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.

 

Cali bans smoking on beaches: "#1 cause of lung cancer". But, the Sun is #1 cause of skin cancer.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
If the State of California can ban smoking on beaches because it is the #1 cause of lung cancer, why don't they ban the sun on the beaches, since it is the #1 cause of skin cancer?

just a thought.




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Ummmm.... you can ban Cigarettes, which has been proven to have no redeeming benefits whatsoever.

You cannot ban the Sun at the beach and it's quite debatable that the sun is the "Number 1 cause of Skin Cancer."

You can get Cancer from a lack of sun(Vitamin D) too.

Just what is the point of this thread anyway?



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Ummmm.... you can ban Cigarettes, which has been proven to have no redeeming benefits whatsoever.


proven to have no redeeming benefits, whatsoever?

would you go to a doctor who has no tolerance for blood?

would you send your kids to a public pool where the lifeguards have no tolerance for water?

I'm a firefighter. So, isn't me smoking the equivelent of job conditioning? Or would you think your firefighters should have no tolerance for smoke?



You cannot ban the Sun at the beach and it's quite debatable that the sun is the "Number 1 cause of Skin Cancer."


about as debatable as saying smoking has been proven to have absolutley no redeeming benefits, whatsoever.


You can get Cancer from a lack of sun(Vitamin D) too.


true, moderation can be a good thing.


Just what is the point of this thread anyway?


thought i would share an ideology of mine, which i thought would fit in the forum of "Other ideologies".



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
It is a smokers right to smoke, but it is also a non-smokers right to breath in fresh air.

Putting cigarette smoke up against the sun is alittle strange I find.

If there are small children running around at the beach, they should beable to do so without breathing in this smoke. Would I beable to go to the beach and fire a gun off? No. Why not? Because people could get hurt.

Why is cigarette smoke any different? We all know the harms it can cause, why would someone tolerate this anymore than someone carrying a gun? Because the effects are not immediate? Thats about it.

If lung cancer in non-smokers could be traced to an individual cigarette, how would that person feel? Knowing they took somebodies mother, father, brother or sister.

I respect the rights of the smoker, but they should respect my rights to be a non-smoker.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
It is a smokers right to smoke, but it is also a non-smokers right to breath in fresh air.


agreed. but, cigarette smoke is not the #1 cause of toxic air polution. the automobile industries are. and yet, California has not banned automobiles, either.


Putting cigarette smoke up against the sun is alittle strange I find.


true. but for their reasoning of it being the #1 cause for lung cancer, sunlight is the #1 reason for skin cancer. so, by their own logic, shouldn't they also ban what causes skin cancer, if they are that concerned?

but, i concede, your point is a valid one. children should be allowed to breath fresh air. But, then again, smoking is not the #1 cause of air polution. Fossil fuel emissions are the #1 cause for air pollution in the world. between the emissions from traffic automobiles, to the factories that build the parts for automobiles, to the oil companies that produce the fuel that goes into the automobiles .... . this is the #1 reason for pollutants and toxins in the air. So, why not ban these also?



If there are small children running around at the beach, they should beable to do so without breathing in this smoke.


then why do we not ban the #1 cause for air pollution? Are we not that concerned for our children, or our future generations?



Would I beable to go to the beach and fire a gun off? No. Why not? Because people could get hurt.


you would be able, yes, but you are right, you would be wrong for doing so. But, you would be able to drive your car to the beach. And, cars emit far more toxins than smokers do.



Why is cigarette smoke any different?


Why is automobile emissions any different? Aside from the fact they expell a billion times more pollutants and toxins into the atmosphere?



If lung cancer in non-smokers could be traced to an individual cigarette, how would that person feel? Knowing they took somebodies mother, father, brother or sister.


Why do people continue to drive cars that produce far more carcinagens than smokers do? Yet, cars are not illegal in public places.


I respect the rights of the smoker, but they should respect my rights to be a non-smoker.


True, we should. But to force us not to be able to smoke in public, then the same standards should apply to all automobile users as well.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Cigs arent banned on all beaches here. And they were banned because of people dropping their cigarette butts in the sand and children and babies were picking them up and putting them in their mouth.

(this is what i recall when they were talking about banning cigs on beaches)



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Banning automobiles?

C'mon now, really though.

Your argument says, well someone else does it so why pick on me? Automobiles cause air pollution so why bother picking on the smokers?

Unfortunately we rely heavily on transportation, so banning them outright is not in the cards. What does cigarette smoke do to our way of life?

Nothing.

Your only defense has been that Automobiles omit more toxins, you need to brainstorm more. I just don't see it as a valid point.

I have openly said I respect the rights of a smoker, but your reasoning needs a stronger point.

Why would someones urge to smoke supercede the health of others?



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Banning automobiles?

C'mon now, really though.

Your argument says, well someone else does it so why pick on me? Automobiles cause air pollution so why bother picking on the smokers?


no, i am saying children have the right to breath clean air.

and i agree with the rest of the world that the #1 cause for air pollution in the world is automobiles.

so, why do automobile drivers condemn my smoking, when their automobiles produce billions of times more toxins in our atmosphere than smokers do?



Unfortunately we rely heavily on transportation, so banning them outright is not in the cards. What does cigarette smoke do to our way of life?

Nothing.


nothing?

i already addressed this issue in this thread, with one point of view.



Your only defense has been that Automobiles omit more toxins, you need to brainstorm more. I just don't see it as a valid point.


no, this was not my only defense. perhaps the only one you read in this thread, but it has not been the only defense i have presented.



I have openly said I respect the rights of a smoker, but your reasoning needs a stronger point.

Why would someones urge to smoke supercede the health of others?


why would someones urge to get from point "A" to point "B" supercede the health of all life on earth, and the health of the planet itself?

#1 reason? paper. what kind? money.

why does money supercede the health of all life on earth?




Why would someones urge to smoke supercede the health of others?


why would someone choose a doctor who has no tolerance for blood to operate on them?

why would someone choose to go swimming at a public pool where the lifeguards have no tolerance for water?

Why would someone call firefighters who have no tolerance for smoke to go into their burning house to save their loved ones?

I'm a firefighter. I would like to have a tolerance to smoke. Why? Job conditioning, so i can save more lives.

my lungs not as good as non-smokers?

our fire department smokers challenged non-smokers to a contest.

we all had 1 hour air packs. it was 110+ degrees outside.

5 smokers of varying ages from 21 to 54.
5 non smokers of varying ages from 18 to 39.

all the non-smokers ran out of air in their bottles before the smokers did.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Well what is your defense? Other than it is not the number one contributor to air pollution.



all the non-smokers ran out of air in their bottles before the smokers did.


So are you trying to say that cigarette smoke isn't all that detrimental to our health?



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by spanishcaravan
Cigs arent banned on all beaches here. And they were banned because of people dropping their cigarette butts in the sand and children and babies were picking them up and putting them in their mouth.

(this is what i recall when they were talking about banning cigs on beaches)


Now, that is a good reason to ban smoking on beaches, i agree.

i don't neccesarily dissagree with banning smoking in public areas. I'm just practicing my debating skills for a college course, so please don't get too upset with me. in another thread on ats i actually debate that the earth is flat, and do a fairly good job of it, well, as best as one can do with the evidence against them.

my point is, i am giving an earnest effort to debate a stand point on an issue that i may or may not agree with.

i thank you all for the responses, and i thank you all for your contributions. they are helpfull, and most certainly enlightening.

thanks,
john.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Well what is your defense? Other than it is not the number one contributor to air pollution.



all the non-smokers ran out of air in their bottles before the smokers did.


So are you trying to say that cigarette smoke isn't all that detrimental to our health?


I'm saying 5 firefighters that were smokers performed better at conserving air than 5 firefighters that were not smokers.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Well, understanding your purpose here I do applaud your willingness to take on the stance you did.

I would not admit to points made by the other people, it shows flaws in your argument. Also, your main defense should not be that it is not the #1 contributor to air pollution.

If you are looking to debate issues, have a look at this. I would be more than willing to take part.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

U2U me if your interested and we can work something out.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
thanks for the sound advice, it is appreciated.

thanks for the link as well. perhaps later this week i will take you up on the offer.

thanks again,
john paul peter



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I'm always here.

Not an expert on the art of debating, but I do know practice makes perfect. I look forward to hearing from you.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
smoking in large crowded public areas is a nuisance, especially for non smokers such as myself. A lot of smokers do not have the decency to blow their smoke away from people's faces, and frankly I could care less if their smoking 'privileges' are taken away in such places.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If the State of California can ban smoking on beaches because it is the #1 cause why don't they ban the sun on the beaches, since it is the #1 cause of skin cancer?


Probably because it's a little hard to 'ban' the sun


Unless you have some sort of big arse umbrella.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Yeah, I'm I resident of Southern California and it's ridiculous how far the anti-smoking crusade has gone. the beach is practically an ashtray.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join