quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that people who wish to smoke should do it in their own homes, away from anyone who MIGHT have a problem with it.
This of course completely runs over the rights of a smoker. A person who smokes is still in every way a citizen, just as much as the asthmatic. Who are you to tell them to stay in their own home? Would you feel the same telling the asthmatic to stay there? You're essentially doing the same thing.
Not really. Because asthmatics aren't putting anyone's life in danger by going outside their homes. They also don't have a choice on being allergic/asthmatic to something; smokers have the choice to smoke or not.
Again, this is truly not meant to be offensive, as in all people wh smoke are killers. Just that smoking laws/restrictions should be stricter. Espesially since cities are getting dirtier anyways. It's just harder for people with these health conditions to work and live. Trust me, I know. When I lived in Paris, I was blocked up and coughing all the time. It would subside a little, to the point where I didn't have to take medicine everyday, but it never fully went away untill I moved back to America.
So, asthmatics are different than smokers: they have no choice over their conditions. Smokers do.
Member of the NDLC*, est. 2005 (National Democratic-Liberal Coalition)
quote: They have no right to other people's health in danger.
Oh, well then we might as well ban all peanuts, automobile exahaust, nail polish remover, microwave radiation, solder, alchohol, electomagnetic radation...
The list goes on. We put other people's lives in danger ALL THE TIME. This is no justification, based on such shaky evidence.
quote: The WHO updated their findings about tobacco.
Link please. All I've seen about this "new" evidence is a recycled study that was purposely manipulated to show a minor and, again, insignifigant risk. As far as I know we haven't even seen the actualy study, just WHO press releases.
Furthermore, those press releases showed only around 30% risk increase. Sounds like a lot huh? That is until you realize something about statitstics and medical studies. They're only a small crossection of the population, and must be intrepreted as such. Thus the National Cancer Institute notes: ""In epidemiologic research, relative risks of less than 2 [that is, 100% increment of risk] are considered small and usually very difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.""
So basically, even the recycled WHO study still showes no signifigant increase. What you're lead by is propaganda that is being extrapolated from studies confusing the to the common person. They throw out a "30% increase!" without ANY CONTEXT.
And this does not change the fact that the EPA study was flawed, and still showed NO statistical evidence of signifigantly increased risk.
And certainly not enough risk to trample on the rights of not only smokers, but thousands of private buisness owners.
quote: Is it fair to get someone else's cancer since they are smoking on a death stick that causes cancer.
If you are worried about excessive exposure to smoke, then you make the PERSONAL DECISION to avoid those situations. It is not right to IMPOSE A GOVERNMENT RESTRICTION on individuals in this case.
You might argue that those who work in restaraunts and such are exposed to smoke. They CHOSE to work there. If you're really worried about the minor amount of smoke present in these workplaces, start looking for another job. The short amount of time you'll spend there will not adversely affect your health.
You might also say that children growing up in a smokers home are at risk. This again is the Parents personal choice to continue smoking. If a parent feeds the kid loads of junkfood and doesn't give proper nutrition, they are going to end up with a lot more health problems in the long run. Should we go after every parent who does this? How about we ban bad parenting?
Or how about we realize that every new ban we pass adds to the growing list of ecroachments upon our PERSONAL CHOICE.
quote: Now how would you feel if you had asthma and besides pollution that aggravates the attacks, had an attack when someone was blowing their deadly smoke into your face?
I do not seek to have the world conform to so that it is only comfortable and convienent to myself. Especially at the expense of others.
And I still assert that you cannot say, with any solid evidence behind you, that second hand smoke definitely causes cancer. For the general public population, there is NO risk.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
Yo strangelove. The WHO updated their findings about tobacco. According to your last argument, the fact you had were not updated. Between then and now, the studies took a new turn. Now how would you feel if you had asthma and besides pollution that aggravates the attacks, had an attack when someone was blowing their deadly smoke into your face? Since smokers had a right to smoke which is valid. They have no right to other people's health in danger. Plus smoking around food would cause contamination which is not sanitary. It's not fair for those who don't smoke to get cancer related diseases since they don't smoke and they got it from the smoker's cigarette fumes. Is it fair to get someone else's cancer since they are smoking on a death stick that causes cancer. The WHO linked smoking to heart disease. But I still think that people's right to smoke ends at the non-smoker's nose.
Prepare to be afraid. Be very afraid. Be very very very afraid........
quote: Since when have bars and coffe shops not been public places? Again, you can't know who or who's not allergic, or has asthma.
Here's the problem with that argument. Bars, cafes, and restaraunts are all PRIVATE buisnesses. They are not public places. And thre are any number of things that can irritate asthma attacks. Smoke is not the only cause, and the others are all over the place.
quote: I think that people who wish to smoke should do it in their own homes, away from anyone who MIGHT have a problem with it.
This of course completely runs over the rights of a smoker. A person who smokes is still in every way a citizen, just as much as the asthmatic. Who are you to tell them to stay in their own home? Would you feel the same telling the asthmatic to stay there? You're essentially doing the same thing.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
I'm in RAZE. I think smoking is a bad habit, but it's someone's right to do so if they please. Just not in public areas where I can get my risk of heart disease increased because of their choice. "A SMOKING SECTION IN A BATHROOM IS LIKE A PEEING SECTION IN A POOL" -RAZE On 2004
quote: I am not a rude smoker who lights up around little kids or people with asthma,
But, how do yuo know when someone has asthma, or is allergic to it? One of my best friends will start wheezing when someone walks into the room who has been smoking recently. Not just 5minutes ago, but in the past day or so. The smoker wouldn't know that though, so isn't it best to just smoke in your own home?
quote: I can deal with the smoking bans in most public places, but bars and coffee shops is going too far.
Since when have bars and coffe shops not been public places? Again, you can't know who or who's not allergic, or has asthma. I think that people who wish to smoke should do it in their own homes, away from anyone who MIGHT have a problem with it.
I don't like smoking, but I'm nto saying it has to be banned. Just controled.
Member of the NDLC*, est. 2005 (National Democratic-Liberal Coalition)
I agree that only the person who wants to try smoking or is already smoking is held responsible for there decision. They know the risks and health issues smoking does to them. Although I think smoking is stupid for teens they can make their own decisions.
Okay I think smoking is bad no questions about it. If my friend smoked I'd encourage her to stop, but I aint gonna stop hangin wit them jus cuz they smoke.But when they smoke it can't be around my ***, I aint tryin ta inhale no second hand smoke and die early. So ppl can smoke a blunt if they want to. When they be near death then they be beggin to God for a second chance at life.Andy
I've been smoking since I was 10, it's been 5 years now, and I don't really care what people say, or think about my habit, it's part of who I am now, and I'm not ashamed of it...
I have no self restraint, I have no self respect - SelfInflicted...
"Clouds Appear Free Of Care And Carefree Drift Away. But the Carefree Mind Is Not To Be 'Found'--To Find It, First Stop Looking Around." --Wang An-shih (1021-1086 A.D.)
I think smoking does kill. There's all those studies that show that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer but my grandma just died from it and she used to smoke. All 4 of my great uncles died from lung cancer and they were always smoking. I think that if smoking does not cause cancer it certainly helps the desease along. I think it's sad that teens are smoking at such an early age now. Smoking causes so many problems and if you start young it's even harder to stop. My cousin hasd been trying to stop for years and he's only 26. I don't think anyone should smoke especially teens.
smoking is just bad in general people die EVERYDAY from either smoking or secondhand smoke i have been around smokers since i was born so thats why i feel so strongly against smoking it kills u slowly i dont see why anyone would want to smoke its gross and makes u smell and makes ur teeth yellow and bleh its just soooo gross
The key to anything is moderation, of course. I don't personally see the appeal of ciggarettes, but as I said, people can do what they want. It's their life and their health.
Of course smoking kills. If people want to shorten their life, go ahead, but everyone knows smoking kills. With the smoking-ban in many public places now, second smoke isn't as much of a concern, at least for me. I just don't understand why anyone would smoke ciggarettes in the first place.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: fuzi,
I smoked from age 16 for about a year (that is now). It's not something that embarasses me but I have to agree with the not smoking. If I knew a kid was thinking about smoking I would urge them not to. Although I don't agree with banning it all together, I do think there should remain smoking and non-smoking sections out of courtesy. I mean it's comprable to a civil rights issue. Smokers aren't trying to force their habit on you they are trying to keep you from taking their habit away. It's theres just leave it be.
In my lifetime I have been to bed with men, women, and odd pieces of furniture....Oh and my avatar says "The only abnormality is the inability to LOVE!"
quote: first of let me tell u gangja is not as bad as cigarettes i know my mom did it long b4 i wuz born and says its not addictive my stepdad smokes and he says that blunts are safer than cigs i aint advocating them but honestly i'd try weed once maybe out of curiosity but still both are bad for you
Straight tobacco is a lot less unhealthy than the ciggarettes with addatives. Likewise, pot in it's raw form is also less unhealthy than manufactured ciggerettes. It's not the inherent nature of pot that makes it "safer", just the way it's grown. We legalize it, and Phillip Morris will be there putting the crap right into the marijuana 20 pack.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
first of let me tell u gangja is not as bad as cigarettes i know my mom did it long b4 i wuz born and says its not addictive my stepdad smokes and he says that blunts are safer than cigs i aint advocating them but honestly i'd try weed once maybe out of curiosity but still both are bad for you
Oh, and on the subject of secondhand smoke, it's being widely questioned as to whether it's dangrous or not. The EPA study which said that it was is full of fudged numbers and purposely weighted data.
And the World Health Organization says there is no connection between cancer and second hand smoke: Facts on the WHO study
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
Topics 
Yo strangelove. The WHO updated their findings about tobacco. According to your last argument, the fact you had were not updated. Between then and now, the studies took a new turn. Now how would you feel if you had asthma and besides pollution that aggravates the attacks, had an attack when someone was blowing their deadly smoke into your face? Since smokers had a right to smoke which is valid. They have no right to other people's health in danger. Plus smoking around food would cause contamination which is not sanitary. It's not fair for those who don't smoke to get cancer related diseases since they don't smoke and they got it from the smoker's cigarette fumes. Is it fair to get someone else's cancer since they are smoking on a death stick that causes cancer. The WHO linked smoking to heart disease. But I still think that people's right to smoke ends at the non-smoker's nose.
