure the Nazis had laws prohibiting murder and theft as well, that doesn't mean every country that enforces them is practicing National Socialism.
er... MJ? Did I say anything like that? I was just letting you know where the movement had its modern day roots and where the idea came from for the propaganda trick. Before Fritz Linckt and his "passive smoking" the Antismokers could only rant and rave about the effects on the smokers themselves and about the "moral degradation" and "insanity" caused by stuff like masturbation and smoking. Linckt gave it a pseudo-scientific veneer of respectability... sorta like what Winnie-The-Cough did for "thirdhand smoke."
Plates, why don't you give us your critique of the Winickoff study this is based on? You know, the "science" where he called up a thousand folks and asked their opinion on whether taking a baby into a room where people had been smoking might be harmful.
Yep. That was the "science" that kicked all this off y'know. Opinions from a random telephone survey. Then, just to add icing on the cake, he picked out a particular element, Polonium 210, and talked about how the poor little crawlers would pick it up and die just like the Russian KGB agent who'd died in agony after getting just five milligrams of the deadly stuff!
Of course to get five milligrams Tiny Totsie would have to not just crawl around on the floor in a smoker's house but would have to lick ten square feet of flooring perfectly clean every single day for THREE TRILLION YEARS -- while not going to the bathroom the whole time.
Yep. That's real science for ya.
::sigh::
First, you are inferring things that aren't there, and there are plenty of studies that support this. Also, first hand smoke is bad, second hand smoke is bad, any smoke is bad.
First, you are inferring things that aren't there, and there are plenty of studies that support this. Also, first hand smoke is bad, second hand smoke is bad, any smoke is bad.
"there are plenty of studies that support this."
Really? Name a few you're familiar with and can defend. I assume by "this" that you mean studies showing real harm to people's health from "thirdhand smoke," right?
If there are really "plenty" of good ones out there it should take just a few minutes to find a few of the best and clobber me with them. Just remember, as I asked below, I'm looking for STUDIES, not "factsheets," generalized reports, "authoritative quotes," websites, news articles etc, but published and accessible studies that show such real harm to people from "thirdhand smoke."
I claim that you can't find even three out of all those plenty.
Heck, I'll give you a medal if you can find ONE although being able to find only one out of a theoretical "plenty" wouldn't mean a whole lot.
You see, the point is that I think you really, truly believe that there are "plenty of studies" out there -- because that's what you've been led to believe by the hundreds of millions of dollars spent every year by the tobacco control industry to get you to believe. Maybe, just maybe, when you actually go and look and are unable to find any, it might make you realize how thoroughly you've been lied to.
And maybe some passersby who find our "fight" interesting enough to follow it here will realize it as well. That's why I do this.
Btw, what was I inferring that wasn't there???
Last edited by Michael J. McFadden; 08-12-2012 at 10:57 PM..
Reason: Final question.
Really? Name a few you're familiar with and can defend. I assume by "this" that you mean studies showing real harm to people's health from "thirdhand smoke," right?
If there are really "plenty" of good ones out there it should take just a few minutes to find a few of the best and clobber me with them. Just remember, as I asked below, I'm looking for STUDIES, not "factsheets," generalized reports, "authoritative quotes," websites, news articles etc, but published and accessible studies that show such real harm to people from "thirdhand smoke."
I claim that you can't find even three out of all those plenty.
Heck, I'll give you a medal if you can find ONE although being able to find only one out of a theoretical "plenty" wouldn't mean a whole lot.
You see, the point is that I think you really, truly believe that there are "plenty of studies" out there -- because that's what you've been led to believe by the hundreds of millions of dollars spent every year by the tobacco control industry to get you to believe. Maybe, just maybe, when you actually go and look and are unable to find any, it might make you realize how thoroughly you've been lied to.
And maybe some passersby who find our "fight" interesting enough to follow it here will realize it as well. That's why I do this.
Btw, what was I inferring that wasn't there???
Why do I care if you believe it, you obviously don't. In fact, this is your thing, you love smoking so much that in your profile you talk about it. I could give you all the evidence in the world and you wouldn't believe it because you are just spiteful. Start your kids young the best would be before they are two so that they can have a lifetime of smoking and be addicted. But since you don't believe it, it wont harm you. You don't need science because blind ignorance leads you.
Why do I care if you believe it, you obviously don't. In fact, this is your thing, you love smoking so much that in your profile you talk about it. I could give you all the evidence in the world and you wouldn't believe it because you are just spiteful. Start your kids young the best would be before they are two so that they can have a lifetime of smoking and be addicted. But since you don't believe it, it wont harm you. You don't need science because blind ignorance leads you.
Disappointing, but not surprising. Nice dragging in the children though. And capping with an Ad Hominem always works well.
First, you are inferring things that aren't there, and there are plenty of studies that support this. Also, first hand smoke is bad, second hand smoke is bad, any smoke is bad.
You're essentially arguing with someone who believes the world is flat. If people don't realize that tobacco smoke is harmful then nothing anyone does will convince them at this point.
Disappointing, but not surprising. Nice dragging in the children though. And capping with an Ad Hominem always works well.
::sigh::
It's not, though. All one needs to do is look at your posting history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
You're essentially arguing with someone who believes the world is flat. If people don't realize that tobacco smoke is harmful then nothing anyone does will convince them at this point.
Future laws will require all people to only smoke in designated community smoking areas(enclosed and well ventilated of course) - and be completely cleaned following their smoking session in a bath attached to the smoking building. This will ensure that there is no threat of third hand smoke contamination in the public - and all smokers will be limited to two smoking sessions per day and a total of six cigarettes.
(Refrains from posting more liberal wet dreams for at least a month).
I don't think it will go that far. However, I do think that, like alcohol, it should be something done in designated areas as it can and does cause harm to others that do not smoke. Why should I be subjected to someone who wants to smoke in a bar? I shouldn't have to walk through a cloud of smoke to enter a place of business.
For the most part, people who smoke don't effect or bother me. The other day, when I was driving by a Daycare I saw a two women smoking outside of the daycare. Innocent right? The problem is that they were outside in the children's fenced off playground no more than 5 a few feet away. These kids shouldn't be forced to inhale the toxic fumes that come from the womens addiction.
Of course, if you'd prefer, I could post a dozen or so examples of my challenges to produce and defend studies (and the disappointing, but not surprising, lack of successful responses), but that would be boring.
ok, its nasty, It can't be good for you so where is the surprise? I know a smoker who when he is near me makes me want to gag his smell is so bad. Only thing worse than the smoker smell is a smoker that also drinks coffee...
Guess i find I hold my breath more around them so I suppose my risk is less...yes?
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.
