It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smoking Bans - Where will it end?

page: 10
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: Tangerine
If you can figure out a way to smoke in public and not exhale while no smoke escapes from your cigarette, go for it.


And if you can site something that proves exhaling smoke is a detriment to those around them. . . Maybe we will listen


If you're talking about detriments to health, for the sake of argument let's say you're right. It doesn't make any difference.

Tobacco smoke also creates a significant effect on the personal environment of those around it which is extremely unpleasant to many people. Those who smoke have no recognition of this because they are desensitized by their habit and they would never put up with a similar intrusion on their space. Why do you think the majority of landlords do not allow smoking? It's because it's close to impossible to rent to non-smokers afterward because of the stench. And that persists long after the smokers are gone. In public it's no different in principle than someone shouting in your ear. Below a certain decibel level you couldn't cite anything to prove that is "a detriment" to anyone, either.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley

Tell me, do you get the same angst about your health when you contemplate all the fumes given off by cars and planes as you do at the sight of someone lighting up across the street?


Straw Man. No one is talking about just the sight of someone lighting up across the street.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Obfuscation (perhaps you are a Marxist).

Which is worse?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Well, I didn't say that exactly, but was reiterating what the person at the ACS said to my sister. It made me wonder.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Excellent. The first argument doesn't work so lets change it. Let us change it to perfume or deodorants or other smells we do not like.

How about you actually look at what this offending smell does to you:

" Kabat and Enstrom discovered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ie passive smoking), no matter how intense or prolonged, creates no significantly increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer."

Get off your high horse and accept like we have to do smells don't affect your health



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: DelMarvel

Obfuscation (perhaps you are a Marxist).

Which is worse?


What am I obfuscating?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: DelMarvel


" Kabat and Enstrom discovered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ie passive smoking), no matter how intense or prolonged, creates no significantly increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer."




Kabat and Enstrom were funded by the tobacco industry.

LINK.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

*tumbleweed*



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   

The data and design of the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study has been widely criticized. Even the British Medical Association, the publisher of the journal that printed the study, described the research as being “fundamentally flawed.”3 The misuse of data and flawed methodology are two very significant faults in the study. Enstrom and Kabat did not gather original data for their study. Instead, it drew on data from the ACS’s Cancer Prevention Study (CPS-I), and used only a small subset (approximately 10%) of the total CPS-I data. Researchers at ACS repeatedly warned Enstrom that the data from CPS-I could not be used to determine the health effects of secondhand smoke, and they spoke out against the study upon its release, stating that their data had been misused.4 The study used cohort methodology to look at the rate of mortality from heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmokers who were married to smokers, covering a time period from 1959 to 1998. A severe error in the study was the failure to establish a control group of nonsmokers who were unexposed to secondhand smoke. Other critical methodological flaws include not measuring for secondhand smoke exposure from any source other than the spouse, including workplace (where smoking was extremely prevalent at the time); not taking into account either spouse’s smoking status after 1972, though the study continued for 26 more years; and classifying the nonsmoking spouse as still exposed to secondhand smoke in that 26 year period, during which time the “smoking spouse” could have quit smoking or died, not to mention that they could have divorced or separated.


LINK.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: anonentity

Does anyone else think that my comparison of the treatment of smokers by anti-smokers to the jewish population of pre-war Germany is reasonably accurate?

Tired of Control Freak

Can you point to a single piece of legislation that discriminates against you as a smoker as opposed to one just restricting where you can smoke?
If not your comparison doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Poppcocked
Any parent that smokes around their child should be beaten and shot in the face.


I haven't logged in in awhile, but had to after reading this comment. I had one smoking parent, and one non-smoking parent.

Had I been given the option to live with my smoking parent, my life would have been a thousand times better. A parents' level of fitness is not decided whether or not they smoke. Its not the be all and end all to your kids health either. There are plenty of things far worse, strictly on an emotional level, that you can do to your kid.

A non smoking control freak, that berates their child, could do far more damage than a smoker could exhaling second hand smoke in their childs face. Food for thought.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: anonentity

Does anyone else think that my comparison of the treatment of smokers by anti-smokers to the jewish population of pre-war Germany is reasonably accurate?

Tired of Control Freak

Can you point to a single piece of legislation that discriminates against you as a smoker as opposed to one just restricting where you can smoke?
If not your comparison doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.


Well there is one (where this article is from) that punishes people for smoking in a car with people under the age of 16 whether or not the window is open.

Its kind of silly when you consider the cars exhaust is probably far worse than the cigarette.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho
That isn't discriminating against the smoker. It is restricting where they can smoke. There are lots of laws about what you can and can't do in a car. (and having an under 16 year old in the car would certainly make some of them worse)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: DelMarvel


" Kabat and Enstrom discovered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ie passive smoking), no matter how intense or prolonged, creates no significantly increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer."




Kabat and Enstrom were funded by the tobacco industry.

LINK.


Great we are 1/3 of refusing my links. 33% is still an F. Let's go for all three shall we?


edit on 26-1-2015 by randomtangentsrme because: formating.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: anonentity

Its clear that we are dealing with fanatics here.

That's the problem, fanatics from both sides is what keep us discussing something that should be simple: your rights should not be considered more important than someone else's rights, so the right to smoke in a place where nobody else is affected should not even be discussed. In the same way, the right of someone not seeing their health affected by someone else should also be respected.

Unfortunately, the anti-smoke fanatics act as if smoking, by itself, is a dangerous, anti-social action, while the pro-smoke fanatics act as if there aren't any people around them that do not like smoke.

Too bad common sense is becoming uncommon.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
If you're offended by the smell of burning tobacco, then you are held as a beacon of self-righteous indignation and considered of a higher stature.

What about the people that are physically affected by it? Is the right of doing what you want with your lungs more important than the other people's right to be healthy?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: ArMaP

Honey stop please - you are embarrasing yourself

Your window is 30 feet away from a smoker and its affecting your lungs

Even the most ardent anti-smoker scientists, using the most sensitive equipment, couldn't find an effect less than 6 feet away.

news.stanford.edu...


You have no way of knowing if the effect on your lungs was the smoker 30 feet away or an invisible cloud of pollen.

And I asked you a question: Do you require every condo and every apartment in the city to be smoke-free?

Tell me again why you can't sell your apartment and buy one in a smoke-free building. There are tons of them around

Tired of Control Freaks


No, YOU are embarrassing yourself and have done so since the beginning of this thread. How old are you? Did you just learn about Hitler in class or something?

Seriously mate, you are acting like a child and no rational discussion can be had while you are acting like this.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Tired, I am a non smoker. Have been my whole life. But that does not matter right now. If you have to smoke go right ahead. But I do have a question. You seem to be one sided in your thinking. You want to smoke anyplace at any time. But you do not seem to be concerned about others around you. They could be smokers or non smokers. What should we do about the pollutants that we have to breath when we are near you? As far as smoking at home go right ahead it is your home after all. But do you think about family members that have to live with you? Do they smoke or not. Yeah there are compromise to be made. The government wants all public facilities smoke free areas. They can regulate that. The compromise is you can smoke at home. Others mentioned e-cigs have they stop selling those in Canada? Or have they simply threatened to make them illegal. To me e-cigs could be a compromise. But they have to be studied as well because of the content of the vapor they produce. If there is nothing harmful in them that would be a compromise.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Did she live in the GTA (Toronto and surrounding area) within 300 meters of the 401, DVP, 427, 404, 407, Gardiner Expressway, the QEW, downtown Toronto, Burlington/Hamilton, etc.?

Obviously not, as she was my neighbour and I lived in Portugal all my life.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

Honey stop please - you are embarrasing yourself

Your window is 30 feet away from a smoker and its affecting your lungs

Even the most ardent anti-smoker scientists, using the most sensitive equipment, couldn't find an effect less than 6 feet away.

...

You have no way of knowing if the effect on your lungs was the smoker 30 feet away or an invisible cloud of pollen.


While I side with the smokers on this one (as a heavy chainsmoker in the past, followed by 10 years of non-smoking, followed by recently falling off the wagon again) I have to disagree with this post.

I can tell, from my bedroom, when my neighbour lights up in their garden because I can smell it when the window is open - probably just over 10 meters away. This might be affected by the fact they smoke some really strong and nasty-smelling cheap cigarettes. I can also tell if my wife was smoking recently when she walks in through the front door and I'm sitting in the front room.

Admittedly, being able to detect it is not necessarily the same as being affected by it, but for every hunderd asthma-divas (you know the sort, the ones who never actually seem to need their inhalers but make a big show of pointed little coughs if you're wearing aftershave they don't approve of - the kind who would probably make a drama out of swooning for attention if only this was the 1800s and there was a chaise-longue to hand) there are folks who are genuinely that sensitive to it.

It doesn't annoy me though, it just makes me want to go outside and spark up myself



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join