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 Banned in Homes-California Adopts 'Hitler's Policy'

page: 13
34
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trolloks
polluting your air? for gods sake use some common sence! Have you ever used transport?? do you own a car? do you use aerosols? do you use gas? do you use electricity? do you like cows or enjoy beef, milk, cheese and butter??


Do any of the above topics interfare with your neighbours ability to enjoy their home? NO I don't think so, so please let's stick to the issue at hand. Maybe the aerosols do, but I don't think people are spying them every few hours in homes.




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Harassment101
 


Are we playing truth or dare here? If so I call dare.

Firstly, the idea that enough cigarette smoke to be harmful could pass from one abode to another via minimal paths such as electrical wiring outlets and plumbing paths is simply ridiculous.

Secondly, cigarette smoke is heavier than air when not heated, and quickly falls to the ground when it cools off rather than drifting around. The overwhelming majority of your neighbor's smoke is ending up in your neighbor's carpet, not in your dwelling.

Thirdly, anyone so incredibly sensitive to airborne contaminants that a miniscule amount of cigarette smoke could make them sick ( note that non-smokers can detect the ODOR of cigarette smoke at considerably lower concentrations than is required to cause respiratory symptoms) would simply keel over and die when exposed to outdoor air containing vehicle exhaust fumes and other pollutants.

In short, I'm not buying it. In fact, I'm not even renting it.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
It is hardly accurate to call it "considering everyone's rights" when your chopping away one side's rights.
Cheers!!!!


That's a bit like saying that muggers rights are being taken away , but the victims don't have to give up anything.

I think this thread shows that the tabacco companies' propaganda machinery really is working. And it's even better to see that the money smokers pay to the tobacco companies isn't going to waste.

I quit this thread earlier because the smokers arguments had gone around a hundred times already. It's all about all the other things in the universe and never them or their "rights".



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Would be nice if you dressed your "facts" up with some proof. Non-smokers have put the research on the table, smokers have only pointed their fingers at the world.

Come on smokers show us your research about anything mentioned? Example smoking and education, smoking and disease, smoking and income, smoking and it's lack of effect on non-smokers in a social environment.

Bet this gets ignored too.

Somewhere out there are a bunch of villages with their idiot missing, it's his smoke break!





[edit on 30-1-2009 by Mynaeris]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris

Originally posted by RFBurns
It is hardly accurate to call it "considering everyone's rights" when your chopping away one side's rights.
Cheers!!!!


That's a bit like saying that muggers rights are being taken away , but the victims don't have to give up anything.



There is a HUGE difference between a mugger and a smoker. A mugger deserves their rights to be taken away since they cannot excersise appropriate use of their rights to be free by mugging people. That protects the ones who do know how to behave in a civil manner and deserve rights and those rights to be protected.

Sorry, but your example there is a pretty pizz poor one.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
Once again, the rights of non-smokers should not trump the rights of smokers especially in their homes, whether that be a condo, an apartment, or a single family home.

Smokers have already been relegated to the corners of public society. There are laws about smoking even in the great outdoors. Now, limits are placed on smoking in our own homes? It is too much.

I go to great lengths and take great pains not to smoke around non-smokers. But, within the four walls I pay to live in, I will smoke (unless a non-smoker is here with me). All the BS about smoke seeping through walls and through electrical outlets and through doors and windows......that's all it is: BS.

Your rights don't trump my rights......not in my own home.


At this stage, I really do feel that I am dealing with individuals who are just trying to justify thier addictions and who are not looking into the realities of what their habits are doing to others. I hope I can counter this with addictional information.

www.smokefreeottawa.com...



Second-Hand Smoke in Multi-Unit Dwellings, Including Apartments and Condominiums
If you are concerned about second-hand smoke (SHS) in your home, you are not alone. The OCSH regularly receives complaints from Ottawa residents who are exposed to SHS in their own homes.

SHS that comes in from neighbouring units is a serious health concern that affects many Ottawa residents. Children, the elderly, and people with medical conditions including asthma and multiple chemical sensitivities are especially at risk.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Nope you assault my health every time you light up next to me. My mere presence doesn't assault you. So no matter how much I like you, I have to insist your response is weak.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris

Would be nice if you dressed your "facts" up with some proof. Non-smokers have put the research on the table, smokers have only pointed their fingers at the world.


Non smokers have put up the research? Oh you mean that incredibly biased and un-acknowledged research done by advocates of anti-smoking campaigns like "Truth" and lobbyists for the drug companies to sell their quit smoking gum and pills and programs? Heh...ya I kinda see the senseless point to all that.

Oh us smokers have only pointed to the fact that we have given up enough space for the non smokers and refuse to give up our personal space for the non smokers. We have also pointed out, that if the non smokers would stay away from us smokers, they wouldnt have a problem. But for some reason...they still do.




Originally posted by Mynaeris
Come on smokers show us your research about anything mentioned? Example smoking and education, smoking and disease, smoking and income, smoking and it's lack of effect on non-smokers in a social environment.

Bet this gets ignored too.

Somewhere out there are a bunch of villages with their idiot missing, it's his smoke break!



There has not been one single smoker here in this and the other thread that has claimed or stated that smoking isnt bad, that smoking doesnt causes health problems, that smoking cant affect others, that smoking costs money, that smoking doesnt causes disease. Not one!! What we have shown is that us smokers have the right to all of the above, and we have also shown that we have accomodated to the non smoker's wishes a dozen times over and that still has not appeased the non smokers.

Unfortunately...unless the country turns into something other than a free nation and takes away everyone's right to choose what to do with their bodies, that includes you non smokers too,...the smokers will continue to light up and enjoy their smoke and the non smokers will continue to gripe and cry like babies over seeing someone excersise their right to choose.

I think thats what the problem is. Us smokers have the will power to stand up to the man and say nope, we want to smoke and will not pay attention to your BS, and the non smokers simply dont have the will power to do the same, so they turn their grief onto those who do have the cahones to stand up for their rights.

Try it some time...not smoking, but standing up for your rights. Because you can bet your 'clean air zone' that if smoking prohibition is to become a reality, so will social drinking, sporting, choosing fast foods and good things like peanut butter and jelly, soda pop, cotton candy, coffee,..oh geez the list can go on and on.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 30-1-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Nope you assault my health every time you light up next to me. My mere presence doesn't assault you. So no matter how much I like you, I have to insist your response is weak.


Its quite impossible for someone to "light up" next to you when they are in their designated smoking area or 10 paces to your right or left or down the street from you.

The only time your scenario would happen is if you choose to stand next to a smoker.

So..in that case..who is making the bad decision? The smoker who is in their area, or the one who shouldnt be anywhere near that smoking area?

Us smokers try very hard to keep our smoke away from the non smokers. Isnt it prudent to expect that non smokers would go out of their way to stay away from the smokers and smoking areas too?


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 30-1-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by Harassment101
 


How can you not understand that the problem here is cheap construction, not smoking? If smoke can cross over from one apartment to another, then so can other scents and fumes. This is quite simply unacceptable, period. The apartments should be constructed so that air doesn't pass from one to the other. Problem solved.


They should be constructed that way, but from the articles I have posted, you will see that many were not built that way, some of the newer ones are being built that way, but many were not, and so many are being affected. Food smells do come through, but those don't affect my health so I ignore them. If they started giving me health problems, then I would also deal with that issue as well.




Besides, the odor may be unpleasant, but the amount of cigarette smoke that might pass from one abode to the next via such restricted means wouldn't be any more "harmful" than cooking odors or air fresheners.

Some respect for reality would be a real breath of fresh clean air in this thread.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Heike]


Again you are wrong. Food does not pose a problem, it's the smoking that does, some reality on your part would be appriciated. Then you would have to live it to appriciate it, and that might be asking a bit much.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by itinerantseeker
I don't like sitting next to smelly overweight people that won't shut up during a two hour flight, but does that mean that they should lose the right to fly in an airplane and that everyone has to remain silent on the flight as well? No, you just move on.


Again missing the poing. These people do not affect your health, that's the point. If smoking did not make me ill, and these people smoked and it caused their brains to fall out, I would let them do it. I would sit there, and let them do, but once it affects me, then that's a problem.

You can destroy yourself if you want to, and I won't stop you, I might try to talk you out of it, but once you take me with you, and I didn't ask for it, that's another story.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Harassment101]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by Harassment101
 


Are we playing truth or dare here? If so I call dare.

Firstly, the idea that enough cigarette smoke to be harmful could pass from one abode to another via minimal paths such as electrical wiring outlets and plumbing paths is simply ridiculous.

Secondly, cigarette smoke is heavier than air when not heated, and quickly falls to the ground when it cools off rather than drifting around. The overwhelming majority of your neighbor's smoke is ending up in your neighbor's carpet, not in your dwelling.

Thirdly, anyone so incredibly sensitive to airborne contaminants that a miniscule amount of cigarette smoke could make them sick ( note that non-smokers can detect the ODOR of cigarette smoke at considerably lower concentrations than is required to cause respiratory symptoms) would simply keel over and die when exposed to outdoor air containing vehicle exhaust fumes and other pollutants.

In short, I'm not buying it. In fact, I'm not even renting it.


Well good that you are not buying or renting anything, no one is asking you to. The point is many of us are buying renting dwellings and they are getting polluted by smokers.

The construction of many of these buildings are allowing smoke to pass through the walls, vents, whatever and in essence it's like you are a smoker. There is enough of a consentration passing through to be affecting many people.

No body is asking you to buy or rent anything, non smokers are simply asking for the right to not have their health affected by the unhealthy addiction of others.

There is enough research, enough articles, and enough complaints by people saying the same things, the same things many have been saying for years, then the dying started, and now they are being listened to.

So again you post what you like, I don't know how it's passing through, but I do know that it is, and it's most likely the walls, the same with cooking smells, and the food smells thus far have not caused ill health, but the smoking triggers ill health.

So post away.

www.toronto.ca...



Q: If a unit has a separate heating or cooling source, does that prevent the movement of tobacco smoke?
A: The movement of tobacco smoke from one unit to another occurs even when each unit has a separate heating and/or cooling system.

Q: Is second-hand smoke a common occurrence in apartments?
A: The problem of second-hand smoke in multiple occupancy residential units is quite common




[edit on 30-1-2009 by Harassment101]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I keep my distance from smokers, but let me give you an example - you're standing in line to buy tickets for something, or you are in a crowd, or on a busy beach and suddenly someone lights up next to you? Is that your fault? Should you leave the line and go stand somewhere else until he finishes? Or should you leave the beach until she finishes? Or in a crowd - should you not go to concerts or sports events?

Let's be reasonable, I am sure there really are some polite smokers, but the general attitude is "I have the right to smoke anywhere". Smokers don't even consider that they might be inconveniencing non-smokers which include children.

Have you ever tried asking (nicely) a smoker to please not smoke directly next to you? OMG they get really aggro because you have embarassed them.



[edit on 30-1-2009 by Mynaeris]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris
 


What facts? What research? Who shall we hire - and where do we get the money - to do this research for us? All of the research is being done by the PTB and the results say what they want them to say.

NO valid, independent, unbiased research has been done in YEARS, and what there was way back then has been swept under the carpet and quietly taken out of print.

If the tobacco companies fund research, it's called biased and thrown out. (Although the research conducted on new drugs by the FDA which is funded by the drug companies doesn't suffer the same fate. Odd, no?) But no one points out the obvious fact that the research funded by the government is biased AGAINST smokers, because that's the political climate right now and besides, it neatly furthers their agenda.

As someone else said, if you want to study the effects of SHS and ONLY SHS on people, you need a control group of people who are not being affected by other airborne pollutants and contaminants Now, where, exactly, would one find such people? Hmm? Even here in rural Oklahoma there's wood smoke, coal smoke, smoke from oil refineries, automobile exhaust, etc. which I and everyone else must breathe daily. How can a study determine the effects of JUST cigarette smoke when everyone who could possibly be in the study is exposed to other airborne pollutants daily?

Funny how, 20 years ago when people were allowed to smoke at their desks, their coworkers weren't having all these terrible symptoms from being exposed to the "secondhand smoke." I guess it didn't bother them because they didn't KNOW it was bad for them.


The articles you and others are quoting are stating that people can SMELL their neighbor's cigarette smoke. Probably so; I can believe that. However, the unstated assumption is that if you can SMELL it, there's enough of it to be harmful, and that's simply not true.

It is unacceptable in my opinion that poor construction and building design has led to people being involuntarily subjected to objectionable odors from their neighbors. I wouldn't like it either, and I can remember how strong cooking odors - and others - passed from a neighbor's apartment to mine when I lived in cheap apartments. However, the ODOR of cigarette smoke is no more hazardous to your health than the odor of cooking fish or sauerkraut, and all of your protestations to the contrary are laughable.

I'm sure you can google as well as I can. What I've read so far indicates that smoke odor is detectable at .2 (note the decimal before the 2) ppm. Respiratory problems in extremely sensitive people may occur at 2 - 5 ppm according to the most critical studies (others say 5 - 8 ppm), which is at least TEN TIMES the concentration necessary for the non-smoker to SMELL it.

Here's a quote for you:

On a practical level, separately ventilated areas for smokers and nonsmokers or a complete smoking ban are required to protect nonsmokers effectively from the sensory impacts and the annoyance potential of ETS.
Source

Now, does that say "required to protect nonsmokers effectively from HEALTH HAZARDS? Nope. "sensory impact and annoyance" is what it says. In other words, objectionable odor. Not health risks.

I GET that you object to the odor, and I will happily support your desire to remain unexposed to the objectionable odors produced by your apartment neighbors regardless of the source. Nonetheless, the solution is not for people to stop smoking in their homes, or stop cooking sauerkraut. The solution is eliminating the passage of air from one apartment to the others.

However, the whole "health concerns" thing is nonsense. Respiratory problems are much more likely to be caused by other gases and pollutants; have they been tested for in your apartment and these others? Just because you can SMELL the cigarette smoke doesn't mean it's the cause of your problems. Many other (and far more harmful) gases and pollutants have no odor. In fact, common household DUST is far more likely to be causing your respiratory problems than cigarette smoke. Dust actually has allergens in it; cigarette smoke doesn't.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Ever been into those smoking rooms at the airport? The ones that stink so much that even smokers won't go into them?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
There is a HUGE difference between a mugger and a smoker. A mugger deserves their rights to be taken away since they cannot excersise appropriate use of their rights to be free by mugging people. That protects the ones who do know how to behave in a civil manner and deserve rights and those rights to be protected.

Sorry, but your example there is a pretty pizz poor one.



Cheers!!!!


Great we finally come to a point of agreement. I have not asked for my rights to good health to be mugged and taken away by smokers. They are mugging my rights to have good health. They are taking it away when I did not ask to have it taken away. Some are currently failing to excersise appropriate use of their rights to smoke, by destroying my smoke free enviorment, and contributing to my ill health.

Great. Glad we could put it into those contexts.

Seriously I do know that there are two sides to this story. I have researched the smoking addiction, I have heard the heart breaking story of people trying to quit, apparently the smoking addiction is harder to break than heroin. That says a lot. So i do sympathise. I am not trying to take away your rights, but I will fight for mine. Unfortunatly your habits in apartment buildings and some multiple dwelling units, contribute to the ill health of others. Many fail to recognise this reality, or take any responsibility for it, and that is what is at issue here, it's not about trying to take away people's rights, but that does seem to be the unfortunate fallout from years of to the situation.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurnsNon smokers have put up the research? Oh you mean that incredibly biased and un-acknowledged research done by advocates of anti-smoking campaigns like "Truth" and lobbyists for the drug companies to sell their quit smoking gum and pills and programs? Heh...ya I kinda see the senseless point to all that.


No the non smokers have put up their research with 50,000 deaths per year in America alone. That's some hard evidence. The same with those who have had to file law suits, file petitions and do everything else under the sun to stop themselves chocking, coughing, sneezing, wheezing, gaging on this filth that they did not ask for. The research of those who have other ill health. That's the hard research.


Oh us smokers have only pointed to the fact that we have given up enough space for the non smokers and refuse to give up our personal space for the non smokers. We have also pointed out, that if the non smokers would stay away from us smokers, they wouldnt have a problem. But for some reason...they still do.


I personally stay away from smokers. See them outside, I move away. When they use to go to clubs, I stopped going, Resturants the same, any place that use to allow smoking, I stopped going, but my home is not a place I can stop going to. Our homes are not places non smokers can stop going to, and we can not be expected to allow other people, and their addictions to destroy our health in our homes, we have those minimual rights.



Unfortunately...unless the country turns into something other than a free nation and takes away everyone's right to choose what to do with their bodies, that includes you non smokers too,...the smokers will continue to light up and enjoy their smoke and the non smokers will continue to gripe and cry like babies over seeing someone excersise their right to choose.


The right to choice and freedoms, does not give you the ability to affect the health of another person, that is why meth labs are banned. Your habits cause similar problems for many people, but you just refuse to acknowledge it.



I think thats what the problem is. Us smokers have the will power to stand up to the man and say nope, we want to smoke and will not pay attention to your BS, and the non smokers simply dont have the will power to do the same, so they turn their grief onto those who do have the cahones to stand up for their rights.


Standing up right now buddy, and telling you that you and others with this dangerous addiction do not have the right to destroy my health, or the health of others. Non smokers have the cahones, that's how these laws are getting passed, and won. These have been battles we have fought, because we care about our health, and many of us refuse to let that be taken away because of other people that just don't care, or refuse to see the consequences of their actions on others.

Now for the smokers who do try to do everything they can, please note I am aware of you, and I am not trying to be harsh on you, but there are some people in this thread, that seem to not understand that their actions affect others in a detrimental fashion.




Try it some time...not smoking, but standing up for your rights. Because you can bet your 'clean air zone' that if smoking prohibition is to become a reality, so will social drinking, sporting, choosing fast foods and good things like peanut butter and jelly, soda pop, cotton candy, coffee,..oh geez the list can go on and on.

Cheers!!!!

[edit on 30-1-2009 by RFBurns]


If those things started to affect the health of others like smoking does then I could understand it, but until those items do, then this is still about smoking and the dangers it causes for others.

Also I don't like seeing rights taken away, if there was a way to let smokers continue there addiction without destroying my health, as stated before, I would let them.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Harassment101

Oh, boy! Another smoking thread! Can I play, too?


Harrassment, we need to sit down and look at your claims with a bit of reality here. You are claiming that second-hand smoke is dangerous to your health, and that it is seeping through wall outlets and cracks in sufficient quantity to adversely affect your health.

Now, in the apartment next to you are humans who are smoking regularly... I'll even give you the possibility that they smoke as much as I do (proudly does his impersonation of a chimney). They are releasing smoke from the ends of their burning cigarettes, as well as breathing out the same smoke (although filtered) from their lungs. That in itself means they are inhaling the smoke directly and therefore are getting a much larger dose than is being exhaled. Unless, of course, you are arguing that somehow the smoke intensifies by them absorbing the nicotine.


Now, with the source of the offending smoke in an adjacent room, that would mean that your apartment, if there were no wall whatsoever, would have less of a concentration of smoke than their apartment. Considering the fact that you have a wall, even a porous one, between you, the amount of cigarette smoke that can physically enter your apartment is minuscule. That smoke will be mixed with the air already in your apartment, which I will assume has not been polluted by cigarette smoke from your apartment. That further diminishes the concentration of potential cigarette smoke that could possibly be coming into your apartment.

That means we have the following alternatives:
  • You are extremely sensitive to cigarette smoke, and therefore could no doubt make a small fortune by allowing yourself to be used for medical tests for hyper-allergenic reactions. I would check into this, because if you are that sensitive to that small an amount of cigarette smoke, you will drop dead if you ever get within twenty feet of a running car.

  • The real culprit is not cigarette smoke from the next apartment, but rather any of a number of different airborne toxins that may be permeating the atmosphere since you chose to live in a city environment. (Oops, sorry, forgot only smokers actually choose to do things... my bad.)

  • Your apartment building has huge fans installed inside the walls that are pushing smoke into your apartment.

  • You have developed a nicotine magnet that is drawing the smoke into your apartment, leaving the one next door with the smokers in it nice and clean.

  • There are dead bodies next door to you mummified in all the cigarette smoke, which must be so thick as to be considered a solid rather than a group of airborne particles

  • You like to complain, and this is the best you can do for right now since your life is so great in every other way.

  • You're making this whole story up to get attention.


Yeah, I call BS on this one too.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Harassment101
 


You know, I really really try to be courteous and polite and discuss the post - and the issue at hand - rather than the person posting. But it's getting tough here

You're posting "real life examples" and expecting me to take them at face value. Okay, here's one for you. My friend Sharon has an adult daughter. Said daughter has severe asthma. Sharon has fibromyalgia and other health issues which prevent her from working full time, so about a year ago she had to move in with her daughter. In warm weather Sharon smokes outside, but in cold or otherwise bad weather she smokes in her bedroom with the door closed. And the daughter, severe asthma and all, is serenely unaffected by Mom's SHS in spite of the fact that there's nothing between them but a closed bedroom door and Sharon smokes like a chimney.

And as "evidence" I present to you the hundreds of thousands of us baby boomers who grew up in homes with smoking parents and have NO respiratory problems. No asthma, no COPD, no lung cancer. WE were fine watching TV in the smoke-filled living rooms of our childhood, apparently because no one had yet told us how harmful it was. Or are today's kids just so much weaker and sickly than we were?
There's some real life FACTS for you, not biased research that WANTS to get the result that second hand smoke is harmful.

My Dad has prostate cancer and every one of his seven siblings has died of cancer. But guess what, neither of their parents smoked and only one of his brothers did. My husband's family, on the other hand .. they all smoked and none of them have cancer or died of it. Oh, and my Dad's family didn't grow up in a big polluted city either, they were raised on a farm in the boothill of Missouri. Go figure.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris
 


Yes, I have. What's your point? The concentrated smoke from dozens of people frenetically puffing away in a tiny enclosed area is in no way comparable to one or two adults smoking in an average sized dwelling, or one or a few people smoking outdoors where the smoke quickly dissipates and remains present in much lower concentrations than other ever-present pollutants.


[edit on 30-1-2009 by Heike]



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join