Your outdoor grill that billows carcinogenic smoke across my backyard does. Pesticides in your yard/garden do. You car pollution does. There are many many many other examples of your choice intruding on my environment. Salt might if you throw it over your shoulder while you're standing at the bar next to me. "OWWWW! You threw salt in my eye!" The point about peanut butter etc is that there is a minimum risk threshold used to determine if something is a danger to public health. Secondhand smoke just does not hit that risk minimum. But of course science doesn't really concern you. Cause you just know. You just know the truth without needed to consult any fancy edjumacated scieeence.
so...by your logic, I should fight against pesticides when they are proven to kill mosquitoes that have west nile....and because you are too cheap to buy a car, the entire neighborhood should take a bus....ill tell you what...you stand behind a bus....ill stand behind a row of cars...lets see who gets sick first...just brilliant Your point about the peanut butter shows your growing weaker by the post science boy
Uh, yeah. Pesticides poison far more people in the US than mosquitoes. That's a fact, jack. I suppose we could just spray Agent Orange all over our cities to make sure we quell the West Nile virus, but... You are just an idiot. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. If you replaced MILLIONS of cars with buses/trains/bikes there would be MUCH LESS pollution in the air. That is also a fact. And my argument has nothing to do with cheap or expensive. I have more than enough money to buy a gas guzzling air polluting car, but I take taxis instead ... Please explain. I have explained my position. You have not. How is your position scientific at all? It is not. You are using what you intuitively believe to be true. But you are wrong.
Man I hate to admit this but I have to agree with Batman and Hayestreet for once! Smoker are treated as second class citizens. Crackheads and prostitutes get more respect nowadays than a smoker. I am a smoker and I truly believe that we are some of the most discriminated class of citizens in the US. In all other countries they could care less, like in Spain or Germany, you can smoke on trains and department stores. Now don't get me wrong, I agree that there should be smoking sections, but when it comes down to a total ban on smoking then that is were I have to draw the line. If you ban smoking, why don't you ban drinking as well, its dangerous to other people, it smells, it causes cancer. And to go a step further, why don't we ban smelly people as well, "You stink you need to sit in the smelly section". It is my right to do what I wish to my body.
Where did you find this? This also seems kinda farfetched. That's not even logical. But if you have proof, of course I'm open to changing my opinion. I think the biggest problem is that smokers are much more passionate about their addiction than non-smokers are about staying healthy. Non-smokers cough and have a scratchy throat and just deal with it, while if smokers can't have their cigarette then they aren't cool.
Three things: 1. Everyone here should just stop arguing with Hayes over whether or not second-hand smoke is bad for you. I've been over it. He will never agree to it. End of story. We should try to stay on topic and given that as much as 35 percent of the population has upper respiratory distress of one kind or another (asthma, allergies, etc) that would be effected by smoke, the point isn't really worth arguing when it comes to a public place. Enough people are effected by it for some concessions to be made by both sides. 2. I'm not sure how everyone here comes by their definition of necessity. There are only actually a few REAL necessities - food, clean water, breathable air, clothing and shelter. That's it. In our society, things like money, transportation, some form of communication and a few other things like that might also qualify. SUV's, specific kinds of foods or clothes, or anything that doesn't fall under the defintion of "immediate need" is not a neccesity. 3... Smoker: You mind if I smoke? Non-Smoker: No. You mind if I fart? - Steve Martin
Right....lets see, pesticides kill, oh i'd say...about a million at a clip..not to mention the eggs that would hatch another zillion or so You have explained your opinion, nothing else. Big metropolitan cities have banned smoking in restaurants (some in bars) BECAUSE of second hand smoke. Politicians in other cities are trying to do the same thing. I don't see anyone banning peanut butter and salt. EDIT: kill a million BUGS at a clip Also, try not to sound so condescending when you reply...you aren't impressing anyone
NJRocket: I read Hayes' statement to mean that pesticides kill more people in the US than mosquitoes do, which is a quite accurate statement.
Now you see what type of problem a misplaced modifier causes? I should have listened that day in school...my bad!
Congressional testimony on ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke), among other places. It was my Master's thesis. How many people die from West Nile in the US? Meanwhile MILLIONS OF TONS of POISON are dumped on your FOOD and in your WATER. And that's NOT good for you. How is that far fetched? Rachael Carson's 'Silent Spring' might be a good place to start if you are interested. See? You got the smoking = cool connection too ... Uh, yeah. They banned smoking because of second hand smoke. What is your point? More importantly, how does this have bearing on an argument about whether or not its harmful? Are you saying we can always trust big city politicians, lol? Or that they always make informed decisions, ROTFLMAO? I'm not trying to impress you. You're just sport. You just shouldn't pass your uninformed opinion off as fact. Especially not in an indignant manner as if you DO know of what you speak. That's not very nice. I have yet to see any on point responses so I don't think I'm being petulant or irrational, which is certainly the implication one might take from your #1. I might agree on the science if someone made an informed and/or convincing point. You know how many of these posts we've had and have you seen a convincing argument about the issue? I haven't. I've only seen 90% of the posters say they 'just know' its bad. I try to point out that there is a threshold for these types of issues, but the only response is always 'i just know its bad' or 'it makes my throat scratchy.' Doesn't it bother you, Jeff, how little evidence and argument is presented in these threads? How quickly a consensus is ASSUMED? I know it bothers me. Luckily, when presented with the stone wall of public opinion on matters of science, I can always defer to this point: My argument is reasonable. Proponents of smoking bans use the state to force a choice on smokers. That is not reasonable considering non-smokers do NOT have to frequent bars or restaurants that allow smoking. Ban advocates are not. The fact that 80+% of the population doesn't smoke, and that 35% of the population has respiratory problems, it should be no problem to focus on the market and get plenty of places you CAN frequent. There is NO JUSTIFICATION to deny me the right to smoke in a bar, or open a smoking bar through legislation. You DO NOT have to come inside. If the owner of the bar/restaurant says 'this establishment caters to non-smokers,' NO PROBLEM. I just don't think anti-smoking advocates end running the market makes ANY sense. Pure and simple. I am pro-choice. What are you?
Originally posted by HayesStreet ...That's not very nice. I have yet to see any on point responses so I don't think I'm being petulant or irrational, which is certainly the implication one might take from your #1. ... You are claiming that others are 'wrong', or 'idiots', when it is very probable that ETS causes many deaths each year. Let's leap over the semantics. You did a thesis on ETS. Why are the studies showing annually, 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000-62,000 heart disease deaths wrong? Are they wrong on the magnitude, or wrong about there being any association between ETS and increased morbidity and mortality? http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_MONOGRAPHS/MONO10/M10-ExSummary.pdf (Sorry Jeff, sage advice, but after HayesStreet's very confrontational defense of a seemingly indefensible position, I feel compelled to illicit a response to the research. It could be very educational for me, in more ways than one.) gr8-1 and Batman Jones, Cool. We would have a workable solution.
Hayes Street--I shouldn't even say anything because like Jeff, I've seen you on this subject before; you're a lot more passionate about this than me. But I just don't get it. Maybe I didn't read enough, but if I type in second hand smoke in yahoo, I get tons of hits of sites that denounce second hand smoke as harmful. Sites like the EPA, Ontario Medical Association, PBS, and The American Lung Association (these were all on the first page of hits alone). You go to these sites and they say things like: Disclaimer: Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer The Environmental Protection Agency firmly maintains that the bulk of the scientific evidence demonstrates that secondhand smoke -- environmental tobacco smoke, or "ETS" -- causes lung cancer and other significant health threats to children and adults. EPA’s report ("Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders," EPA/600/6-90/006F) was peer-reviewed by 18 eminent, independent scientists who unanimously endorsed the study’s methodology and conclusions. Since EPA’s 1993 report which estimated the risks posed by ETS, numerous independent health studies have presented an impressive accumulating body of evidence that confirms and strengthens the EPA findings. It is widely accepted in the scientific and public health communities that secondhand smoke poses significant health risks to children and adults. A U.S. District Court decision has vacated several chapters of the EPA document "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" that served as the basis for EPA's classification of secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen and estimates that ETS causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths in non-smokers each year. The ruling was largely based on procedural grounds. EPA is appealing this decision. None of the findings concerning the serious respiratory health effects of secondhand smoke in children were challenged. -------------- I just don't get it. I'm sure you can find "scientific evidence" to refute these claims by otherwise respected organizations, but if both sides have "scientific evidence" that supports their claims, someone HAS to be wrong. I don't know......you mention "congressional testimoney" and the first thing that pops into my mind is big tobacco expert witnesses. It appears that the EPA is hinting at the same thing. I'm sure you "know" you are right, but if 25% of the the US smokes, I bet at least 75% if the US "knows" you are wrong. Something tells me that not even most smokers would even buy what you're selling. You're right on one thing though: until I confirmed it on several different sites, I just assumed that second hand smoke was bad. Of course, I also assume I can't breathe under water, but I don't really know for sure.
The last time I checked, we can't breathe carbon monoxide or drink water with raw sewage in it and hope to survive, but feel free to give it a shot. I actually considered taking those out thinking someone would read some lefty environmental subliminal messages into it, but I thought, "No. The people on the board aren't THAT paranoid." Guess I was wrong. Jesus, you could read a liberal consipiracy theory into a Billy Graham sermon.
Hey.... at least I know better. If it was truly a liberal conspiracy, you would have left off clothing.
Unless you are talking about drinking straight from a bottle of Raid, I'm fairly certain that in the past year or so, more people have died from West Nile than from a run in with an exterminator. My point is that it wouldn't have been banned if it wasn't harmful. I guess my other point is that your master's thesis holds about as much water as your argument here does (trust me, it ain't much..uh, Gomer was it?) Ok, good...because you're not Funny...I have hard evidence ranging from statewide bans on cigarettes in restauants to EPA reports and the like that were noted by Pole. All you have is (and I hate to be the one to break it to you) a masters thesis...a ****ty one that YOU wrote at that.
