Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Your Right to Breathe Smoke-Free Air... (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Your Right to Breathe Smoke-Free Air...
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do people actually swallow (tobacco 'juice' that is)?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eric
Member
Member # 2699

 - posted      Profile for Eric   Email Eric       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not a chewer, so I don't know. But I guess even if you spit a lot, it'd be damn near impossible not to swallow some of it.

Wait...we are still talking about tobacco, right? [Razz]

Posts: 448 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jason: Cars are nothing like cigarettes.

Dey: No, when cigarettes roll over, they don't kill 5 kids at a time.

Jason: Now, cigarettes can't are a centerpiece of our economy.

Dey: I know! They weren't like billion-dollar businesses selling more abroad today than Detroit!

Jason: Hell, they're more than that: they're a centerpiece of our way of life.

Dey: They are not the centerpiece of my life. I'm for the subway, I'm for trains, and planes for the very rich. I'm for sailboats. In fact, we are returning to sailboats -- even to carry to stinking oil and gas! When was I last in a car? I'm for bicycles! Electric scooters! Electric vehicles and nuclear power. I suppose that you think everybody in China and India should have a car whizzing around Asia!

Jason: A world without cars would be fundamentally different.

Dey: A world witihout cars would be fundamentally better.

Jason: And incidentally, cigarettes are the 800 lbs gorilla when it comes to raising your risk of lung cancer; cars are a DISTANT 2nd.

Dey: I think you have to add the 50,000 roadkill, no? And how do you know that the bulk of lung cancer is not provoked by the exhaust in car interiors? You do not! You have avoided the trials!

Jason: Cigarettes contribute nothing to our lives, and have no significant impact on our culture.

Dey: Huh? From the peace pipe to Franklin Delano Roosevelt? From Charlotte Cushman to Phyllis Diller? C'mon ...!

Jason: Cigarettes are an addiction ....

Dey: Cars aren't?

Jason: There is no inherent need for cigarettes ...

Dey: There is no inherent need for automobiles.

Jason: The point being that a world without cigarettes would look exactly like the world we have today, only I wouldn't have to choke on other people's fumes, and there'd be alot less lung cancer deaths each year.

Dey: The point being that a world without cars would look nicer than the world we have today, only I wouldn't have to choke on other people's fumes, and there'd be alot less lung cancer deaths each year.

Jason: And I'm not even asking to ban them entirely.

Dey: Well, Jason, that's what it looks like you're doing. Next, I suppose, you'll want to ban cosmetics, tatoos, dancing in public and other sins of the flesh because they're frivolous, vain, and dangerous! You and your smokeophobic ilk have ruined innumerable small business, weedled your way into the rights of private clubs, removed the right to smoke even of minority Indians, and don't give a snit about anybody else's "rights". What about Veterans in their homes, what about nursing-home patients in their homes, what about workaholilcs in their homes? Jason, it is you who are the 800-lb gorilla in the room!

Conclusion: Considering the fact that cars have been around for a century -- causing enormous damage to our landscape and having killed >500,000 people outright and leaving >1,000,000 permanent injured without any need to prove it with clinical trials, considering those killed and injured in auto and auto-related industries, and considering that smoking has been around for centuries with a death-rate that can't even be fixed, only a nonsmoking jury is going to suggest that cigarettes are more-annoying or more-dangerous than cars!

Isn't it really more in the manner of the jiggling foot? The jiggling foot doesn't bother the jiggler, just everybody else in the room; the guy driving isn't bothered by his bad driving, just every other driver and pedestrian on the road, the smoker doesn't mind his smoke, just everybody who doesn't smoke.

Well -- we give drivers places to drive responsibly and drive irresponsibility; but did the anti-smokers come to the aid of the CT condo owner who smoked when her Nazi co-condo-owners decided to ban smoking on the entire property?

It's hypocrisy!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, aside from the 'secondary' 'juice' that the chewer swallows by nature of leakage or whatever, is it normal to swallow all 'juice', or if not exactly normal, is it even feasible to swallow all juice?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DD: The nicotine is extracted, and the residue is expectorated. Never chew coca leaves? Beetle nuts? Doublemint Gum?
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald, tobacco chewing is why they invented spittoons. I haven't tried, but I suspect swallowing the wad (of tobacco you sick perverts) would be a quick road to nausea.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death

Heart disease: 654,092

Cancer: 550,270

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694

Diabetes: 72,815

Alzheimer's disease: 65,829

Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762

Septicemia: 33,464


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

quote:
Each year, a staggering 440,000 people die in the US from tobacco use. Nearly 1 of every 5 deaths is related to smoking. Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Cigarette_Smoking_and_Cancer.asp

Not, of course, that smoking is associated only with lung and throat cancers as causes of death.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/HealthEffectsofCigaretteSmoking_Factsheet.htm

Jav, you better sign me up in that non-smokers jury.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As an addendum, car accidents cause less than a quarter of the deaths caused by smoking, even though nearly 100% of the population are car users, while only a quarter of the population are smokers.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm guessing that the last two things anyone would want on an airplane are a) spittoons or b) nausea inducing substances when used in the absence of spittoons.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clark
Member
Member # 2727

 - posted      Profile for Clark   Email Clark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I fall in on the "I don't want people to smoke near me" side of this debate, I must state some confusion on some of Tom's stats.

Nearly 20% of deaths are smoking related, but only 25% of the population smokes? If we assume that most of those smoking related deaths are the smokers themselves then at implies that about 75% of smokers must be dying each year. Problem solved! The smokers are going to die out within a decade! This stat also implies that the median lifespan for a smoker is somewhere under 1 year.

Posts: 420 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a problem with the stats myself, but keep in mind, Clark - some of those deaths are likely not the smokers themselves, but instead are people who have the pleasure of inhaling smoke without actually, you know, wanting to do so (non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke, etc.)
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lol. QED, jav.

The best study I've seen concluding that SHS kills said about 3,000 people died annually from SHS.

Which, considering the above numbers, I feel perhaps it might be a margin or error?


"As an addendum, car accidents cause less than a quarter of the deaths caused by smoking, even though nearly 100% of the population are car users, while only a quarter of the population are smokers. "

Yes, but all of those 440,000 people die because they smoked (assuming we're still allowing that killing yourself is legal.) How many people die because they go out to eat a few times a month?

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clark:

quote:
Nearly 20% of deaths are smoking related, but only 25% of the population smokes? If we assume that most of those smoking related deaths are the smokers themselves then at implies that about 75% of smokers must be dying each year. Problem solved! The smokers are going to die out within a decade! This stat also implies that the median lifespan for a smoker is somewhere under 1 year.
If 25% of Americans smoke, and there are 300 million Americans, then approx. 75 million American smokers. If 440 thousand smokers die from smoking related causes per annum, that means an annual death rate of 5.8 per thousand from smoking related causes. I don't see this as presenting a problem with my statistics, but it certainly suggests a problem with Clark's statistical analysis.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tommy Samma:

quote:
The best study I've seen concluding that SHS kills said about 3,000 people died annually from SHS.
quote:
Although the number of cardiovascular deaths associated with environmental tobacco smoke cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, the available evidence indicates that environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk of heart disease. The effects of environmental tobacco smoke on cardiovascular function, platelet function, neutrophil function, and plaque formation are the probable mechanisms leading to heart disease. The risk of death due to heart disease is increased by about 30% among those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at home and could be much higher in those exposed at the workplace, where higher levels of environmental tobacco smoke may be present. Even though considerable uncertainty is a part of any analysis on the health affects of environmental tobacco smoke because of the difficulty of conducting long-term studies and selecting sample populations, an estimated 35,000-40,000 cardiovascular disease-related deaths and 3,000- 5,000 lung cancer deaths due to environmental tobacco smoke exposure have been predicted to occur each year. The AHA's Council on Cardiopulmonary and Critical Care has concluded that environmental tobacco smoke is a major preventable cause of cardiovascular disease and death. The council strongly supports efforts to eliminate all exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke. This requires that environmental tobacco smoke be treated as an environmental toxin, and ways to protect workers and the public from this health hazard should be developed. According to a 1989 Gallup survey commissioned by the American Lung Association, 86% of nonsmokers think that environmental tobacco smoke is harmful and 77% believe that smokers should abstain in the presence of nonsmokers.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/2/699

quote:
The evidence that ETS increases risk of death from heart disease is similar to that which existed in 1986 when the US Surgeon General concluded that ETS caused lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers. There are 10 epidemiological studies, conducted in a variety of locations, that reflect about a 30% increase in risk of death from ischemic heart disease or myocardial infarction among nonsmokers living with smokers. The larger studies also demonstrate a significant dose-response effect, with greater exposure to ETS associated with greater risk of death from heart disease. These epidemiological studies are complemented by a variety of physiological and biochemical data that show that ETS adversely affects platelet function and damages arterial endothelium in a way that increases the risk of heart disease. Moreover, ETS, in realistic exposures, also exerts significant adverse effects on exercise capability of both healthy people and those with heart disease by reducing the body's ability to deliver and utilize oxygen. In animal experiments, ETS also depresses cellular respiration at the level of mitochondria. The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ETS also accelerate, and may initiate, the development of atherosclerotic plaque. Of note, the cardiovascular effects of ETS appear to be different in nonsmokers and smokers. Nonsmokers appear to be more sensitive to ETS than do smokers, perhaps because some of the affected physiological systems are sensitive to low doses of the compounds in ETS, then saturate, and also perhaps because of physiological adaptions smokers undergo as a result of long-term exposure to the toxins in cigarette smoke. In any event, these findings indicate that, for cardiovascular disease, it is incorrect to compute "cigarette equivalents" for passive exposure to ETS and then to extrapolate the effects of this exposure on nonsmokers from the effects of direct smoking on smokers. These results suggest that heart disease is an important consequence of exposure to ETS. The combination of epidemiological studies with demonstration of physiological changes with exposure to ETS, together with biochemical evidence that elements of ETS have significant adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, leads to the conclusion that ETS causes heart disease. This increase in risk translates into about 10 times as many deaths from ETS-induced heart disease as lung cancer; these deaths contribute greatly to the estimated 53,000 deaths annually from passive smoking. This toll makes passive smoking the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States today, behind active smoking and alcohol.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/1/1?ijkey=4a5be6d1e9e3a9b7d6b3b9ab29a0f748d8b955ed&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Let's be conservative and call it 38,000 passive smoking deaths per annum in the US (the minimum level from the more conservative estimate). That makes it 700 Americans a week, and 100 a day dying because of some one elses smoking habit.

Given that, the only interesting thing about this debate is the breath taking gall of smokers in treating this issue as about their rights.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The gall of it is that smokers have been blamed for millions of deaths that cannot be proven to have been caused by smoking or 2nd-hand smoke.

It does not necessitate a conspiracy theory to comprehend that for decades any death of a smoker has been attributed to smoking, aggravated by smoking, or otherwise provoked by aerosol carcinogens. Epidemiology has been nothing less than a racket in the VA, and one can hardly trust county coroners to be doing anything like an accurate job with their alcohol and tobacco habits.

I'll admit that I'm suspicious of the major cancer research fundraisers, but I know full well that the American Heart Association is as much a malevalence in our society as heart attacks. These are businesses in bed with advertisers. I expect baloney, and that's what I get. The AHA is a 'feel-good' outfit that is, in fact, shamelessly corrupt and rotten to the core.

Meanwhile, billions have been spent fighting smokers that might better have been spent finding means of preventing cancer.

Emphysema and smoking are a pair with smoking guns; smoking and lung cancer, after billions have been spent investigating the logical link have actually proven nothing.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Given that, the only interesting thing about this debate is the breath taking gall of smokers in treating this issue as about their rights."

I think it's about the rights of business owners.

I don't smoke.

My problem is trying to ban smoking in private venues, where you chose to go.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard,

quote:
The gall of it is that smokers have been blamed for millions of deaths that cannot be proven to have been caused by smoking or 2nd-hand smoke.
There are established mechanisms of action, very strong correlative evidence, etc.

quote:
It does not necessitate a conspiracy theory to comprehend that for decades any death of a smoker has been attributed to smoking, aggravated by smoking, or otherwise provoked by aerosol carcinogens.
As with any such study you match based on characteristics aside from smoking. It is only the excess death rate on matched individuals that is attributed to smoking. Not all deaths of smokers.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The gall of it is that smokers have been blamed for millions of deaths that cannot be proven to have been caused by smoking or 2nd-hand smoke.

It does not necessitate a conspiracy theory to comprehend that for decades any death of a smoker has been attributed to smoking, aggravated by smoking, or otherwise provoked by aerosol carcinogens. Epidemiology has been nothing less than a racket in the VA, and one can hardly trust county coroners to be doing anything like an accurate job with their alcohol and tobacco habits.

I'll admit that I'm suspicious of the major cancer research fundraisers, but I know full well that the American Heart Association is as much a malevalence in our society as heart attacks. These are businesses in bed with advertisers. I expect baloney, and that's what I get. The AHA is a 'feel-good' outfit that is, in fact, shamelessly corrupt and rotten to the core.

Meanwhile, billions have been spent fighting smokers that might better have been spent finding means of preventing cancer.

Emphysema and smoking are a pair with smoking guns; smoking and lung cancer, after billions have been spent investigating the logical link have actually proven nothing.

It is always heartening to see somebody launch straight into a conspiracy theory of science whenever a pet belief is threatened. I had feared we were in danger of having a rational discussion. Thank you, Richard, for preserving us from that threat.

PS: Richard, just how widespread are these supposed fraudulent attacks against the tobacco industry? Does it, for example, extend to Syria?
http://respiratory-research.com/content/6/1/13

Will any scientific study showing a correlation between passive smoking and ill health be rejected as fraudulent?

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tommy:

quote:
"Given that, the only interesting thing about this debate is the breath taking gall of smokers in treating this issue as about their rights."

I think it's about the rights of business owners.

I don't smoke.

My problem is trying to ban smoking in private venues, where you chose to go.

The notion of choice is a very fuzzy one in real life. True, the barmaid in the pub with smoking allowed chooses to work there; but as often the choice is to accept what work is available, or not work at all (and consequently become homeless), that seems a very mute point.

Given that second hand smoke has adverse health effects, the "right" of the business owner to decide whether their venue will be smoking or non-smoking is not distinguisable in principle from their "right" to include or not include smoke detectors and fire escapes. I do not see any such right - the right to be negligent of employee and patron health and safety as existing.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0rnery
Member
Member # 398

 - posted      Profile for 0rnery   Email 0rnery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This IS an issue about the RIGHTS of business owners being trampled by the laughable "rights" of anyone and everyone to "Breathe Smoke-Free Air".
  • First of all, a warning at the entrance, should be more than enough to satisfy the tremendous worry about second hand smoke. Enter or don't, it's that simple.
  • Secondly, many places of employment handle chemicals or cause smoke in the process of creating a product. Simple, approved ventilation takes care of that. There are currently no provisions for owners to provide that simple solution, instead of an outright ban.
  • Third, the rights of a tax paying, job producing business owner should far outweigh the wants of the sniveling, litigious, world-owes-me-a-living, whiners, who this country seems to be comprised of these days.
Yours Truly,

One Very Disgusted, Ornery American

Posts: 384 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First - if this argument were any good at all, it would equally apply to attempts to legislate ventilation requirements for businesses allowing smoking, or come to that, any work place health and safety legislation. What is more, I do not accept that business has any right to be exempted from health regulations, and nor have you attempted to prove the contrary. Instead, you have simply assumed it.

Second - if this is an acceptable solution, then as already pointed out, there is nothing wrong in principle with legislating WH&S for businesses, and it then just comes down to a matter of judgement of which is the best form of that legislation. The public have made that judgement. It's their right to do so. It's called democracy, get used to it.

Third - I don't accept that rights are a function of wealth (as you appear to imply), nor that your desire to insult a group should correlate with their lacking rights.

Finally, your argument is not made stronger by shouting.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By raising his tenor in this instance, TC, I think Ornery actually raised the quality of the discourse. It clarified what I had first assumed was a timidity beaten down by smokophobic [Smile] bullies!

I call this discussion the Cocoanut Grove Syndrome. After the bar door was shut, the nightclub burnt adn 500 died. The nightclub had been inspected and did meet the Boston Fire Department codes in place at that time. We might as well call it the Station NIghtclub Syndrome where 100 died. NB ... neither of which was caused by a cigarette.

I think Tommy is right on this issue, and I think Ornery is just as right; and being right or wrong really ought not to be determined by someone's tone of voice. So, a lot of people were pleased that smoking was banned and trampled on other's right to smoke; well, a lot of people were not pleased.

The solution is and always was semiotics. Even the Surgeon General's office has comprehended the problem of claiming on cigarette packages that Smoking Causes Cancer. Everybody will have cancer if he lives long enough. Today the message is truer, saner, and no more clear:

Surgeon General's Warning: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health

Not to mention being beaten up by a smokophobe or humiliated in public for smoking at a bus stop! The label makes no claims that smoking causes cancer. It makes no claims that 2nd-hand smoke causes cancer. Because the Surgeon General was asked to prove it and billions in research later the Surgeon General has not proven, if it is so dangerous, what should have been obviated by now. But no, lung cancer death reduction has exactly paralleled an improvement in car-emission standards!

We do not know.[/I] We see patterns, we surmise, we project ... because there is a huge pile of money to be spent on antismoking measures due to the panic. The public sued the tobacco industry and won billions!

And what did the States do with all this money they got? Did they make any serious attempt to let old smokers die and prevent young smokers from smoking? Wha ...? Banning smoking at the mall or in schools? Cripes, when I went to school, we could smoke in the classrooms (but not in bedrooms).

What did the States spend all this money on? On most anything except lung-cancer research! That's how seriously the public really took this issue. The publicans were just glad to prevent smoke from interfering with their expensive new perfumes, disturbing their palates as they wolfed down fattoburgers and fried frenchies, and saved millions of housewives years washing woodwork and emptying ashtrays.

Now, of course, wainscoting and paneling that was aged by years of cigarette and cigar smoke brings a premium price!

The ban is the removal not only of smokers' and Indians' rights but the rights of public restaurants and private clubs to serve various and sundry segments of the market as the market allows. The smokophobes could not rely on the public's wisdom to die off of smoking nor to prevent children from getting hooked on it.

Smokophobes enjoyed the misery they were putting old ladies through. I repeat from personal knowledge of a 20,000-man company, smokophobes wanted smokers' jobs.

The hypocrisy of it reminds me of these ADULT PASSES on the internet. Some bubble-boobed bimbo with her legs spread opens the site, and right under her vertical smile is a sign WARNING: You Must Get Your Official Porn Pass! Click here! Cripes, anybody who might be offend by the book's text has already been offended by the book's cover. It's a gimmick; it's gluttony for money.

All it takes on a smoking establishment to protect the public is a simple sign that says

Bubbie's Bare Booby Bar. Public Smoking and Stroking Permitted.
Try Our Smoke-Free Family Dining with Kiddy and Granny Menus at Bubbie's Too Next Door


But to invade people's private spaces, to ban smoking in a complex where a smoker owns property, to ban smoking from parking lots, to force people into the slush to have a cigarette, that is fascistic.

As I warned here years ago, porn would be the toe in the door to government regulation of the internet. Terrorism is a distant 2nd. How could anyone have guessed? The smokophobes had won the right to smell their own farts.

Proof? A dedicated Catholic watchdog group in the Plymouth area searches the internet for kiddyporn 6 days a week. Yeah, right [Roll Eyes] ! and one of the moms at BKB stamping and stomping to ban smoking is now serving a 5-year sentence at MCI Framingham for pushing smack in a schoolyard. The ironies and hypocrisies of the smokophobe set don't begin or end with driving to work right along side a commuter rail track!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard, I notice on this issue you have not once discussed any of the scientific papers on the effects of smoking or or passive smoking I have quoted from or linked to, and nor have you discussed any of the hundreds of other such studies available on the internet. Instead you accused, absent evidence, one of the premier anti-smoking organisations of fraud. You ignore the fact that the studies have been conducted, and accepted by a host of organisations across a range of countries. If fraud is to be seriously accepted as the result, then you must assume a multi national, multi organisational conspiracy to commit fraudulent science. Your repeated claim that there is no proof echos and is as credible as the creationist refrain that there is no proof of evolution. Well, for your information, I do not buy conspiracy theories of science. If you want me to consider you credible on this (or any) subject, you have to actually discuss the science and not simply dismiss it.

(I say "any subject" because when I find somebody with patently irrational beliefs in one area, I tend to assume that any apparent coherence of thought in other areas is more a matter of good luck than good management.)

When you actually look at the science it is pretty overwhelming that smoking is very bad for the health for smokers, and also harmfull to non-smokers repeatedly exposed to moderate concentrations of cigarette smoke.

The reasoning in the primary studies is simple. If you survey a number people with lung cancer at random, you will find that a large proportion of them are smokers or former smokers. Knowing the proportion of people who smoke, and the proportion of people with lung cancer who smoke, you can establish a correlation between smoking and lung cancer. The correlation is that a smoker is approx 30 times more likely to get lung cancer than a non-smoker.

Correlation is not causation, but it is highly suggestive. The simplest explanation of correlation between A and B is that A causes B, or B causes A, or that there exists C that causes A and B. In this case, in nearly all cases smoking precedes lung cancer so while smoking may cause lung cancer, lung cancer certainly does not cause smoking.

Now it is possible that a particular gene causes both lung cancer and a predisposition to smoking. But as lab animals also develop cancers at higher rates if exposed to cigarette smoke, we must also assume the homologue of that gene in lab animals causes scientists to expose those animals to cigarette smoke. Alternatively, we can join the land of the rational and conclude that smoking causes cancer. The argument is similar, and compelling for the other dangers of smoking, including passive smoking.

And what is more, even if these facts were in dispute (and they are not except by addicts who want to feel good about themselves, and clear financial beneficiaries of the tobacco industry), it would be entirely rational to accept those studies as being probitive. People formulating public policy are not expected to act on what is true absolutely, but only on what they can reasonably believe to be true, given due dilligence. Public officials, given the range of scientific opinion, have every reason to accept the view that smoking and passive smoking are damaging to health. Even, as seems very improbable, they are wrong; they are still acting correctly to do so given the current state of knowledge.

The only real issue, then, is do proprietors some how have a right to ignore health risks to their customers and employees? And do you have a right to dump your toxic waste into my breathign air? You and Ornery have been big on asserting this right - but short on showing that it exists. For purposes of discussion, this purported right has no more credibility than any other ambit claim, because its defenders just assert it as a first principle.

Well, I don't accept that principle, and neither do the general public. If you want to assert it, you do the leg work and show that it exists. Otherwise, it is just so much empty noise.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0rnery
Member
Member # 398

 - posted      Profile for 0rnery   Email 0rnery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...do proprietors some how have a right to ignore health risks to their customers and employees?

Christ, I've only mentioned several times that ventilation systems could be used, or even separate facilities for smokers. It's not a far fetched, or hard to facilitate solution. The fact that the owner of a business doesn't even have that choice at this point, is ludicrous. "Tyranny of the majority" is being generous.

Posts: 384 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose that smoking dens are illegal too. But if they do exist, imagine the signs outside: NO BREATHING WITHIN 25 FEET OF THIS BUILDING.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ornery:

quote:
...do proprietors some how have a right to ignore health risks to their customers and employees?

Christ, I've only mentioned several times that ventilation systems could be used, or even separate facilities for smokers. It's not a far fetched, or hard to facilitate solution. The fact that the owner of a business doesn't even have that choice at this point, is ludicrous. "Tyranny of the majority" is being generous.

Ornery, you cannot plausibly propose compromises because your fundamental principle, that the public does not have the right to make laws mandating the behaviour of proprietors on their own premises applies also to the compromises. If it contravenes a proprietors rights to ban smoking on their public premises, then it contravenes their rights to require that they have particular ventelation requirements, or even that they post particular signs. If it is only the proprietors business what happens on his premises, then it is only his business.

In fact, that is exactly the take you took on my first entry into this thread in which I proposed a compromise. Your responce was not that you did not like the compromise, but that it was irrelavent because the anti-smoking law should not exist as a matter of right.

Finally, you still make no attempt to defend from first moral or political principles the claim that proprietors have the right to allow smoking regardless of the legislative intent of the majority. This is the corner stone of your position, and for all we can tell it remains simply an unreasoned prejudice.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TC:

Billions of tax dollars have been spent to conclude that it is "pretty overwhelming"?

VA epidemiologists want temp secretaries to "find me data to support this conclusion" ...?

Sorry! There have been so many liars in this business making money on all sides that they aren't believable anymore.

"... a smoker is approx 30 times more likely to get lung cancer than a non-smoker." Then why are there any smokers left alive? That is utter hyperbole.

My issue with this is largely the issue that was made of it: sociological.

Why didn't smokophobes just wait for all the smokers to die off? Because they live into old age and smokophobes didn't want them to?

Smokophobes banned a life-time's habit in offices and factories and restaurants and schools pall mall. They just couldn't wait for these people who were 30X more likely to die of smoking to die.

What about the veterans in my Old Soldiers' Home? We're fighting to allow smoking. That's all some of them do. Some have to be spoon fed. And the VA is trying on a daily basis to kill them by forcing them onto unheated porches, into the slush, snow, and rain. At the VA hospital they're obliged to smoke in sheds on the property. Some are in their 80s. I myself have been smoking for 50 years and walked to Plymouth yesterday after the game 9 miles.

Sorry! It isn't anybody else's health smokophobes are concerned about. It is their own. Well, let them not smoke -- and let them continue not to visit their veterans which they've never done anyway.

The stress of the smoking bans hanging over their heads has killed more good men and women than smoking ever did.

Let them drive to the mall 4 miles for curtains. Let them drive back and find they're not going to match and drive back to the mall again and back home -- as M did yesterday during the game! Let them drive mindlessly back and forth all over the country -- but the plan to ban smoking in vehicles on federal highways is ... c'mon! It's not a health trip, it's a power trip.

And whilst we're at it, why are cigarettes available to veterans at the BX for $22 instead of the offbase $55? Just curious. Why, just curious, did youths start smoking after the prices were raised from $3.50 a pack to $4.40 and yet again after they went to $5?

Smokophobes have been all over the board on this issue. They are inconsistent, they have indeed committed fraud, and the bulk of them (exceptions noted) are menopausal hysterics who think 3rd-hand smoke is turning their skin gray and giving them eye bags.

I don't believe it -- any of it at this point.

Y'know, quality of life for some people is a good havana cigar with a good connecticut wrapper and snifter of very expensive port. For others it's sitting in a greasy spoon next to a huge parking lot or in a burgler quean whiffing up the nitrates and sniffing the burning grease. I live in the sand dunes of Massachusetts half the year; it is a dust storm of silicosis. In the Islands where I live half the year we have 17/32 fatal mosquitos, scorpions, centipedes, tarantantulas, on the edge of a shakey geotectonic plate downstream from Montserrat which pumps billions of carcinogens into the air every day. You yourself live downstream from a desert -- and Brisbane and Boston are both under bioterrorism alerts.

Let's get smoking into perspective, and move the smokophobe money to medical research!

We live in a hydrocarbon-saturated atmosphere. We are embedded in a carcinogenic culture. We are all dying of this, that, and the other. Take it out on Mother Nature, not smokers!

Tobacco is a vegetable!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NB: Why aren't you banning barbecues -- and the food that comes off them, for heaven's sake?
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0rnery
Member
Member # 398

 - posted      Profile for 0rnery   Email 0rnery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...that the public does not have the right to make laws mandating the behaviour of proprietors on their own premises applies also to the compromises.

We work with noxious fumes and chemicals all day long, so I suppose "the public" could just shut down the whole (manufacturing) industry, because it's proven unhealthy, eh? No, safety standards are set, which allow... compromise! Again, this law is like swatting flies with a sledgehammer. It's as repugnant as our endless, frivolous, lawsuits and stinks worse than any smoke filled bar.

Posts: 384 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it intriguing how much Mr. Dey struggles to take none of the research on the damaging health effects of smoking seriously, while it is he who demands that we take homophilic research seriously despite obvious and glaring problems that have been pointed out to him.

Oh well. Hypocrisy suits you, my dear.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Again, this law is like swatting flies with a sledgehammer. It's as repugnant as our endless, frivolous, lawsuits and stinks worse than any smoke filled bar." That sums up the argument, Ornery! It really does.
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Potemkyn:

The epidemiologists in the smokeophobe industry have been caught lying, defrauding, and faking up data.

Homophilicists have never been caught lying, cheating, commiting fraud, or faking up data.

It's the difference between lying and telling the truth.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[sarcasm (for those who can't tell)]

Ya can't fake up data when you don't have any!

&

You can't get caught if no one is paying attention!

[/sarcasm]

[Big Grin]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course Mr. Dey, how could I possibly have mistaken the fact that the epidemiologists are self-preserving lying punks who are simply out to get people, while the homophilicist is a saintly sage attempting only to impart wisdom to the stubborn masses? I mean to ascribe outlandish motivations to those you oppose, and deify those you support is totally in keeping with the ethical, logical life you seem convinced you are living.

Mr. Dey you consistently pick the most outlandish positions regardless of their merit. I recall several months back you even claimed that vitamins are bad for you. Now cigarettes and phenomenology. What's next? A Neitzschien account of how the ubermensche should enslave the rest of us? Perhaps an account of how the blond blue eyed atheist overlords will be the best thing to happen since sliced bread?

Mr. Dey it's ok to have an idea which is the same as the majority. It really is. I understand that eccentricity is your thing, but let's not be silly about it, eh?

Potemkyn

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Potemkyn, you are having delusions of persecution again! and the best thing since sliced bread is unsliced bread [Wink] . I even make it.

I doubt I ever denounced vitamins, per se, notwithstanding I probably have warned against hypervitaminosis. On the other hand, I do find nutritionists very much in the same class of unnecessary 'pseudoscientists' as epidemiologists, and they too have painted themselves into their own target range.

On the other hand, if I never mentioned it, it probably is a lousy idea to take vitamins when one has cancer. It would just hasten the inevitable end.

But claiming that the following have all died of 'smoking' ...

Heart disease: 654,092
Cancer: 550,270
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884 ...

because smoking is, or was, pervasive in our society is like saying that 1 and a 1/2 million have died from living. Without a direct cause-and-effect case, smokophobes have allowed their emotions to cloud any science that was done well.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard,

quote:
"... a smoker is approx 30 times more likely to get lung cancer than a non-smoker." Then why are there any smokers left alive? That is utter hyperbole.
If your lifetime risk of lung cancer for a non smoker is 1 in 1000; then the risk of lung cancer for a smoker would be 30 in 1000. (The 1 in 1000 is not an actual rate, no idea what the actual rate is and don't have time to search now). You appear to have difficulties understanding the basics of the math.

LetterRIp

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is it really so hard to understand that they died prematurely from smoking?

I think everyone realizes they would have died eventually anyway...

quote:
The epidemiologists in the smokeophobe industry have been caught lying, defrauding, and faking up data.
Shouldn't that read "The 'epidemiologists' in the tobacco industry have been caught lying, defrauding, and faking up data."

quote:
Without a direct cause-and-effect case, smokophobes have allowed their emotions to cloud any science that was done well.
I know I'm asking for it, but you do realize how silly this statement is, right?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DD:

Nope! Epidemiologists in the Veterans' Adminisration, the American Heart Association, and many others outside the tobacco industry have been caught lying, defrauding, and faking up data.

It's like the "6,000,000" figure. Some Nazi official caught by the Russians claimed that the Nazis rid themselves (not to mention others) of "6,000,000 Jews". The figure, it turns out, was about half that. Cripes! and they couldn't even vote for Mayor Curley!

I don't have half the problem with the math that the smokophobes are having.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clark
Member
Member # 2727

 - posted      Profile for Clark   Email Clark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did Richard really just use a reference to Hitler/Nazism to try and win an argument?
Posts: 420 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did ya notice how no one posted on the thread anymore after that, until you? [Smile]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1