RE: Second hand smoke (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


MistressSassy66 -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 12:07:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo


Jersey is pretty tough on the emissions control



Maine isnt....Its not a State thing..but a Town to Town decision.Or depends on the County you live in.My County doesnt care...the next one over does...go figure.




eruditegirl1 -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 12:09:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

I think the next time I see some asshole smoking right in front of the door I am going to wipe my ass with my hand and clean it on their shirt.

I mean, it is my right after all isn't it?

The idiots supporting smoking don't have a clue what freedom means.  It means freedom from interference from others.  You smoke enters my lungs, you are unconsensually killing me.  I am not advocating banning smoking, just that you should have a bag over your head while you do it.   I support your right to smoke as long as you don't force me to be a pathetic drug addict as well.


You know Crappy you are right...now I am all mad at people who drive cars too....how dare they pollute the air that I breathe....or how about the big trucks too...or the planes....and what about the chemicals they spray on our friuts and vegies...or the hormones injected into our meat....and don't get me started on the water that comes from our tap.....you know what....I might as well just go wipe my ass and shake everyone's hand that I come in contact with....cause how dare they even think of polluting my lungs...body.....or mind....or I could just do a little research and realize......
The OSHA standards say that the maximum safe level for nicotine exposure is 500 micrograms per cubic meter. The measurements taken by the St. Louis Park Environmental Health Department in 19 restaurants that had smoking sections had a full range of between <1 (too low to detect) to a maximum 32.5 (and that one establishment was the only one above 7.5 micrograms, the other 18 were all below that). The absolute worst establishment, the one that was nearly 5 times worse than all the others, was still 85% below the safe exposure limits.




MistressLorelei -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 12:13:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I agree with banning smoking in public buildings and where people have no choice but to go. I just don't understand why it is banned in entertainment establishments where people have can make a choice about going to or not, it seems to me the choice as to whether an establishment allows smoking should be down to the owners of such establishments, since they are the ones that have to make money by ther decision and will take the choice the market demands..  


Workers often have to accept jobs where they can, this would limit where non-smokers could be allowed to work.  Also, the majority of the population is of the non-smoking variety, so likely most places would go with non-smoking, except some bars, pool halls, cigar bars, smoke shops, etc. (which is the way it is now in Florida).

It is just as easy to not go somewhere because you can't smoke, as to not go somewhere because people are smoking.  Who has more rights?  I would think the right to keep harmful pollutants away from the general population would win out.




meatcleaver -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 12:20:27 PM)

Well, people who work for me (that sounds grand, I hire freelance) have to accept I like a Cuban now and again, if they don't like it they don't have to take the work. No government is going to tell me whether I can or can't smoke in my own studio.




SirKenin -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 12:22:53 PM)

I want to clarify My position.

The fact is that cigarette smoke is deadly.  The people with any brains and that have done any reading whatsoever knows this.

The burr in My saddle is not that it is banned from public places.  That is fine by Me, although I think restaurants and bars should be exempt and left up to the owner.  What bugs the hell out of Me is (1) that the government is playing both sides, (2) the reason why they banned it and (3) the fact that they blamed it on everyone else.

The government is greasing the wheels of the majority (after all, that is where they get their votes), while at the same time making billions of dollars off of cigarette taxes.  Why do they not ban cigarettes all together?  Because it would blow their budgets all to hell.  The truth is that they do not give a shit about health.  They care about money and votes.  Then, they can not take the responsibility, they have to point the finger elsewhere.  Blame it on a study.

If they gave a damn about people's health, why do they not crack down on pollution from factories and the like?  Why did the President go running from Kyoto with his tail between his legs?

It is all votes and money.  Nothing more, and it makes Me sick to My stomach.




UltiMaster -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 12:30:37 PM)

Why don't they ban cigarettes altogether?

Remember Prohibition?

It doesn't work.

Enough smuggling goes on to fund a few private armies as it is.




marieToo -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 12:46:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eruditegirl1

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

I think the next time I see some asshole smoking right in front of the door I am going to wipe my ass with my hand and clean it on their shirt.

I mean, it is my right after all isn't it?

The idiots supporting smoking don't have a clue what freedom means.  It means freedom from interference from others.  You smoke enters my lungs, you are unconsensually killing me.  I am not advocating banning smoking, just that you should have a bag over your head while you do it.   I support your right to smoke as long as you don't force me to be a pathetic drug addict as well.


The OSHA standards say that the maximum safe level for nicotine exposure is 500 micrograms per cubic meter.


Nicotine is what hooks a smoker.  However, nicotine is the least of the health hazards in a cigarette.




meatcleaver -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 12:53:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UltiMaster

Why don't they ban cigarettes altogether?

Remember Prohibition?

It doesn't work.

Enough smuggling goes on to fund a few private armies as it is.


Then why do they ban cannabis etc?




SirKenin -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 2:03:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: UltiMaster

Why don't they ban cigarettes altogether?

Remember Prohibition?

It doesn't work.

Enough smuggling goes on to fund a few private armies as it is.


Then why do they ban cannabis etc?


Quite simple, actually.  They have not found a way to control it and tax it.




eruditegirl1 -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 2:30:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Then why do they ban cannabis etc?


Meatcleaver,
The reason for marijuana being criminalized in 1937 was to prevent people in the hemp industry from becoming wealthy. Quite obviously, people representing forestry, petrochemical and pharmaceutical industries feared the enormous competition from the infant hemp industry.Because the infant hemp industry seemed to threaten these rich men's monopoly in the pulp and paper industry. In fact, in 1937, Popular Science predicted that hemp would become a billion dollar industry. In fact Anslinger, the first to hold DEA, was backed and affliated with numerous lumber big wigs. I had to do an essay on this a few semester back. It was quite interesting to learn about.




SirKenin -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 3:09:06 PM)

Ummm..  Hemp and Cannabis are entirely two separate things.




EnglishDomNW -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 5:05:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressBG

As Cigar Dave calls them, "The Pleasure Police"! lol (a.k.a. liberal left wing morons that have nothing better to do than try to make everyone else as miserable as they are!) I believe it should be up to the individual business owner if they wish to allow smoking in their business or not....as far as the dangers of second hand smoke itself, there's absolutely no concrete evidence that second hand smoke affects a person's health ... this, again, is left wing liberal b/s.[;)]


What on earth has either political "wing" got to do with anything?  It's a debate about smoking (something I'm reasonably sure sections of both wings do, and sections of both wings want to ban), not a platform for promoting the politics of the rabid right.




EnglishDomNW -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 5:19:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei

If you guys want to smoke... do it, just don't do it where others want to breathe indoor air  which does not contain carcinogens from your cigarettes.  Fill your homes with all the smoke you like, and smoke in establishments which are pro-cancer anytime you wish. 



I edited this rant.


Please remember, 99.99999999999999% of smokers will never smoke around you your whole life so as a group, we don't need your permission or approval to do something we enjoy. 

Anyway, to show you how ludicrously the anti-smoking lobby get about things, they complained about James Bond being shown smoking a cigar in "Die Another Day".  Despite the fact he had unprotected sex, drove like a lunatic through crowded areas firing a hail of bullets throughout the film, the biggest complaint was "he smoked a cigar".

You have to wonder at some point "are they really complaining about smoking?"

Or is it just an excuse to attack people doing something (legal) they don't like?

Get a new witch to hunt, I'm going for a cigarette.

(Rant over)

I think the anti-smoking people have issues that aren't related to smoking.

99.99999999999999% of smokers?   Okay, if you say so.  But if that is true... so what?   Before smoking was banned in public places, here in Florida, there was plenty of smoke entering my lungs, while at work, the hallways, restaurants, etc. Enough smoke in fact, that the government felt compelled to tell the smokers they would have to take their pollutants outside, so not to harm those who didn't wish to share their bad habit and their potential illnesses and disease. 



Indeed, hence the fact I don't - and never will - smoke in the presence of anyone who would object

quote:



You most certainly do need permission to do something you enjoy.... when it means harming another while you do it.



But since I stated throughout this thread I don't do it around anyone who would object, I thankfully don't need your permission for it.  Nor does anyone who doesn't smoke around you

quote:



Our lifestyle is based on safe, sane, and consensual.... which includes not harming another without his consent.


I'm not harming you by my smoking. 

quote:




You are right, this non-smoker does have issues about something besides smoking.  Smoking is fine if you want to do it without harming anyone else.


I know.

quote:




I have issues wth people who think it's more important  for them to have their freedom (in this case, their right to smoke anywhere they please), than for me to have my freedom (in this case the right to not be forced to inhale their harmful smoke).


This is where we agree - if people smoke around you, you have every right to be offended.  But what I object to is the extent to which this progresses.  Someone earlier believed that if I was smoking on a street and they were 100 yards away on the other side, they could still smell the smoke and therefore it could still be doing them harm.  Whatever your position on smoking, that is clearly beyond absurd.

I totally accept that nobody should smoke within a reasonable distance of a non-smoker.  You don't need our habit affecting your health.  The only objection I have is when it stops being a health issue and just becomes a witch hunt of people doing something you personally find distasteful.
quote:



Personally, I don't see how anyone would want to smoke around others in a public place.   I don't smoke, but if I did, I wouldn't want to make others share my cigarette against their will.  I stay at home when I have a contagious cold or virus, because I don't want to expose others to my potentially harmful germs.


Absolutely.  Most of the smokers I know don't do it around people who would object.  If people smoke irresponsibly, that's that particular individual smokers fault, not everyone who smokes cigarettes.

While the anti-smoking lobby state that they have every right to avoid being subjected to second-hand smoke, we smokers have an equal right to enjoy doing what we do in places that non-smokers are clearly not going to be affected and not be told we can't do it just because non-smokers personally don't like it. 






Dtesmoac -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 5:32:44 PM)

Interesting rant Termyn8or but from an epidemialogical point of view incorect. I was mearly pointing out why the term no safe limit was used and is always used for materials that are considered Carcinogenic, I could go on an bore you with the difference between Type I, Type II and Type III carcinogens but you would probably also respond in an ill informed hysteric manner. To be specifically (legally) classified as a carcinogen varies in different countires but the science is roughly the same. And just because one test shows something may be carcinogenic does not mean it is. Take a graph draw a line through the origin and right dose on the x axis and response on the y axis - that is the graph for a true carcinogen. O and yes there are carcinogens in smoke on the way in and the way out. .....................I almost got ranty too......




eruditegirl1 -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 5:47:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Ummm..  Hemp and Cannabis are entirely two separate things.


Actually Hemp is Cannabis sativa.....it's origin is from Asia.....and although there are other plants referred to as hemp....(hemp is pretty much any durable plant that has been used since pre-historical times) cannabis is one of the strongest's of the mulberry family....I believe what you meant was that marijuana and hemp are not one in the same.... Hemp and marijuana are varieties of the Cannabis sativa plant. Smoking marijuana will make the user high, and smoking hemp will not.




ScooterTrash -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 6:09:58 PM)

Damned, this thread is still coming back to life? It is funny to read through though, you see the oddest claims. Claims about proof and then claims that there is none. People claiming rights to breathe fresh air then claims about rights to smoke. The funniest thing about all this is that for many, many, yes I said many years, no one thought a thing about this and it was socially acceptable. Seems since they started pumping anti-smoking propaganda into the school systems, those who were so appalled at smoking have finally gotten their little civil war. I smoke and I breathe, some don't smoke and they breathe, some who smoke get cancer, some who don't smoke get cancer.....OMG...the common denominator is the breathing....quit breathing dammit.




WhiplashGirlChld -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 6:21:10 PM)

quote:

Why is it being banned at beaches?
  Not because of the smoke, but because of the litter.  The is a separate issue entirely, but for some reason, smokers treat the beach like a giant ashtray.  I live in a part of California with high tinder-dry status, and discarded cigarettes pose a significant fire danger.

Aside from that, I am tired of talking about smoking as a right.  I smoked 3 packs a day when I quit.  It's not a right.  It's a harmful addiction with NO redeeming qualities.




EnglishDomNW -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 6:31:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiplashGirlChld

quote:

Why is it being banned at beaches?
  Not because of the smoke, but because of the litter.  The is a separate issue entirely, but for some reason, smokers treat the beach like a giant ashtray.  I live in a part of California with high tinder-dry status, and discarded cigarettes pose a significant fire danger.

Aside from that, I am tired of talking about smoking as a right.  I smoked 3 packs a day when I quit.  It's not a right.  It's a harmful addiction with NO redeeming qualities.



No redeeming qualities for you personally.  For me, it's soothing, relaxing and damned enjoyable.




marieToo -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 6:39:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiplashGirlChld

quote:

Why is it being banned at beaches?
  Not because of the smoke, but because of the litter.  The is a separate issue entirely, but for some reason, smokers treat the beach like a giant ashtray.  I live in a part of California with high tinder-dry status, and discarded cigarettes pose a significant fire danger.

Aside from that, I am tired of talking about smoking as a right.  I smoked 3 packs a day when I quit.  It's not a right.  It's a harmful addiction with NO redeeming qualities.



No redeeming qualities for you personally.  For me, it's soothing, relaxing and damned enjoyable.


Im not being antagonistic.  I am genuinely curious. Are you glad that you started smoking?  Or do you wish you had never picked one up?




WhiplashGirlChld -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/3/2006 6:43:34 PM)

quote:

No redeeming qualities for you personally. For me, it's soothing, relaxing and damned enjoyable.
  I too have found using terribly harmful, disease causing addictive substances is justified because "I like it".




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125