Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamTo deny life threatening pollution its hold on commerce, do as I do,
counsel your legislators to end PUBLIC LUNG ABUSE!
What shall we do about liberty threatening legislation and it's hold
on
the
general public? How shall we end tyranny of the majority?
Mbwhahahaha!!!!
Move to a dictatorship you dolt.
More personal attacks? What a wonderful debating style you have. Shall I
ask my 6th grader for an appropriate response, or should I stick with the
old "I'm the rubber and you're the glue..." response? The 6th grade
response would probably be above you.
And your alarmist rhetorical stylings are just fine, right?
My questions were an imataion of and a response to your statement, which
were truely alarmist. But by all means, continue with the personal attacks,
since that seems to be your only weapon.
Lol, you're "smoked" already, your arguments got torched.
If you really believed that, you would not feel the need to resort to ad
hominem attacks.
The fact that you reman to misrepresent and spread disinformation is
reason enough.
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonAnd which is
worse in the long run, an all powerful government or personal
accountability?
Nice obfuscation.
It was an honest question. Not gonna answer it?
It was an irrelevant rhetorical question, it needs no answer.
It was an honest question.
No.
Yes.
No.
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonI asked it to better understand where you are
coming from philisophically, politically and socially. Sorry if that was
too much of a burden for you.
Not relevant at all where I'm coming from, stay on topic and deal with
the issue.
I am staying on topic. The topic is if bans are necessary and right.
Understanding what your views are philosophically, politically and socially
would help me to understand where you are coming from on this issue. There
is no sense in debating with you if you think that the government should be
all powerful and that there is no such thing as private property.
Nice strawman, you want to torch him or shall I?
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamI mean if I had lung cancer would my words carry any more or less
weight?
Neither.
Really?
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamSheesh.
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonSO we should ban ALL smoke, or just the smoke that you don't like? And how
does it kill?
It harms asthmatics, it cause lung cancer, it casues heart attacks.
Nuff said.
The chances of ETS "casuing" lung cancer or heart attacks are
statistically
insignificant.
Wrong.
http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/9406EPA.html
The evidence is clear and consistent: secondhand smoke is a cause of
lung cancer in adults who don't smoke.
The EPA report was invalidated by a federal court.
Cite.
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious Samhttp://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3557
A six-month ban on smoking in all public places slashed the number of
heart attacks in a US town by almost a half, a new study has revealed.
The researchers attribute the dramatic drop to the "near elimination"
of harmful effects of "second-hand" smoke - passive smoking. A
smoke-free environment also encourages smokers to reduce smoking or
quit altogether, the team adds.
Statistician Stanton Glantz, at the University of California, San
Francisco, and colleagues studied diagnoses of heart attacks in the
town of Helena, Montana, where the ban was imposed.
"This striking finding suggests that protecting people from toxins in
second-hand smoke not only makes life more pleasant, it immediately
starts saving lives," Glantz says. The researchers claim the study is
the first to show that smoke-free policies rapidly reduce heart
attacks, as well as having long-term benefits.
"This clearly shows the great need for controls on smoking in public
places," says Amanda Sandford of UK pressure group Action on Smoking
and Health. "Passive smoking is a killer. The public certainly
underestimates the impact of passive smoking on the heart."
If you believe what Glantz has to say, that explains alot about you.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100318,00.html
I believe second hand smoke is a carcinogen - period.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Environmental_Tobacco_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified secondhand
smoke as a Group A carcinogen, which means that there is sufficient
evidence that it causes cancer in humans. Environmental tobacco smoke
has also been classified as a "known human carcinogen" by the US
National Toxicology Program.
Secondhand tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More
than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer.
Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States
alone, each year it is responsible for:
* An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from heart disease in
people who are not current smokers
* About 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults
* Other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing,
phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
* 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as
pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age,
which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
* Increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about
200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children
The 1986 US Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of
involuntary smoking reached 3 important conclusions about secondhand
smoke:
* Involuntary smoking causes disease, including lung cancer, in
healthy nonsmokers.
* When compared with the children of nonsmoking parents, children
of parents who smoke have more frequent respiratory infections, more
respiratory symptoms, and slower development of lung function as the
lung matures.
* Separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may
reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to
secondhand smoke.
Where Is It a Problem?
There are 3 locations where you should be especially concerned about
exposure to secondhand smoke:
Your workplace: Secondhand smoke meets the criteria to be classified
as a potential cancer-causing agent by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency responsible for
health and safety regulations in the workplace. The National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), another federal agency,
also recommends that secondhand smoke be considered a potential
occupational carcinogen. Because there are no known safe levels, they
recommend that exposures to secondhand smoke be reduced to the lowest
possible levels.
Aside from protecting nonsmokers, workplace smoking restrictions may
also encourage smokers who wish to quit or reduce their consumption of
tobacco products.
Public places: Everyone is vulnerable to secondhand smoke exposure in
public places, such as restaurants, shopping centers, public
transportation, schools and daycare centers. Although some businesses
are reluctant to ban smoking, there is no credible evidence that going
smoke-free is bad for business. Public places where children go are a
special area of concern.
Your home: Making your home smoke-free is perhaps one of the most
important things you can do. Any family member can develop health
problems related to secondhand smoke. Think about it: we spend more
time at home than anywhere else. A smoke-free home protects your
family, your guests, and even your pets.
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonPost by Serious Sam- I choose not to be killed by it
Great, so stay out of places that allow smoking! Problem solved.
Great, so stay HOME and smoke, problem solved!
The choice should not be left to either you or I, it should be the choice of
the property owner.
Um, no.
Um, why not?
Because if they're engaged in public commerce they surrender absolute
rights to do as they please.
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonI have no more right to force my will on a property
owner than you do.
Sure do, he gets a license for serving alcohol from the state right?
You are assuming that alcohol license are a "good thing".
You are obfuscating, my point stands.
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious Samhas to comply with rules there.
So that's regulated.
Get over yourself fool.
Again, you are not looking to regulate indoor air quality, but to ban ETS
outright while ignoring other forms of indoor pollution. It's hypocritical.
It's a fine start. It's doable. It's beneficial.
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamWhen I drink a beer I don't piss in your mouth do I?
And yet I could hardly object if I put my mouth in the path of your urine
stream, could I?
Only in that I'd kick yer teeth in if you got in my "way" at a urinal.
Do you only smoke in the public bathroom?
I only smoke in places that are designated as smoking areas, just as I
assume you only urinate in places that are designated for urination.
Good answer, and now there will be a few less places to light up in
public, which is a good thing.
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonPost by Serious Sam- stay home and enjoy your demise.
And what demise would that be and why would I need to stay home to enjoy it?
Simple, your smoke pollution harms me,
Only in your head.
Nope.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3557
A six-month ban on smoking in all public places slashed the number of
heart attacks in a US town by almost a half, a new study has revealed.
The researchers attribute the dramatic drop to the "near elimination"
of harmful effects of "second-hand" smoke - passive smoking. A
smoke-free environment also encourages smokers to reduce smoking or
quit altogether, the team adds.
Statistician Stanton Glantz, at the University of California, San
Francisco, and colleagues studied diagnoses of heart attacks in the
town of Helena, Montana, where the ban was imposed.
"This striking finding suggests that protecting people from toxins in
second-hand smoke not only makes life more pleasant, it immediately
starts saving lives," Glantz says. The researchers claim the study is
the first to show that smoke-free policies rapidly reduce heart
attacks, as well as having long-term benefits.
"This clearly shows the great need for controls on smoking in public
places," says Amanda Sandford of UK pressure group Action on Smoking
and Health. "Passive smoking is a killer. The public certainly
underestimates the impact of passive smoking on the heart."
Post by Todd BensonIf it cause much more serious harm, I'm sure you would
never go into a place that allows smoking.
For the most part I don't...unless I'm in a place where there aren't
other choices.
There are always choices. They may not be choices you like, but they are
there. Or are you helpless without the government?
Helpless to compel smokers to quit assulating my lungs in public, yes.
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamSadly that does happen.
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious Samstay home and get lung cancer
ya selfish freak.
I am selfish for thinking that the choice should be left to the person that
owns the property?
Do you have a nuclear weapons plant of your own too?
Talk about "alarmist rhetorical stylings".
There are plenty of legitimate restrictions on property owners, ever
hear of zoning?
Post by Todd BensonPost by Serious SamPost by Todd BensonYou have an interesting sense of selfishness.
You have a need to make excuses for yours.
How so? I am not the one that feels the need to have men with guns enforce
my choice on others.
I rather doubt any of you lungers will be shot over this, unless you
provoke a cop unecessarily.