Topic RSS | Reply to topic
Author Post

Nitro


Member

Posted Tue May 26th, 2009 3:22pm Post subject: Blankety blanking smoking ban laws!!!!!!!!!!
Hate to break the news to some of you, but ALL 'passive smoke' ( whatever the hell that is ) does NOT go into your lungs and you're not going to get lung cancer through intermittent 15 minute periods of smoke drifting by X-D

I grew up in a household of smoking parents. I had way more exposure to 'passive smoke' than those with non-smoking parents. I do not have lung cancer. What's next? Will the government take smoking parents to court because their kids are exposed to it? Fine them? Take the kids away?

The government making citizens nervous about doing LEGAL things is a very, very bad idea and when it begins to happen, the illusion that you're a free citizen is just that: an illusion.

Really? Wow.

Back to top

Britannicus


Member

Posted Sat May 30th, 2009 3:44am Post subject: Blankety blanking smoking ban laws!!!!!!!!!!
Nitro, does it actually matter if some neo-hippy with something to gain is fueling the battle over smoke-free bars and restaurants? If second-hand smoke truly is as bad as is being claimed by some, then would it really matter if some incontrovertible evidence comes out proving that its spokesmen are, let’s say, being paid huge sums by some backer to do the reporting? Everyone has to make a living, right?

Note that the above does not necessarily express my personal opinion. I simply want to know what your thoughts would be in a situation like that.

"Your room...it's CLEAN!!!"
"I prayed to God...and...it happened...but...where's my million dollars and horse!? Damn it!"

Back to top

Nitro


Member

Posted Sat May 30th, 2009 4:37am Post subject: Blankety blanking smoking ban laws!!!!!!!!!!
Nitro, does it actually matter if some neo-hippy with something to gain is fueling the battle over smoke-free bars and restaurants?

Not sure what you're actually asking me here. Are you asking me if it matters WHO is fueling the movement to ban smokers from businesses set up, not by government, but by private citizens who ought to be able to allow a legal activity, purchased legally ( and taxes taken in on said purchases ), in their establishment as they see fit? If so, no, it doesn't matter if it's a neo-hippy or a yuppie behind the wailing about passive smoke.


If second-hand smoke truly is as bad as is being claimed by some, then would it really matter if some incontrovertible evidence comes out proving that its spokesmen are, let’s say, being paid huge sums by some backer to do the reporting? Everyone has to make a living, right?

Again, I don't know what your question is driving at here.
1) If second hand smoke is bad based on incontrovertible evidence
2) but there's a vague backer paying a reporter(?) to do the reporting...
3) = OK to make a living.

Is that what your question means? You tell me because from here I can only guess

Note that the above does not necessarily express my personal opinion. I simply want to know what your thoughts would be in a situation like that. I'll be happy to answer your questions when I better understand their context and variables X-D

Really? Wow.

Back to top

Britannicus


Member

Posted Sat May 30th, 2009 5:58am Post subject: Blankety blanking smoking ban laws!!!!!!!!!!
Clearly you are against the infringement on a person's right to practice a habit that as of yet is still legal. Yet the proponents of the movement against public smoking would claim that public smoking is an infringement on a non-smoker's right to a smoke-free environment. The links you posted earlier, combined with comments about your own exposure to second-hand smoke having not yet led to lung cancer, give the impression that you doubt the strength of the link between ETS and lung cancer. ("The pseudo-science of second hand smoke is so thin it makes me ralph when people attribute logic to it.")

Further more, you state that studies purporting such a connection (such as those by WHO and the EPA) are “skewed with an agenda”. Presumably the agenda of the “granola eating, gotta-change-the-world neo-hippies”. You state that the credibility of such reports depends on the reader’s unwillingness or inability to question their validity, “swallowing the truth” without any “critical thinking”.

This is what interests me. Your main objection is the government’s interference in public smoking policy, their meddling having produced regulations that violate a person’s right to smoke – an activity that is still perfectly legal. And yet you also state that the very science behind any need for such regulation is faulted, faulted by persons who are twisting the results to achieve a means that is not based on a HEALTH problem, but actually on a social problem. (“What's next? Signs that say,'Sorry, we're not allowed to serve the obese or overweight.'")

Therefore, you are actually making two big points here. “Government interference” versus “faulty science purported to be true in order to achieve a goal”. I simply want to know the relationship between them in your mind.

Can you help me out?

Is government interference ALWAYS bad -- or is it only bad when it is based on distorted facts? (And if there are other factors, please say so)

How much does an “agenda” damage the credibility of a report? For example, if I told you that some research lab was being paid half a million dollars by the EPA to fund a study analyzing the link between ETS and cancer, how would you feel? You do not know for sure if the payment includes any "tweaking" of the report, but you do know that the EPA is a strong advocate of the ETS-cancer connection. Some suspicious internal memos have also been found that may be suggestive of the intent to meddle. How would this influence your opinion of that study or that research lab?


If you need any more clarifying, let me know.

"Your room...it's CLEAN!!!"
"I prayed to God...and...it happened...but...where's my million dollars and horse!? Damn it!"

Back to top

Nitro


Member

Posted Sun May 31st, 2009 5:04am Post subject: Blankety blanking smoking ban laws!!!!!!!!!!
Clearly you are against the infringement on a person's right to practice a habit that as of yet is still legal.

Hi Britannicus,
First, thanks for all your thoughtful questions and I appreciate that you understand that this is the designed area to vent, ( a silly thing to do maybe, but at least momentarily satisfying as well X-D ), about all of our peculiar, sometimes petty, pet peeves, irritations, and frustrations.

Secondly, ( and I'll stop this numerical nonsense now - no "And thirdly..", I promise ), I'm very pleased that there's no confusion about where my angst-fueled opinion stands. IOW, yes, I'm absolutely against the infringement and wildly happy the habit is still a 'legal' one.

Thanks for quoting me so specifically because it's slightly flattering X-D You're actually paying attention to things I've written and I never really plan for that. You've caught me off guard you evil genius.




Yet the proponents of the movement against public smoking would claim that public smoking is an infringement on a non-smoker's right to a smoke-free environment.

Well, that's true. There are people who really just hate the smell of smoke, but instead of saying that I believe they go about pretending they actually give a damn about other peoples health. Now let me ask you a question: Should someone who KNOWS they don't like smoke of any kind around them be able to dictate who populates a place of business and who doesn't or, I think more reasonably, could they just not find a different bar, cafe, restaurant? If the activist anti-smokers are so interested in smoke free environments, why don't they just open their own cafes and such versus going to, for instance, Mr.Jone's cafe - when it's he who invested his own money in it and he who takes all the financial risks and he who does all the work of running it - to eat his food? Surely there are other people in the world, other places, that offer food too.

My point is that I think it should be left to the business owner what environment they create. If it is not patronized, he goes under. But I don't believe Big Brother should stomp in and tell Mr.Jones a certain population of his customers shall not be allowed to do something that, until recently, was not considered terribly unreasonable and it is still a legal activity. Please don't say it's because people didn't know about the risks of smoking. That's been common knowledge for a long time.


The links you posted earlier, combined with comments about your own exposure to second-hand smoke having not yet led to lung cancer, give the impression that you doubt the strength of the link between ETS and lung cancer. ("The pseudo-science of second hand smoke is so thin it makes me ralph when people attribute logic to it.")

Yes, clearly I made my opinion known and why.



Further more, you state that studies purporting such a connection (such as those by WHO and the EPA) are “skewed with an agenda”. Presumably the agenda of the “granola eating, gotta-change-the-world neo-hippies”. You state that the credibility of such reports depends on the reader’s unwillingness or inability to question their validity, “swallowing the truth” without any “critical thinking”.



Well, you're pretty damned good at telling me what I said. I appreciate that because I don't always remember. However, now that you have I still am not quite sure how I should respond. We both know MY opinion. What's yours?



This is what interests me. Your main objection is the government’s interference in public smoking policy, their meddling having produced regulations that violate a person’s right to smoke – an activity that is still perfectly legal. And yet you also state that the very science behind any need for such regulation is faulted, faulted by persons who are twisting the results to achieve a means that is not based on a HEALTH problem, but actually on a social problem. (“What's next? Signs that say,'Sorry, we're not allowed to serve the obese or overweight.'")

Therefore, you are actually making two big points here. “Government interference” versus “faulty science purported to be true in order to achieve a goal”. I simply want to know the relationship between them in your mind.

Can you help me out?



Are you suggesting that my 'two big points', ( seriously, I had no idea I was doing that X-D ), are contradictory and if so, couldn't you just say or ask that? I think that's what you're getting at(?) but as I said earlier, I cannot state with absolute certainty that I understand your position or points in totality. Maybe you could help me out


Is government interference ALWAYS bad -- or is it only bad when it is based on distorted facts? (And if there are other factors, please say so)

Why is everything reduced to yes or no, black or white, good or bad, on or off? I don't really think all things are that easily answered. I would think that if facts are distorted and these facts are used to interfere, well...I'm not sure I would call that 'good'.



How much does an “agenda” damage the credibility of a report? For example, if I told you that some research lab was being paid half a million dollars by the EPA to fund a study analyzing the link between ETS and cancer, how would you feel? You do not know for sure if the payment includes any "tweaking" of the report, but you do know that the EPA is a strong advocate of the ETS-cancer connection. Some suspicious internal memos have also been found that may be suggestive of the intent to meddle. How would this influence your opinion of that study or that research lab?



That reads like a little mini-mystery. It's interesting but, again, I feel like I'm sort of being asked to decide on something that you've already set up as being twisted inside the question itself. That's a little like asking,"You see someone beating a dog. Do you think that's bad if you don't know the dogs past behaviors or the owner's side of things?".


If you need any more clarifying, let me know.

I am always in need of a good clarifying X-D

BTW Britannicus, please know that the laughing faces are not laughing AT you. It's me being slightly tongue in cheek, not unpleasant or mean.

Really? Wow.

Back to top

joan


Member

Posted Sun May 31st, 2009 10:11am Post subject: Blankety blanking smoking ban laws!!!!!!!!!!
As a never-smoker, married to a formerly heavy smoker for decades, I must admit life is better for me since he gave up.

But not for him. Nicotine can enhance the immune system, and he became ill when he gave up (Fibromyalgia and arthritis which destroyed his knees) He uses nicotine patches permanently now, and they really help. He is in the process of having total knee replacements.

It is unfair to make non-smokers suffer the unpleasantness of others' smoke where they cannot escape, such as at work, but I see no reason why pubs and restaurants should not have smoking rooms, staffed by smokers - if there are enough smokers to go round.

The last years working in an office were so very much better when I didn't have second-hand smoke blown all over me. Forget the pros and cons about health and second hand smoke - it is simply unpleasant, smelly and makes you cough and your eyes water.

Back to top

Britannicus


Member

Posted Sun May 31st, 2009 1:18pm Post subject: Blankety blanking smoking ban laws!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for quoting me so specifically because it's slightly flattering X-D

It is a handy way of organizing thoughts, isn’t it? By “” or [*quote][*/quote], nice all the same.


Now let me ask you a question: Should someone who KNOWS they don't like smoke of any kind around them be able to dictate who populates a place of business and who doesn't or, I think more reasonably, could they just not find a different bar, cafe, restaurant? If the activist anti-smokers are so interested in smoke free environments, why don't they just open their own cafes and such versus going to, for instance, Mr.Jone's cafe - when it's he who invested his own money in it and he who takes all the financial risks and he who does all the work of running it - to eat his food? Surely there are other people in the world, other places, that offer food too.

That is a good question, which I can only answer by proposing the opposite. Mr. Jones may very well be running a wonderful café, well-loved by many. Perhaps his café offers a delightful espresso or pancake breakfast that no other diner can really top. Let’s say one of its fans happens to be Mrs. Samson, an asthmatic whose symptoms are rapidly triggered by cigarette smoke. She loves Mr. Jones’s Café not only for its quality service, but also for its location – it is just around the corner from her apartment. The only other diner that comes close to matching Mr. Jones’s is nearly six blocks away, and even then it is only second-best. If Mr. Jones’s Café continues to permit smoking indoors, is it truly more reasonable for Mrs. Samson to have to abandon a favorable location for one that is in her opinion lower in quality, and at an inconvenient distance? On the other hand, if Mr. Jones’s Café took up a no-smoking policy, it is not as if the smoker would be required to quit that habit upon walking through its doors. He would still have the option of stepping out whenever he pleased. As for opening new non-smoking restaurants, well, the financial risks and so on still apply here. Should someone really have to risk thousands of their own hard-earned money just so people can have a place to eat smoke-free?

But I don't believe Big Brother should stomp in and tell Mr.Jones a certain population of his customers shall not be allowed to do something that, until recently, was not considered terribly unreasonable and it is still a legal activity. Please don't say it's because people didn't know about the risks of smoking. That's been common knowledge for a long time.

That’s entirely correct. The dangers of smoking have been publically acknowledged for many decades. Since at least the early fifties, in fact. Some of the tobacco industries knew about it even earlier -- Lorillard Tobacco Company scientists saw the health implications as early as 1946, for instance. I could go into great length about why I think little action has been taken until comparatively recently, but I will say that it has a fair deal to do with how the industries communicated with the public regarding those health claims. The lawsuits in 1998 in particular forced them to release their internal documents for the past four decades. It’s all pretty clear in there.


Well, you're pretty damned good at telling me what I said. I appreciate that because I don't always remember. However, now that you have I still am not quite sure how I should respond. We both know MY opinion. What's yours?


My opinion is that I am simply curious. I don’t smoke, therefore the no-smoking laws have little effect on my life. But they do on yours. I guess you could say that I’m trying to understand how much of your opinion is based on the impact that they have on your life versus the sheer idea that they exist at all. It’s a window into your world – a law is personally affecting you in such a way that it can have an influence on your day-to-day activities. While the magnitude is vastly different to segregations of the past, these laws and publicity have still created some distinction between the “smoker” and the “non-smoker”. It’s there. I’m curious about it.

Are you suggesting that my 'two big points', ( seriously, I had no idea I was doing that X-D ), are contradictory and if so, couldn't you just say or ask that? I think that's what you're getting at(?) but as I said earlier, I cannot state with absolute certainty that I understand your position or points in totality. Maybe you could help me out


Not that they contradict necessarily, but that they’re different. Sometimes people object to certain laws because they interfere – period. Even if said laws are beneficial (the extreme would be things like speed limits). People’s lives are their own business, etc. Whereas you also suggested that some anti-smoking laws are based on less-than-pure motives, with shoddy statistics backing them up. That’s an objection all of its own, that could stand without any prior distaste for all government intervention. Both can be in mind at the same time to some degree or another, but one would usually be a more dominant force.

Why is everything reduced to yes or no, black or white, good or bad, on or off? I don't really think all things are that easily answered. I would think that if facts are distorted and these facts are used to interfere, well...I'm not sure I would call that 'good'.

You can answer however you want. My lack of creativity in questions isn’t intended to be a constraint.

That reads like a little mini-mystery. It's interesting but, again, I feel like I'm sort of being asked to decide on something that you've already set up as being twisted inside the question itself.

You’re right about that, and I apologize for it. I actually began posting here because of the links you provided; I know some background behind them, and it was intriguing to me that those links would go along with some of the things you already said. In trying to understand that, I tried cramming too many questions into one. Sorry! I’m honestly really not trying to back you into a corner or get you to say a particular thing, I’m just getting ahead of myself with what I think I might eventually need to know to understand. Welcome to my thought process. X-D


BTW Britannicus, please know that the laughing faces are not laughing AT you. It's me being slightly tongue in cheek, not unpleasant or mean.

X-D Laughter is good, no worries.

"Your room...it's CLEAN!!!"
"I prayed to God...and...it happened...but...where's my million dollars and horse!? Damn it!"

Back to top

Nitro


Member

Posted Mon Jun 1st, 2009 9:01am Post subject: Blankety blanking smoking ban laws!!!!!!!!!!
Hi Joan, thanks for your resonse. And I do agree that it's unfair we all often have to smell things we find unpleasant, set our noses sneezing, making our eyes water and faces cringe. And I knew an old guy in his late 80's, been smoking since he was a young lad. He caught a cold and asked the doctor if maybe he ought to quit now. The doctor advised him against quitting straight away. He said if he quite smoking at this stage, it would be MORE likely he'd catch a bad case of Bronchitis than if he kept smoking. But he did suggest he smoke a little more 'lightly'.

Some of the folks I know ( personally ) who think no smokers should smoke anywhere they might be, somehow forget that they douse themselves in what often smells like gallons of cologne and perfume. Some to the point of causing me nausea. I suppose I could protest, stomp my feet, guilt them into not wearing that stuff simply because we're going to the same party. But, I would rather endure the overpowering smell of their favorite cologne than be petty about it.

OK Brittanicus, here we go then....



If Mr. Jones’s Café continues to permit smoking indoors, is it truly more reasonable for Mrs. Samson to have to abandon a favorable location for one that is in her opinion lower in quality, and at an inconvenient distance?

Yes, I think it's fair. Mrs.Samson could ask for the recipe and make the food at home herself, in a nice, smoke free environment without asking a business person to alter their environment for her.

The other problem with these rooms set aside for smokers, is that often they seem designed more to punish the smokers. Tiny little rooms with zero ventilzation and hard chairs.

Back in the 90's here in the states a craze went through called Cigar Bars. A place that specifically catered to smokers of every LEGAL expression. You'd have to blind as a bat not to know, before you walked in, what you were walking into: an establishment specifically soliciting a smoking clientele.

Ah, but the do-gooders laws sure enough came crashing down on those folks and made the absurdity of such laws all the clearer to many. All these businesses had to fold up because their whole point of existing - to provide a comftorable cigar bar, a place for people who smoke pipes to sit in on the discussions, and the cigarette smoker had access to other than normal blends of tobacco. Non-smokers didn't patronize the place anyway, for obvious reasons. OK, but that wasn't enough. The business owners of these bars had to see their dreams end in one swift stroke of a politicians pen.


I guess you could say that I’m trying to understand how much of your opinion is based on the impact that they have on your life versus the sheer idea that they exist at all.

My opinion is based on both.

Sorry! I’m honestly really not trying to back you into a corner or get you to say a particular thing, I’m just getting ahead of myself with what I think I might eventually need to know to understand. Welcome to my thought process. Laughing

The thing about backing me into a cornor is that causes my clothing to get seams that don't belong there.

Really? Wow.

Back to top