Sig pic done with Microsoft paint, Work that doobie Pikachu.
quote:
Demitri had this to say about dark elf butts:
I consider a baseball game to be a public place, even though I pay to get in.Yet I cannot carry a concealed sidearm to it, even with my permit to carry.
As for parents "inflicting their behavior" on their children.. I find that line hilarious, please explain it
Read a couple of posts up.
If one allows that restaurant workers are endangered by patrons smoking, how much more danger to smoking parents inflict upon their children? Children of smoking parents have, as I pointed out, much greater incidence of asthma and bronchial problems than the population at large.
As for the baseball game, since the entire point of banning smoking in public places is that it represents a danger to others, one could hardly allow it at such an event.
Actually, my nefarious plan to curb smoking in public would be simple: vigorous enforcement of litter laws. If they were slapped with a $500-$1000 fine every time they threw a butt on the ground, they might eventually get the point.
Then we could take the next step and outlaw it entirely.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Kameks wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
You ban smoking you need to ban alcohol to since a lot of poeple get killed by drunk drivers. Also outlaw cars as well since millions die in auto mobile accidents as well. The fact is ciggarets are bad for you but so is red meat and sugar. Asking smokers to give up a right (yes smoking has existed for more then 300 i consider it a right.) will not work.Also as for resturants who is MAKING those workers suffer the second hand smoke? If the owner out right tells them they will be dealing with lots of second hand smoke then they need to make a decision right then and there weither to work there or not. Heck though why not just make it easier and hire smokers to work there
You should read the thread before making yourself look silly(er).
Every single thing you mentioned has been addressed in depth.
TIMELINE ownz joo!
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
As for the baseball game, since the entire point of banning smoking in public places is that it represents a danger to others, one could hardly allow it at such an event.Actually, my nefarious plan to curb smoking in public would be simple: vigorous enforcement of litter laws. If they were slapped with a $500-$1000 fine every time they threw a butt on the ground, they might eventually get the point.
Then we could take the next step and outlaw it entirely.
You wouldn't allow smoking at a baseball game? Even an open top stadium? Good luck, y0.
As for the littering idea. I'll quote Gallagher on this one.
"You don't want people to litter? Okay! Make em pay. What do we do? Put up signs that say it's Fine for Littering!"
It's a good idea, but how the hell would you enforce that?
Littering is tougher, but only because it's not considered a big deal by those whose job is enforcement.
'Sides, we're just talking ideals, here. The practical stuff isn't really our problem.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
As in, the smoke rises? You know?
Between you and Tyewa I'm fairly scared.
If there's a nice breeze, and it happens to be going the right way, there's no problem.
Otherwise, it's not much different than being indoors.
Additionally, many stadiums are designed to limit weather impact inside--meaning the smoke would not necessarily dissipate quickly.
Why is it scary that I think others have no right to inflict poisons upon me?
The fact that some people think it's perfectly okay to endanger others, or, worse, that these people think it's somehow the victim's responsibility to take protective measures rather than their own, is what scares me.
Why should smoking be allowed, other than where it can do no harm but to the smoker?
{edit: missed an important "but"} [ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Why is it scary that I think others have no right to inflict poisons upon me?
It's not scary that you think that, I'm scared by some of your proposals.
I'm a pretty harsh, unforgiving kind of guy, but even I don't go that far. 
It only sounds strange and scary because people have the mistaken notion that banning smoking = removing a right. Once one realizes that there is no right to harm others, the rest follows.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Captain Planet:
It only sounds strange and scary because people have the mistaken notion that banning smoking = removing a right. Once one realizes that there is no right to harm others, the rest follows.
It's mostly your ideas for a larger government to stop smoking. The completely banning smoking in restaurants was a nice one.
See the tongue? Means sarcasm.
Stupid tab key! I wasn't finished!
No, there is no right to harm others, but I'd really like to see sources that state the children of smokers are more prone to asthma. [ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Demitri ]
I can't spell that, I know. Spellcheckers be damned.
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Demitri ]
Luckily, a good number of his proposals have occurred in Victoria mid last year. 
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: The Otaku Penguin ]
quote:
The Otaku Penguin had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Sage, where has there been CONCLUSIVE, WITHOUT A DOUBT proof that "second hand smoke" is dangerous? Because I think that if you are going to base your whole argument on something, that you should prove it first. I brought up a link showing that the previous study by the AMA was proven to be biased and somewhat faulty.
GOOD FUCKING GOD! Open your eyes man, it's all around. There is a REASON for all those warnings all over the pack! [ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Pvednes Phoenixfeather ]
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Pvednes Phoenixfeather was all like:
GOOD FUCKING GOD!Open your eyes man, it's all around.
Theres a REASON for all those warnings all over the pack!
Well, no, it is a somewhat legitimate question. Yes, many of the chemicals are known to be very dangerous, but the exposure that a non-smoker gets is incredibly minimal compared to what a smoker gets, possibly an hour or two a week to very diffuse fumes, if they go out to resturaunts three or four times a week, which most people don't.
Just becuase it is dangerous in the higher doses smokers get, doesn't mean that it is realistically dangerous in the doses one gets second hand.
As an analogy, consider radiation. It's false logic to say "Of course it's dangerous to live within several miles of the TMI nuclear generator. It gives off radiation to the surrounding enviroment, and look what happened to those who lived near Hiroshima, it killed them!" It's well understood that very low doses of radiation will not generally effect people adversely; just because higher doses can cause very bad effects doesn't mean lower doses will.
I'm not saying that second-hand smoke definitely doesn't cause problems, but I am saying it's hasty to automatically assume that it's some huge public safety hazard without some real investigation on what second hand smoke does in the kind of doses that we experience in a normal enviroment. The most telling thing so far was the study mentioned here that said children raised in a household with a smoker have a higher rate for lung disease (I hadn't heard of that one before, I'd like to hear more information on what the study was, how objective, etc. ) Even with that one, though, that would be a person with constant, high-level exposure over the course of 18 years, during the period of their lives when their immune systems and defenses are the weakest. It still doesn't quite say enough on dosages gotten from resturaunts, which would be much, much lower, and for far shorter periods of time.
And it's hasty to simply call smokers stupid for their habit. What it means is that they were once stupid, likely back when they were teens (and who isn't to at least some degree then ) and that mistake has haunted them for years. Having lived with a smoker for many years (my mother), I can tell you that even with all the various methods to quit, it is very difficult, I watched years of attempts (which finally did suceed), from one of the strongest people I know fail.
Yes, they know it will kill them, but that doesn't necessarily make them stupid to not quit right away. I don't exercise, I don't really eat right, and I'm well aware that that will probably make me die ten years earlier than I would otherwise. Would that make me stupid for not rushing out right away to join a gym? Perhaps, but it would then be a stupidity held by many of the smartest people I've ever met or known. And believe me, quitting smoking is far harder than eating right and exercising. [ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Chalesm ]
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Chalesm ]
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
The link was to the site of a lawyer and self-syndicated columnist. Not sure which part of that qualifies him to discuss medical issues or comment upon the nuances of scientific research. He certainly seems to have a political agenda, though.
Additionally, there were only allegations of bias, not proof of such, nor was there proof of faulty methodology, but rather only allegations again.
And, as I said before, it's not a question of whether second-hand smoke is dangerous, but rather in what concentration it becomes a serious health risk. As such, any measures should err on the side of safety, not on the side of protecting a non-existant right to smoke.
Sorry, Chalesm, and nothing against your mother, but I'll state unequivocably that anyone who has trouble quitting smoking isn't really trying. As Yoda said, there is only do, or do not--there is no try.
I know; I smoked cigarettes for ten years. 
I quit, for a variety of reasons, before studies on second-hand smoke were taken seriously. Quitting smoking is not like stopping a heroin habit cold turkey (okay, I have no experience with that one), and there are few symptoms of withdrawal beyond a craving. Which goes away in a matter of weeks.
It is--purely--an exercise in willpower.
I find it odd how many people rally to the defense of those whose careless selfishness endangers others, and how few stand up for those who may be harmed by the actions of that minority. Odd.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Check out the big brain on Pvednes Phoenixfeather!
Alrighty, try this:http://www.smoke-free.ca/eng_home/news_press_Jun99.htm
Thanks, the links at the bottom, and a few mentioned in there, went over the childhood risks. Yup, makes sense, I'm pretty sure I've heard those effects on childhood before, just slipped my mind when I asked the question, sorry.
However, that is somewhat tangential to the main point, the resturaunt bannings on smoking (though admittedly I was the one who started the tangent by asking for followup information ) A home enviroment of smoking causes much, much higher levels than what we were dealing with, during a very vulnerable point of life.
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
quote:
Bloodsage thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
As I said before, it's not a question of whether second-hand smoke is dangerous, but rather in what concentration it becomes a serious health risk. As such, any measures should err on the side of safety, not on the side of protecting a non-existant right to smoke.Sorry, Chalesm, and nothing against your mother, but I'll state unequivocably that anyone who has trouble quitting smoking isn't really trying. As Yoda said, there is only do, or do not--there is no try.
I know; I smoked cigarettes for ten years.
I quit, for a variety of reasons, before studies on second-hand smoke were taken seriously. Quitting smoking is not like stopping a heroin habit cold turkey (okay, I have no experience with that one), and there are few symptoms of withdrawal beyond a craving. Which goes away in a matter of weeks.
It is--purely--an exercise in willpower.
I find it odd how many people rally to the defense of those whose careless selfishness endangers others, and how few stand up for those who may be harmed by the actions of that minority. Odd.
Well, I can't say anthing about the difficutly of quitting smoking from a personal viewpoint, giving me a much weaker position than you. And no insult taken, I do know, in at least a second-hand way, what you mean, she was more than able to quit when necessary (from attempting pregnancy through almost the first decade of my life, she never smoked).
As for why I'm defending the smokers, I think it's mainly the eternal devil's advocate in me, Whenever I see a side being crushed in a debate, I feel the need to jump in, even if I'm not particarly in favor of one or the other.
______
Yes, we need to deal with the safty hazards smoking creates, and erring on the side of safety is better, but there are better (or rather, less upsetting) way to reduce risk than absolute banning. Increased health standards could have virtually the same effect, without drastically upsetting people's lives. To use an old cliche, we can get a man on the moon, we shouldn't have a problem cleaning up the air a bit in resturaunts. As I mentioned before, suction vents alone could reduce air pollution drastically, and with another idea or two, it could easily be reduced far below any reasonable ideas of what a danger zone is. [ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Chalesm ]
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
