[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Second Hand Smoke (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 11/30/2006 12:40:57 PM EDT
|
OK, lemme try this - Alot of places are outlawing smoking due to second hand smoke. I'm not real happy about that. How ANY of us make our decisions is thru an amalgamation of facts and principles. Lemme list some facts and principles that I beleive are universally agreed upon, and then you tell me how you put all of them together (or what else you might add) to arrive at your decision of how to handle second hand smoke. 1. "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Chief Justice 2. Everyone is personally responsible for their actions. 3. Preserving liberty should always be the aim of gov't, to the degree possible. 4. Men will either self-govern, or they will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn 5. No one has a right to force others to smell their second hand smoke. 6. No one has a right to tell others what they can do on their private property (provided #1 above is adhered to) 7. If a man wants friends, he should behave in a friendly manner toward them. - The Bible ________________________ OK - now please address all SEVEN concepts, and explain how you come to your conclusion as to how to handle second hand smoke in public places. |
|
I haven't had a cigarette in 2 years. I enjoy a little second hand smoke every now and then. I agree that 2nd hand smoke is bad for you but there are so many other pollutants that are also. 2nd hand smoke is getting it's 15 minutes. It is easy because laws dealing with it affect a set number of people. When it is done and they move on to something else it will get harder. Eventually they will make their way around to a pollutant whose restriction/banning will impact each and every person. |
|
I happen to smoke, but I HATE these laws. The have started this crap in Baton Rouge. The idea that the .gov can ban legal items from private establishments is bullshit. A lot of people here will say "it's good for the public blah blah blah" until someone comes and says "No more guns at gun ranges." Or when they limit the number of calories that a meal at a retaraunt can contain. It's the same fucking principle. A principle which is some commie bullshit.  And for the record, I sit in the NON smoking section of restaraunts if possible. |
So the right TO smoke ALWAYS trumps the right to not have to be subjected to smoke? If I'm standing in Best Buy, and a smoker walks up smoking, I should just leave? That's your solution? Which Amendment of the Bill of Rights is that? BTW, you missed # 1-4, as well as 6 and 7. |
The recent smoking bans being passed around the country generally don't target smoking on public property, and most people would probably not object to the government prohibiting smoking on "their" (i.e., public) property. The problem is, these bans are used against privately owned and operated businesses. |
9th You know....it would REALLY help your cause if you could describe how you are being FORCED to stay in the area of them? You aren't so helpless that you need the government to come in and protect you are you? Do you really think you have the right to tell a private business what they can and cannot allow? What amendment is that? |
That's fair. I agree - if a restaurant owner (private property) wants smoking in his restaurant, the gov't has no right to tell him he can't. And non smokers have no right to be there , and we should just not go to his restaurant. The restaurants owners choice will cost him ALOT of business, and given the financial repercussions of that, I have even MORE respect for his principled stand. Of course, NONE of that addresses parents who subject minor children to cigarette smoke. |
We'd have that discussion if you'd do what I asked,a nd addressed ALL the points I listed above. Which is why I gave the points. |
I already established that FACT in #6. Now, please address 1-5 and 7. The reason I'm asking you to do that is that IN THE REAL WORLD most people DO NOT recognize private property rights as I do. And by beligerantly smoking in THEIR face, smokers are causing their own grief, and those people who get smoke angrily blown in their face WILL calmour to gov't for help. See #7. PLEASE. |
ok fine. 1. "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Chief Justice This doesn't take into account say walking into a boxing ring and expecting not to get punched. 2. Everyone is personally responsible for their actions. Yes like leaving the area that is filled with smoke 3. Preserving liberty should always be the aim of gov't, to the degree possible. Yes, like the liberty a business has to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking. 4. Men will either self-govern, or they will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn So you are suggesting the tyrant approach? 6. No one has a right to tell others what they can do on their private property (provided #1 above is adhered to) Uhh wouldn't this support smoking? 7. If a man wants friends, he should behave in a friendly manner toward them. - The Bible So its governments job to make everyone be friends with each other? It takes a village... |
OK, that's how it affects the non-smoker. How does it affect the smoker, Its a two way street.
OK, that's how it affects the non-smoker. How does it affect the smoker, Its a two way street.
Agreed. Already TWICE explained I agree with this.
Penn's statement is an axion of life. To the degree you do not act kindly toward your neighbor, the gov't WILL step in. The point is this - these laws are LARGELY the fault of angry, obnoxious in your face smokers.
Yes, I am a fair minded, balanced person who has presented both sides of the argument. You on the other hand have ONLY addressd the smokers rights. So, as I said before.... OK, that's how it affects the non-smoker. How does it affect the smoker, Its a two way street. .
The Biblical statement is an axion of life. To the degree you do not act kindly toward your neighbor, the gov't WILL step in. The point is this - these laws are LARGELY the fault of angry, obnoxious in your face smokers. |
|
second smoke is bs my father used to run the largest health department in maryland. years ago he got some info from the american lung assc. they where claiming that more people got cancer from there SO smoking than the smoker themself, who happens to breath the first and second smoke. iceland which has a pretty high smoker rate says they have more cancer cases from second hand smoke than than they have non smokers someone sued big tabacco a few years before the other law suit in west virginia from lung cancer from his wife smoking. he was backed up by the american lung BS. the case was thrown out when the court found out the guy was a welder for 40 years, and the ALA said his welding career had nothing to do with his cancer. in WV something like half the cases of second hand smoke cancer rates are people who worked in coal mines but the info the ALA gives out ignores this info. my father who researched this stuff simply threw it away, because he found so many cases that the person with cancer had a high risk job for getting cancer ( miners, welders asbestos installers etc ) . they sent along the case studies with the second hand smokers bio's its all bs, the air in LA california is worse than the air in a bar, but you dont see millions droping dead from it |
Forget the "studies." Simple logic tells you that which causes cancer in teh smoker WILL have ill effects on the non-smoker. YOu don't have the right to cause ill health effects in me. Now, please do what I asked in the thread opener,a nd get off your personal hobby horse. Please.  |
I don't think public places are the issue. Recently, legislation has dictated where and when or even IF people could be allowed to smoke on the property of PRIVATE establishments. |
Best Buy is a private business. If you come to my apartment chanting about your 2nd amendment right to bear arms and I shoot you in the head, have I violated your rights? Yes, you should leave. If Best Buy allows their customers to smoke, who are you to scream at a private establishment that you have a "RIGHT" to anything?
If I will be miserable, so be it. I'm not going to surrender my liberty in hopes of not being "miserable." People need to wake the fuck up, our rights are being eroded daily. |
|
|
I quit smoking last year, I hate smokers more than anybody. I started smoking when I was very young, when I quit 15 years later I finally realized how fucking disgusting it really is. The smell makes me feel like vomiting, and normally I have a solid stomach. I hate smoke and I hate smokers. I will up and leave somewhere if a smoker comes to close to me, whether they are smoking at the time or just stink of it. With that said, anyone who agrees that smoking should be banned from a privately own place (bar, restaurant, ANYTHING) is a liberty and freedom hating cocksucking commy faggot. That's all there is to it, there is no argument. |
Other than teh "please smoke tactfully" the ONLY concept you have addressed is the supposed right TO smoke. Please address BOTH sides of teh issue. How do these principles speak to smokers duty to "play nice" and what comparable rights do you acknoledge non-smokers have? (on the whole, you've done better than most) |
I'd like to say that I never called you a moron in the other thread.I still think you would be a heck of a dictator though  .I do not smoke-never have,never will.I own a business and do not allow smoking here-my choice.I could change that at anytime I want.Why?Because I still misguidedly consider it my business.My radio is set to an old country station-don't like it?Too bad,step outside. When they make tobacco an illegal substance,then we can agree.Until then,we'll have to agree to disagree. Just one more thing-I also don't drink-never have/never will,but I don't care if you get drunk every night-as long as you don't drive. Individual freedom. |
That is such a crock. These laws exist because a HUGE campaign has been waged by the .gov and money-grubbing lawyers to demonize smokers and smoking. It has become an industry. After they are done with smokers, who is next? |
|
FYI, again! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/08/wtob08.html Sunday 8 March 1998 Issue 1017 Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set. The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs. A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants. The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking. ETA: The study. http://www.obscurious.co.uk/componants/smoking1440.pdf |
There is no room in this thread for facts. |
That's awesome 
|
Weak on number seven there bud. It's their place of business not yours. Just read the thread that Christianity needs to stop spreading to avoid terrorism, how would you like a nice law saying no Bibles in your house? Tj |
They do not have the right to not be offended. Assholes exist everywhere. People should be mindful of how what they do might offend others, but no one can honestly go through a day without being offended. Consider this, your religion and bible offend someone, should you refrain form saying prayers aloud in public, displaying a crucifix, or bringing a bible with you? |
|
I thought it over some and you might be right. Subjecting kids to secondhand smoke IS wrong. The evidence seems to support a marked rise in allergies and resperatory issues in kids whose parents smoke around them, and they really don't have the choice of someone in a resturant or whatever to stay or go. But stopping at smoke is wrong too. There are lots of other things that present at least as harmful a threat to our children in the house, and it's a mistake of monumental proportions to leave them out. Stuff like: Asbestos. Here's a big one. You get those fibers in there, they aint comin out. Schools have some pretty strict controls on it, but the home is a free-fire zone. Lots of older homes are absolutely full of the worst kinds of friable cancerous asbestos. We should enforce the same rules there at the very least. HAZMAT. People keep some pretty wicked stuff under the sink or in the garage. Some of the stuff they spray on the lawn and let their kids play in is pretty much just watered down nerve gas. We need to legally enforce organic yard and household practices, or at least provide MSDS sheets or something. Lead. Lead paint is one thing, but what about lead crystal. There's some pretty good concentrations in that stuff, and what if the kids are having a teaparty and dig out the old set from your grandparents? Yipes. And lead from firearms too! Lead-free ammo exists after all, and it's for the children. That's if you absolutely must have barbaric tools like that around. Bycicles/unicycles/tricycles/motorized toys. They certainly led more kids to their doom than lawn darts. You should've seen what I did to my elbows this one time down at the gravel pit. Of course that was on a pre-ban bike with no helmet, padding or chainguard. It even had the un-ergonomic y-shaped seat which causes health issues and should be banned separately. And finally building codes. I've been to a lot of areas where there are no building codes a-tall. If it stands up long enough to put a bed in, you can let a child sleep in it. Most areas with codes grandfather existing structures with potentially fatal defects such as balloon framing, truss roofs, aluminum wiring, whatever. We need federal oversight and NATIONAL building codes. Think of how many kids die in collapses or fires every year, and how many could be saved! In for a dime, in for a dollar. 
|
I would say that people who want to ban smoking in public places are bed-wetters who should wake up to the hard world that surrounds them. They are not interested in liberty, and they would use the force of government to affect the behaviors of others in a manner that is not consistent with the continued establishment of liberty. Moreover, those who would deny the "slippery slope" that this encompasses should educate themselves in terms of the arguements employed against the income tax, medicare, social security, seatbelt laws, the "drug war", the 7 trillion dollar war on poverty, the abyss-like depth of the commerce clause, etc. YMMV. |
|
Took my daughter to the zoo I Springfield Mo a few years ago.I didnt see any signs saying no smoking or smoke free park.So I was smoking by the tiger cage.No one else around middle of the summer place smells like a dung wagon.And this woman,I wont say lady walks up to me with her 2 little half and half children.And say YOU KNOW THIS IS A NONE SMOKING PARK! DONT YOU! I mean out loud she says this.I said no mam I didnt,There a no signs posted.I dropped my cigerate right in front of her smashed it out with my foot.She and her little ones turned and start to walk off.So I say hey mam!She turned and glared at me.And I just asked, WHERE is your childrens father?Ohh Man she turned and stormed off dragging her kids behind her. I'am a very nice man.But dont push me! |
|
How about this? Explicitly worded, but simple enough: 1. On public property, policy is determined on a case-by-case or category-of-building basis by direct balloted referendum in which all adults who have legal capability to vote and are registered to do so may cast a ballot in the matter. It is only to be determined by the level of government which owns the property; that is to say, a state may not ban by referendum smoking on property explicitly owned by a township, city, or county, and the national government may not ban by referendum smoking on property owned by a state, township, city, or county. Bans by representatives, senators, delegates, or any other elected representatives; by mayors, governors, the President of the United States or any other executive officer; and by judges, justices, and other representatives of the courts are not permitted. 2a. On private property, the decision is to be made solely by the owner(s) of the property, and no other person, organization, or government, save for the provision in part 3 of this policy. Property also extends to the grounds on which a building is located that are owned by the same owner, any parking lots and pavements immediately connected and within the boundaries of the property, and the connected airspace. 2b. It shall not be a violation of any ban in which a non-excessive amount of smoke (non-excessive, in this case, meaning an amount that would be moved between properties simply by currents of the wind or similar natural circumstances) incidentally crosses a property boundary from a location where smoking is allowed to a location where it is banned, public or private. 2c. However, if the smoker is intentionally moving or blowing the smoke from a location where smoking is allowed to an area where smoking is banned, and the smoker is in full knowledge of this transgression (informed either by posted sign or by the owner of the property on which smoking is banned or a representative thereof) and the owner of the property on which smoking is banned has made reasonable effort to stop the smoker from doing so (reasonable effort, in this case, must include informing or reminding the smoker of the ban and requesting he stop blowing the smoke onto the property), and the owner of the property on which smoking is banned has not in any way requested the smoker to move the smoke onto the property after a request for the smoker to stop, this is a violation of the ban. 3. At private residences, if there is evidence that there is harm to a minor child due to smoking occuring at that property, those who smoke at that property may, after sufficient evaluation by at least one medical expert and decision of the court, after fair trial allowing for presentation of evidence that may contradict the court's medical expert(s), that the child is definitely at risk based on testimony by said medical expert, with all costs incurred by the government rather than those being challenged, smoking may be banned at that property until only the minor child(ren) evaluated in the particular case come of age. Should this ban be violated by one who is in knowledge of the ban (and the owners of the property are required to inform others that smoking is not permitted, whether in person or by posted notice), the violator may be subject to fines not exceeding $1000 for the first incident, $10,000 for the second, and $20,000 for the third and all other incidents; an imprisonment of not more than ten days for the second and all other incidents (with no imprisonment for the first incident); and, should those violating the ban be the entirety of the parents or guardians of the minor child, evaluation of the possibility of placement of the child in a foster home after the second incident. For any private property not a residence - e.g. a restaurant or bar, there may be no such mandatory health bans; instead, those with minor children are recommended to avoid such properties with their children. 4. There shall be no bans placed on smokeless tobacco except those preventing the expectoration of waste products onto public property except a proper receptacle (being a trash can, garbage can, dumpster, spitoon, toilet, urinal, or any of the person's own receptacles they may carry with them). 5. There shall not be any bans on public property of the possession, purchase, or sale by persons over the age of 18 years of any of the following: tobacco pipes (whether briar, clay, meerschaum, glass, metal, or other material), cigarettes, kerteks or cloves, bidis, cigars, chewing tobacco, snuff, dipping tobacco, rolling papers, loose tobacco, or other tobacco products and paraphrenelia lighters or matches for the purpose of igniting tobacco. 6. This is the supreme law concerning tobacco possession and consumption and supersedes any contradictory laws, and may not be altered in any way without full repeal by direct balloted referendum in which all adults who have legal capability to vote and are registered to do so may cast a ballot in the matter. Hell, you could put what I just wrote into any set of regulations in the country and it'd fit right in. |
Actually pretty stupid. Use a study that is almost 10 years old that was sponsered by the Tobacco companies using data that was statistically flawed. Isn't that what they were doing 50 years ago when they claimed cigeratte smoking iwas good for you? |
|
Finish your dobbie and read the study. http://www.obscurious.co.uk/componants/smoking1440.pdf How was it sponsered by the Tobacco companies and where is/was it using data that was statistically flawed. And, how does being 10 years old or older change the facts? |
Learn to do research son and don't rely on sites that claim that they " explore some of the more obscure ,curious and downright strange stuff to be found in the World around you". The study you presented was funded by the Centre for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) CIAR: Nonprofit organization funded by the tobacco industry. CIAR was formed in March 1988 by tobacco companies "to sponsor "high-quality research on indoor air issues and to facilitate communication of research findings to the broad scientific community." http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/270503smoke.html |
|
1. "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Chief Justicedont walk into a punch..likewise dont walk into an establishment labelled "we welcome smokers" if you dont like smoke. 2. Everyone is personally responsible for their actions. including which private businesses one decides to enter on their own accord. 3. Preserving liberty should always be the aim of gov't, to the degree possible. Government has no right to dictate the management and operation of a private business with regards to smoking...the consumer is in no way REQUIRED to enter said business, and does so on their own accord. 4. Men will either self-govern, or they will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn a few businesses want to be left alone 5. No one has a right to force others to smell their second hand smoke. if the location is private..the person entering has made a conscious decision to enter a private environment...they are under no coercement to enter such an establishment. 6. No one has a right to tell others what they can do on their private property (provided #1 above is adhered to) If it is private property, a visitor can, and should leave if they do not like the environment 7. If a man wants friends, he should behave in a friendly manner toward them. - The Bible Businesses should post signs to tell customers if they promote, or prohibit smoking. ________________________ OK - now please address all SEVEN concepts, and explain how you come to your conclusion as to how to handle second hand smoke in public places. All business should have a sign stating their smoking stance, either "No smoking" or "smokers welcome". If you enter any private business, which has a sign at the entrance which says "Smokers Welcome" then accept the fact someone somewhere will probably be smoking. If you don't like smoke...make a decision that you will not enter such a place rather than imposing your belief on others. |
|
1. "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Chief JusticeIf it is a legal activity to swing your fist any time, any where, for my personal safety I would be very careful where I was walking. Oliver Wendell Holmes was making the point that you do not have the right to intentionally HARM someone else. If you are relying on the propagandist premise that second hand smoke is absolutely life threatening, than we could never agree on this topic, however the evidence is weak that your life could be cut short by occasionally smelling smoke wafting through the air. Pollutants caused by autos and factories are at least as harmful on a daily basis. Your primary gripe, as is the gripe of most anti smoking nazis is based more on the "offensive nature" of smoking than the immediate health risks. 2. Everyone is personally responsible for their actions.both smokers and non smokers are responsible for their actions. As smoking is a LEGAL activity, the responsibility should be on the NON smoker to avoid a LEGAL activity if they find it offensive. Homosexuality is LEGAL. I personally find it offensive. I attempt to shelter myself and my children from blatant acts of homosexulaity, if possible. Smelly beggars are for the most part LEGAL. See above response to homos. If smoking becomes an ILLEGAL activity, then of course the NON smokers "rights" will trump the smokers lackthereof. 3. Preserving liberty should always be the aim of gov't, to the degree possible.What part of LIBERTY don't you understand? Does the NON smoker have more "liberty" than the smoker? Again smoking is LEGAL. I believe it's the .gov's responsibility to preserve a smokers liberty as well as the non smokers. How does the .gov handle a smelly beggars "liberty" vs. MY liberty as a NON smelly beggar? Answer: The smelly beggar has the right to stand on a stree corner, I have the right to walk a wide arc around said smelly beggar. We both have rights and liberty. This republic we live in does not gurantee me or you the right to not be offended. 4. Men will either self-govern, or they will be ruled by tyrants." - William PennAccording to my most recent "rules of America book", the Men that William Penn alluded to have decided that smoking is indeed LEGAL. If the MEN or the TYRANTS deem smoking ILLEGAL, then we can have a different discussion. 5. No one has a right to force others to smell their second hand smoke. I would never dream of FORCING someone to smell my second hand smoke. If you have any questions on this, please refer to responses to questions 2 and 3 above. Again, no one has the right to not be offended. 6. No one has a right to tell others what they can do on their private property (provided #1 above is adhered to) I believe we are in agreement on this one 7. If a man wants friends, he should behave in a friendly manner toward them. - The Bible I am a bible believing individual and could not agree more on this one. Case in point: Two months ago I was at a local fair smoking and talking with friends/fellow smokers. A women several feet away politely asked if we would not smoke there, as she was bothered by it. The three of us extinguished our smokes. We were acting politely to a polite request. All was well. If, however, this woman acted in a non polite manner, we possibly would not have reacted in kind. |
I tire of this argument. Yes, the pollutants caused by industrialization are harmful. It is generally accepted, however, that the benefits to society and the individual far outweigh the damage done. Also, if you as an individual decide to minimize your involvement in the industrialization process, you do not harm anyone, yet you still benefit from the process as a whole.
I disagree. The non smokers right to breath the air in its natural state trumps your right to alter the air. If you smoke the burden should be on you to make sure it will not interfere with anothers right to breathe "natural" air. |
|
OK, now it looks like people are putting togather some excellent thought out responses. I can't reply to them right now, but I will. Here's the point I am driving at - Exercising liberty without responsibility is anarchy, and will swing the legislative pendulum away from liberty, and toward tyranny. More later... |