You know what i hate? People who are around you while your smoking and they cough. "cough cough cough cough" damn, you're lucky you don't smoke, I smoke and I dont have a cough like that. You go up to people in wheelchairs and dance around?

I don't think smoking bans should be put in place by the government. I do think that it would be a smart buisness move from some resturants, hotels, etc. to become smoke-free. That should be the owner's decision though. I know I would rather eat in a completely smoke-free environment but I don't think the government has the right to restrict smoking in all public places.

quote:

---

Who is being hurt when a smoking ban isn't in effect? Non-smokers. Who is being hurt when there is one in effect? No one!!!!

---

If you totally ignored everything we are talking about, it's unclear whether or not second-hand smoke is harmful enough to warrent a ban. And yes, there are people who are "hurt" by a ban. I am amazed and almost terrified by the rush to ban and regulate so many things in our society. It reeks of facism, albiet of a different type than we've seen in the past.

quote:

---

To answer many refutes you've made, and questions you've asked, I think you're missing that it isn't necessarily tobacco people want. It's the nicotine.

---

Tell that to anyone who smokes cigars.

quote:

---

Second, and lastly, yes I would support a tax hike if it were proven that it would push more of our population to use more fuel-efficient vehicles.

---

Then we've uncovered the inherent difference in our philosophies. I don't beleive you can or should legislate to change cultural trends. It's government coercion, and I beleive that that sort of thing, in general, is the greatest threat we as a nation face in the long term. More and more I see my own life, and the life of the country in general, being cramped and hasseled by nitpicking regulation. Look at the damn tax code for instance.

quote:

---

I'd also like to remind you that funding isn't solely based on cigarette claims for the ALA and similar organizations. Not to mention that if our government gets involved with trying to help obese people, why shouldn't they get involved with smokers?

---

I don't think the government should get involved with helping obese people. See above. You want to help obese people, write a book, start a private non-profit organization, don't make the government force people into it.

And as for the ALA claims, look at where all the information comes from. Mostly it's from the 1993 EPA study, which I've already told you about, as well as from sources linked to the government of California, and that alone makes it suspect considering CA's rediculous history of over-legislation on shoddy reasoning.

Just to set this marijuana thing striaght. Canada isn't looking at legalizing it, but decriminalizing it if its under a certain weight, there is a big difference. Secondly, lets not all focus on the non-smokers rights all at once (sarcasm). Did anyone of you who is against a ban stop and think about what the rights of the non-smokers are? Who is being hurt when a smoking ban isn't in effect? Non-smokers. Who is being hurt when there is one in effect? No one!!!!

All right, I'll try and make this short but sweet:

To answer many refutes you've made, and questions you've asked, I think you're missing that it isn't necessarily tobacco people want. It's the nicotine.

Second, and lastly, yes I would support a tax hike if it were proven that it would push more of our population to use more fuel-efficient vehicles.

I'd also like to remind you that funding isn't solely based on cigarette claims for the ALA and similar organizations. Not to mention that if our government gets involved with trying to help obese people, why shouldn't they get involved with smokers?

quote:

---

As for the poor interpretations and fudged studies, what gain would these organizations have? They're not significantly involved with the government, and most are looking out for the publics good. And poor interpretation is left up to the individual, but how easy is it to misinterpret something that is so blatantly obvious?

---

On the contrary, many of these organizations rely on government funding to operate. Poor interpretation, as described in the articles I sent you, is not "up to the individual". By all other standards, the EPA study found that there was NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE that second hand smoke was signifigantly detrimental, even after prolonged exposure.

What would they have to gain? Well, for one there are massive lawsuits for billions of dollars if you can find a connection. There are people who think they know what is best for everyone and feel the need to further the nanny state. That includes misinformation. And then there's just people who have built up the zealous anti-smoking mindset and feel the need to impose it on everyone else. Many times people create studies for the express purpose of saying "Here, I told you so". In these cases there is much pressure to find what you want to find.
Or at least say you did.

quote:

---

Exploiting addictions may be the better and possibly only way to decrease any risk the product may have on the public. But I don't think you've given me a clear answer on why not go after the tobacco companies' output.

---

Because people want to smoke. It is well known that it is addictive, it is well known that, with prolonged use, it is detrimental to your health. This can be said by any number of pharmecuticals and other substances. It is not up to us to make sure people don't make poor decisions.

quote:

---

If you're 19, why don't you stop complaining about the current government and get involved. You can run for State Representative and lead campaigns of your own. This site isn't going to be the basis of either.

---

I AM doing something about it. I vote, write to my representatives, and participate in public debate (like this for example) to try and get people to realize that we're over legislating. It's not like my politics and philosophy are confined to youthnoise.

And, seeing how I don't have an express intrest in politics as a lifestyle, I have no motivation to run for state rep. I have other things that I want to do with my life at the moment.

quote:

---

Again, why wouldn't the tobacco companies, knowing the risk and possibility put up a self-imposed ban? Pharmaceutical companies do it, so why shouldn't and why aren't they?,

---

One, because tobbacco is not a medicine. Two, Pharmecuticals have hundreds of products and are not looking to be sued in a class action lawsuit. If they stop running Celebrex, they have ninety-nine different products to keep the company running. There are also alternative medicines that patients can go on.

Now, smoking tobacco is a personal choice, there is no "tobacco substitute", and you can't just order a halt to all production of tobacco products in this country without causing massive economical disturbance. It's a really, really ignorant to expect tobacco producers to just stop untill we "make sure it's safe". There will always be conflicting studies, and in the meantime, you have millions of people out there who smoke and enjoy it. I personally smoke an occasional cigarette or cigar. You also have what is likely to be hundreds of thousands of employees and farmers who's livelyhood has now ground to a halt.

Is smoking a "good thing"? No. Would the world be a better place if everyone stopped? Not by a long shot.

quote:

---

Again, I am not necessarily for or against a ban. Affecting the live of tens of millions of people to save hundreds of millions of people is more of a common decision that I believe you think it is.

---

You are not "saving hundreds of millions of people" by curbing smoking. Second hand smoke is not a public menace. Especially in open spaces like parks and streets.

As far as overtaxation goes, do you also support hikes in gas taxes to coerce people into being more fuel efficient? It's the same idea, and I think it's equally bad.

If you're 19, why don't you stop complaining about the current government and get involved. You can run for State Representative and lead campaigns of your own. This site isn't going to be the basis of either.

As for the poor interpretations and fudged studies, what gain would these organizations have? They're not significantly involved with the government, and most are looking out for the publics good. And poor interpretation is left up to the individual, but how easy is it to misinterpret something that is so blatantly obvious?

Exploiting addictions may be the better and possibly only way to decrease any risk the product may have on the public. But I don't think you've given me a clear answer on why not go after the tobacco companies' output.

Yes, it is illegal. That makes it wrong by most people's account. If something is against someone's own morals though, it does make it wrong to that individual. Then when there are many individuals, that makes what is called a group. And if that group is bigger than another group, usually the bigger group gets their way. Dude, I said it wouldn't be a good ananlogy. You can stop telling me what I already know about that.

Sure, they might not always be pure and honest-who ever is? But there again, I ask: what gain would they have? None that I can think of, so why go after it?

Again, why wouldn't the tobacco companies, knowing the risk and possibility put up a self-imposed ban? Pharmaceutical companies do it, so why shouldn't and why aren't they?, was my point. Again, I am not necessarily for or against a ban. Affecting the live of tens of millions of people to save hundreds of millions of people is more of a common decision that I believe you think it is.

quote:

---

Well, I went to it and checked out a lot of the sites he mentioned too. What I found was a lot more ranting and personal opinions with few medical statements.

---

I see little ranting and I'm unwilling to track down actual medical reports to you. My point, and the point that these sites are trying to get across, is that the vast majority of statistics used by anti-second hand smokers are based on fudged and false reports. It's not medical facts that are the problem, but fallacious interpretation of statistics.

quote:

---

I think you'll find a post of mine a while back that says I would support higher taxes on cigarettes and tobacco in general. Prohibition would never work again. I don't think we need a history lesson on what happened with the older Prohibition with alcoholics...

---

Higher taxes, in my opinion, help to bloat the government. Further regulation of the product to minimize it's harmfulness may help, but higher taxes do little except exploit addictions.

quote:

---

Not necessarily-it is against the law. Exposing oneself to others is considered sexual harrassment.

---

Something being against the law does not make it inherently wrong. However I thought the fact that it was illegal was implied. I was telling you why it was illegal. Again, the whole thing is a different situation and isn't a proper analogy.

quote:

---

I'm not a zealot, but there is compelling evidence from some doctors and health organizations. I have yet to really see the same type of compelling evidence from truly unbiased, health-involved, non-ranting people that would prove the opposite.

---

The doctors and health organizations, as much as you want them to be pure and honest, are not. The manipulation of the EPA study is the most obvious indicator of this. The American Lung Association, as well as other medical oragnizations, can be just as ranting and biased as those on the other side.

quote:

---

Sure, there have been numerous studies performed, but few are conclusive. You're right about that much, but what about the possibility? Lately, pharmaceutical compenies, such as the makers of Celbrex, have been placing self-imposed bans due to the mere possibility of a health risk.

---

The Celebrex and Vioxx recalls are based on dodgy studies also. The typical patient taking the medicine is at no risk whatsoever. These recalls are based largely on media scare and the risk of massive lawsuits, not because of actual risk.

I think unsure "possibilities" should not be the basis for widespread bans on public smoking. You're talking about not only inconviencing, but affecting the lifestyles of tens of millions of people. You want to run an anti-smoking ad campaigne? Fine, but bans on public activities that are not blatantly disruptive to public order should be based upon SOLID evidence. Frivilous and unneccecary laws, as I've said before, tick me off to no end.

quote:

---

Eh! I wouldn't care now, I'm only 17. By the wya, how old are you now?

---

You can find out my age in my profile, I'm 19. And if you were getting at something here, you have to think about everyone else when imposing a law or ban.

"He's got some links to some more information in there. It helps to read it all and consider everything."

Well, I went to it and checked out a lot of the sites he mentioned too. What I found was a lot more ranting and personal opinions with few medical statements. Sure, there were some, but I did learn a little bit from them too. Such as, something I didn't know, ETS dramatically increases the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)-in an article by the WHO.


"Banning everything is not a solution. Putting regulations on what you can and can't put into a cigarette is much more acceptable than prohibition."

I think you'll find a post of mine a while back that says I would support higher taxes on cigarettes and tobacco in general. Prohibition would never work again. I don't think we need a history lesson on what happened with the older Prohibition with alcoholics...


"Now, It's cultural taboo for people to be having sex or exposing themselves in public. It's not inherently wrong to do so. It's the taboos and cultures that make it undesirable for people to use the park."

Not necessarily-it is against the law. Exposing oneself to others is considered sexual harrassment. And there are private parks in some countries where that behavior is acceptable. But anyway, it can be wrong; ethics and some morals are the foundations of laws.

" What I'm saying is that cigarette smoke, especially in an open air environment, is not nearly as visible or universally offensive as public sex. It's a completely different situtation."

Agreed, it's a different situation. But I had a school bus to catch and it seemed good at the time.

"In your situation it's obvious that it's ridiculous that the couple is being disruptive and the greater public good far outweighs the whims of the couple."

All righty then, what if there were six walkers and the couple were having sex. Now there are two children, two adults and two elderly. That doesn't change much, besides the proportions, I know. But it makes it more factual.

"What I'm trying to say is that smoking is not that great of a risk to the public good, despite what many scary anti-smoking zealots would have you believe."

I'm not a zealot, but there is compelling evidence from some doctors and health organizations. I have yet to really see the same type of compelling evidence from truly unbiased, health-involved, non-ranting people that would prove the opposite.

"I believe that there is not sufficient evidence to call for a ban on smoking in open air public places and bars."

Sure, there have been numerous studies performed, but few are conclusive. You're right about that much, but what about the possibility? Lately, pharmaceutical compenies, such as the makers of Celbrex, have been placing self-imposed bans due to the mere possibility of a health risk. I don't see Big Tobacco doing anything remotely similar. And with these numerous possibilities, you'd think they would place a temporary ban until they could figure it out. I'm wondering, in part, why the FDA has refused to get involved. There's no doubt cigarettes are a type of drug.

"You're infringing on the rights of the smoker. You show me a large body of evidence that is not biased, and a reason why several major studies have found no connection, and I'll reconsider. To this date I haven't seen anything that justifies a total ban on public smoking. "

ALA's facts

I don't consider that a biased site; maybe you will. At this point, I don't care. But sure, it might not justify a ban to you, but I would agree with a serious raise of cigarette taxes.

"Public buildings and schools, fine. But the park? Bars? That's crossing the line. If someone wants to go to a bar and drink and have a cigarette while they're doing it and the owner allows it, why shouldn't they?"

Eh! I wouldn't care now, I'm only 17. By the wya, how old are you now?

"I'm terrified by the overzealous and narrowminded view of many in the anti-smoking crowd. They try and scare you by listing all the chemicals in cigarrettes. Among them they list fiberglass. It's a blatant attempt to scare you instead of inform you. You know where the fiberglass is in a cigarette? It's the filter, nothing more."

Eh, I'm not entirely narrowminded. I son't support a complete ban, for one. I'm more about coercing people into trying to quit and sticking to it. One of my friends smokes. I've tried to get her to quit and she hasn't budged. I gave up after two weeks. Maybe that's too soon for some people, but she wants to smoke.

"That said, I think the idea of legislation based upon reactionary fear is one of the greatest threats our country deals with."

I wouldn't go as far to say reactionary; if it was reactionary, it would have happened back in 1993, if not earlier.

" It's stuff like this that will destroy freedom as we know it."

I don't know about destroying freedom all together. But there again, what about raising taxes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by NuShoesAgain:
No, they are not the same - marijuana is far worse. Studies suggest marijuana is equivalent to anywhere from 6 to 18 cigarettes, depending on how it's smoked. Even if we settle on a mean, that's over half-a-pack of cigarettes, with marijuana producing 3.5 to 4.5 times the amount of tar the amount of tar as tobacco.

Regardless, the fact remains that smoking anything is bad for you. So, whats the logic in introducing yet another form of smoking, when society is trying to eliminate it?

---

Smoked marijuana contains about the same amount of carcinogens as does an equivalent amount of tobacco. It should be remembered, however, that a heavy tobacco smoker consumes much more tobacco than a heavy marijuana smoker consumes marijuana. This is because smoked tobacco, with a 90% addiction rate, is the most addictive of all drugs while marijuana is less addictive than caffeine. Two other factors are important. The first is that paraphernalia laws directed against marijuana users make it difficult to smoke safely. These laws make water pipes and bongs, which filter some of the carcinogens out of the smoke, illegal and, hence, unavailable. The second is that, if marijuana were legal, it would be more economical to have cannabis drinks like bhang (a traditional drink in the Middle East) or tea which are totally non-carcinogenic. This is in stark contrast with "smokeless" tobacco products like snuff which can cause cancer of the mouth and throat. When all of these facts are taken together, it can be clearly seen that the reverse is true: marijuana is much SAFER than tobacco.

quote:

---

He sounds more like he's on a rant, not actually refuting all of the past claims. And I don't believe he's a medical doctor, either, so why is he the one backing these types of claims?

---

quote:

---

Second hand smoke has not been proven to be harmful? I think you're using the other guy's rant as your source again. Have no fear, I'll find something for you after school.

---

I'm not using the man's rant as my source. I'm using the questionable statistics and general trends of studies that seem to have pre-determined findings. That article only pointed out a few of the problems. Google turned up a slightly less biased blog:

http://blog.bearstrong.net/000715.html

He's got some links to some more information in there. It helps to read it all and consider everything.

quote:

---

But still, now that you mention it, why not go after Big Tobacco?

---

Banning everything is not a solution. Putting regulations on what you can and can't put into a cigarette is much more acceptable than prohibition.

quote:

---

The whole sex in the park thing

---

Now, It's cultural taboo for people to be having sex or exposing themselves in public. It's not inherently wrong to do so. It's the taboos and cultures that make it undesirable for people to use the park. What I'm saying is that cigarette smoke, especially in an open air environment, is not nearly as visible or universally offensive as public sex. It's a completely different situtation. In your situation it's obvious that it's ridiculous that the couple is being disruptive and the greater public good far outweighs the whims of the couple. What I'm trying to say is that smoking is not that great of a risk to the public good, despite what many scary anti-smoking zealots would have you believe.

I believe that there is not sufficient evidence to call for a ban on smoking in open air public places and bars. You're infringing on the rights of the smoker. You show me a large body of evidence that is not biased, and a reason why several major studies have found no connection, and I'll reconsider. To this date I haven't seen anything that justifies a total ban on public smoking. Public buildings and schools, fine. But the park? Bars? That's crossing the line. If someone wants to go to a bar and drink and have a cigarette while they're doing it and the owner allows it, why shouldn't they?

I'm terrified by the overzealous and narrowminded view of many in the anti-smoking crowd. They try and scare you by listing all the chemicals in cigarrettes. Among them they list fiberglass. It's a blatant attempt to scare you instead of inform you. You know where the fiberglass is in a cigarette? It's the filter, nothing more.

That said, I think the idea of legislation based upon reactionary fear is one of the greatest threats our country deals with. It's stuff like this that will destroy freedom as we know it.

"This is also false. Inhaling marijuana is just as bad as inhaling tobacco. Cigarrettes are worse because of the additives and whatnot that go into them. This does not mean you ban them outright."

You said it your self "Cigarrettes are worse because of the additives"
They should be banned! or at least get more taxes on them to help pay of the medical bill they help cause!

"Sorry I had other things to do in my life."

The thingy said you were still in the forum; I figured you were still here.

"But anyway, here's one of the many articles that lists some of the reasons the EPA study, which is the main (if not sole) source for most of these anti-second hand smoke ads and whatnot."

He sounds more like he's on a rant, not actually refuting all of the past claims. And I don't believe he's a medical doctor, either, so why is he the one backing these types of claims?

"This is a complete exaggeration, made even worse through the sketchyness of the research these claims are made from. Daily smoking is not good for your health. Second hand smoke, however, has not been adequately proven to do anything to require the banning of it in public places"

I knew it was an exaggeration; it was stated that it was earlier. But seriously, are you kidding me? Second hand smoke has not been proven to be harmful? I think you're using the other guy's rant as your source again. Have no fear, I'll find something for you after school.

"This is also false. Inhaling marijuana is just as bad as inhaling tobacco. Cigarrettes are worse because of the additives and whatnot that go into them. This does not mean you ban them outright."

If you check it, I said 'suppposedly'. You didn't have to make an argument out of it. But still, now that you mention it, why not go after Big Tobacco?

"With a name like FreedomOrDeath I'm surprised at you."

That's rather funny; jamaica said somethign like that too. Though the topic was more related to sex and violence... Anyway, it represents my state. But also, I believe the majority's autonomy should be respected, not just the individual who delves into an activity. For example, a couple are having sex in a public park. Five people are leading a group of charity workers in the park for a Walk a thon. But then-duhn duhn duhn!- they hear and see the couple. *GASP!* Mind you, a child is in this group as well, and doesn't quite know what to make of the situation. But 2 adults say the couple should leave the park for the oncoming, larger group. The other 2 adults say they should go back and warn all 100 of the other people that they cannot go to the park and the walk a thon route cannot be taken. Now the entire walk a thon is delayed or cancelled. Should the couple have just left like the 2 adults asked, or remained there, allowing all to see their primal activities?

quote:

---

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
Come on, Doc, where are ya on that one?

---

The docs a ****tard!

quote:

---

Come on, Doc, where are ya on that one?

---

Sorry I had other things to do in my life.

But anyway, here's one of the many articles that lists some of the reasons the EPA study, which is the main (if not sole) source for most of these anti-second hand smoke ads and whatnot.

http://www.consumeralert.org/fumento/smoke.htm

quote:

---

It's like walking around as a carrier of TB for 20+ years, just giving it to other people-giving them a higher probablity of premature death.

---

This is a complete exaggeration, made even worse through the sketchyness of the research these claims are made from. Daily smoking is not good for your health. Second hand smoke, however, has not been adequately proven to do anything to require the banning of it in public places.

quote:

---

Because marijuana supposedly does not project as many or as much of a health risk as smoking cigarettes.

---

This is also false. Inhaling marijuana is just as bad as inhaling tobacco. Cigarrettes are worse because of the additives and whatnot that go into them. This does not mean you ban them outright.

With a name like FreedomOrDeath I'm surprised at you.

No, they are not the same - marijuana is far worse. Studies suggest marijuana is equivalent to anywhere from 6 to 18 cigarettes, depending on how it's smoked. Even if we settle on a mean, that's over half-a-pack of cigarettes, with marijuana producing 3.5 to 4.5 times the amount of tar the amount of tar as tobacco.

Regardless, the fact remains that smoking anything is bad for you. So, whats the logic in introducing yet another form of smoking, when society is trying to eliminate it?

Come on, Doc, where are ya on that one?