Some of you smokers need to grab a Commit lozenge and just deal. I've had both and you'll get your nicotine either way. These limitations are on public places and cops don't come to your house to grab your cigarettes. It's obviously retardly hard on your health and others. Jeez just look at the fucking rates of asthma along with heart and lung disease in our country. Whatever it's your health I enjoy nicotine too. Acting like it's your right to let others enjoy your health issue on the other hand isn't so cool.
Is 2nd hand smoke infringing on one's liberties?
- Thread starter Agent CSL
- Start date
Truth Warrior
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 18,789
Look at the bright side, when we all die early, we won't be burdening YOUR socialized rationed medical system.
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
Look at the bright side, when we all die early, we won't be burdening YOUR socialized rationed medical system.
lol
Smokers stink
Yeah, we do have that to look forward to.
Look at the bright side, when we all die early, we won't be burdening YOUR socialized rationed medical system.
Yeah, we do have that to look forward to.
Truth Warrior
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 18,789
Nor did I.
I'm bettting that you ain't seen nuthin yet.<IMHO> I predict health Nazis everywhere.
Truth Warrior
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 18,789
Hey brother can you spare a lung?Yeah, we do have that to look forward to.
DamianTV
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 20,677
The politics of science is far more complex than science itself.
With that said, nobody forces anyone to live in LA and breathe smog, and no one forces people to go in public where they MIGHT breathe something that MIGHT cause problems. Nobody forces me to be a smoker (well, for a while anyway, after that, look out salt), and no one forces you to be a non smoker, no one forces smokers to live with non smokers.
This is a point where government needs to not be involved. People need the legal ability to decide things for themselves and work things out between themselves. When we involve government, it wont stop at smoking, it wont stop at how much salt I eat, or how many burgers you eat or if either of us do our required daily exercises for the day, it wont stop, ever. Letting government have this kind of power turns the power into an unstoppable force, and the only way to stop it is to not let it start to begin with. And as much as it sounds like people are now more than ever for socialized health care, all that will do is put that much force behind letting the government tell us what we can and can not do with every aspect of our lives that only serves ther puppet masters of sales. In one week, you'll be required to eat X ammt of tofu, and the next week you'll be completely prohibited from consuming any tofu, and be required by law to throw the tofu you bought away, along with your money, and replace it with "safe" syntheitc tofu thats just that much more expensive.
So if people want to have a drug test every time they take a piss in their own house, dont let this issue of you smoke and I dont become an issue.
Divided we fall. And we can still fall very far.
With that said, nobody forces anyone to live in LA and breathe smog, and no one forces people to go in public where they MIGHT breathe something that MIGHT cause problems. Nobody forces me to be a smoker (well, for a while anyway, after that, look out salt), and no one forces you to be a non smoker, no one forces smokers to live with non smokers.
This is a point where government needs to not be involved. People need the legal ability to decide things for themselves and work things out between themselves. When we involve government, it wont stop at smoking, it wont stop at how much salt I eat, or how many burgers you eat or if either of us do our required daily exercises for the day, it wont stop, ever. Letting government have this kind of power turns the power into an unstoppable force, and the only way to stop it is to not let it start to begin with. And as much as it sounds like people are now more than ever for socialized health care, all that will do is put that much force behind letting the government tell us what we can and can not do with every aspect of our lives that only serves ther puppet masters of sales. In one week, you'll be required to eat X ammt of tofu, and the next week you'll be completely prohibited from consuming any tofu, and be required by law to throw the tofu you bought away, along with your money, and replace it with "safe" syntheitc tofu thats just that much more expensive.
So if people want to have a drug test every time they take a piss in their own house, dont let this issue of you smoke and I dont become an issue.
Divided we fall. And we can still fall very far.
WRellim
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,140
Is body odor an infringement on one's Liberties?
I think so.
Is the vast amount of scented perfume - cologne - deodorant [sic] that surrounds your body (seriously, with some people it's like an "aura" around them) -- is THAT an infringement on my liberties?
Only if you chain me down and force me to sit next to you... otherwise you can "stink" (with your Faberge/Axe chemical aura) all you want -- just stay away from me! (Seriously, stay away... I'm allergic to a lot of that crap, and I'm likely to sneeze all over you in an uncontrollable manner!)
WRellim
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,140
So if you have an STD... does that mean we can "fix" you (or at least attach a chastity device on you) -- to prevent you from infecting other people?
Seriously, it's a public health issue... a CANCER, HEART DISEASE and STROKE public health issue.
At least as many cancers** are caused by STD's as by smoking, and the root of a significant portion of Heart disease and Strokes are infection-caused inflammation at the base of the atherosclerotic plaques -- so of the two, promiscuous people are probably far more dangerous and costly to the public health system.
Recent Article: Clueless on STDs, Throat Cancer, and Oral Sex
[...]
Head and neck cancers, which can attack the mouth, nose, sinuses, and throat, have been diseases of people over 50 with a history of heavy smoking and drinking. Thanks to the decrease in smoking and use of chewing tobacco, these disfiguring cancers are in steady decline. However, this triumph of prevention is clouded by an unexpected increase in oropharyngeal cancer, which develops in the tonsils and the base of the tongue and is apt to show up in those who don't smoke or drink heavily, and in younger people. Earlier this month, researchers from Johns Hopkins reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that between 1973 and 2004 there had been a near doubling of the incidence of these HPV-related oral cancers among people in their 40s.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that this rise in oropharyngeal cancer is linked to changing sexual practices and, in particular, ones that involve bathing the throat with HPV-infected fluid. Increasingly, scientists are implicating HPV-16, and in some cases 18, the same ones that causes cervical cancer. In 2006, a Swedish study of preserved surgical specimens from excised oropharyngeal cancers going back over 30 years identified HPV-16 in less than a quarter of specimens removed in the 1970s. By the 1990s, the proportion was 57 percent. After 2000, it was 68 percent. In 2007, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found HPV-16 in 72 percent of oropharyngeal cancers in the United States. Not proof, but based on correlations with sexual behavior, and an abundance of similar findings both here and around the world over the past few years, there is credible if not alarming medical concern that the infection is being acquired through unprotected oral sex.
[...]
Head and neck cancers, which can attack the mouth, nose, sinuses, and throat, have been diseases of people over 50 with a history of heavy smoking and drinking. Thanks to the decrease in smoking and use of chewing tobacco, these disfiguring cancers are in steady decline. However, this triumph of prevention is clouded by an unexpected increase in oropharyngeal cancer, which develops in the tonsils and the base of the tongue and is apt to show up in those who don't smoke or drink heavily, and in younger people. Earlier this month, researchers from Johns Hopkins reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that between 1973 and 2004 there had been a near doubling of the incidence of these HPV-related oral cancers among people in their 40s.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that this rise in oropharyngeal cancer is linked to changing sexual practices and, in particular, ones that involve bathing the throat with HPV-infected fluid. Increasingly, scientists are implicating HPV-16, and in some cases 18, the same ones that causes cervical cancer. In 2006, a Swedish study of preserved surgical specimens from excised oropharyngeal cancers going back over 30 years identified HPV-16 in less than a quarter of specimens removed in the 1970s. By the 1990s, the proportion was 57 percent. After 2000, it was 68 percent. In 2007, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found HPV-16 in 72 percent of oropharyngeal cancers in the United States. Not proof, but based on correlations with sexual behavior, and an abundance of similar findings both here and around the world over the past few years, there is credible if not alarming medical concern that the infection is being acquired through unprotected oral sex.
[...]
**And these are typically kinds of cancer (cervical, colon, oral, pharyngeal, etc) with significantly worse prognoses, and the number of types of cancers known to be caused by such infections (HPV, HTLV, Epstein-Barr, etc -- all typically transmitted via sexual contact/bodily fluids) is increasing as the concept has finally been accepted (the medical industry was in denial about oncoviruses and oncobacteria for decades, they wanted to blame everything on smoking and other environmental "miasmas") -- a significant number of other cancers (with otherwise unknown etiologies) are now finally being looked at as the likely result of infections (with STD's being the prime candidates). In all likelihood, the percentage of cancers due to various infections is probably far higher than those due to smoking itself (in fact, it is likely that smoking only makes a person more susceptible to infections that may in fact be at the root of lung cancers, with it being a contributing rather than a truly causal factor).
Last edited:
ihsv
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 2,932
Look, there is no such thing as "smoker's rights" and "non-smoker's rights". That's collectivism. Whether or not one should be permitted to smoke within a building, a car, on the lawn, etc., is a decision that should be reserved to the property owner, not government. If we argue that the government can come in and make you walk 25 feet away from your business establishment, that you paid for and worked for, to smoke a cigarette or a cigar, we are arguing that the property owner no longer has control or ownership of his property, and that government can arbitrarily usurp those property rights, interfere and force people to alter their behavior with regard to a legal substance.
Whether you like smoking or not, or whether you think it's dangerous and a health hazard, you do not, either as an individual or as a government body, have the authority to usurp the property owner's rights to allow or disallow such behavior.
If it is your house, your business, or your car, and you don't like smoke, you're free to pass all the rules and regulations you wish regarding other people's behavior on your property. But when it comes to other people's homes, businesses, vehicles or front lawns, you have no right to demand anything of anyone. You can request that they stop a behavior that you disapprove of, but you can't force them. And to seek government intervention to force people to stop engaging in an activity because you don't like it or because you think it's a health hazard, is to negate that property owner's rights.
If someone is smoking and you don't like it, and you aren't in a position of property ownership/control, no one is forcing you to remain. You can leave, go outside, ask them to stop (you'll find that many people are considerate and obliging), or wear a gas mask.
On a final note, I do find it odd that the number of smokers is dramatically decreasing, and therefore so is the amount of "second hand smoke". Yet, cancer in all forms is on the rise.
And regarding "smoking nazis", Adolph Hitler engaged in an anti-smoking campaign that would make modern-day liberals proud.
It comes down to property ownership and control.
Edit: Businesses, such as restaurants, department stores, bars, flowershops, etc., are PRIVATE property, not public property. The public has permission from the property owner to enter into those establishments, but the public doesn't have a "right" to enter. Even to the point that if I, as a business owner, ask you to leave and you refuse to do so, I can call the police and have them enforce my property ownership rights.
Whether you like smoking or not, or whether you think it's dangerous and a health hazard, you do not, either as an individual or as a government body, have the authority to usurp the property owner's rights to allow or disallow such behavior.
If it is your house, your business, or your car, and you don't like smoke, you're free to pass all the rules and regulations you wish regarding other people's behavior on your property. But when it comes to other people's homes, businesses, vehicles or front lawns, you have no right to demand anything of anyone. You can request that they stop a behavior that you disapprove of, but you can't force them. And to seek government intervention to force people to stop engaging in an activity because you don't like it or because you think it's a health hazard, is to negate that property owner's rights.
If someone is smoking and you don't like it, and you aren't in a position of property ownership/control, no one is forcing you to remain. You can leave, go outside, ask them to stop (you'll find that many people are considerate and obliging), or wear a gas mask.
On a final note, I do find it odd that the number of smokers is dramatically decreasing, and therefore so is the amount of "second hand smoke". Yet, cancer in all forms is on the rise.
And regarding "smoking nazis", Adolph Hitler engaged in an anti-smoking campaign that would make modern-day liberals proud.
It comes down to property ownership and control.
Edit: Businesses, such as restaurants, department stores, bars, flowershops, etc., are PRIVATE property, not public property. The public has permission from the property owner to enter into those establishments, but the public doesn't have a "right" to enter. Even to the point that if I, as a business owner, ask you to leave and you refuse to do so, I can call the police and have them enforce my property ownership rights.
Last edited:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t459r15463704w37/, I guess smoking has gone down depending on how many decades you wanna throw into the mix.
pcosmar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 54,940
This has to be the most Ignorant, Stupid statement made on these forums
How can anyone be so misinformed
I guess this explains the sorry state of this country.
Last edited:
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
It isn't evidence.
In the United States, our air is cleaner now than it has ever been. Partly because of regulations, partly because the manufacturers went to other countries, partly because of emission standards, and partly because of smoking laws.
The incidences of allergies and asthma are at all time highs though.
You could just as easily be having a reaction to something in your bedding, of a chemcal in the wood in your bedroom furniture.
Smoking does nothing positive for indoor air quality. I have no idea how any can make the claim it does nothing negative to your health or others. It's like constantly demanding proof that you know you'll never be satisfied. They have tested the chemicals, tested the smoke, looked at smokers lungs live and dead, and evidence supports a strong link to cancer. Cigarettes have tons of compounds and particulates that would definitely not be so great for someone with asthma. I mean think about how violently some people react to trying a cigarette for the first time. Anyway that nerve gas comment was kinda stupid and asking for some silly responses.
As a Union Shop Steward, i took complaints of smokers in our plants break room to management, and made the case with factual documents regarding 2nd hand smoke, and the negative impact it had on workers health, not to mention the screaming matches i had to referee between smokers and non smokers. It truly became a serious issue that finally was resolved. A separate break room with smoke filters and better ventilation was installed.
Finally, peace was achieved.
Finally, peace was achieved.
akihabro
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2008
- Messages
- 922
Pasadena, CA recently passed a law banning a LOT of public smoking and harsh penalties
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10/no-smoking-in-p.html
I'm sure this will make lots of money during the rose parade. Lots of people come into the city from out of town and I'm sure are unaware of this. Nothing like a face full of cigarette smoke when watching a parade. Its cigarette smoke that bothers me not weed, pipes, some cigars. I don't smoke either.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10/no-smoking-in-p.html
I'm sure this will make lots of money during the rose parade. Lots of people come into the city from out of town and I'm sure are unaware of this. Nothing like a face full of cigarette smoke when watching a parade. Its cigarette smoke that bothers me not weed, pipes, some cigars. I don't smoke either.
Similar threads
