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.
Should the Government (Federal, State or Local) decide whether a private business can allow customers to smoke or not within its facilities? SHould it be left up to the owner and the customers (they could always go to the place that suited their preferences the best).
Ordinarily I'd say yes but passive smoke has been proven hazardous to one's health. Unless smoking is integral to the business, such as a smoke shop, I think any smoking should be done in a room closed off from non-smokers that is restricted to other smokers and people who don't care about the health risks.
Alright Clark, if that is your real name, scientists also, are tightly restricted as to what they wish to investigate, let alone publish.
It's Mr. Gable to you. I apologise for snapping at you. I was still steaming about the previous post.
Of course scientists are restricted, I don't argue that point. As much as some will deny it, ethics, do come into play. Can't do some testing on human beings and some groups protest testing on animals, stem cells, etc. Hard to investigate some things without live cells. Funding is also a huge issue. Company B gives you 12 gazillion dollars to prove their product is safe and you prove otherwise, what then? The study may never be published. Not ethical but when you sign on to accept someone else's money, there are binding contracts that are signed with all sorts of 'fine lines'. And the list goes on.
For this discussion, IMO, the evidence present at this time is sufficient to prove that second hand smoke is harmful to those who are exposed to it over time.
It's Mr. Gable to you. I apologise for snapping at you. I was still steaming about the previous post.
Of course scientists are restricted, I don't argue that point. As much as some will deny it, ethics, do come into play. Can't do some testing on human beings and some groups protest testing on animals, stem cells, etc. Hard to investigate some things without live cells. Funding is also a huge issue. Company B gives you 12 gazillion dollars to prove their product is safe and you prove otherwise, what then? The study may never be published. Not ethical but when you sign on to accept someone else's money, there are binding contracts that are signed with all sorts of 'fine lines'. And the list goes on.
For this discussion, IMO, the evidence present at this time is sufficient to prove that second hand smoke is harmful to those who are exposed to it over time.
I've been following Dr. Becker for about 20 years now.
When he found a way to make bones heal faster through his limb re-growth investigations, he played hell getting it published. To get funding for his limb regeneration research, he applied for a grant to research something that was "approved" - then he used the funds to research limb regeneration.
He was intrigued when he found out that if the finger portion above the first knuckle was severed, and not bandaged, or treated in any way, it would re-grow perfectly, complete with finger nail. From there, his research exposed the previously heretical notion of de-differentiation of cells. If the stump of a severed finger is left untreated, as with a severed salamander leg, the stump cells dedifferentiate into "stem" cells, then re-differentiate back to skin, muscle, bone and fingernail. The Medical/Research Complex only allowed minds to explore differentiation as with original cellular division.
The Medical/Political Complex beat him up for years, but ultimately, they got beat by Becker. He is still taking on powerful forces with science.
Dispite what laymen think, medicine is not a Science, it's an Art. We do the best we can with what we have. When the evidence dictates change, we do.
Exactly on the mark which is why proclaiming fact on things where it specifically taxes or removes rights when we know it is not scientific, but merely a practice of continually corrected positions is irresponsible at best.
I'm not the one claiming there's an issue. The evidence for secondhand smoke's damage is clear. You're the one saying there's a problem with that.
You aren't commenting on anything about the issue other than making simple fallacious comments and insinuations. Let me know when you want to talk about the methodology, about the regression models used, and how they come to their conclusions. As it is now, there is no point in even discussing with you because you haven't even formed a coherent position in this argument.
Every friggin' time I read this assinine statement, I want to F***en scream. Why are some people so gawdam'd narrow minded that for them it's always the LEFT or the RIGHT!?!?!?
ARRRRRGGGGGGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm done. You want to have a discussion on the 'issue' fine but I refuse to respond to stupidty.
how is this stupidity... everything is not left or right, but there are types of thinking that are most defiantly left, or right. oppressive government running every aspect of your life is something the left loves. smoking bans come from the left wing people. how is that wrong?
also, you folks have proved you just don’t get the point we have tried to make 20 different ways. you just don’t get it! listen dam it. we understand you don’t like breathing smoke, ok? we understand, got it, we agree for the most part with you too! now will you hear and listen to our point, and warnings? This is really not about smoking.
The tables have turned. For years, non-smokers were told, 'Don't like it don't go there.' Now the shoe is on the other foot. You want to smoke do it at home, outside, in your car or anywhere else it's allowed.
1. I do my job the best that I can. I don't shut anyone down. I do support banning smoking tobacco products in open to the public businesses. YOU can choose not to frequent those establishments.
2. Unlike tobacco, it's not the product,car, that kills or maims. It's the driver.
3. Same as 2 plus without the helmet=vegetable.
4. The government has not said you can't smoke. You just can't expose me to your secondhand smoke when I'm out in public, etc. You can choose to go elsewhere.
5. My education, experience and continuing education on the subject disputes that statement. YOU can choose to believe what you want and continue to smoke.
6. If the adult wants to continue to smoke, I don't care. It's the children I care about. Children don't have a choice in this instance yet you condemn them.
shall we continue this?
1. I sense some of the childlike “ haha! I am in charge now, so now you will get it” attitude. I have said it and said it, I understand, you don’t like smoke. There are a lot of things out there I don’t like. I can make just as strong as a case for why they should be banned as cigarettes. Just let the open market decide. It wasn’t going the way YOU and other lefties wanted with the market, so like usually, you take the legal route. I really cant expect for you too see just how fundamentally screwed up, and un-American that is.
2 you are banning cigarettes in public because of the HEALTH RISKS TO OTHERS. My point is the lots of OTHER things that cause more of a health risk, and you folks are fine with it…it isn’t about health risks, you are fooling yourselves. Its about control, and that fact that you just don’t like smoke.. admit it!
3 same thing. It should be up to the dumb ass riding with out a helmet.
4. again, childish. You should add a neener neener at the end. I find it amusing that you keep repeating the go some place else. You must have had lots of problems with that huh. Too bad it’s a fraise that relates to the open market, something your law kills. So it doesn’t apply. In many places in this country you CANT GO SOMEPLACE ELSE. There is NO PLACE to go. Even you own home, car and back yards are illegal to smoke in some places.. hello…mcfly, can you see it yet?
5 the point still stands, there are lots of things out there that are bad for you, why pick on this one? Oh wait, you folks have started going after soda and sweets now… lol. Open your eyes will ya?
6. parents are responsible for their kids, not you. Or at least that how is was, and still should be.
You aren't commenting on anything about the issue other than making simple fallacious comments and insinuations. Let me know when you want to talk about the methodology, about the regression models used, and how they come to their conclusions. As it is now, there is no point in even discussing with you because you haven't even formed a coherent position in this argument.
It's much simpler than all that. I accept the findings of medical science. For some reason, you don't. The surgeon general and CDC concur with my view. Yours is in line with the tobacco industry, which still questions the role of the use of their product in causing cancer and heart disease, despite decades of strong evidence.
You would appear to be either connected to the tobacco industry in some way or a smoker who's just in deep denial. One can always doubt. One can't use dubious arguments to convince. The public sentiment is turning strongly in favor of the medical research. Smokers will simply now be forced to behave in a less selfish and inconsiderate manner.
. Smokers will simply now be forced to behave in a less selfish and inconsiderate manner.
Want a smoke?
Step outside.
well, in someplace we CANT step out side. its not allowed. i can not wait to see how you react when you are FORCED to change YOUR behavior by the government, on something that you really like. im betting you will scream like a baby.
You cant trample on the rights of one group, then turn around and expect your rights to be safe.
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.
I apologise for snapping at you. I was still steaming about the previous post.
