posted
Anyone who has a problem with me being openly against smoking in other threads, please post that here so I can more expeditiously ignore you like you were charlie brown's teacher.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I despise smoking. It's foul and disgusting and fills the air with a stench you can't seem to get away from.
When I was little both my mother and father smoked. It was the worst when we were on long car trips in the winter (such as for christmas or thanksgiving.) We would either have the windows down and freeze or have the windows up and choke.
My Mother quit, but my father still smokes. He looks older than 60 and his completely grey hair is yellowed.
HOWEVER, I have to support the rights of people to smoke because all sorts of unpleasent presidence is being set that can be used on any other activity that people don't like.
How long before there is a Fat tax because they keep re-defining down what is concidered Obese? They've already tried taxing fast food in certain areas.
How long before there are laws against eating meat? I heard an ad the other day that mentioned during preperation their vegie burger might come in contact with chicken or beef. With the number of militant vegies growing by the day can segregated preperation areas be far behind? Later on, will people's license to sell meat be revoked if they sell to a minor?
Sooner or later, smoking is going to be illegal all together and the organizations that have been put together to stop smoking will need a new target for their fund raising. These people won't just surrender their jobs in exchange for the satisfaction that they accomplished what they set out to do.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They cook the veggie burgers here in Pitt's cafaterias on the same surface that they normal burgers are cooked on.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This looks like a good place to show everyone some of pics we show our lung cancer patients (I work for a group of oncologists) of what their lungs look like (or will look like if they continue to smoke). But, unfortunately, they might be too graphic to post here. Then again, I remember being shown similar pics in grade school.
Even the inhaled second hand smoke, you have no idea. Did you know you can get lung cancer, even if you have never sucked on a cigarette in your life?
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I am going to start buying cigarettes and burning them without smoking them. It will be a hateful, spiteful, futile act that will cost me lots of cash and take about thirty seconds off my life, but the personal satisfaction will be worth it.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Val, please save your pictures for grade school.
quote: you have no idea
Um, yes we do. We may not all be doctors, but its not like this is sudden, suprising news. We have access to a world wide web full of information. I know I saw the pictures in grade school. Could probably find them within 30 seconds online.
The point is people know, don't care. It's their choice.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmmmmm... smoke. Hey, I can kill myself if I want. I'm just slicing off the really bad years at the end. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darling, fallow, you will take a moment to notice, that I did not in fact, post those pictures. Posting pictures of dead people is in bad taste. But I thank you for pointing that out for me.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is my understanding that there is no scientific proof for the effects of second-hand smoking.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
"Following a July 1992 meeting, the SAB panel endorsed the major conclusions of the report, including its unanimous endorsement of the classification of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a Group A (known human) carcinogen."Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The group of 29 experts from 12 countries found second-hand tobacco smoke was carcinogenic to humans and that typical levels of passive exposure have been shown to cause lung cancer among people who have never smoked.
quote: The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, which means that there is sufficient evidence that it causes cancer in humans. Secondhand tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer.
I could find some more, but you get the point. I hate smoking, but more power to you, if you want to enjoy your nicotine in the privacy of your own home, go for it. Most smokers know the risks and have made decisions to keep smoking. I respect that they have that freedom.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Val, please save your pictures for grade school.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you have no idea --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, yes we do. We may not all be doctors, but its not like this is sudden, suprising news. We have access to a world wide web full of information. I know I saw the pictures in grade school. Could probably find them within 30 seconds online.
The point is people know, don't care. It's their choice.
Which is exactly why there is no reason to start smoking now, other than absolute weakness and inability to cope with peer pressure. It is no longer being prescribed as a medecine or being touted as refined behavior. We know for a fact that it kills you and those around you. If you choose to smoke, you are weak and stupid. If you choose to smoke around non-smokers, you are weak, stupid, and an inconsiderate asshole.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole second hand smoke issue just goes to show how hard it is to show cause from effect with statistics.
When you look at any list of the chemical compounds in second hand smoke it's pretty easy to play a game of "spot the carcinogens!" But then the problem becomes one of, what's the actual exposure that a nonsmoker faces? It's pretty easy to do with the person smoking, they're sucking the end of the cigarette. Not a lot of variation in how much reaches their lungs. But it's almost impossible to calculate some mean value for second hand smoke exposure in any meaningful way. Which is, in the end, what people are arguing about. Nobody doubts that carcinogens are being exhaled, but there are some bitter debates over how much you're being exposed to.
Then, of course, there's the fact that, well, *everything* causes cancer. Are the chronic effects of second hand smoke in some unknown concentration worse than the normal air pollution? Worse than the pesticide run off in the water supply? Who knows?
Certainly there are no definitive studies out there right now. So I guess I'm just going to have to go with what my body tells me. Novel approach, eh?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a big problem with, say, people who smoke like fiends around their kids. I do, however, also have a problem with city-wide public smoking bans. I think they are rediculous.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are ridiculous, but I definitely agree to no smoking indoors. I didn't like my trip to Las Vegas nearly as much as I hoped because of all the smoke.
How I feel about smoking. If you want to royally screw up you own body with cigarettes/cigars ect, that's your own free decision. Just keep it away from me.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
No excuse to start smoking, no excuse not to quit. No arguments for smoking. Plenty for not. What else is there to say?
The new law being brought in in NZ that you can't smoke in bars etc is great. People involuntarily suffering from second-hand smoke is unfair & ridiculous.
Posts: 1431 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you do not want to breathe in second-hand smoke, do not patronize establishments that permit it. The very thought of someone who is at a bar worrying about health is ridiculous anyway.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you do not want to breathe in second-hand smoke, do not patronize establishments that permit it.
How about smokers refraining from smoking in establishments where nonsmokers are present? How about only smoking in designated private areas or outdoors?
I have to go with OSC's argument on this one: Smokers have no problem with waiting, and going to a designated private location to urinate. Urinating is a neccessary biological function which we all perform and have no choice about, yet almost everyone refrains from urinating in cars, in bars, clubs, or restaurants except at those distinct, predetermined, private places. Yet smokers believe that smoking, a frivolous, wasteful, dangerous, disgusting habit that they chose to participate in, is some kind of right and they are entitled to do it wherever they please.
It is NOT a right, it is disgusting and dangerous, and i don't think I, as a nonsmoker, should be required to tailor my patronage to accomodate the inconsiderate selfishness of others. How about everytime you blow smoke in my face, I pee on you?
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: How about everytime you blow smoke in my face, I pee on you?
I agree with OSC on that, but I also agree with Danzig with bars. I don't have a problem with people smoking. It's their choice. I don't have a problem if they do in bars, if the bar allows it. Just don't exhale your smoke in my face.
My comment about Las Vegas was just a complaint about it being everywhere. It's inescapable there unless you go up to your hotel room.
[ April 12, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The very thought of someone who is at a bar worrying about health is ridiculous anyway.
Danzig, you were joking, right?
Also, as for not frequenting places where people are allowed to smoke, .THAT is ridiculous. Not that it matters, cos you're not making the laws in NZ. So no point in arguing with ya.
quote: Also, as for not frequenting places where people are allowed to smoke, .THAT is ridiculous.
Why? If the proprietor of the place of business wants to allow people to smoke and lets it be known very consipicuously outside of his establishment that there is smoking going on inside, why would you go in if you didn't like to smoke?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
... and I don't think I, as a smoker, should be required to tailor my patronage to accomodate the inconsiderate selfishness of others.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meh, so I worded it wrong. The part that I disagree with is people like Glynn saying we're selfish/ridiculous for expecting him not to smoke in places where there are non-smokers. If there were a wide range of bars to choose from where people were not allowed to smoke, then I would not patronise one where smoking was permitted. That is fair and I don't disagree with that. It seemed like Danzig was saying that I shouldn't go to any bars because I don't like breathing in second-hand smoke. (In my defence, while I probably didn't think much about it before I posted my reply, there are very few bars where smoking is not permitted, hence my assumption.) Thanks for pointing that out, Stormy.
Glynn, you may not appreciate people not wanting you to smoke around them, but I'm fairly sure they don't appreciate you not caring about whether you kill them or not.
I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't smoke - oh wait. Yes I am. People shouldn't smoke. It's bad for them! Heh. But that's their choice, and I'm not saying that there should be a law against smoking altogether. Just that we should be allowed to go to bars and not have to breathe in poison. *shrug* I don't mind if they smoke inside. As long as it's not in the same room as me. I don't care if smokers smoke in bars. As long as there's a separate (by separate, I mean WALLS, people) bar where we can be away from the smoke. Many places have outside areas where you can smoke. Friends of mine that are smokers use these places, because they actually care about other people's health. Obviously, not everyone does. Unfortunate as that is.
When you compare "not smoking in a bar where there are non-smokers" to "killing someone through second-hand smoke" it's a minor inconvenience to suffer for a good cause, surely. Of course, all the arguments in the world won't convince many smokers. They'll continue to make excuses for their weakness.
Use all the excuses you want for smoking in confined areas around non-smokers. But know that that's all they are. Excuses.
posted
I very much agree with odouls and his posted comments from OSC. I'm lucky enough to live in an area with it's share of non smoking bars. Yeah!
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig-Do you know how HARD it is to find a resturant that doesn't allow smoking? Aside from fast food, offhand, I cannot think of a single place in town that doesn't allow smoking. And I've been looking, since I'd LIKE to work as a waitress this summer. So while its easy to say, go somewhere else, its a lot harder to put into practice. Why should non-smokers be the ones to change, when they haven't done anything? Why is it that the smokers, who are the ones making the choice to cause harm, be the ones who get to stay without making any sacrifices?
Also, I would like to go to bars, not to drink or anything, but to go dance with my friends and be silly. There are legitimate reasons for wanting to go that don't endanger one's health! My partner (debate, not romance) has been searching the area for smokeless places to go dance, so I can go alone-but not a single one is there to be found. Why should people like me have to suffer because OTHER people want to kill themselves a little sooner?
Primal Curve: 1) it was thrown out of court as violating the restrictions of the Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act of 1986. That it was declared to have been outside the bounds of the research act under which the research was done says nothing about the validity of the information. 2) you second link only talks about the effects of second hand smoke on...breast cancer???? there are other types of cancer, and lung cancer was basically ignored in that report. Finally, your third link was one expert, as compared to the many from the reports others posted. Work on your sources before making your arguments.
quote: ... and I don't think I, as a smoker, should be required to tailor my patronage to accomodate the inconsiderate selfishness of others.
That is pitiful and laughable. You CHOSE to indulge in that dangerous filthy habit. The rest of us did not, however, CHOOSE to NEED to breathe clean air. It's a biological neccessity. You can't win this one. We want to live as healthy and as long as possible, you should go smoke yourself to death in private, if that remains your choice.
posted
And I don't think my family, as asthmatics, should be required to eat at home every night we don't want fast food in order to accommodate the self-destructive and selfish desires of others to smoke while they eat. Which one wins? Well, you can choose to smoke. You can refrain from smoking for the time you're in a resturant. I didn't choose to be unable to be around it, nor can I refrain from BREATHING for the time I'm in a resturant.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For now, I'd settle for smoking being banned indoors in public places (like resturants and workplaces)
Eventually, I hope it will be illegal to smoke in all public places. But things are best taken one step at a time.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I am at jury duty this week and I noticed that both the courthouse and the library I waled to to use the computer over lunch do not allow smoking next to the building. How nice to walk in and out with out being bombarded. There is a also a big article in one of the Seattle papers about the fact that a neighboring county, Peirce county, banned smoking in all public places, including bars and casinos. They are in a bit of a slump, BUT, based on what happened in other states, predict that one year from now busuness in those places will be up as non smokers realise they can got there again.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:bars and casinos. They are in a bit of a slump, BUT, based on what happened in other states, predict that one year from now busuness in those places will be up as non smokers realise they can got there again.
Ah, yes. Ban one vice to spark others. Freaking beautiful plan.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Toreths wrote: "Danzig-Do you know how HARD it is to find a resturant that doesn't allow smoking?"
Move to Massacusetts! There is going to be a state-wide smoking-in-restaurants-and-bars ban, if it goes through.
I went to a concert at Harper's Ferry, where I had almost been burned by a cigarette a year and a half ago. This time, there was no smoke at all. I have to say, it was kind of nice.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: ... and I don't think I, as a smoker, should be required to tailor my patronage to accomodate the inconsiderate selfishness of others.
I gotta go with odouls on this one. There's no way to establish an equivalence here, Primal. Public smokers expel a harmful and unpleasant substance into the environment that doesn't have to be there. They are the ones imposing on other people. I think that the non-smokers around them should be able to decide whether or not to tolerate the intrusion.
People are always free to smoke in their own private spaces, and no one is trying to take that away from them. But come on, it's just common courtesy to try and hem in your own odious habits to avoid bothering other people.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why has everyone ignored Storm's private property argument. If a bar wants to allow smoking, why shouldn't it be allowed to? Why would you go to a place where you know there's smoke in the atmosphere if you don't like (or can't tolerate) smoke?
Dagonee *Only goes to non-smoking bars himself.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there were a wide range of bars to choose from where people were not allowed to smoke, then I would not patronise one where smoking was permitted. That is fair and I don't disagree with that.
posted
I wasn't attempting to answer the argument. I was merely answering your question about why anyone would choose to go to a place where smoking is allowed.
In answer to your second question, most bars DO allow smoking, and I still go. That doesn't mean I like the smoke there, though. Posts: 1431 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
