Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on April 08, 2004, 11:44:37 am
-
tis a poll folks, you know what to do
(SHS = Second Hand Smoke)
For the record: I voted for "No - despise"
-
no - dont mind.
-
i rarely mind if it's in a well ventilated location.
and no, i don't smoke.
-
Option 3, but I realise that - in a pub or club - it's unavoidable and something I just have to deal with. I despise people inconsideratly blowing it my way though, better they raise their heads slightly and blow it above people.
-
Kalfireth: indeed, willingly going into a place where you know there is going to be a lot means you have to deal with it
(I do not go to those places :P)
-
You gotta be more specific on what's being smoked.
-
I remember this from a few weeks ago.
No - and don't mind.
-
Word..... I smoke marijuana.. but not tobacco..
Second hand tobacco smoke irritates my eyes witch gives me roaring headaches.....
-
I am obvioously talking about tobacco since fortunately in my country marijuana is still illegal (and tobacco should join it!)
-
So this is what you do for entertainment is it? Start debates about things that you know will spark off flamings?
Nice
-
Petrarch: actually i was curious - i am debating this on another forum with some people of extremely wretched logical ability - they are constantly resorting to ad hominem, ad populli and ad ignorantium to try and "win"
-
You can't win. Its a matter of opinion. Its like your favourite colour. You can't win arguements based on opinions not facts.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I am obvioously talking about tobacco since fortunately in my country marijuana is still illegal (and tobacco should join it!)
It's illegal in my country too, doesn't stop me smoking it.
Tobacco is just a waste, it doesn't do anything for you, however a nice fat bong. Mmmmm.
-
Rictor: actually it's not a matter of opinion - it's actually a matter of rights
-
People have the right to walk away from people smoking.
-
Me no smoke. No like SHS. But I have to deal with it anyway.
There are laws here that prohibit smoking within 25 feet of building entrances and air intakes, yet everyone huddles around the door, making it hard to enter the building, let alone breathe freely.
It's even worse on rainy days. :sigh:
-
The smoker's rights as well as your own.
-
Raa: Can you honestly not tolerate the what, 3 seconds?, of SHS that it takes to enter/exit a building? Very soon, smokers are going to be treated like lepers, its quite horendous.
-
Rictor: actually it's not "quite horrendous" - any exposure to second hand smoke against your will is a violation of your rights and your body - smokers deserve to be treated like lepers, and the lepers didn't deserve it! So we should be saying the lepers were beeing treated as the smokers should be.
They are consciouslly making the decision to poison their body, and then additionally do not care that they are violation other peoples rights - and when informed try to make the other person be "EVIL", "FASCIST", etc -- they are basically saying they have the right to poison you and you can do nothing about it
01010: I can _smell_ a smoker well over 100 yards away in open air - and tobacco (or marijuana) smoke is harmful at any concentration and the concerntration required for it to be perceivable is fairly high even for someone with a sensative nose like my own
-
:rolleyes:
They could just give up smoking but that would be sensible...
-
What makes me laugh is that (over here anyway) the government is quick enough to take the huge amounts of money that smoking taxes create, yet they want to ban it. Be consistent, people can either smoke where the **** they like or not at all, you can't have a legal drug that you can't take anywhere because it's hypocrisy of the highest degree.
Admiral: I'd like to see you just kick a substance that is more addictive than heroin.
-
I don't give a **** about second-hand smoke as long as people: A) Aren't smoking in my house, and B) Are willing to give me a cig if I ask.
I don't smoke, but I'm a peer-pressure-whore in that if there are people smoking around me, I will too.
I think the best way to put it would be: I don't smoke, but I can.
-
Here's a thought, wouldn't it be nifty if some of the bread being spent on tobacco cessation measures could be used to find ways to render tobacco harmless?
-
Originally posted by 01010
Admiral: I'd like to see you just kick a substance that is more addictive than heroin.
By not starting in the first place.
-
The worst part is that the money from our smoking is supposed to go to the NHS. If it did, we would have the best Health Service in the world, and it would be free.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Raa: Can you honestly not tolerate the what, 3 seconds?, of SHS that it takes to enter/exit a building? Very soon, smokers are going to be treated like lepers, its quite horendous.
I didn't say I couldn't tolerate it. I just said I don't like it.
My Dad used to smoke, and my grandparents are like chimnies. I manage to hold my breath for the 3-20 seconds it takes to get in (depending on which direction the wind is blowing)
And Lepracy isn't a choice. Smoking is.
-
01010: it's not "hypocrisy to the highest degree" when you supporting BANNING it
Admiral LSD: sensability is losed on the Id-dominated mind (now im getting into the psychology of smoking)
-
Originally posted by 01010
Admiral: I'd like to see you just kick a substance that is more addictive than heroin.
......Anyone addicted to anything is a goddamn pussy.
I've taken all kinds of **** and been able to stop at the drop of a hat.
-
Smoking is a nasty habit if you ask me... both my parents are smokers and it has always been an annoyance to me whenever I'm around them. Fortunately I don't have to be around it all that much so I think my lungs will stay in good shape.
-
And so it should be. Smoking has been proven to cause illness. Before people start smoking - they get by fine without it. Why then should non-smokers feel awkward or inconvenienced when they attempt to enter or leave an office? Not to mention the effect smoke has on clothing and a rooms paint / wallpaper over extended periods.
If people insist on smoking, they should be prepared to be inconvenienced in common places since they do cause headaches, coughing and worse.. much worse.
-
it's nice to be one a forum with more equal numbers :D and civil behavior
on the other forum I am the only one oppsoed, so you can just imagine the tossing out the word fascist, etc - especially after they've already formed wild presumptions about my philosophy
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
By not starting in the first place.
Which is great, join the club, I think cigarettes are vile and serve no purpose other than to line the pockets of fat white ****s who don't give a **** of the consequences of their "product". However, lots of people who smoke are the product of systematic advertising campaigns from tobacco companies, they advertise their **** to kids and that's not right.
I pity smokers, I don't hate them. The same way I pity anyone that has a physical addiction to anything, but that's just me y'know, more compassion than logic I guess.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
*snip*
Yes, but you do not have the awesome power of Photshop.
(http://home.cogeco.ca/~llebl/walawala/Clipboard01.gif)
-
Originally posted by 01010
Which is great, join the club, I think cigarettes are vile and serve no purpose other than to line the pockets of fat white ****s who don't give a **** of the consequences of their "product". However, lots of people who smoke are the product of systematic advertising campaigns from tobacco companies, they advertise their **** to kids and that's not right.
I pity smokers, I don't hate them. The same way I pity anyone that has a physical addiction to anything, but that's just me y'know, more compassion than logic I guess.
:lol:
Given that you've freely admitted on several occasions that you smoke dope I find this response absolutely hilarious.
-
It's interesting to note that SHS is actually much worse than the primary stuff you get when _you're_ the one smoking.
If I get someone's SHS only part of the time he smokes, I'm more likely to get lung cancer.
-
Rictor: how insulting, presumptous and downright rude - i suppose you smoke from your reaction. Germs are everywhere, we have an immune system to deal with them and we cannot avoid them
Smoking is a choice, and second hand smoke is a violation of human rights.
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
:lol:
Given that you've freely admitted on several occasions that you smoke dope I find this response absolutely hilarious.
Please elaborate why? Smoking dope has been my own conscious decision, it's not been advertised to me and I'm certainly not addicted to it.
Cigarettes serve no purpose other than to feed a craving that is caused by smoking them, there is no reason to ever smoke cigarettes because they have no effect if you aren't addicted.
-
Smoking costs the NHS more than it regains in taxes. Not to mention, the incredible amount of suffering/death it causes.
-
Zero, the NHS gets practically no money from smokers is why, the money is diverted to 'other government concerns'. THAT is the only reason smoking costs the NHS so much.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Smoking costs the NHS more than it regains in taxes. Not to mention, the incredible amount of suffering/death it causes.
It does cost the NHS more yes but that's because not all the money from smoking taxes is allocated to it like it should be.
Like I say, in an ideal world the evil ****s that run the tobacco industry would be the ones that are persecuted, not the poor bastards that got sucked into their web.
-
I smoke, big deal. I've been doing it for almost 12 years, with a couple of years that I had quit somewhere in there. A pack lasts me about 4 days. Does that make me a bad person? *shrug* I don't do it for the sake of others, so whether people think I'm naughty or not is irrelevant to me.
But, I am conscious that others do not smoke. I won't light up a cigarette in the car (or in the cars of others) if there's even only one person that doesn't smoke in it. I prefer to smoke outside also, instead of inside, out of respect of anyone who's in the room that doesn't smoke. Plus I hate the smell of cigarettes (as crazy as that sounds).
A few years ago, a law was being voted on whether restaurants or bars should ban smoking inside if food consists of 10% or more of their revenue. I voted for it, since I can understand the inconvenience and uncomfortableness (if that's a word) of a non-smoker and kids getting their lungs filled with smoke while eating their fettucine alfredo. The law was passed and now you can't smoke in any restaurant and about 90% of bars.
That could be an inconvenience to me, but I'm not about to put someone in harms way when it's my own conscious decision to harm myself.
-
]Zero, the NHS gets practically no money from smokers is why, the money is diverted to 'other government concerns'. THAT is the only reason smoking costs the NHS so much.
:wtf: .............
Seriously, what? NO, the reason it costs the NHS so much, is because thats where sick smokers go and use up beds, medicines, resources, time, all of which cost Money. Heck, the money used does go back into the NHS, but thats not what the game is about. The Government can easy find a few billion quid from taxes other than smoking, its policy is to reduce smoking and thus reduce the cost and strain on the NHS.
Then, there's also that little thing, called trying to save peoples lives....
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: how insulting, presumptous and downright rude - i suppose you smoke from your reaction. Germs are everywhere, we have an immune system to deal with them and we cannot avoid them
Smoking is a choice, and second hand smoke is a violation of human rights.
Yes, and human beings can and should deal with tiny amounts of pain and unpleaseantless in their lives. Please go out and read Fight Club. Being afraid of everything seriously puts a damper on enjoying life.
In theory, any physical contact can be interpreted as pain - varying amount of it, but its pain nevertheless. Does that mean we should stop shaking hands?
And your claim that you can smell someone smoking at 100m is absurd. I'm sure its what you would like to believe, but I find it extremly ard to believe.
I don't want to end up in a world like..err, was it Demolition Man? Not the best movie, but it does a good job of showing what society will end up like if we cater to the neurotic needs of the most extreme individuals in each area of life.
ah, here we go. *puts of flame-proof suit*
edit: no I don't smoke. I said so in my first reply.
-
If human beings should be able to put up with tiny amounts of unpleasentness, you should be able to put up with not smoking in places that it's inconvenient to others.
After all, you should be able to deal with it. A great many more would benefit from your not smoking than would benefit from it if you did.
-
I smoke tobacco and pot
-
J3Vr6: how mature of you, good job :D
Rictor: I can DEAL, the point is i shouldn't have to deal with someone violating my rights and my body
Now get off your illogical slippery slope that you just went on
you can disbelieve my claim all you want, that doesn't make it not true - 100 yards = 1 football field length, been there - smelled that (playing a soccer game a football field - i was about to take a corner kick - i coudl smell a smoker near the field fence on the far corner - how did i know it was him? he was the only person smoking at the time and was directly upwind from me - so technically he was > 100 yards away due to the fact that A^2+B^2=C^2 and C > A, C > B)
Banning smoking will not end you up in a world like demolition man, nice slipperly slope nitwit. Banning smoking is not "catering to the needs of the most extreme individuals" - it is protecting their rights. Do whatever you want TO YOURSELF
=========================================================
here is a small sampling of chemicals known to be in tobacco smoke
arsenic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic
cadmium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium
formaldehyde http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde (which seems to be the particular contaiminant that causes the reactionary symptoms of headache, watery eyes, etc - but is one of the less dangerous substances)
hydrazine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine (seems to be what causes the coughing, it is particularily dangerous)
lead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead
nickel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel
The maximum allowable body burden for ingested polonium is only 0.03 microcuries, which is equivalent to a particle weighing only 6.8 x 10-12 gram. Weight for weight polonium is approximately 2.5 x 1011 times as toxic as hydrocyanic acid. The maximum permissible concentration for airborne soluble polonium compounds is about 2 x 10-11 microcuries/cm3
radioactive polonium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium
Cyanide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide
page four of this PDF is helpful http://www.ndp.govt.nz/tobacco/ChemicalCompositionCigarettes.pdf
-
Originally posted by 01010
Like I say, in an ideal world the evil ****s that run the tobacco industry would be the ones that are persecuted, not the poor bastards that got sucked into their web.
-
I'd be all for a unilateral ban on tobacco if it were balanced with a ban on all other pollutants, such as vehicle exhaust, manufacturing by-products, etc.
Balance.
-
ionia23: while it is a logical fallacy to say "you cannot ban X! because you didn't ban Y!" - i agree that the internal combustion engine should be eliminated and replaced with clean transportation as quickly as possible
-
No -despise.
Why? simply because it (literally) hurts my throat & lungs - i tend to cough like a bastard after a few seconds inhaling smoke.
-
If I ever get into power I'm imposing an immediate ban on all use of fossil fuels.
Any damage to the economy would be offset by the upsurge in the renewable resources industries.
-
What he said. F*ck the oil tycoons.
-
If I get in power I'm making FS3.
-
My first speech to Parliament is going to contain the words "**** Wing Commander".
-
Personally i think smoking should be banned in public places, like it is in Ireland.
People are free to smoke in their own homes, but as far as pubs and night clubs go, i don't want to come home and have to wash everything i wear because it stinks of smoke.
The health concerns do not greatly bother me at the moment, but i'd prefer if people didnt smoke in public places all the same. If someone walked about spraying you with dangerous chemicals, or taking wild swings at people with a baseball bat, do you think that would be banned in public, or is it their right to injure others?
-
Mine would be "Goodnight" prior to spontaneous self combustion.
-
You shouldn't ban the use of fossil fuels. You should ban the _WASTE_ of fossil fuels by burning it.
There are plenty of good uses for hydrocarbons. Burning them for energy isn't one of them.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
Personally i think smoking should be banned in public places, like it is in Ireland.
People are free to smoke in their own homes, but as far as pubs and night clubs go, i don't want to come home and have to wash everything i wear because it stinks of smoke.
The health concerns do not greatly bother me at the moment, but i'd prefer if people didnt smoke in public places all the same. If someone walked about spraying you with dangerous chemicals, or taking wild swings at people with a baseball bat, do you think that would be banned in public, or is it their right to injure others?
The buzz from being baseball-batted isn't as enjoyable, nor does it go well with a beer.
Unless you happen to be at a Brazilian soccer match.
-
If i every get money i'm buying the rights to the Wing Commander and FreeSpace universes, and making new sequals to both (and telling certain members of each community to f-off and grow up)
I'd also like to buy the presidency and then do some things to the government that need to be done (make it more efficient, try erase all the tax code and right a new one from scratch that is simplier, easier, and not broken by levels other than a minimum taxability level), oh yeah and kick out the DMCA the copyright extensions and all other assaults on fair use rights
-
i just find it funny that something like pills has something like 14 deaths on record ... smoking has that in what ... a month? oh and btw i smoke.
(i couldnt be arsed to read everything)
-
If I get into power, I will burn oil company executives as a non-renewable fuel source.
-
Tried it couple of times... couple of times it made me throw up... got the message alright.
So, No - but i do not mind SHS (though I normally try and avoid SHS, too).
-
I smoke. And in fact I smoke a lot, these days.
Don't smoke joints tho, not coz there's not around ( it's illegal in France but you can still find it about anywhere ), just that I don't like the taste.
-
No (not even intend trying it) - but I don't mind that much SHS (depends on the situation)
-
I smoke and some pot from time to tome, but not in cars or in public places like bars and offices.
Or when i am at other peoples homes i do not smoke unless i am allowed to. Or i'll just go outside.
And when i do light a cig in a bar i allways blwo the smoke upwards.
I also smoke allot less then i did a year ago.
-
But Darkage, going outside is not enough. If you are standing within 100m of Kazan, you are violating his sacred rights! They ought to haul your ass off to jail, you bad, bad man.
Seriously Kaz, if you want to life in those conditions, move to a deserted island somewhere. The real world does not revolve around you and your whims.
-
Rictor: "The real world does not revolve around you and your whims" NOR DOES IT REVOLVE AROUND YOU AND YOUR IMMATURITY
So human rights are "Kazan's Whims" Now? Why don't you go and become a citizen of some dictatorship
-
I don't oppose your beliefs, just the extremes to which you take them
I think that people have a right not to breathe in SHS. So indoor public places should have a smoking area and a non-smoking area. Maybe, if you really wanna be extreme, make a sheltered smoking area which is outside.
But thats not enough for you. You wan't seperate air filtration for smoking areas. You want smokers to not come within 100m of you. In short, you want to subject the world to a tyranny, where smokers are treated like criminals and second class citizens and have to hide in the depths of their basement when having a smoke, just so you don'y get 1 molecule of nicotene in your system.
edit: Doesn't it simpy make more sense to come up with cigartettes which are not harmful?
-
Rictor: seperating "smoking area" and "non-smoking area" has been shown to be wholly ineffective
"world to a tyranny" so public health is a tyranny now - you libertarians are all illogical - "second class ctiziens" - um, no criminals because it's ILLEGAL
It's called PUBLIC HEALTH issues - you don't like it TOUGH **** - you don't have the right to smoke, that's license
re:edit - that is impossible, for one the nicotine itself is harmful, for two it's completely impossible to alter the tabacco plant to eliminate all the combustion biproduct chemicals
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I don't oppose your beliefs, just the extremes to which you take them
I think that people have a right not to breathe in SHS. So indoor public places should have a smoking area and a non-smoking area. Maybe, if you really wanna be extreme, make a sheltered smoking area which is outside.
But thats not enough for you. You wan't seperate air filtration for smoking areas. You want smokers to not come within 100m of you. In short, you want to subject the world to a tyranny, where smokers are treated like criminals and second class citizens and have to hide in the depths of their basement when having a smoke, just so you don'y get 1 molecule of nicotene in your system.
edit: Doesn't it simpy make more sense to come up with cigartettes which are not harmful?
Unfortunately you can't, even nicotine is a poison that is addictive in miniscule doses.
I'm with you all the way on this though, Kazan is all for rights and freedoms as long as they are his rights and his freedoms, if yours don't comply then **** you, your a moron, retard, or whatever insult is his flavour of the month (think it was asshat a few weeks ago) and while he is an intelligent guy, his complete and utter lack of people skills does not help his argument any.
-
01010: you do not have the right to poison other people - I am all for rights, "if yours don't comply then **** you" means "If your 'rights' infringe upon the rights of others, then it's not a 'right' by definition"
My complete and utter lack of "people skills" is a complete and utter lack of patience for people who accuse me of being fascist for promoting real rights
You do not have the 'right' to smoke, plain and simple - it's not a right
-
Well, nicotine itself isn't that bad, but each cigarette does put out a LOT of carcinogens.
Enough that even small amounts of SHS increases the risk of lung cancer from low to very high. It's a concern since SHS can cause so much damage to people around the smoker.
Now, I don't always agree with Kazan, but a personal attack has no place here.
What Kazan states is based on the fact that your rights cannot include stuff that harms others around you. Smoking harms others around you. In fact it harms those around you more than yourself AND it often annoys the others. Therefore smoking should not be a right.
However, I do sympathize with those who are addicted. So it would do a lot more good to start to push the tobacco companies hard rather than simply banning smoking.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
01010: you do not have the right to poison other people - I am all for rights, "if yours don't comply then **** you" means "If your 'rights' infringe upon the rights of others, then it's not a 'right' by definition"
My complete and utter lack of "people skills" is a complete and utter lack of patience for people who accuse me of being fascist for promoting real rights
You do not have the 'right' to smoke, plain and simple - it's not a right
I'm a perfectly functioning human being, I have whatever rights I deem fit to give myself and no I don't smoke cigarettes, however I don't believe that people who are systematically targetted with advertising from tobacco companies from an incredibly young age should be villified for smoking.
Like I said twice already, you want to stop smoking then picket the slimy corporate ****s that prey on the young to line their pockets with blood money.
-
"In high doses, nicotine blocks the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, which is the reason for its toxicity and its effectiveness as an insecticide."
Wikipedia, on Nicotine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
-
I'm a perfectly functioning human being, I have whatever rights I deem fit to give myself
Try again, there's a mistake in this sentence.
@Kazan
I didn't say it wasn't toxic, but that there's worse stuff in cigarettes. Nicotine is one of the worse though since it's the addictive component.
-
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Try again, there's a mistake in this sentence.
No, just a difference in world view. I think each and every person is completely free to do whatever the hell they like, they just have to deal with the consequences of their actions. If that means having to deal with people who find their actions offensive then so be it.
-
Originally posted by 01010
however I don't believe that people who are systematically targetted with advertising from tobacco companies from an incredibly young age should be villified for smoking.
so since they were advistered to and had incredibly weak self control they should be forgiven for violating my rights and introducing poisonis into my body against my will
how about: Um no, that's no freaking excuse
it's called QUIT - and I don't care how addictive ANYTHING is, quitting is an act of willpower nothing more
-
Let me get this straight. You believe in amoralism, that is, anyone can do whatever they want?
In that case, you don't even have to bother to argue. Laws can be passed banning cigarettes since _somebody_ wanted to do that. You just have to deal with it. If they want to arrest you, that's too bad since they felt they should do that.
Those who continue to smoke should since they want to. And since they'll live with consequences, they can suffer under the law (if such a law was passed).
Sheesh, hasn't existentialism been discredited yet?
-
Originally posted by 01010
I think each and every person is completely free to do whatever the hell they like
so poisoning other people is perfectly acceptable
by this logic it's also perfectly acceptable to:
Rape
Kill
Molest
Mutilate
Destroy
Damage
Steal
.....
-
Originally posted by Kazan
so since they were advistered to and had incredibly weak self control they should be forgiven for violating my rights and introducing poisonis into my body against my will
how about: Um no, that's no freaking excuse
it's called QUIT - and I don't care how addictive ANYTHING is, quitting is an act of willpower nothing more
I don't dispute that but it would make a lot more sense to target a problem at it's source would it not?
There are millions upon millions of smokers who's opinions and addictions your ranting will not change, there are far fewer tobacco companies, all who have a product to sell, you hit them where it hurts and you'd see a hell of a lot less people being inclined to start smoking in the first place.
-
I would target _BOTH_ banning it ineffect DOES target both, because the source cannot supply - that means no money for them
and the user cannot smoke, which means they're not violating other peopes rights
Tobacco should be banned - PERIOD
-
Disgusting habit and bad for your health too. You don't use your lungs for breathing if you smoke...and that takes away from your athletic ability. I play sports.
It's even worse when chicks smoke. :ick:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
so poisoning other people is perfectly acceptable
by this logic it's also perfectly acceptable to:
Rape
Kill
Molest
Mutilate
Destroy
Damage
Steal
.....
See, that's twisting my words, I said that each person is accountable for the consquences of their actions, be that prison or offending someone. I never once said anything that a person does is acceptable because they are free.
Also, seeing that list makes me realise how much I like the word molest. :lol:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I would target _BOTH_ banning it ineffect DOES target both, because the source cannot supply - that means no money for them
and the user cannot smoke, which means they're not violating other peopes rights
Tobacco should be banned - PERIOD
And there's your argument out the window.
going...going...gone!!
-
No, that's not twisting your words - you said anybody can do whatever they want. It follows your words directly. "Accountable for the consequences of their actions" - so since someone is poisoning me by exposing me to cigarette smoke they are technically making a deadly attack on my body, so I am authored to use equal force to protect myself - need I go on
-
I think you're confusing something.
Free will == I can do anything, but I have to live with consequences.
Amoralism == I can do anything and it's all acceptable.
Under free will, I can smoke, but that isn't acceptable behavior.
Under Amoralism, I can smoke and it's all good even if you choke and die because of it.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
No, that's not twisting your words - you said anybody can do whatever they want. It follows your words directly. "Accountable for the consequences of their actions" - so since someone is poisoning me by exposing me to cigarette smoke they are technically making a deadly attack on my body, so I am authored to use equal force to protect myself - need I go on
If you felt that a little bit of smoke was really damaging you that badly then go for it, but then you'd have to account for that action to someone else.
Also, I don't think I've ever stated that smoking was acceptable behaviour, I just don't think it's as big an issue as it's made out to be. I'd rather spend the time thinking about something else, y'know?
-
by your logic everyone must always account to anyone else, any single decision never end - your system doesn't work
-
Originally posted by Kazan
by your logic everyone must always account to anyone else, any single decision never end - your system doesn't work
Works well enough for me and the people around me who don't piss me off. I'm not forcing anyone else to live by it.
-
Used to, 2 packs a day, for over a decade. Quit cold turkey. one of the smartest things I ever did.
-
01010: I challenge you to live by it to the point of violating local laws.. see how well that works
you could go commit an atrocity, that works well to - it's acceptable behavior by your logic
-
Inqui: NICE JOB!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Kazan
01010: I challenge you to live by it to the point of violating local laws.. see how well that works
you could go commit an atrocity, that works well to - it's acceptable behavior by your logic
Smoking cannabis isn't violating local laws? Been doing that one for nigh on three years and funnily enough I've never had a single complaint.
There you go again see, I COULD go and commit an atrocity but it's not in my nature to, I like to treat people with a bit of respect because you usually find they respect you back, I still don't see how you can say I find it to be acceptable, if someone stabs someone it's not acceptable by my book but it might be by theirs, that still does not mean that they aren't accountable for their actions however.
-
01010: being descreet keeps you from being caught, and no complaints - thats because the people you hang out with
what you stated before allows everyone to do whateer they want
-
Originally posted by Kazan
01010: I can _smell_ a smoker well over 100 yards away in open air - and tobacco (or marijuana) smoke is harmful at any concentration and the concerntration required for it to be perceivable is fairly high even for someone with a sensative nose like my own
it's not only that. It's the fact that the 'second hand smoke' is even a lot more toxic than the one the smoker inhales. :nod:
I voted for number three.
-
well, its a fact of life Kaz. At any time, I can go out and murder someone, however I will have to face the consequences. People CAN do whatever they want, they just have to account for their actions later.
This rule does not apply if your daddy is a Congressman though.
-
Lightspeed: indeed! that is often true because of the filter - it just happens to depend on the individual cigarette
-
Being discreet? Joking right?
I've been caught bong in hand at least three times by the police, they don't give a ****, I asked one of them once if he wanted some and he just laughed.
You ask any police officer, they would rather deal with a group of stoners of a group of drunks anyday of the week.
What I stated before allows anyone to do whatever they want, depending on their mindset. A murderer will murder regardless, however most people like you and me could easily live our lives the way I do and not harm anyone, not step on anyones toes and live a quiet, peaceful life.
I resent the idea of being told what I can and cannot put into my own body, it's a violation of my rights.
-
01010: technically you don't know if you've exposed someone to your second hand weed smoke - which is equally a human rights violation
-
[Caps mode] ARGH, there is a difference between Free Will and Amoralism.
You can do WHATEVER you want, but that doesn't make it ACCEPTABLE since reality is based on Free Will and not Amoralism.
[/Caps mode]
-
Originally posted by Kazan
01010: technically you don't know if you've exposed someone to your second hand weed smoke - which is equally a human rights violation
I think I'd notice if they were exposed to second hand weed smoke. ;)
I don't smoke it around anyone that doesn't smoke it anyway because I do have consideration for other peoples feelings.
-
01010: "not smoking around anyone" i guess you're talking about inside your house - your house is not isolated from air circulation with the outside world - I walk by houses all the time and smell losers inside
-
They should shower more often then.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
01010: technically you don't know if you've exposed someone to your second hand weed smoke - which is equally a human rights violation
:eek2: :eek2:
To the gallows with him! A murderer, a black murderer! How could any man be so evil, so rotten to the core as to..I-I can't even say it, its so horrible. Surely, people like him have no place in our society of order and peace.
Civilization is sterilization.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
01010: "not smoking around anyone" i guess you're talking about inside your house - your house is not isolated from air circulation with the outside world - I walk by houses all the time and smell losers inside
Ok, sorry man but thats just taking it too far. I mean, you went too far with that 100m thing, but this is absurd.
Take some Zoloft and hide in the deepest shelter you can. You're not ready for the outside world.
-
01010: by losers I meant smokers (or either type)
Rictor: faulty logic, get out of this thread you imflamatory ass
-
Originally posted by Kazan
01010: "not smoking around anyone" i guess you're talking about inside your house - your house is not isolated from air circulation with the outside world - I walk by houses all the time and smell losers inside
Well, you shouldn;t be sniffing thorugh peoples letterboxes then, should you?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
:eek2: :eek2:
To the gallows with him! A murderer, a black murderer! How could any man be so evil, so rotten to the core as to..I-I can't even say it, its so horrible. Surely, people like him have no place in our society of order and peace.
Civilization is sterilization.
The funny thing is, I'm a paragon of order and peace, I'm the rock for a lot of people who's lives are really messed up and I help them I really do. I love the fact that someone WALKING PAST MY HOUSE could potentially call me a murderer because I "polluted" the air they breathe in that small area.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, you shouldn;t be sniffing thorugh peoples letterboxes then, should you?
:lol:
-
01010: i never said anything about "murder" - i said human rights violation
-
Implying the same thing as far as your reaction in this thread has been.
-
i know! Lets have a law agianst farting too!
Serisously, I'm all for banning smoking becaue it's unhelathy for the smoker. i'm all for banning smoking in public areas because it's potentiall unhealty for the public, and because it gets on my tits.
But banning smoking in private property because someone might walk past? That's just ****ing stupid.
-
01010: technically when someone exposes me to second hand smoke they are introducing a poison into my body - So I'm entitled to a rather strong reaction
-
aldo_14: someone _will_ talk past - they're polluting the air - there is nothing different about "private property" than "public property" when it comes to the emissions of aerosols - otherwise we couldn't ban industry from polluting the air
someone on the other forum made that assanine fart analogy - you know whyt it doesn't work, methane is a "simple asphfixant" (sp?), it kills by displacing air - so unless your traped in a completely sealed room with a canister of methane that's leaking you're going to be fine - and even in that situation the methane has to displace air until the concentration of oxygen falls below 18% and then you jsut start to have problems
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
i know! Lets have a law agianst farting too!
Serisously, I'm all for banning smoking becaue it's unhelathy for the smoker. i'm all for banning smoking in public areas because it's potentiall unhealty for the public, and because it gets on my tits.
But banning smoking in private property because someone might walk past? That's just ****ing stupid.
See, the public banning of smoking is a non-issue for me, the only thing that really bothers me about smoking is the smell on my clothes, but I understand and respect your viewpoint because in my younger days it was one I shared.
It'd be more than a little hypocritical for me to moan about it now though :)
Yeah the smoking in private property thing is exactly the kind of thing that is just stupid, it's completely over the top and is a violation of the right to do what you like with your own body, which I thought Kazan would have been for.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: someone _will_ talk past - they're polluting the air - there is nothing different about "private property" than "public property" when it comes to the emissions of aerosols - otherwise we couldn't ban industry from polluting the air
someone on the other forum made that assanine fart analogy - you know whyt it doesn't work, methane is a "simple asphfixant" (sp?), it kills by displacing air - so unless your traped in a completely sealed room with a canister of methane that's leaking you're going to be fine - and even in that situation the methane has to displace air until the concentration of oxygen falls below 18% and then you jsut start to have problems
Well - don't walk past. Problem solved. If you have the hyper-senstive nostrils you claim to have, you should be able to easily avoid this oh-so-dangerous pitfall.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well - don't walk past. Problem solved. If you have the hyper-senstive nostrils you claim to have, you should be able to easily avoid this oh-so-dangerous pitfall.
Yeah, I mean, you should be able to tell what streets you can and can't walk down at least five minutes before you get there.
Maybe you should buy a gas mask or something?
-
01010: the "right to do whatever you want to your own body" is overruled in that particular case because your excercise of it violates otherpeople's rights
you're only free to take advantage of your rights only so far as it doesn't violate someone elses
aldo_14: by the definition of rights If i have to alter my behavior because of them they're violating my right - and it's not easy to avoid this "oh-so-dangerous" pitfall - it's toxic as soon as the concentration goes >0 ppm - and it's still a while until any human can smell it - it's violating other peoples rights plain and simple, "private" property is not isolated from "public property" in terms of aerosol exchange and therefore no differentiation can be made
-
Or! We can put fumagaton tests around every house - that way Kazans' nostrils will be saved from the harsh acrid stench of a single cigarette in the bottom of a sealed plastic bag in a bin.
-
Kazan, if I were you I'd not worry so much about your lungs, I'd worry more about your heart because the amount of stress you must put on it arguing your redundant point so venhemently can't be doing it any good.
-
aldo: it has nothing to do with the smell you ignorant fool - even if i couldn't smell it it would still be a human rights violation -- SHS is is POISONOUS
[edit] im perfeclty healthy
-
Well, theres one of you and millions if not billions of smokers. Yes, we could ban smoking or introduce insane measures to protect your precious body from the evil smoke, but a more efficient solution would be to just ignore you.
The extent to which you are taking the issue is not reasonable. Anything above 0% is infirnging upon your rights? Technically yeah, but we don't live in an ideal world.
Deal with it.
-
Oh god, no! You called me an ignorant fool! Sniff... that was really cruel.... you monster of men!
Oh yeah, and if its as poisionous as you say it is - just avoid it or wear a smog mask. Or move to the countryside. Or, build a giant bubble for filtering the air that you breathe :nod:.
-
I despise second hand smoke but I don't blame smokers for it. If it gets too severe I can always go outside or to another establishment where it's either banned or the particulates are less dense.
And I firmly believe the government shouldn't interfere on this. If the owners of public places want to ban smokers then let them; it might be even be good for business. Likewise, if a lot of customers smoke and the owner doesn't mind allowing them to continue, then don't let the health and safety bureaucrats stop them from doing so.
But I'd also demand that smokers who took up the habit after the health risks were uncovered forfeit their rights to free healthcare when developing a smoking-related disease.
-
I smoke...
if someone objects (as long as I'm on their turf) I'll respect that wish...
about SHS...to each his/her own, but do those despising SHS realize that when walking down whatever street, the air isn't suddenly gonna get a whole lot cleaner if folks don't smoke in the streets? for one thing...there's traffic exhaust fumes, tons of dust formed by shedded human skin cells, etc...
-
rictor: "one of me and million if not billions of smokers" that doesn't change that it's a human rights violation - i'd also direct your opinion to the poll above
You act like I'm the only one with this opinion - i'm very far from it
"We're violating someone's rights, but we don't care! So let's ignore him"
You ciritize the US incessantly, yet you're exactly like GW ****
-
JarC: that logic fails to be a compelling counterargument - and I am all for getting rid of the internal combustion engine in favor or cleaner things
-
Well not really, GW Bu-sh doesn't violate anyone's rights. Nice fellow really.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
rictor: "one of me and million if not billions of smokers" that doesn't change that it's a human rights violation - i'd also direct your opinion to the poll above
Since when did majority rule determine human rights?
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
I despise second hand smoke but I don't blame smokers for it. If it gets too severe I can always go outside or to another establishment where it's either banned or the particulates are less dense.
And I firmly believe the government shouldn't interfere on this. If the owners of public places want to ban smokers then let them; it might be even be good for business. Likewise, if a lot of customers smoke and the owner doesn't mind allowing them to continue, then don't let the health and safety bureaucrats stop them from doing so.
But I'd also demand that smokers who took up the habit after the health risks were uncovered forfeit their rights to free healthcare when developing a smoking-related disease.
Thank you, someone else that can think rationally and realise that these people aren't completely to blame.
I was beginning to think we were a rare breed.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
"We're violating someone's rights, but we don't care! So let's ignore him"
Tell me, where are you getting these mythical rights from? It's not the first time you've pulled the human rights argument like this out of your ass.
Perhaps by your 'logic' we should also ban the expulsion of CO2 from our bodies because that is also a harmful substance if we inhale enough of it. Somehow I doubt that would be popular though. ^_^
Originally posted by 01010
Thank you, someone else that can think rationally and realise that these people aren't completely to blame.
I was beginning to think we were a rare breed.
Indeed - it's simply an exercise of free will. If you don't like the atmospheric conditions, you can go somewhere else. Why should it be any more complex than that?
-
"Obnoxious , self-righteous, whining little ****s. My biggest fear is that if I quit smoking, I'll become one of you...Don't take that wrong. I have something to tell you non-smokers that I know for a fact that you don't know, and I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times. Ready?.......Non-smokers die every day...Enjoy your evening. See, I know that you entertain this eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke, but let me be the 1st to POP that bubble and bring you hurtling back to reality....You're dead too. "
~Bill Hicks~
Couldn't resist it.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Tell me, where are you getting these mythical rights from? It's not the first time you've pulled the human rights argument like this out of your ass.
Perhaps by your 'logic' we should also ban the expulsion of CO2 from our bodies because that is also a harmful substance if we inhale enough of it. Somehow I doubt that would be popular though.
Strawman argument, CO2 is not comparable to second hand smoke.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
JarC: that logic fails to be a compelling counterargument - and I am all for getting rid of the internal combustion engine in favor or cleaner things
it's not meant as counter argument, it underlines the onesidedness of the argument if you're not at the same time in the same way strongely opposed to motorized transport, otherwise arguments against SHS could be considered as hypocritical (not that I do not agree that others should not have to be forced to enjoy SHS. but then again, I also don't have a car or use public transport).
-
thank you Zeronet
CO2 is a "Simple asphixant" (sp?) just like Methane
"Tell me where are you getting these mythical rights from" how about UN and international human rights organizations, oh yeah the US Constitution as well
Circumcision: Right to not be mutilated, right to genital integrity (Follows from the other one)
Smoking: Right to be healthy - ie not poisoned by others
01010: I'd like to die of natural causes, thank you - and while I'm alive I want my lungs to be fully operation, and I don't want to have to put up with cancer
-
JarC: trying to argue that someone's views are inconsitent is a form of ad hominem anyway - so even if my views were inconsistent you'd be failing to make a compelling argument
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Strawman argument, CO2 is not comparable to second hand smoke.
Tell me why, by Kazan's logic. If you breathe enough SHS you can get ill and die. Likewise with concentrated amounts of CO2. Both are poisonous to the human body. And Kaz seems to think it a human right that everyone should not breathe in someone else's poisons.
-
SadisticSid: I told youi by my own logic you freaking nitwit
the chemicals in cigarette smoke are of themselves poisons - CO2 is only dangerous when there i s enough of it around to cause oxygen concentration to fall below 18% - that is the definition of a "Simple asphixiant gas"
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Since when did majority rule determine human rights?
There are differing degrees of human rights. For example, my right to live in "a positive environment" and not have people swear in my presence is of a lesser priority than say, my right to due process in a court of law.
It would be simple-minded to apply the same standard throughout. If you were to do so, a person who smokes within 100m of Kazan would be the same as lets say, Pol Pot.
If reasonable measures have been taken to respect human rights, and particularly when they are being broken to such a small degree, then it would be alright, by my logic at least, to ignore any such persons who are not satisfied with the current enforcement of said human rights.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
JarC: trying to argue that someone's views are inconsitent is a form of ad hominem anyway - so even if my views were inconsistent you'd be failing to make a compelling argument
exactly! likewise any agument you put forward is governed by the same ruling, ergo your argument is also not compelling... ;7
-
Originally posted by Kazan
SadisticSid: I told youi by my own logic you freaking nitwit
the chemicals in cigarette smoke are of themselves poisons - CO2 is only dangerous when there i s enough of it around to cause oxygen concentration to fall below 18% - that is the definition of a "Simple asphixiant gas"
Go argue with the dictionary
poi·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (poizn)
n.
A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means.
Something destructive or fatal.
It fulfills the definition, the mechanics of it are merely different
-
Originally posted by Rictor
There are differing degrees of human rights. For example, my right to live in "a positive environment" and not have people swear in my presence is of a lesser priority than say, my right to due process in a court of law.
It would be simple-minded to apply the same standard throughout. If you were to do so, a person who smokes within 100m of Kazan would be the same as lets say, Pol Pot.
If reasonable measures have been taken to respect human rights, and particularly when they are being broken to such a small degree, then it would be alright, by my logic at least, to ignore any such persons who are not satisfied with the current enforcement of said human rights.
what i mean is, the essence of a/ human right/s is not something that should be decided on public opinion levels. i.e. if even if a majority supports the removal of some key right, it may not be best to do so. (It's a poorly phrased explaniation, but I don;t care cos I'm off to bed).
-
Smoke = Bad.
SHS = Not in my face, don't care otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
"Tell me where are you getting these mythical rights from" how about UN and international human rights organizations, oh yeah the US Constitution as well
Presumably you mean the right to 'adequate health for everyone' - not an issue in this case because you can quite easily avoid any health risks by walking outside. It's similar to avoiding the health risks by not walking on to a motorway or off a cliff. No-one is preventing you from doing this. Hence there is no violation of rights.
-
SadisticSid: you cite the dictionary as support for you, when it shoots the support out from under you and supports me - CO2 is a SIMPLE asphixiant - i causes death by CROWDING out otherthings- which takes extremely high concentrations
the chemicals in tabacco smoke cause CHEMICAL damage (or in the case of radioactive polonium chemical and radiological damage) which makes them hazardous at any concentration, not just high concentrations
know something about biochemistry before arguing against someone with extensive biochemical knowledge
-------------------------
The right health, The right to make health decisions for ones self, the right not have others do harm to you.
"Walking outside" does not mitigate the effects of ETS (i'm going to start using the medical communities term) - it is damaging at any concentration, outside does NOT reduce the hazard, nor the concentration in many cases - it only gives the ILLUSION of reduction of hazard. While increase _Range_ from the smoker reduces hazard that holds true whether you're outside or not.
Nothing changes the following facts
1) ETS is hazardous at any concentration
2) If someone is exposed against their will it is a violation of their human rights
3) "Your rights end where my nose begins" - you only can exercise your rights so far as they do not violate other peoples.
----------------------------------------------
JarC: Your logic does not follow
You made a logical fallacy, so your argument was not compelling
I have made no logical fallacies
-
Yes - because it's fun.
-
So I break human rights smoking in the street? See if I give a flying damn about that. In the street, I smoke, in a bar, I smoke. If someone tell me to stop smoking there, I'll tell him to **** off. If there's a kid or a pregnant woman around, they won't even need asking me to stop smoking, coz I won't, tho. If I go at some others place, I don't smoke, unless they smoke too. It's my right to smoke in the street, see, it's in the laws, you have places where smoking is banned, and in streets, it's not. See me smoking in the street: it's your right to walk 100 meters away from me.
That's my way of things, and I don't care about what others think. See, I'm a mean evil thing, and an enemy of humanity.
Cool, that makes me so proud.
-
yes, i suppose reducing quality of life for those around you, inducing cancer and lung diease and impotency, is something to be proud of. Nice and compassioniate.
-
nice? compassionate? what does that mean?
-
Originally posted by Nico
nice? compassionate? what does that mean?
Rabid non smokers nico, ignore them, most of humanity has a rational grip on their feelings. ;)
-
Oh, I always do, you see, I'm quite lucky, never had any pb with that, at least, even my parents, who are completly agaisnt, don't bother me with that as soon as I don't stink tobacco when I come back home. And my parents not bothering me for something I do, that's a real prowess, believe me.
That's why I'm taking the opportunity in that thread :D
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
yes, i suppose reducing quality of life for those around you, inducing cancer and lung diease and impotency, is something to be proud of. Nice and compassioniate.
Also, don't you want to join the army to y'know become a hired killer?
Am I the only one to see the irony in this?
-
No- I don't smoke
-
Don't smoke and don't like it second hand. I'm an asthmatic. :p
-
Voted "No - and I despise SHS"
-
01010: rabid SMOKERS are the ones who call people who want their rights respective "rabid nonsmokers"
all the evidenca nd logic is on my side - none of it on yours - i've argued this argument atleast 50 times
given enough patience i'd run you into the ground
I am tired of keeping irrational people calm while trying to tell them why their preposterious views about their purported right to smoke and purported right to get away with poisoning other people is wrong
if there were "so few" that held my view the poll would show it
i'm just the messenger :P
-
Originally posted by Kazan
01010: rabid SMOKERS are the ones who call people who want their rights respective "rabid nonsmokers"
I don't smoke cigarettes, I've made this point but obviously in your zealotry you choose to ignore it.
Originally posted by Kazan
all the evidenca nd logic is on my side - none of it on yours - i've argued this argument atleast 50 times
The grammar and spelling evidently aren't though. Evidence and logic are all well and good, but your delivery is awful Kazan, people won't listen to someone that has no tact and tries to bludgeon people with their opinion, be it valid or not.
Originally posted by Kazan
given enough patience i'd run you into the ground
More likely that I'd get bored goading you but not yet at least.
Originally posted by Kazan
I am tired of keeping irrational people calm while trying to tell them why their preposterious views about their purported right to smoke and purported right to get away with poisoning other people is wrong
if there were "so few" that held my view the poll would show it
i'm just the messenger :P
I've been calm the entire duration of this thread, if anything Kazan this thread shows that you are the one that gets so wound up about it, your a pompous asshole and people love to wind you up because you take the bait so damn well.
Also, a cross section of a forum with what 300-400 active members does not represent the entire worlds opinion on smoking no matter how loud you shout your point.
-
01010: you smoke weed - which is actually worse from a chemical standpoint even not taking THC into account
you smoke, doesn't matter what you smoke
i was just waking up when I typed that message -you'll have to forgive the tpyoes
"goading" yuo're not Goading me, you're making me think you're one of the most pathetic lifeforms on the pace of this planet
"your a pompous asshole" - yes I'm a pompous asshole because I demand you respect my views
PS: that sample above is actually very represenative of current trends in smoking, whether you like it or not
-
Originally posted by Kazan
01010: you smoke weed - which is actually worse from a chemical standpoint even not taking THC into account
you smoke, doesn't matter what you smoke
But not in a place that affects anyone but myself so your point is redundant.
Originally posted by Kazan
"goading" yuo're not Goading me, you're making me think you're one of the most pathetic lifeforms on the pace of this planet
Same difference to me, if it's getting you wound up enough to reply to it in the manner you have then it's good enough for me.
Originally posted by Kazan
"your a pompous asshole" - yes I'm a pompous asshole because I demand you respect my views
PS: that sample above is actually very represenative of current trends in smoking, whether you like it or not
Which is funny because you won't respect the views of someone like Liberator (not that I do either) which seems like a big ****ing double standard to me.
As for the whole issue, I really don't care either way regardless, you die you die, be it lung cancer, heart attack or hit by a bus. Makes no difference to me.
-
01010: "not in a place that affects anyone but myself" - so you smoke in a room that's completely and totally cut off from all outside air circulation and the air is pass through the filters that level 4 biohazard facitilies use?
ya. ****ing. right.
How does me not respecting liberator's illogical and irrational views have anything to do with this? oh.. i see I made a brainfart again
I meant to say I demand you respet my RIGHTS
i need to proof read my posts when I am not wholly awake yet
-
I don't smoke at all.
Option 3.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
all the evidenca nd logic is on my side - none of it on yours - i've argued this argument atleast 50 times
I'm not searching to prove anything, I don't need evidences or logic, I just like it, and to hell with the others if that bothers them. But as all my friends smoke too, that's like no pb at all for me :p
-
Nico: so you willingly and knowling will violate anothe persons right to bodily integrity
i've gotten away with busting a person lower jaw right in front of a cop before for that
-
I smoke outside, at my friends places and in bars. Outside, I don't give a damn, smoke goes up unless you purposely go right in front of me, and at the other places, people who go there can't expect no smoke.
And I'm very impressed with you threatening me, kid :rolleyes:
-
tobacco and marijuana smoke really doesn't "go up" and i can smell it from well over 100 yards away if the smokers upwind from me
so don't try using outside as an excuse - because it's not
-
100 yards away. Yeah. And I can hear you type from here.
Never mind, ok.
-
Alright, so be basically come to the conclusion that by your logic, smokers are willing violating your rights, they just don't give a ****.
You think they should stop, they shouldn't. By your logic you're right, by theirs they are. So, just try to enforce your views, see how far you get. Next person you see smoking within 100m of you, break his nose. Better yet, take him to court.
_________
Logic is all well and good, but if human beings held logic to be important above all else, we wouldn't really be humans now would we? We'de be organic machines. Logic is a wonderful thing, but trying to apply it to every single itty bitty facet of life ruins the experience of living.
Logically, you are always safer inside your house than outside, since you can better control your environment while inside. Once you step outside, who knows what might happen? You might get run over, stabbed to death, you might get a brick dropped on your head, you might trip and break your arm, youu might inhale dangerous poisons, you might fall in love. Safer to just stay inside then, eh? Logical demands it.
-
Originally posted by Nico
100 yards away. Yeah. And I can hear you type from here.
Never mind, ok.
I laughed, I gotta admit, I laughed really loud at this one. :lol:
-
Cool it, guys. Don't make us lock this.
-
why not? the purpose of the thread was to give Kaz an opportunity of starting yet another holy crusade. I don't think it deserves to live on :doubt:
-
I'm hoping Kazan has the sense to lead this thread to a more sensible path than he originally began it on if that's the premise it started on, and for all of us to help with that. If that's what people want. Up to all of us, really, to decide where we want to go with this kind of discussion. Does a crusade help anyone, in the end? Does a frontal confrontation to a crusade help anyone either?
-
I don't smoke, can't stand second hand smoke, but I have nothing against smokers just as long as they aren't jerks about it. :P
I have a friend who smokes, but he doesn't smoke around me cause I've asked him politely not to.
My resperatory (sp?) system is screwed up enough as it is, I don't need to clog it with tar and other nice things like that. :P But anti-smoking jerks can be just as annoying as smoking jerks, and fyi I'm basing that on RL experiences, I'm not referring to anyone here.
-
Rcitor: you logic fails, because of escalation of properties of rights
your rights end, where the other person's nose begins -- to use an expression.
If you want to call a campaign to promote human rights a crusade, then fine - we can treat it like one, but crusades are not civil. Learn to respect other peoples human rights, if that means you have to modify your bheavior then that means your behavior was inappropraite
-
The one who has behaviour pbs, here, has never been me, sir.
-
You've never seen yourself?
Chemically violating someone elses body and not caring is a behavior problem. In the case I refered to above the smoker in question intentionally blew it at in my face at an outside debate voer the issue - he and several other smokers were huffing and puffing to offend us, and security ask them to leave after they got as blatant as blowing it in my face intentionally, they tried to protest but the cops were like "they consider that a deadly assault on their body, and we'll let the courts decide it in the end; but for the moment they have the more compelling legal argument, so you're going to leave the area immediately"
-
Originally posted by Culando
My resperatory (sp?) system is screwed up enough as it is, I don't need to clog it with tar and other nice things like that. :P But anti-smoking jerks can be just as annoying as smoking jerks, and fyi I'm basing that on RL experiences, I'm not referring to anyone here.
Respiratory, with an 'i'. :) Why, have you got Asthma too?
-
You see Kazan? That blows up your entire argument right there, stereotyping all smokers as people who don't care about anyone else. Are there people like that? I have no doubt, but not ALL smokers are like that.
And acting like they're smoking for the sole purpose of polluting is just silly.
Don't bother starting a debate if all you're going to do is go "SMOKERZ R TEH EVIL". I've seen WAY too many "debates" like this on another MB I go to. And they all end the same. You want to debate the issue? Fine, but be civil about it.
Edit: And yeah Steak, well, sorta. I have asthmatic tendencies or something. I get winded really easy and too much smoke can make it hard for me to breath at all.
-
Whatever, Kaz. I love running around blowing smoke up the nose of old geezers and babies alike.
-
Culando: i was speaking specifically about Nico, not stereotypic, english 101 pls
I know some very polite smokers.. there are one or two in this thread - but smoking period is a violation of other people's rights because person X is forcing their decision on person Y
---------
Culando: having clean lungs increases the reaction to cigarette smoke exponentiatally - the coughing is primarily from the Hydrazine (which is freaking rocket fuel) in the smoke, and some of it's from the Formeldehyde (sp?)
-
Just becuase it IS affecting you, does not mean it is a significant effect. Its like a drop in the ocean. You're complaing that people are adding drops to the ocean, and we're saying that its so miniscule that it doesn't matter.
yes, according to perfect logic smokers are violating your rights, but humans don't, nor should they, function on 100% logic. You have to consider the *degree* to which your rights are being violated.
-
Rictor, leave him to it mate, it's like talking at a brick wall, he doesn't digest anything you say to him.
-
And you're not forcing your decision that smoking is a violation of other people's rights on us? That point in itself is up for debate.
You're not FORCED to go where smokers go. They don't FORCE you to smoke. Second hand smoke? It's a major inconvenience, yes. I think that some smokers should be more considerate. But you are just over reacting. People act like jerks because they are jerks, not because they smoke.
Don't want to breath in SHS? Then don't go to places where there are a lot of smokers. If you still want to go, then deal with it. Smoking isn't against the law unless it's a non-smoking area. If it's your home or property, then you decide.
-
I'm glad they banned smoking in (most) clubs and bars here. Going out has been a lot more enjoyable now that I don't come home not only smelling like smoke but having it in my hair.
It's so gross, eww.....
What you should be asking is why do people smoke in the first place? Like.... why? As far as I can tell, once you start the only positive reason to keep smoking is to not have to go through withdrawal. :p
-
You know 20 years ago no one whined, now everyone is a whiner.
"ewww my lungs are getting dirty"
"ewww there is smoke in the air"
"ewww it stinks"
Sound like a bunch of cry babies. Deal with it punks. I got a deal, dont like smoke, stay out of smokers way, if you wont respect what i do, i dont respect you either. Maybe its time to make the country of smokers? MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There is enough of us BTW to start our own country, and i bet half the smokers are the pro's in any field. So we dont need you non-smokers.
-
Feel free to leave then. Nobody's stopping you.
However, why should I have to stay out of your way if you're the one doing the offensive action? Where's the logic in that?
-
Because he's right... ;)
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
You know 20 years ago no one whined, now everyone is a whiner.
"ewww my lungs are getting dirty"
"ewww there is smoke in the air"
"ewww it stinks"
Sound like a bunch of cry babies. Deal with it punks. I got a deal, dont like smoke, stay out of smokers way, if you wont respect what i do, i dont respect you either. Maybe its time to make the country of smokers? MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There is enough of us BTW to start our own country, and i bet half the smokers are the pro's in any field. So we dont need you non-smokers.
Well that completely defeats the point in any rational argument, you're as bad as Kazan just lurking at the opposite end of the spectrum.
-
Rictor: you seem to fail to understand human rights, and does does 01010
"talking to a brick wall" because you're not convincing me 01010 - because you're not making a logical argument
Culando: your tolerance of them doesn't change the fact that they are indeed violating other peoples rights
the "avoid them" idea fails - because the way rights work if I have to change my behavior because of you exercising your 'right' then you have gone beyond acceptable exercise of your right and have just infringed on mine
excuse me if i don't jump to your side i've only been dealing with arious rights arguments for as long as i can remember.
-
The same reason people dress a certain way or listen to a certain type of music. Cause they're weak willed and sway any which way their immediate surroundings push them.
And Lonestar, its not just smoke, its everything now. Worrying is the new "in thing" now. Oooh, calories. Oooh, low fat. Oooh, sugar free. Oooh, enriched with vitamins A, B and D.
-
There's a subtle difference between being picky about your foods calories and actively killing yourself and those around you with the crap that we know is pumped into the things people smoke.
People can eat what they like - it doesn't affect others. If smokers affected themselves only I'd be fine with what they did. But they affect me as well - and so I'm much less forgiving. Why should I suffer because you feel smoking calms you? It doesn't calm me... it doesn't do me any good at all.
-
Well, reasonable measures are being taken to protect non-smokers. This means smoking sections, or in some places banning smoking alltogether.
However, if you would like more protection than this, it is my opinion that it it not reasonable to expect and that you are simply being whiny. Nothing short of outright banning smoking could accomodate Kazan's insane requirements, which I would venture to guess are more mental than physical.
Its all about moderation. As it is now, non-smokers don't have to inhale any significant amount of smoke if they don't want to.
-
Well, clearly you've never been to an average English pub is all I can say. It continues to amuse me that it's illegal to smoke weed around here, but not to smoke anything else, and use of other drugs carries a huge penalty.
If only heroin had a government indorsed industry setup... that would make it right to take it in public. It seems that way for smoking :rolleyes:
-
There's another thing I'm gonna do: Legalise all drugs.
If there was a multi-billion pound industry for the pharamceutical firms to exploit you could be damn sure that there'd be massive advanced in the safety and reduction in the side-effects of things like heroin.
-
Well that, and the fact that it wouldn't get cut with who knows what about 5 times before reaching the user.
Seriously, legalize all drugs. I expect that drug abuse would seriously go down.
-
Originally posted by an0n
There's another thing I'm gonna do: Legalise all drugs.
If there was a multi-billion pound industry for the pharamceutical firms to exploit you could be damn sure that there'd be massive advanced in the safety and reduction in the side-effects of things like heroin.
I tell you what, people immediately think OMG NO NOT THE DRUGS, but legalising EVERYTHING would be such an immense benefit to everyone that it makes stupid amounts of sense. Truly if their is a war on terrorism you'd make government produced heroin which completely stops the funding of groups such as Al-Quaeda.
-
All you'd have to do was go to all the big crime-lords and say "Stop shipping in immigrant and selling guns to people and we'll legalise all drugs and give you control of the entire market".
They'd murder all the pissy gun and immigrant runners to stop them from rocking the boat and you'd gain an entire organised army of people willing to do 'questionable' things for you that the police couldn't. Not to mention all the tax income.
-
rictor: eat what you want, drink what you want, injest what you want - soon as it affects someone else you have violated their rights - therefore you cannot smoke, PERIOD
don't like it? TOUGH your right to do things to your own body doesn't authorize you to do things to other peoples bodies
-
Pff, you British and your fear of immigrants. I've never seen asylum seekers get made in to such a big issue. Canada is like 70% immigrants, and its all the better for it. "Cultural integrity" or whatever, thats bound to go sooner or later.
Kazan: I said it before and I'll say it again: Humanity doesn't and shouldn't work on perfect logic. Everything in moderation and within reason, human rights included.
Now unless you have something new to say, keep quite. You've repeated the same phrase about 15 times, obviously we're not convinced.
-
not only smelling like smoke but having it in my hair.
I really hate that too
-
[q]Pff, you British and your fear of immigrants. I've never seen asylum seekers get made in to such a big issue. Canada is like 70% immigrants, and its all the better for it. "Cultural integrity" or whatever, thats bound to go sooner or later.[/q]
Congratulations, same as the US. You're both made up of immigrants, the UK isn't - we're made of relatively native populations (I use the term relative due to the longevity of our time here and historical invasions etc...).
We have too many civil issues to resolve before we can accept anyone elses problems.
-
Rictor, who's this "we" you're talking about? So far I've seen you saying that human rights should allow more humans more rights to empeach on eachothers rights. Ignorance is bliss. Apparently.
-
Well, we would be all those people in this thread who do not agree with Kazan. That would be me, 101010, Venom and Lonestar. I didn't mean it as we (everyone here), I meant it as we (all those who disagree and will continue to disagree).
And I said that human rights, like everything else, should be obeyed within reason. As I've said before, there are more and less important human rights, as well as degrees of infringement. Murdering 50,000 people is not the same as smoking a cigarette in your own home, despite the fact that they are both in theory human rights violations.
-
I'm not sure that's what is being said - by all means smoke in your own home. I've no problem with that. Also, if I come to your home then I accept that you smoke - its your home, you can do what you like there so long as it's within the law (at least that's the theory).
But step outside your property and into a public place, and then smoke next to me - you're affecting me. This can happen to a varying degree - for instance one man smoking a cigarette who's upwind of me will probably not affect me much. But in a busy pub with 20+ smoking people in there and poor ventilation? Well that's going to make me cough, give me a headache and make my eyes hurt (this happens to me, it sucks).
I'd say that was a personal infringement... indeed it's been proven that smoking can kill you (or at least it doesnt do you any favours).
Murdering is illegal.
Passive smoking can kill you.
My mother smokes, but its my parents house I live in so I live with that.
But it still means I'm being harmed. I endure it because I love my parents but thats it. Anyone else I would - from the premises above - say would be killing me in some small amount.
I'm not asking that a smoker be locked away for murder. But I am saying that nobody should have to endure the affects of smoke that they did not choose to smoke themselves - not if they don't want to. But strangely it's being claimed that I am being rude for asking smokers not to smoke around me because of the harm it does to me?
Odd indeed.
-
Rictor's all for human rights, except when he disagrees with them. How hypocritical Rictor - you criticize the US for not respecting civil and human rights - and then when an american promotes them you disagree with him
you cannot have it both ways
The reason why with smoke you cannot differentiate between public and private properties is because they are not isolated from each other in terms of air exchange - they exchange air freely, and therefore the toxin exchanges freely between them.
"Human rights in moderation" - ok, we're going to going to human rights in moderation let's have the right to religious freedom "in moderation" so let's forbid: christianity [all forms incl catholicism for those that don't include it], islam, scientology, baha'i, oh yeah judaism since they mandate violating a child's right to bodily integrity (circumcision).. that's good for now.. we've got that right in moderation for now
how about the right to do things to your own body in moderation? Ban smoking, eating mcdonalds, and the atkins diet, and naturally keep al current illegal drugs illegal.... ok we've got that right in moderation for now
How about your right not to be killed by others? Oh... I hereby grand myself, my friend chris, and a couple other friends authorization to kill people - since we're only having this right in moderation.
oh.. the right to free speech.. in moderation? You cannot critize me, speak negatively about any action I do
......
Is my point construed yet?
-
Ya know, I've never understood why people need to stimulate themselves with pshycotropical substances (sp?). They are about as much a cop-out, as using medical 'aids' in sports. I can somewhat understand alchohol, since it's actually good for the blood circulation in small amounts, and doesn't do much harm when consumed moderately. But tobacco, which doesn't have any pleasant side-effects, (I'm sure one can ease stress with a lot less unhealthy methods), and ****load of negative ones, that's one of the more stupid legal drugs out there.
For the record, I don't smoke not tobacco, nor anything more illegal.
-
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word moderation Kazan. What you have just shown are examples of completely violating human rights, not respecting them in moderation. Its almost 180* from what I was talking about.
As I said, there are degrees of violating them. What you want is 100% or 0% on everything in life. It doesn't work that way, human are falliable, humans are emotional etc. Here is an example:
You have the right to not be harmed physically by other people. When someone kills you, they are in gross violation of that right. When they come up to you and gently tap you on the shoulder, they are violating that right, but only to a miniscule degree. It is insane to judge murderers and shoulder-tapper the same way.
Similarly, when someone comes up to you and inject you with cyanide, they are violating your right to not be poisoned. When someone smokes a cigarette in their house, which you happen to be walking past, they also violating your right not to be poisoned, but to a much lesser degree.
You get it? Society is already protecting non-smokers to a very large degree. However, you can not demand total protection, since that would mean that someone living 5km away from you could not smoke a cigarette in order to protect your human rights,
_______
Thunder: I pretty much agree with you. Reasonable measure should be taken to protect non-smokers. This means no smoking in public pleaces without an area for non-smokers, this also means no smoking in several public places at all etc etc.
If you walk in to a bar, that is private property and they are under no obligation to let you in if you do not comply with their rules. One of these rules is (in most cases) that people can smoke. If you do not want to be exposed to smoke, don't go to the bar. Or, go to the non-smoking section of the bar, where you will be more or less out of harms way.
I'm not protecting assholes who intentionally blow smoke in your face to piss you off. I'm protecting people who simply want to live their lives while smoking, and are alreadt taking reasonable measures to protect non-smokers.
Maybe the laws are different in LimeyLand than over here. In Canada, you almost never have to be exposed to SHS if you choose not to.
-
Rictor: no, you don't get it - Smoker X forcing their decision on Person Y consitutions a violation of Person Y's rights - plain and SIMPLE
that "rights in moderation" was just a failed attempt at trying to cover your hind end. There is NO DIFFERENCE between public and private land when it comes to air pollutants - because air pollutants emitted on private land inevitably cross into public land, or some other indvidiauls private land.
Smoking has no positive effects (those perceived effects are purely placebic), and all negative effects, it poisons other people at extremely low (near zero ppm) thresholds, and it is universally condemned by every medical organization. Sounds like more than reasonable justificant for a ban - you don't like it, TOUGH - we're not taking away a right, just a licenses that violates other peoples rights.
-
by the same logic though, one could ban any personal activity or choice.
I have never felt as though I have been forced to breath contaminated air from a smoker, and I am very unnearved at the idea about going into someone's home just becase they are doing undesirable activities, this sort of mentality can very easily be applied to justify persicuteing anyone.
I am very suportive of peoples rights to make the wrong choice.
-
I'm fairly certain you don't read mine or anyone else's posts before replying. You just have a text document with various retorts and you just copy-paste them in. You're saying the same thing as before using slightly different language. You don't adapt your arguement when new lines of dicussion are introduced, you just paste a generic repsone from your big list and expect others to be fooled.
Its quite amusing actually.
Bob: :yes: :yes:
-
Bobboau: not really - you don't have to "Go into their home" to determine they're smoking, i can easily smell it from the public land - extremely easily. The conditions in which someone smoking would make it so that nobody who doesn't want to be exposed wouldn't be, garauanteed, would require the kind of air filtration level 4 biohazard facitilies use, and the law would have to be extremely complex
in short: it's simplier to ban the stuff - how his banning tobacco any different from banning marijuana, it's not
(don't even start the marijauna argument - they're both the same bloddy thing just a different core incredient that you fools are after - they're both public health issues and therefore can be banned)
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
...
Passive smoking can kill you.
...
It is exaggeration. Your lounge may take some damage, but I doubt it could kill you even at long distance.
-
eh, you know I'm in favor of legaliseing marijauna as well...
don't use it myself though, people who smoak pot are tards, but that's there right, I don't smoak anything or drink or anything, but I have no problem with people who do.
and I can't tell if someone is smoaking unless I go into there house, and even then sometimes I can't (although useualy it's quite obvius)
-
TopAce: all the leading medical association in the world would like to inform you that your full of it
Bobboau: you don't have a sensative enough nose, i do - ETS is damaging at any concentration above 0 ppm - guess what, you cannot even smell it at that level, it has to get much higher before you can smell it
-
you know what, light is harmfull, oxegen dameges you, and water kills thousands each year.
let's ban them.
-
Cars, too. Filthy things.
-
We need oxygen to breath, water to live and cars to get from A to B conveniently.
Explain again what smoking does for your average non-smoker? I seem to have forgotten :rolleyes:
-
Explain what cars do for non-drivers? Or what meat does for vegans?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Explain what cars do for non-drivers?
They drive me around. :D
-
Cars benefit drivers tho, and company vehicles benefit the economy. Meat keeps the health of non-vegans up so they can interact as part of society with the vegans.
Smoking.... help me out here?
-
hey, meat perfict example, there's lots of evedence (most of it bull****, but I feel the same for a lot of the SHS stuff) that meat is a horable unhealthy material, and that raiseing livestock ruins the environment and things of that nature,
only nuts want to ban meat
-
Smoking gives people a vice, which leads to a calmer mood and less stress. Everyone has a vice, whether you think you do or not.
Originally posted by Shrike
They drive me around. :D
They also pollute the air worse than all the cigarettes in the world combined.
-
Bob: whether you think the ETS data is BS or not thousands of independant studies have come up with the same conclusions - and any conclusions to the contrary defy the laws of biochemistry
PS: trying to distract by bringing up other things is technically a logical fallacy - i have also alreaded stated that hte internal combustion engine should be retired and banned and replaced with clean energy vehicles as soon as posssible
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Smoking gives people a vice, which leads to a calmer mood and less stress. Everyone has a vice, whether you think you do or not.
Oh I have a vice, but smoking isn't my vice. My vices don't affect others - nor should they.
Smoking affects everyone a smoker is near.
They also pollute the air worse than all the cigarettes in the world combined.
Perhaps they indeed do, but how else do you plan to travel long distances without burning fossil fuels? In this world we live in - fast transport is a must.
Aside from that - nobody drives their car in a place others are trying to relax, like a bar or a home. They drive them where there's plenty of ventilation - outside.
Meat on the other hand I wouldn't know about. I enjoy meat, but I can't say I know what goes into it these days. I do know that it only affects me though - the guy sitting in the same room doesn't have to passively eat it ;)
-
I don't think SHS is good for you, no, it is bad, I mean it's smok how the hell could it be good for you, but the attitude that it's more toxic than freak'n VX gas is bull. there are things so much more dangerus in the world that harassing people about there personal vices just isn't worth it.
-
The day someone lets VX gas off down at my local, I'll complain about that for the rest of my natural life :) What I'm complaining about is; Why should I go through the pain of a headache, eyeache, coughing, sore throat and smelling unpleasent untill I wash myself and my clothes - just so you can calm yourself?
If killing pet rabbits was legal, would you be revulted that - to calm myself - I place some in a bag and use it as a punch bag untill the rabbits within are in a great deal of pain, maybe with serious injuries?
I hope so. So it is with smoking - sure I have less fur than a rabbit - but a smoker couldn't understand the pain and irritation that non-smokers endure by being in a smoke-filled atmosphere for any great length of time. I don't give a damn how much it calms you - don't do it near me and I'll be fine, and indeed so will you. Consideration works both ways. If smoking were possible and legal everywhere, smokers would smoke everywhere. You know it's true - and I don't see any consideration for non-smokers there.
-
Yes, but reasonable laws already *are* in place, or soon will be. You are protected *enough*. Not totally protected, but protected enough not to develop any serious lung conditions from inhaling SHS whilst living your everyday life.
I have nothing (much) against your demands, they're pretty reasonable. What I am against is Kazan's demands to have 0ppm smoke in *his* air. Thats just not going to happen.
-
the only thing that qualifies as being "protected enough" from carcinogens is MAXIMUM POSSIBLE PROTECTION - which we do not have right now.
When did i say it was _MY_ air, - it's OUR air, thats everyones - and just because some people want to calm themselves via tha placebic affect and the satiation of their addition doesn't mean everyone should be poisoned
-
but the good that removeing all cigarets from the world is going to be negated the next time you get into yor car and go anywere.
-
At least there it isn't confined to a small, enclosed area. Still not good, but at least you're not breathing in a concentrated cloud of carcinogens and carbon monoxide.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
but the good that removeing all cigarets from the world is going to be negated the next time you get into yor car and go anywere.
That's why after banning cigarettes Kazan is going to ban cars, airplanes, and then he'll join Liberator in the campaign against sex. (SPERM POLLUTION!!!1111)
...just kiddin' Kaz ;)
Also for the record, I hate the smell of smoking and I'd like to see perks for public places banning it. (i.e. restaurants, theaters, etc. including the premises outside) But what people do in their own home is their own business, and legislating a full ban into law wouldn't be too bright of an idea.
-
bull****! (http://www.arcee.ca/shared/bull****/Penn%20Teller%20-%20BULL****%20-%2005%20-%20Second%20Hand%20Smoke,%20Baby%20Bull****.wmv)
only half of that is about the toppic
-
Ace: actually legilsating a full ban would be a great idea all across the board, civil rights, public health, economy
I'd force updating of cars, airplanes, power plants to _clean_ energy as soon as possible
and then I would bomb liberator out of existance
-
I fail to see the point in smoking. It's practically a form of suicide. But I tolerate it. I'm not going to constantly bug smokers about their habits, I'm sure they already know it's dangerous. It's their choice to keep smoking, as long as they're not smoking in my face I'm not going to complain (though I won't go into a smoker's house if I can help it, I hate the smell).
-
TCO smokes :p But I'm not bothered by the smell *notices anti-tabacco smell parfuminator :p
Besides, it's not like your 'forced' to live with people who smoke. Well, the public buildings and stuff, yes. And I agree that there should be permanent ban on that. Actually in Holland there already is a ban on smoking in public buildings. Except bars and stuff. Thats about to be enacted. In June IIRC. And although I personally am not bothered by smokers at all, I am glad this law is going to be active soon.
As a side note; The law against smoking in bars/restaurants can be avoided by placing a by the health department approved air filtering system.
Yet, we're allowed to smoke weed as much as we want. Go figure :D
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Yet, we're allowed to smoke weed as much as we want. Go figure :D
:lol:
oh
my
god
...
:lol:
we need a smiley for lauhging so hard you cry
-
Kazan, you should try for the police to be a drug sniffer, seeing as how your nose is so sensitive, you'd be a massive hit.
-
You guys have to admit that second hand smoke can be quite annoying, especially if one already has problems with their lungs, such as asthma.
-
I'm not denying that, I don't think anyone but the most deluded persons are. What the point we're trying to make is that someone smoking cigarettes in their own home is not affecting you on a significant scale if you are not in their house.
-
and if you are, just get the **** out
-
acting like your own home is something special when it comes to things that remain aerosol for extended periods of time - especially when this has been explaiend to you three times is deluding yourself
-
you aparently didn't watch that show I linked you to, many of the reports put out that most organisations rely on to claim that SHS is some huge health problem is simply wrong, it singles out the study by the EPA in 1993 were the simply fabricated there results and a 1998 WHO studdy that was preported to show a definitave link but when you actualy looked at the conclusions of the study it sais that the risks of SHS to adults was not statisticly segnifigant.
the increse in chances of getting lung cancer between those who are exposed to SHS and those that are not is 2.5 out of a _million_
-
and I guess your right, in most authoritarian states your home is nothing specal, you are nothing specal, you have to do as your told becase big brother knows best. you know I'll take the ****ing 2.5 out of a million incresed chance that I'll die from lung cancer 20 years earlier if it means I don't have to wory about the ****ing thought police storming my house for unhealthy activities.
-
in _ANY_ state there is no difference between private and public property when it comes to things that stay aerosol for extended periods of time - because of physics
I do need to watch that stupid WMV - i'd probably laugh my ass off at how _STUPID_ they are and how off base their numbers are
evidence showing ETS is dangerous is undeniable just based off the chemical composition, not to mention the actual studies of how much damage it causes
-
Originally posted by Kazan
TopAce: all the leading medical association in the world would like to inform you that your full of it
...
:wtf: ?
-
while your at it watch this one, on creationism (http://www.arcee.ca/shared/bull****/Penn%20Teller%20-%20BULL****%20-%2008%20-%20Creationism.wmv) (they get ****ing raped)
this one, on Alternative Medicine (http://www.arcee.ca/shared/bull****/Penn%20Teller%20-%20BULL****%20-%2002%20-%20Alternative%20Medicine.wmv)(saveing that one for my crazy aunt)
and this one, on global warming/environmentalism (http://www.arcee.ca/shared/bull****/Penn%20Teller%20-%20BULL****%20-%2013%20-%20%20Global%20Warming%20Environmentalism.wmv)
hell watch'em all (http://rks.no-ip.com/?page=news&newsRead=144)
-
SMok34s Al23 Goi|\|6 7o |-|311!!!111123
I don't smoke, detest SHS, but have to bear it in the army and some cafe/retaurants.
-
*chuckles with devious insight*
so you [almost] all agree that smoking should be banned outside of a persons own home
now what about if they have children. should it not be child abuse to expose your children to something known to cause a wide variety of disorders, especially in children
-
and you still haven't watched it
it's only 15 minutes
-
bobboau: because i doesn't matter, because refuting two studies out of ten thousand means jack
-
well I just think that personal freedom is more important than public health,
50 years ago some people though cercomsision was improveing publick health, they had studdies and statistics and all kinds of stuf, course it was all bull.
so you want to talk about childeren eh. how about abortion? there killing fetuses that undeniably could survive (things like aborting a week before the due date, extreemly rare but it happens, with good reason). these 'childeren' are being killed, flat out, the mortality rate umung aborted childeren is 100% and yet, I think you'll agree with me that the woman's rights to chose weather or not the carry the child superceeds the fetus' right to live, even though many people would tell you otherwise. hell the abortions are dangurus to the women too, there endangering there lives without knowing it, we must put a stop to that!
and it's not that it refutes two of the biggest studies on the subject of second hand smoke, it's that those studdies actualy showed the opposite of what they were claiming to, that the health threat from SHS/ETS is statisticly negligable, it's no worse for you that freaking UV radiation. now were not talking about first hand, suck'n-on-a-cig, smoke, that has been proven to give you (something like) a 50% chance of dieing from lung cancer, bad odds, but second hand smoke has not been proven to be anywere near as bad, look into how they calculate there numbers.
I found that thing _after_ comeing to these conclusion BTW, they just summed it up all nicely for me,
and at the least you should watch some of them, there great, espealy the creationism, they show a guy trying to disprove evolution by poining to the Grand Canyon. :D
-
circomcission? they still practice that - i was violated by that -- don't use bad science as an example against good science
abortion is a false analogy to ETS exposure - due to the fact that until the child is born it is part of it's mothers body -- that's false analogy number 2
those studies were piss poor and aren't used as evidence. Mainline smoke (ie that which is inhaled byt the smoker through the filter) is often less dangerous than non-mainline (that which comes off the end) because of the properties of tyhe filter. It not going "near as bad" as being the smoker itself doesn't change the fact that it's a violation of your rights to be forced to inhale second hand smoke (and I do indeed mean forced, there is no other term for it because of the fact that it's an aerosol that stays suspended for EXTREMELY long periods of time)
you tried using two false analogies, and then an argument from faulty facts - i expect more you from bob
-
ok, so your telling me that inhaileing a full pure lung full of smoke is less dangerous that the secondary smoke?
right...
-
_per_ _volume_ bobboau - it's still more dangerous for the smoker, but per volume the smoke that comes off the end is more toxic than that which goes through the filter - the smoker still gets a lot more volume
is the filter mangling c-i-r-c-u-m-c-i-s-s-i-o-n circumcision
-
no I just can't spell to save my life
anyway, your unwilling to budge, and I don't realy give a damn what you beleve so I don't care, I'm not a smoker, so this realy isn't that big of a deal to me, other than the fact that it violates personal frredom.
I don't think you understud the analagy I was trying to draw, it wasn't that ether of those two situations were valid, but that there examples of people forceing there beleifes on to others for what they call the greater publick health, I could very easy used some other bull like gays spread deseise, or tatoos are unhealthy, my point is that it's just a bunch of politicks.
-
you're free to exercise your personal freedom so far as it doesn't violate someone elses - smoking violates someone elses
i saw the analogy you were trying to pull bobboau - it still faills to be a valid analogy, because ETS has a preponderance of scientific evidence saying that it's a public health threat
-
I smoke, have been for 20 some odd years now, and I really wish I didn`t, but cigarettes are very additive.. My wife smokes to, but none of our children do, thank god...
(edit) If we go out to eat, we request a smoking area... If they don`t have a smoking area we simply don`t smoke, untill we leave anyway...
-
I think this has gone on long enough for everyone to have their say :nod: