Burn98: So we should just accept it, because progress is for sissies.

Banning smoking has absolutely nothing to do with progress or safety. If it were about safety they would have regulated air quality. But they didn't. They simply banned an otherwise legal activity from private establishments.

That's not progress. That's infringement of freedom.

nosajghoul:

If every drug user, person in prison, smoker and alcoholic were to die tonight, the world would be a better place.

Nancy Pelosi would be president!

untrustworthy

Banning smoking has absolutely nothing to do with progress or safety.

I was talking about that fireman thing.

iamoz: However with today's technology, a true Democracy is indeed a viable idea.

That doesn't change the dangers of a true democracy.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin

nosajghoul:

If every drug user, person in prison, smoker and alcoholic were to die tonight, the world would be a better place.

Yes, b/c Germany circa 1943 was a farking paradise

/If you outlaw fun only outlaws will have fun

untrustworthy: If it were about safety they would have regulated air quality

Tell me about the regulations concerning automotive catalytic converters, what are they for?

Burn98: As for smoking, my wife has asthma. If you light up around her you are harming her.

Then let her live in the bubble! It's not anyone's responsibility to work around someone else's handicap!

Seriously, how self-centered can you people be? You biatch about smokers being rude and then expect the whole world to cater to your whims because "I-I-I gots a disubility!" It's time we revert back to the days when people hid handicaps out of fear of being labeled a freak. You didn't see FDR whining about wheelchair ramps, did you? NO! He sucked it up and pretended he could walk!

Seems to me we are less and less about bettering ourselves and more and more about dictating how other people have to accommodate us.

Why don't you go outside and yell at your garden because I'm sure that makes your wife's asthma act up too?

Burn98: I was talking about that fireman thing.

What about the fireman thing? We do plenty to try to make their jobs safer. But I doubt there jobs will ever be considered "safe".

What point were you trying to make?

The government should ban anything I don't like.

/too late?
//DRTFT

Half Man Half Biscuit: Tell me about the regulations concerning automotive catalytic converters, what are they for?

They reduce toxic emissions. It was done to reduce exposure without outright banning vehicle use. Quite a contrast from the smoking ban, however. They didn't try to make any concessions or even measure the amount of smoke in establishments. They just banned it.

A more progressive approach would be to set standards for air quality inside establishments open to the public. But that's not what happened. They simply banned an otherwise legal activity on certain types of private property.

untrustworthy


A more progressive approach would be to set standards for air quality inside establishments open to the public. But that's not what happened. They simply banned an otherwise legal activity on certain types of private property

There's a pretty big difference between banning smoking, and banning cars... literally.

One is practical. The other is not.

Drasancas: One is practical. The other is not.

Both are legal. Yet, governments have decided to make smoking illegal on certain types of private property. When talking about stealing away more freedoms for dubious reasons, I'd hardly call that practical.

2007-03-17 06:44:13 PM untrustworthy


Half Man Half Biscuit: Tell me about the regulations concerning automotive catalytic converters, what are they for?

They reduce toxic emissions. It was done to reduce exposure without outright banning vehicle use. Quite a contrast from the smoking ban, however. They didn't try to make any concessions or even measure the amount of smoke in establishments. They just banned it.

A more progressive approach would be to set standards for air quality inside establishments open to the public. But that's not what happened. They simply banned an otherwise legal activity on certain types of private property.

If I may submit an idea to that untrust, I think the most progressive approach would be for a requirement of a device that simply filters the smoke from the ciggarette rather than letting it out amongst the air. Something that holds and filters the burning end and has a small nozzle to blow the smoke into which allows the smoker to smoke and the non-smokers to breathe in ease.

/current smoker
//in fact it's time to go have one

untrustworthy

Drasancas: One is practical. The other is not.

Both are legal. Yet, governments have decided to make smoking illegal on certain types of private property. When talking about stealing away more freedoms for dubious reasons, I'd hardly call that practical.

I don't disagree with you there.

I do wish that people would stop comparing cigarette smoke to automobile exhaust. We actually harbor similar attitudes towards both, but they cannot be dealt with the same way.

Because I can kick over an ant hill doesn't mean I should be perfectly able to kick over Mt. everest. No matter how much I may want to, I can't.

Half Man Half Biscuit: Tell me about the regulations concerning automotive catalytic converters, what are they for?

Catalytic converters don't even get rid of toxic emissions, they just take very dangerous ones and make them less dangerous. An air cleaning system is capable of eliminating almost all airborne particles, including smoke.

Catalytic converters also make you burn more fuel because it hurts gas mileage. They also produce dinitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide, both of which are terrible greenhouse gases. Sometimes the solution just introduces more problems.

untrustworthy: They reduce toxic emissions. It was done to reduce exposure without outright banning vehicle use. Quite a contrast from the smoking ban, however.

Well, for a brief while there were smokeless cigarettes, but IIRC they were withdrawn by the tobacco companies rather quickly when they realised that their sale strengthened lawsuits against them regarding the more common form of cigarettes.

So, self-regulation has failed. Now it looks like state regulation will take over.

untrustwortht:

What point were you trying to make?

I was actually trying to find out what your point was.

All I got out of your post was:
"Other jobs have risks so therefore your job has risks."

This makes no sense to me. We should always try to reduce risks when possible.

Now if reducing risk involves infringing on someone's rights, then that is a good argument not reduce the risk. But that is not the argument you made.

Drasancas: I do wish that people would stop comparing cigarette smoke to automobile exhaust.

To be fair, I wasn't the one that brought vehicles into the discussion. That was Half Man Half Biscuit.

untrustworthy


A lot of race car drivers are going to die in accidents.

A lot of coal miners will get black lung.

A lot of firefighters will get hurt or killed in fires.

Employment has certain dangers. That's just a reality of life.

Yes, and? In every single case we do everything we can to minimize those deaths. In fact, I'd bet the actual fatality rate for race car drivers is fairly low because of all the safety equipment in their cars. Firemen don't run into a fire naked either, they get all kinds of safety equipment.

Waitresses aren't important enough for us to worry about their safety though, I guess.

Burn98: Now if reducing risk involves infringing on someone's rights, then that is a good argument not reduce the risk. But that is not the argument you made.

Read more than just one of my posts if you really want to see the point I'm trying to make.

Half Man Half Biscuit: So, self-regulation has failed. Now it looks like state regulation will take over.

Give me a break. The regulations made by the state have little to do with protecting anyone. They are pandering to the anti-smoking nazis. That's all.

PoopStain: They also produce dinitrogen oxide

Strange.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_oxide

Other technologies, such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non catalytic reduction (SNCR) reduce post combustion NOx. Of particular importance is the introduction of catalytic converters which have significantly reduced emissions from motor vehicles.

Seems to say that the cat reduces Nitrogen Oxide.

(Yeah, I know Wiki..... If I could be bothered I'd look elsewhere).

2007-03-17 07:01:39 PM Telos


untrustworthy


A lot of race car drivers are going to die in accidents.

A lot of coal miners will get black lung.

A lot of firefighters will get hurt or killed in fires.

Employment has certain dangers. That's just a reality of life.

Yes, and? In every single case we do everything we can to minimize those deaths. In fact, I'd bet the actual fatality rate for race car drivers is fairly low because of all the safety equipment in their cars. Firemen don't run into a fire naked either, they get all kinds of safety equipment.

Waitresses aren't important enough for us to worry about their safety though, I guess.


You answered yourself in your own post I think, the corallary solution of that list would be to provide waiters/waitresses with filter masks as safety equipment.
I think my earlier suggestion would be more practical and effective but you were discussing saftey gear worn by workers so I answered in the same vein.

oh by the by any of you experienced quoters on here care to share the html foo commands to do the bold on bold off?

Telos: Yes, and? In every single case we do everything we can to minimize those deaths. In fact, I'd bet the actual fatality rate for race car drivers is fairly low because of all the safety equipment in their cars. Firemen don't run into a fire naked either, they get all kinds of safety equipment.

If we limited the speeds of race cars to under 100 mph, more lives would be saved. So why don't we do that?

Waitresses aren't important enough for us to worry about their safety though, I guess.

Waitresses are free to work in non-smoking establishments if they wish. As it is, there are plenty of risks to waitresses and barmaids besides the little risk that comes from second hand smoke. There are unruly drunks who might start fights. There are injuries that come from broken glass and hot food. There is the smoke from cooking. Etc. Etc.

So to make things safer, shouldn't we demand that food not be served hot? Or that rather than glass we use plastic? We can't make the job 100% safe and taking illogical steps in trying to reach that goal while limiting freedoms is counterproductive.

ANd the smoking ban doesn't have anything to do with protecting employees of the private establishments. That was just a technique used by the anti-smoking nazis to drum up some pathetic emotional non-issue to further polarize the topic.

untrustworthy: Give me a break.

Why? Because you seem paranoid over your government?

From a global perspective the days are numbered for tobacco. Accept it. In 20 to 30 years smoking will be as socially acceptable as black slave owning and wife beating.

Nazi-ism has nothing to do with it, it's a health matter pure and simple.

Half Man Half Biscuit: Seems to say that the cat reduces Nitrogen Oxide.

It reduces NO, but it makes it easier to form N2O, hence the di- , which is a more dastardly greenhouse gas.

iamoz: oh by the by any of you experienced quoters on here care to share the html foo commands to do the bold on bold off?

Use <b> to start, then </b> to stop.

Anywhere you are allowed to be naked, are the only places you should be allowed to smoke. Unless I am paying your medical bill... Which I am.

PoopStain: It reduces NO, but it makes it easier to form N2O, hence the di- , which is a more dastardly greenhouse gas

About 80% of the world has signed up to reduce this, well all those who signed up to Kyoto.

I wonder which nations are missing from this list?

Thank you Half Man Half Biscuit kind of you to assist one with whom you share ideological differences. I still (and always will) say that banning things like smoking is rediculous if people want to do it, there are always ways to make a person's personal habits both safe for others yet enjoyable to the habit-haver.

/and before someone beats me to it, i am NOT talking about rape, assualt, murder, etc. more along the lines of smoking and such.

Half Man Half Biscuit: About 80% of the world has signed up to reduce this, well all those who signed up to Kyoto.

I wonder which nations are missing from this list?

But the best start would be getting rid of catalytic converters, which will let more noxious gases into the air - just not greenhouse gases. Once again, a solution sometimes just introduces new problems.

untrustworthy I like the cut of your jib sir seems we are both advocates for personal freedom

/intrigue, newsletter, etc.

telos "Saying a physical defect like lung cancer causes a desire to work in restraunts makes no sense whatsoever."

I didn't say that. You are looking at this in an incredibly simplistic and myopic way. I simply said that restaurant workers didn't necessarily have a higher rate of cancer deaths because they worked in a restaurant, not that they worked in a restaurant because they had cancer (wtf?).

You didn't like the GTA example... let me try another one. People who floss live 4 years longer, on average. The simplistic "there-must-be-a-causal-relationship" view would lead one to conclude that flossing results in a person living 4 years longer, on average. In reality, people who live 4 years longer than average are more likely to floss.

People who work in restaurants, particularly for long periods of time, probably have predispositions and lifestyle issues which affect the rate with which they die from cancer. They are certainly less educated. They are more likely to smoke than the general population. And so on... there are any number of cancer "risk-factors" which are probably more prevelant in restaurant workers than in the general population. I don't have any empirical data to support any of these particular examples, but I know them to be true from working in restaurants. I'm sure most people here who have worked in restaurants would agree.

My point was that you are taking a superficial approach to interpreting the study (as did the BBC and even the authors), which provided very little data aside from superficial statistics.

Not that anyone cares, but here's my 2 cents.

If it's private property (even if it's a public place such as a bar/restaurant), then the owner should be able to set the rules. You as the consumer or employee have the freedom to choose whether to enter/work on that property.

If it's public property (i.e. parks, sidewalks, courthouses, libraries, even public beaches) then the public should be able to set the rules. I personally have no problem with smoking being banned in these areas.

Yes, there will be some cross over (smoke from private property crossing over into public property) but it will be minimal (unless of course you grab a lawnchair and sit on the sidewalk right by the outside area of a smoking bar)

If you support smoking bans in bars because 'you should have the right to go wherever you want without being exposed to smoke', consider this. I have friends who smoke. I go over to their houses and am exposed to their cigarette smoke and sit next to their ashtrays. From your standpoint, we should ban smoking in their house as well. After all, I should be able to visit my friend's house without being exposed to smoke, right? Even though it's their house? I mean, it's not as if I have the choice of visiting them or not, or even being friends with them. I don't like smoke but I like to spend time with my friends so please ban smoking in private residence so I'm not exposed to it when I go to their house. Thanks.

And before you say that the above analogy is extreme and unlikely, I disagree. That is -exactly- the direction we are heading in.

I should note that I have this standpoint as a former smoker. I don't like smelling like cigarette smoke and I don't like being around it. However, I like having the freedom to make the choice for myself.

Sorry about that Lorelle, I really am, but I am not sure why you posted that in here.

smitty1276

And again my point was that you are trying to claim there is a single correlation, and negating the possibility of causation based on it. This isn't "restraunt workers have higher rates of cancer" it's "cigarette smoke causes cancer, people who work in restraunts are continuously exposed to cigarette smoke, people who work in restraunts but do not smoke themselves have higher rates of cancer."

You're right that a single correlation does not equal causation, but given the combination of known factors it's a fairly hard claim to make.

Half man half biscuit But want something a little closer to home?

That EPA link appears to be concerned with smoking in households, and its effect on non-smokers who live in those households. I don't think that many people would argue against the idea that a non-smoker might suffer harm in that situation. We aren't talking about that... (or are you now ready to tell people they can't smoke in their own homes)?

drasancas But when you allow one set of people to do something, but actively disallow another group, something is being denied.

That's true. But that is not applicable to gay marriage. Straight people can't marry someone of the opposite sex, either.

I question the biasness of the source, sorry.

LOL... I don't blame you. That's why I said to go to the citations and ignore the source. I just googled for some source for that info, which I was already aware of.

A little bit of mercury at a time is still dangerous, over long periods of time. ... And again, do you have the right to harm someone a little?

Again, there is no evidence that a little exposure to 2nd hand smoke here or there is harmful... your lungs do a good job of cleaning themselves. It's over the long term that smoking kills. (Smoking can't even be shown conclusively to cause cancer... but it a "risk factor", meaning that there is overwhelming "circumstantial" evidence that it causes it but noone can say how or why). Mercury is a very different beast.

B12 is large quantities over long periods of time can cause cancer. That doesn't mean that you are going to get cancer if you regularly take a dose of B12. There is a lot of fallacious logic on this topic.

I'm about to head off to a LAN party to be a geek and play counterstrike and shiat all night, so I might not be around for any replies (though I'll check at some point). It's been fun, though.

Gecko Gingrich
Yellow slaves still cool?

no but Yerrow sraves are.

/could not stop myself

Lorelle

Yesterday was the 7th anniversary of my father's death from cancer caused by smoking. It still hurts to think of how much he suffered before he died.

I'm sorry you hurt. In 2 weeks it will be the 8th anniversary of my own father's death from liver cirrhosis caused by alcohol. He was 46.

I don't call for a reinstitution of prohibition, however. He knew drinking as much as he did was unhealthy and yet he did it anyway. That was his choice, as it was your father's.

America is (supposedly) about freedom. Freedom means you have to bear responsibility for your bad choices as well as your good. If you want to try and save people from themselves, we should be doing it through education instead of proscription. Then, if people still want to do something unhealthy, then they are doing it through conscious choice and not through ignorance, and we don't (or shouldn't) have the right to prevent them.

America is (supposedly) about freedom. Freedom means you have to bear responsibility for your bad choices as well as your good. If you want to try and save people from themselves, we should be doing it through education instead of proscription. Then, if people still want to do something unhealthy, then they are doing it through conscious choice and not through ignorance, and we don't (or shouldn't) have the right to prevent them.

QFT

smitty1276: We aren't talking about that...

Nope, but smoking in bars is the same.

I agree totally sterben. My grandfather started smoking when he went into the army back in the early 40's. He said everyone back then called cigarettes "coffin nails". So even back in the 40's people knew that cigarettes were not good for you.

smitty1276:

Actually, fundamentalist Christians were the driving force behind abolitionism,

None of the Quakers or Catholics I know describe themselves as fundamentalists.

Also, "In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes."

Are you laboring under the delusion that a majority of Democrats at that time were liberals?

You seem to be saying that Republicans used to be good at protecting individual liberties.

Indeed they were, now, not so much.

Tips hat to Lorelle.

This is the cost the more selfish in this thread seem to be happy with. Their 'right' to smoke is more important than a father or mother. Passive smoking kills, simple fact.