New Georgia Law will make smoking in your car a crime

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: chess9
Well, smoke this:

I have been a long, long time runner. I have never smoked, but I was raised by parents who smoked like Con Edison. All my 4 brothers also smoked. In the Marines I was exposed to heavy inside smoke on a daily basis. Last month I was diagnosed with emphysema and have two suspicious "diffusions" on my lungs.

When I went for my lung function test I was told by the technician that she had just finished testing two guys who had worked together in the same restaurant they owned for 22 years. The smoker had a 40% loss of lung function, and the other man, a non-smoker, had a 23% decline in lung function. The are in their mid 50's.

I've never been a fan of cigarettes, but I've always tolerated them. My wife even smoked early in our relationship. But, I now think that tolerance for cigarette smokers is not a good thing. If something you do is going to kill someone else-and dying of lung cancer or emphysema is one of the worst things you can imagine-then I would encourage you to re-think youir habit. If you won't do it for yourself, do it for others.

-Robert

/me golf claps with albuteral (wait--that sound is pretty funny, actually...)
Note on car pollution: I'd like to work on cars, and have tried, but invariably WILL get a nosebleed. Go figure, huh...

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: glugglug
I'll take what I said one step further:

Smoking marijuana should be legal. It's just tobacco causing all the problems.

Headline one week later: "Allman Bros, Pink Floyd and EL&P sales each eclipse Britney Spears' newest album"
(no, I'm not high, just frustrated after working on an essay all day)

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Vic
Ahh... the I-don't-like-something-so-I-think-there-oughta-be-a-law mentality. Pull your head out of your ass.

What does it have to do with "I don't like it"?

Is it legal to walk around and spit on people? Spray Mace? Can I start a pile of maple leaves on fire at a restaurant table, as long as I keep it to a nice smolder? Can I walk around with canisters of "rotten egg scent" and spray it on people? It sure would give me the same pleasure nicotine does smokers, if I could do it to them. Someday, if I get rich, I'm going to try the leaves one in the smoking section

Why are the "rights" of smokers put ahead of allergics, asthmatics, heart patients, cancer patients, immunocompromised people?

Go ahead and chain smoke to your hearts content (pardon the health pun), but keep it out of my face.

Rule #1 of a Republic, compared to a democracy: Some laws just can't be passed.
Rule #2: majority rules, but money rules more.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Vic
Ahh... the I-don't-like-something-so-I-think-there-oughta-be-a-law mentality. Pull your head out of your ass.

What does it have to do with "I don't like it"?

Is it legal to walk around and spit on people? Spray Mace? Can I start a pile of maple leaves on fire at a restaurant table, as long as I keep it to a nice smolder? Can I walk around with canisters of "rotten egg scent" and spray it on people? It sure would give me the same pleasure nicotine does smokers, if I could do it to them. Someday, if I get rich, I'm going to try the leaves one in the smoking section

Why are the "rights" of smokers put ahead of allergics, asthmatics, heart patients, cancer patients, immunocompromised people?

Go ahead and chain smoke to your hearts content (pardon the health pun), but keep it out of my face.

None of your analogies are even close to real life.
This issue never has been about smoker's "rights" and never will be. It's about property rights and the rights of individuals.

If a property owner wants people to smoke on his property, then it is his decision, not yours, not the government's. If you walk into a restaurant that allows smoking, and you don't like it, then leave. If you decide to stay of your own free will, then shut the fsck up. After all, what kind of idiot hates smoking but sits in the smoking section?
And who the hell said I smoked? Way to go with that asssumption. I'm against your anti-smoking bullsh!t for the same reasons I'm against the idiotic "War on Drugs", of which this anti-smoking issue is only an escalation. But I guess that makes me a druggie too, right?

Here's some advice: take some responsibility in your life. You don't like smokers and smoking? Great! Don't be around them. In the meantime, you should ponder on why you have an overwhelming urge to force people into living the way you want them to live. My guess would be is that you hate people, and your desire to make what other people do illegal is your way of using the government for your personal spite. Which is why I always oppose people like you.

I'm one of the many that have nothing against the rights of smokers--as long as they don't get in the way of my free and almost-clear air (smog, pollen, etc.). Problem: that's impossible. You try staying awake from cig smoke for a single day. Just one. And I swear 2/3 of the people at my college smoke--it's insane. One good whiff and I'm practically zoned out for the day.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: chess9
Well, smoke this:

I have been a long, long time runner. I have never smoked, but I was raised by parents who smoked like Con Edison. All my 4 brothers also smoked. In the Marines I was exposed to heavy inside smoke on a daily basis. Last month I was diagnosed with emphysema and have two suspicious "diffusions" on my lungs.

When I went for my lung function test I was told by the technician that she had just finished testing two guys who had worked together in the same restaurant they owned for 22 years. The smoker had a 40% loss of lung function, and the other man, a non-smoker, had a 23% decline in lung function. The are in their mid 50's.

I've never been a fan of cigarettes, but I've always tolerated them. My wife even smoked early in our relationship. But, I now think that tolerance for cigarette smokers is not a good thing. If something you do is going to kill someone else-and dying of lung cancer or emphysema is one of the worst things you can imagine-then I would encourage you to re-think youir habit. If you won't do it for yourself, do it for others.

-Robert

Sorry but there is no link between second hand smoke and health problems in non-smokers. This is all a liberal lie....just like the whole global warming theory. There is no real data or evidence to back this up. You are just making this all up.

Ooooookay, take off the tinfoil hat:

American Lung Association says...

Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).

The EPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year.

EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.

Now, given, those "estimates" might be dubious, but the claim that there is NO LINK between SHS and illness in non-smokers and that it's all a liberal propogandizing lie is absolutely rediculous.

The ALA's study was biased from the beginning.

Fist off the set out to prove the link between SHS and Cancer. Not if there was a link but to prove that the link they needed to remove rights from property and bussiness owners.

Now in any study we know you need a control group.

They looked to thoose that worked in smoking enviorments, namely the picked bartenders and wait staff of resturuants.

Now in looking at the numbers it is very easy to see that if you happen to pick one of these occupations then your chance for lung cancer is in fact higher than the general population.

If you choose to work in a smokefilled workplace you have a higher risk of contracting a "smoking related" disease.

The ALA and the ACS and even the EPA ran out and declared their findings. Now one would be totally STUPID to think that you could mearly take the per capitia LC rate and compare4 it to the LC rate among thoose in "high risk" jobs and come to a truely factual conclusion. There are other factor that must be considered, namely family history, diet, and other health factors. In fact one of the biggest things that the conclusion makes no mention of is DID THEY SMOKE

They didn't publish that UNTIL they were taken to court. The FACT is that it could be the reason you are more likely to get a SRI (smoking related Illness) if you work in a smoking work place is that you are more likely to smoke. The europeans threw out the study because after looking at the DATA they discovered something that was truely alarming. Smokers in a smoking workplace seem to contract LESS SRI than smokers in general.

...that's not all that alarming. An otherwise healthy human body adapts. If bombarded by smoke, it may learn to breathe it more and easier. If not bombarded with it, with everything around saturated with it, it may adjust itself to more normal air, and be more adversely affected by the smoke.
Liken it much the same as many cat people not being allergic to their own cat if it grew up in their house from a kitten. When the stuff is everywhere, your body can get used to it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: chess9
Well, smoke this:

I have been a long, long time runner. I have never smoked, but I was raised by parents who smoked like Con Edison. All my 4 brothers also smoked. In the Marines I was exposed to heavy inside smoke on a daily basis. Last month I was diagnosed with emphysema and have two suspicious "diffusions" on my lungs.

When I went for my lung function test I was told by the technician that she had just finished testing two guys who had worked together in the same restaurant they owned for 22 years. The smoker had a 40% loss of lung function, and the other man, a non-smoker, had a 23% decline in lung function. The are in their mid 50's.

I've never been a fan of cigarettes, but I've always tolerated them. My wife even smoked early in our relationship. But, I now think that tolerance for cigarette smokers is not a good thing. If something you do is going to kill someone else-and dying of lung cancer or emphysema is one of the worst things you can imagine-then I would encourage you to re-think youir habit. If you won't do it for yourself, do it for others.

-Robert

Sorry but there is no link between second hand smoke and health problems in non-smokers. This is all a liberal lie....just like the whole global warming theory. There is no real data or evidence to back this up. You are just making this all up.

Ooooookay, take off the tinfoil hat:

American Lung Association says...

Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).

The EPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year.

EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.

Now, given, those "estimates" might be dubious, but the claim that there is NO LINK between SHS and illness in non-smokers and that it's all a liberal propogandizing lie is absolutely rediculous.

The ALA's study was biased from the beginning.

Fist off the set out to prove the link between SHS and Cancer. Not if there was a link but to prove that the link they needed to remove rights from property and bussiness owners.

Now in any study we know you need a control group.

They looked to thoose that worked in smoking enviorments, namely the picked bartenders and wait staff of resturuants.

Now in looking at the numbers it is very easy to see that if you happen to pick one of these occupations then your chance for lung cancer is in fact higher than the general population.

If you choose to work in a smokefilled workplace you have a higher risk of contracting a "smoking related" disease.

The ALA and the ACS and even the EPA ran out and declared their findings. Now one would be totally STUPID to think that you could mearly take the per capitia LC rate and compare4 it to the LC rate among thoose in "high risk" jobs and come to a truely factual conclusion. There are other factor that must be considered, namely family history, diet, and other health factors. In fact one of the biggest things that the conclusion makes no mention of is DID THEY SMOKE

They didn't publish that UNTIL they were taken to court. The FACT is that it could be the reason you are more likely to get a SRI (smoking related Illness) if you work in a smoking work place is that you are more likely to smoke. The europeans threw out the study because after looking at the DATA they discovered something that was truely alarming. Smokers in a smoking workplace seem to contract LESS SRI than smokers in general.

...that's not all that alarming. An otherwise healthy human body adapts. If bombarded by smoke, it may learn to breathe it more and easier. If not bombarded with it, with everything around saturated with it, it may adjust itself to more normal air, and be more adversely affected by the smoke.
Liken it much the same as many cat people not being allergic to their own cat if it grew up in their house from a kitten. When the stuff is everywhere, your body can get used to it.

That's right, that's what makes smoking good for you. Now grab a pack and smoke with everyone else.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Vic
I never denied that smoking was unhealthy, and even said as much many posts up. You people need to read before you post.

Whether smoking is unhealthy or not is irrelevant... or should we start outlawing fast food?

Or how about cars?

My point with auto pollution is that many things in our society are unhealthy, and as equally (or possibly more) damaging to people who don't even use them. IMO, life itself is unhealthy and death is an inevitable fact of it. You may want to ask yourself why you care whether you'll live to be 85 or to be 90, when you know that those last 5 years will be spent miserably in a sickbed waiting for that final moment.

<- thinks many AT'ers need to get a life and/or wake up to reality

Your assumption that auto pollution is deadlier than cigarettes is evidence of your ignorance. Where is your proof? My sister, who lives in NYC, said breathing the air there is the equivalent to smoking ONE cigarette a day. Sitting in the smoking section of a restaurant and breathing in SMS, on an average of 10 minutes, is more hazardous than breathing in the dirty air of a metropolitan area. Get your facts straight please before pushing your "auto pollution is more hazardous than SMS" act.

 

[Zephyr106]

...that's not all that alarming. An otherwise healthy human body adapts. If bombarded by smoke, it may learn to breathe it more and easier. If not bombarded with it, with everything around saturated with it, it may adjust itself to more normal air, and be more adversely affected by the smoke.

LOL the adaptation is called cancer. It is the healthy mutation of cells in response to environmental stimuli.

Zephyr

 

[alchemize]

I'm back, lost a minor irrelevant battle due to insufficient research, intend to win the war

OK I've been trying to find reasonably unbiased studies that show carbon monoxide levels via exposure to second hand smoke versus air pollution. But prior to that...

First, here is a study that links carbon monoxide to hearing dysfunction:
Link The interesting part of this study is that the levels were within the range deemd "safe" by the governent, between nine and 50 parts per million.

Here is a study that shows the recommended ventilation for "smoking areas" in restuarants and office buildings is vastly insufficient to reduce 45 year mortality levels to the "de minimis risk level"
Link

This is a very good candian pdf that talks logically about second hand smoke, the effects and impact on non-smokers: Link

And here's what the EPA concludes about second hand smoke:

The report concludes that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) -- commonly known as secondhand smoke -- is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children.

ETS exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 of these cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to exposure to ETS. Of these, between 7,500 and 15,000 will result in hospitalization.

ETS exposure increases the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, a sign of chronic middle ear disease.

ETS exposure in children irritates the upper respiratory tract and is associated with a small but significant reduction in lung function.

ETS exposure increases the frequency of episodes and severity of symptoms in asthmatic children. The report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.

But all the previous stuff was just good info. Here's the best data I could google up to disprove Vic's assinine assertion that outdoor air pollution is the same as that tiny "whiff" of smoke you get from a smokers "bad habit".

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the risk of developing cancer from exposure to second-hand smoke is about 57 times greater than the total risk posed by all outdoor air contaminants regulated under U.S. environmental law.

Source: Cunningham, Rob. Smoke & Mirrors - The Canadian Tobacco War. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 1996.

So Vic stutters "should be ban fast food"? No, it doesn't interfere with my personal rights to breathe non-toxic air.
So Vic mumbles "Do we ban cars?" No, but we do regulate their emissions. But as I've just shown, SHS is a much much more severe personal impact that air pollution.

Since, as Vic pointed out earlier, only states and localities can pass laws to ban it in public and in commerce. I will continue to lobby politically and with my pocketbook. Heck, I'd even vote democrat on this issue :beer:

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: LadyJessica
There are two big issue here: 1) individual choice versus government intervention 2) individual choice versus greater good. A quote from a previous post exemplifies this:

None of your analogies are even close to real life.
This issue never has been about smoker's "rights" and never will be. It's about property rights and the rights of individuals.

If a property owner wants people to smoke on his property, then it is his decision, not yours, not the government's. If you walk into a restaurant that allows smoking, and you don't like it, then leave. If you decide to stay of your own free will, then shut the fsck up.

Here's some advice: take some responsibility in your life. You don't like smokers and smoking? Great! Don't be around them. In the meantime, you should ponder on why you have an overwhelming urge to force people into living the way you want them to live. My guess would be is that you hate people, and your desire to make what other people do illegal is your way of using the government for your personal spite. Which is why I always oppose people like you.

This raises the question: when "individual choices" impinge on the "greater good", should there be regulations to control such choices and why? Thus we come to the gray area. We have multiple instances where this is exemplified. Why do we have mandatory seatbelt laws? Who is gets hurt but yourself if you get into an accident without your seatbelt? Same with helmet laws. Why do car companies put in crumple zones in their cars? The driver should just drive more safely if he doesn't want to get into an accident. Besides, what if I don't want to pay for a crumple zone, seat belt, and ABS? I can't get a barebones car anywhere for a decent price. Why do we have child labor laws? If the kid wants to work, it's his choice.

all of the mandates you mention with the exception of child labor laws have little to do with "greater good" and more to do with insurance liability.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Cerb<snip>
They didn't publish that UNTIL they were taken to court. The FACT is that it could be the reason you are more likely to get a SRI (smoking related Illness) if you work in a smoking work place is that you are more likely to smoke. The europeans threw out the study because after looking at the DATA they discovered something that was truely alarming. Smokers in a smoking workplace seem to contract LESS SRI than smokers in general.

...that's not all that alarming. An otherwise healthy human body adapts. If bombarded by smoke, it may learn to breathe it more and easier. If not bombarded with it, with everything around saturated with it, it may adjust itself to more normal air, and be more adversely affected by the smoke.
Liken it much the same as many cat people not being allergic to their own cat if it grew up in their house from a kitten. When the stuff is everywhere, your body can get used to it.

That's right, that's what makes smoking good for you. Now grab a pack and smoke with everyone else.[/quote]
Yeah, and you can call 911 for me /

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm back, lost a minor irrelevant battle due to insufficient research, intend to win the war

OK I've been trying to find reasonably unbiased studies that show carbon monoxide levels via exposure to second hand smoke versus air pollution. But prior to that...

First, here is a study that links carbon monoxide to hearing dysfunction:
Link The interesting part of this study is that the levels were within the range deemd "safe" by the governent, between nine and 50 parts per million.

Here is a study that shows the recommended ventilation for "smoking areas" in restuarants and office buildings is vastly insufficient to reduce 45 year mortality levels to the "de minimis risk level"
Link

This is a very good candian pdf that talks logically about second hand smoke, the effects and impact on non-smokers: Link

And here's what the EPA concludes about second hand smoke:

The report concludes that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) -- commonly known as secondhand smoke -- is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children.

ETS exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 of these cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to exposure to ETS. Of these, between 7,500 and 15,000 will result in hospitalization.

ETS exposure increases the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, a sign of chronic middle ear disease.

ETS exposure in children irritates the upper respiratory tract and is associated with a small but significant reduction in lung function.

ETS exposure increases the frequency of episodes and severity of symptoms in asthmatic children. The report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.

But all the previous stuff was just good info. Here's the best data I could google up to disprove Vic's assinine assertion that outdoor air pollution is the same as that tiny "whiff" of smoke you get from a smokers "bad habit".

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the risk of developing cancer from exposure to second-hand smoke is about 57 times greater than the total risk posed by all outdoor air contaminants regulated under U.S. environmental law.

Source: Cunningham, Rob. Smoke & Mirrors - The Canadian Tobacco War. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 1996.

So Vic stutters "should be ban fast food"? No, it doesn't interfere with my personal rights to breathe non-toxic air.
So Vic mumbles "Do we ban cars?" No, but we do regulate their emissions. But as I've just shown, SHS is a much much more severe personal impact that air pollution.

Since, as Vic pointed out earlier, only states and localities can pass laws to ban it in public and in commerce. I will continue to lobby politically and with my pocketbook. Heck, I'd even vote democrat on this issue :beer:

Good find, validates what most New Yorkers already know (if air pollution was really that bad for their health then they wouldn't be living there).

As for Vic, no arguing with someone who tries to assert his/her opinion on others with nothing logical to back it up. The saying comes to mind: "Never argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". That is all.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Good find, validates what most New Yorkers already know (if air pollution was really that bad for their health then they wouldn't be living there).

As for Vic, no arguing with someone who tries to assert his/her opinion on others with nothing logical to back it up. The saying comes to mind: "Never argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". That is all.

Hilarious. Go wrap your lips around the exhaust pipe of a car with its engine running and then get back to me on how bad auto pollution is, why dontcha?

Proof positive of an idiot living in denial. I don't live in either LA or NY. You know why? Air pollution. Biggest reason by far, as in the past I turned down more than one lucrative job offer to live in LA.

Originally posted by: alchemize
Heck, I'd even vote democrat on this issue.

That's because you obviously are a democrat.

Heaven forbid, people, that I have an unpopular opinion. The "fascists of the majority" crowd has to sling insults and pretend that's a logical argument

You will never be safe. You will die someday. Maybe tonight in a car accident, maybe 80 years from now in your sleep. You're not in control of that aspect of your fate. The sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner you will stop living in fear, and stop trying to force your way of life on other people.

I will say it again. Smokers smoke for decades before they experience serious health effects. You think a little whiff second-hand is gonna kill you? Fsck off.

 

[alchemize]

Well SP33Demon, I actually was getting ready to post a defense of Vic and his not being an idiot. However, after his latest post I have to agree with you.

I presented a scientific, measurable claim about indoor and outdoor pollution. He responded with nothing but a repeat of what he's been saying all along.

The debate is done. He didn't disprove or even draw into question a single one of my points. Instead he just notched his rhetoric up a notch with more profanity and emotion rather than substantiation.

The funniest part was he called me a democrat. Low blow! BBD, DealMonkey, SuperTool, Moonie, Whitling, etc. come to my defense please

 

[chess9]

Achemize:

You are a middle of the road moderate as far as I can tell. But that's the worst I say about you.... (although that's just awful )

Vic got it into his head early that cooperation is a dirty word. Caring about others is bad. Caring about ME is all that matters. I'm afraid I can't relate too well to libertarian dogma. The Fountainhead's an interesting read, but....

The sad thing is that Vic is a smart guy....

-Robert

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well SP33Demon, I actually was getting ready to post a defense of Vic and his not being an idiot. However, after his latest post I have to agree with you.

I presented a scientific, measurable claim about indoor and outdoor pollution. He responded with nothing but a repeat of what he's been saying all along.

The debate is done. He didn't disprove or even draw into question a single one of my points. Instead he just notched his rhetoric up a notch with more profanity and emotion rather than substantiation.

The funniest part was he called me a democrat. Low blow! BBD, DealMonkey, SuperTool, Moonie, Whitling, etc. come to my defense please

Excuse me, but why should I argue points that I have already called irrelevant to my argument? As I have already posted, my point isn't that SHS might be more unhealthy that air pollution, but that they are both unhealthy, and since you would allow one, why not both? You have not refuted that logical point and have in fact proved it IMO. Their relative levels of unhealthiness is not my argument, it is yours.

The insults? I didn't start them. I leave it at that.

As for your political stance, it seems pretty obvious. If you consider yourself a Republican, then it is only ala neocon.

And chess9, I very strongly believe in cooperation. Just not at gunpoint.

 

[alchemize]

Excuse me, but why should I argue points that I have already called irrelevant to my argument?

Nice debate methodology. Declare it irrelevant to your argument, therefore null and void?

As I have already posted, my point isn't that SHS might be more unhealthy that air pollution, but that they are both unhealthy, and since you would allow one, why not both?

So answer me this, and maybe we can settle it once and for all. Are you saying that air pollution should not be regulated? If you agree with that, then we'll just have to have a fundamentally different belief. Otherwise you are being a hypocrite.

You have not refuted that logical point and have in fact proved it IMO. Their relative levels of unhealthiness is not my argument, it is yours.

Guess it is your opinion. But it is invalid, unless you believe that air pollution should be unregulated.

The insults? I didn't start them. I leave it at that.

Ahh... the I-don't-like-something-so-I-think-there-oughta-be-a-law mentality. Pull your head out of your ass.

Sound familiar? Interesting standard you carry there.

As for your political stance, it seems pretty obvious. If you consider yourself a Republican, then it is only ala neocon.

Guess you're not going to "leave it at that" are ya?

 

[Vic]

Sigh... Where did I say that smoking should not be regulated? It seems that I even mentioned on the first page a form of regulation that I would like to see -- prominent signs denoting smoking areas. I'm only arguing that it shouldn't be outlawed, and that business owners should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want smoking allowed inside their businesses or not.
Pardon me for being reasonable.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Vic
Sigh... Where did I say that smoking should not be regulated? It seems that I even mentioned on the first page a form of regulation that I would like to see -- prominent signs denoting smoking areas. I'm only arguing that it shouldn't be outlawed, and that business owners should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want smoking allowed inside their businesses or not.
Pardon me for being reasonable.

And where did I say that it should be outlawed? I want it banned in public places and places of commerce that serve the public. Of course, I understand that that is a unreasonable position that requires me to "pull my head out of my ass".

PS Nice skipping over the "but alch insulted me first" lie. If you are gonna hold others to some high and mighty insult standard, you ought to at least follow it yourself. Go back and look at the posts. Me, I'll happily trade personal insults with anyone that wants to go down that path.

 

[Vic]

Arguing over who insulted who always just causes the insults to continue. As I wish to resolve this debate, I propose we drop that entire issue and re-focus on the original issue.

You wish to have smoking banned from all public places and places of commerce that serve the public. Some of those places of commerce would accurately argue that such regulation would have an unreasonable negative impact on their business, which would not only be unfair to existing business owners who have already invested into their respective business but might also discourage new investment in the future. As government exists in part by the taxation of such businesses, that would be contrary to the government interest, which would then be contrary to the public interest as the reduced revenue combined with the additional expense of enforcement would have to be made up in other ways. Therefore, I propose a compromise: that all places of commerce may decide on their own whether they wish to allow smoking or not, but that all such places must display a prominent sign at every public entrance as to whether they allow smoking or not. In addition, I propose that the government encourage new investment in non-smoking establishments by way of temporary tax breaks.
If you (for example) then walked into an establishment that allowed smoking, past the prominent sign, how then could you complain about suffering from the negative health effects of SHS?
Freedom (IMO) is the right to have an opportunity to make an informed choice. IMO, my compromise preserves that right.
I welcome your comments.

 

[Orsorum]

I just want to say thanks to everyone who is putting forth ideas and data on this subject, it is helping me out a great deal.

Cheers!
Nate

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Vic
Sigh... Where did I say that smoking should not be regulated? It seems that I even mentioned on the first page a form of regulation that I would like to see -- prominent signs denoting smoking areas. I'm only arguing that it shouldn't be outlawed, and that business owners should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want smoking allowed inside their businesses or not.
Pardon me for being reasonable.

Finally a reasonable overview to your stance. I agree, that smoking shouldn't be outlawed everywhere, and should definitely be up to the business owner. ALTHOUGH, the government should regulate certain types of business where smoking should be entirely outlawed or extremely regulated/limited (such as restaurants, where SMS can be a hazard to others, or airports). Other types of business (such as bars) should be left alone (where consumer chooses to patronize a place where he/she knows that smoke will be in the premises).

 

[dmcowen674]

2-1-2004 Smokers should not have right to endanger others' health

Restrictions on smoking are not an intrusion in people's life; it a matter of life itself. It is not a strange move to mandate smoke-free dining because people do find meaning in the move. Each life saved is worth the effort. Again, it is not a trivial matter or a mad idea but something overdue for a long time.

Hundreds of communities and many states and countries have gone smoke-free and the list is growing. The latest to join is Ireland, which a few weeks ago banned smoking in public places. It is going smoke-free because smoking is harmful to health of the nation.

Perhaps the worst sufferers are restaurant workers who inhale six times more smoke than diners and incur a greater the risk of lung cancer and heart disease. Dining in a restaurant, which is an integral part of our culture, should be a pleasant experience; smoking should not spoil it or imperil the health of diners and workers.

But it is a welcome realization that three of every four smokers who visit a doctor are urged to quit. To quit smoking is the desire of a majority of smokers, though it is within the power of a relatively few of them.

Estimates bear out that 440,000 lives are decimated each year by tobacco, while 8.6 million persons suffer from smoking-related illnesses. This results in $157 billion in health-related costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh darn, less population control if the idiots stop smoking.

 

[Sahakiel]

Well, damn, we might as well enforce our First Amendment right to "Life."



Start shooting smokers in the name of self-defense.

 

[dmcowen674]

New Georgia anti-smoking Law:

If you are caught smoking in a car with small children you are committing a crime:

2-5-2004 Bill Bans Smoking in Cars With Kids

The measure would be the nation's first ban on smoking in private vehicles...

The measure would allow police to pull over drivers for smoking while driving children in a car safety seat, required in Georgia for children under age 4.

?[A] friend of mine saw a little kid gasping for breath in a car where a man was smoking a pipe,? he said. ?They?re young, they can?t roll down their windows, they have no defense.?

Smith, when asked if the proposed law would be violating the personal space of a private citizen, said, ?I realize some of them fell that way, but we told them to put car seats in for the kids, didn?t we? So, what?s the difference??

No other state makes it a crime to smoke in private cars, although Indiana and New Jersey have laws against smoking on school buses...