[Kazan]

Bobboau: "ETS and Breast Cancer" - if you don't see what's wrong with trying to use that as an example then your naive

ETS Causes cancers of the lungs, throat, and nosal passages primarily.  Furthermore that is NOT up for debate amongst the professional communities, it's agreed upon medical fact

[Bobboau]

so in other words, "I'm right, your wrong, I'm not listening".
fine.

[Fineus]

Are you guys done bickering now? Even if you reach some kind of conclusion it's not going to change anything in the world. This isn't the first time smoking has been debated either... now right now this all looks like an excuse for name calling and I don't see the need for that.

Give me a good reason to keep this thread open.

[Kazan]

Bobboau: No in other words "Don't use irrevelant data"

Kalfireth: The threads ORIGIONAL intent

[Fineus]

Well then stick to the original topic. I don't mind you talking stuff out but cut the heck down on insulting everyone around you (again, this goes for everyone).

With that in mind - continue - on the original topic.

[Rictor]

Beowulf: you can't go changing 200+ years of law just because it happens to inconvenience you at the time. The Supreme Court in right-ward leaning, make no mistake about that. If you don't like it now, who knows what you'll think when, one day, some real judges get on the bench.

edit: gays have the right to marry, just like anyone else. Trying to claim that marriage is only between a man and a woman is absurd. Marriage is the union of two people. Just that, two people.

You realize that Dubya's anti-gay policies have made America the laughing stock of the entire world, with the possible exception of places like Saudi Arabia. Jeez guys, welcome to the 21st century. In case you didn't get the memo, coloured folk can sit and the front of the bus now.

[Kazan]

I like rictor's last post

[StratComm]

Ok, I'm going to try to sum up my thoughts from reading this post, so hear goes:

[list=1]

• I think we all need to take spelling lessons, most especially the native speakers.  Got to a point there where I could hardly make heads or tails of things.
• My thoughts on gay marriage are not really relavent here, but the two recent cases are both not debatable; the California marriage license debacle was in clear, flagrant violation of state law and will be addressed as such; the correct avenue of change is through the legislature and the courts, not through some unilateral mayoral decision against a state reforendum.  The Massechusetts "liberal activist judges" episode was also crap, as they were simply interpreting the law to not read one way or the other on the issue; i.e. there was no legal basis for denying a request by a gay couple to get married.  I think the issue needs to be addressed, but through proper channels.
• The secondhand smoke argument is unnecessary, the level of pollutants outside of the immediate viscenity of a smoker is not statistically significant.  But arguments on the subject, for future reference, are best confined to studies involving the resperatory system.
• This threads original topic.  I'd be interested to know exactly how this thing would work before passing complete judgement on how it could be used.  There is, however, absolutely no constitutional basis for it, so I strongly doubt it will get passed, signed, and not be fought by the supreme court (they would declare it unconstitutional, and make more than a couple of politicians look incredibly stupid when a president willing to respect the judicary is elected).  It's not the first time the government has had an internal power shift; the Supreme court, it can be argued, never had the power it does by the constitution originally, and it was only through decisions made (and enforced by the executive) that it rose to the level of prominance it enjoys today.  I could cite examples all afternoon, but I'm going to have to get back to work.
  

[Kazan]

1) yes
2) BS
3) BS++
4) It violates the constitution plain and simple.

[Lightspeed]

I'll have to back up Kazan on this one - it is a proven fact that ETS can even be worse than smoking yourself.

[Kazan]

if that doesn't make sense to you

the smoker is inhaling through the filter, and then breathing out remaining smoke - you are getting almost all of the smoth coming off the end, no filter

[Rictor]

Yes, in theory, my rights end where your nose begins. In theory.

Now, if you were to put that in to practice, humanity could not exist as it does today. The right not to inhale second hand smoke is as valid any any other right, correct? If we were to accept that, people could argue for all sorts of absurdities. For example, I have a right not to be harmed physically. It could very easily be argued that any phsycial contant that is greater than 0 is harm. So, anyone who shakes hands with me, who bumps into me on the street, who places their hand on my shoulder, they are infringing upon my rights.

In order to accomodate this, each human would have to to sealed off, without any contact whatsoever with other people, so that they could in no way influence him. You would essentially need each human to live on a seperate planet, because even single breathe of air that I inhale or exhale on the same planet as you could be judged to be taking up your air.

Everything in moderation. Remember this, moderation.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Rictor
Yes, in theory, my rights end where your nose begins. In theory.

Now, if you were to put that in to practice, humanity could not exist as it does today. The right not to inhale second hand smoke is as valid any any other right, correct? If we were to accept that, people could argue for all sorts of absurdities. For example, I have a right not to be harmed physically. It could very easily be argued that any phsycial contant that is greater than 0 is harm. So, anyone who shakes hands with me, who bumps into me on the street, who places their hand on my shoulder, they are infringing upon my rights.

In order to accomodate this, each human would have to to sealed off, without any contact whatsoever with other people, so that they could in no way influence him. You would essentially need each human to live on a seperate planet, because even single breathe of air that I inhale or exhale on the same planet as you could be judged to be taking up your air.

I like this idea, it means there needs to be a strong space program.

Hrmmm... the Isolationist Party!

[Flipside]

Well, I suppose that at least banning smoking would have one other effect other than on peoples health, and that's to focus peoples attention on Factories and Powerstations that throw enough pollutants up into the air in one hour than the entire countries smokers do in a day

I agree it's not so 'in your face' as smoking, and, even though I am a smoker, I agree that non-smokers should not have to breath my smoke. However, I do think it is still a small problem up close that is obscuring a bigger problem that just happens to be further away

[Kazan]

rictor: none of those clearly over-the-top expectations equate to someone demanding that they not be forced to breath in noxious fumes

none of those things you named actually cause harm, and NO it cannot be argued that they do so, however it is medical fact that ETS causes harm

flipside: yes, a great deal of those pollutants are merely greenhouse gases though, not carcinogens

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Kazan
1) yes
2) BS
3) BS++
4) It violates the constitution plain and simple.

Umm, I never disagreed with you on any of that.  I withheld my opinions, and quite frankly I agree with you to some extent on all of them.  However, I think moderation is a good thing.  As for ETS, well the argument about it killing you from a house away is, quite frankly, a bit outlandish.  I've never heard of any proof that it remains in high enough concentrations to be harmful once you're outside of the area immediately around someone smoker or, if they are confined, the same room.  It's not killing you unless someone in your home smokes, or if you sit next to someone smoking on a bench.  In fact, once dispersed into the atmosphere, the few pollutants from tobacco smoke that remain airborne constitute a much lower concentration of the atmosphere than the heavy toxic chemicals from industry (and no, not just greenhouse gasses, think about what happens when you incinerate garbage indiscrimately.  Rubber in an arisol form comes to mind, not exactly good for you) and most of the dangerous stuff from cigerette smoke precipitates out of the air pretty quickly.  Banning it in public I would (almost) support, but completely is crossing the line.  The other "BS" is fact, but I'll let you check that one for your self.  What gets me is that so many people whine about Bush doing something unilaterally but illegally, and then go off and praise the SF mayor for doing, in essence, the exact same thing.  Now I do understand that there is a differing moral ground involved, but the fact remains that it was not his right, or his place, to make the decision.  Choose your battles Kazan, dissing me on this shouldn't be one of them.

And thanks to whoever uncensored the President's name.  It was getting quite annoying.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by StratComm
However, I think moderation is a good thing.  As for ETS, well the argument about it killing you from a house away is, quite frankly, a bit outlandish.

How is it outlandish to say that ETS is poisoning me whenever I'm exposed - and even IF we restrict it to only counting when i can SMELL then I still get exposed to ETS from someone smoking in their own home, it drifting out their window, and into mine - on a REGULAR basis, and I'm talking further than just immediate neighbors.

Furthermore ETS is harmfull at ANY concentration, that means even below the sensory threshold of your nose.

I've never heard of any proof that it remains in high enough concentrations to be harmful once you're outside of the area immediately around someone smoker or, if they are confined, the same room.  

Wrong - any exposure harms you - and the effects are the SUM of all your exposures


I'm not even going to acknowledge the rest of your post with a line by line - because you're entire post is BS, and it sounds like you're just another apologist for people who wish to poison themselvse and care not about the effects of it around you


FACTS

A) ETS is harmful at any concentration
B) ETS stays aerosol (ie in the atmosphere) for extremely long periods of time


Rules of Logic
1) "That's not worse than X! So why aren't you up in arms about it" is not a valid counter argument, for all you know your opponant can be up in arms about that too
2) "This is worse than X! So why don't you worry about it First" See 1



I Have logic and medical fact - you have your IGNORANCE - "I've never heard of any proof" Sorry that doesn't fly

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by StratComm
And thanks to whoever uncensored the President's name.  It was getting quite annoying.

Awww.... re-censor it, please.

[Reez]

another thing that's harmful. being a tight ass. Face the facts, cancer from all the take-out food you eat is gonna kill you before all the molecules of cigarette ash that get into your system do.

And yes, any amount of it is harmful, but that's why your cells DIVIDE! So they can replace all the dead ones. Why do you think heavy smoker's seem healthier when they stop smoking after a couple months?

[StratComm]

I shouldn't even bother Kaz.  You're not really doing anything to show you're more intelligent than your average brick by "Rules of Logic" - neither of which even reflect what I said - or by trying to demolish my post line-by-line.  Telling people who stand the middle ground that they are ignorant pricks isn't just immature, it's counterproductive.  But you've fired the opening volley, so here goes.

Never mind the fact that I've looked, and no, not at the tobacco company sites, and have found absolutely no indication that tobacco smoke effects you when you aren't in an environment directly contaminated with it - this means in a house, or a confined space of some kind, where air does not properly circulate- and I can find absolutely nothing that says it is a more widespread health risk.  If you live in a place where it is not escapable, then I am truely sorry, but there is nothing I can do about it.  I do understand your frustration, but not your zeal to demonize it.  In a open space the pollutants in ETS dissapate to next to nothing, and, unlike what your supposed facts claim, there is a threshhold for all poisons below which they are absolutely not harmful.  This is as true of carcinogens as anything else, if you get enough in you to mutate one cell then the body will fight it off.  "Harmful at any concentration" means "harmful at any measureable concentration", and when smoke diffuses in air that's precicely what happens, concentrations fall to unmeasurable levels.  It's negligable, and it will not effect your life, so long as you aren't inhaling it on a frequent basis.  I unfortunately don't have a medical journal to cite in front of me, as my connection is too slow to properly find one, but I know for a fact that this is true.  Is it a health risk?  Probably.  The evidence does support that it is harmful to people exposed to it frequently.  Is it a major health risk?  I can't find anything that indicates it effects more than confined speces.  Medical studies are inconclusive for the most part, so saying we should make it illegal for someone to excercise free will in their own home to perhaps help the asthmatic child two houses down (yes, that's an exaggeration, but not as great of one as it may seem) is outrageous.  Face it Kazan, unless you're working in a bar, you aren't going to die from second-hand smoke exposure.  No more than you're going to die from being circumcised anyway.