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: 18
34
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Now exactly where is our right to clean air enumerated? And when you find that, I would like to see where sulfur dioxide, hydrochloride, soot and other industrial wastes and automobile emissions are excluded form this right. Oh, yeah, would be nice to see who is responsible for providing this clean air, and exactly why they are forced to provide for you.


as i said i don't care about who smokes what as long as i don't have to breathe in their smoke. in fact i would support legalizing all current illegal drugs no matter how bad they are because this would add a lot of money from taxes and would stop a lot of the underground economy. however the users of such substances would be responsible for any damage they did to others or their own bodies (like higher premiums and co-pays or no health insurance coverage at all).

as for regulating industry emissions, i think that's a different topic. i would say that the industry is more heavily regulated than smoking is, look at cars having those cat converters for example.




posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris

by page 25 smokers will reach acceptance.

Well, at least we do have a bit of honesty here... that being that your sole aim is to badger people until they give into your wishes.

That's a very effective technique, btw. You should be proud. It can trace it's use all the back to the Spanish Inquisition.


TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by DarkSecret
 


Now that's crazy. My parents smoked when my brother and I were kids, neither of us have asthma. In fact, there are a lot of children who were around smoke as kids and don't have asthma.

That's a ridiculous reason to charge someone extra money or to treat them like they abuse their child.


so because your parents poisoned you, it's ok to do so to your kids. if your parents would have fed you rat poison and you'd survived it, would you still think it was OK because you have no astma? child abuse is anything that harms the kid or is proven to harm other humans. a slap is not child abuse but beating your child until they can't stand, is.

as for the "extra money" for health care - i think both the parent and the future adult child should have to pay extra for health care because they grew up in a household of smokers which could potentially cause future issues. maybe parents will think twice about smoking around their kids knowing that. it is after all a "pre-existing condition"...



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret

Ummmm, I missed the link or reference to where clean air is a right. Maybe I am going blind?

Just because you are fine with an idea does not mean others are. We do not live in a dictatorship in the US (yet
) and even if we did, I don't think you're first in line to be appointed dictator.

Sorry to burst your bubble on that dream...


as for regulating industry emissions, i think that's a different topic. i would say that the industry is more heavily regulated than smoking is, look at cars having those cat converters for example.

If your complaint is the air quality due to cigarette smoking, it is certainly not an unrelated topic. So is your complaint/contention that smokers are damaging air quality, or not? If not, what exactly is your complaint/contention?

As for catalytic converters, oh, yeah, thank God Himself we have those. All that nice helpful environmentally (un)friendly (corrosive, poison) sulfur dioxide they produce, especially when they get old, that becomes sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. How would we ever survive without acid rain?


TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret
 


My parents didn't poison me. I'm fine. The doctor showed me that my lungs are pink and normal. This has nothing to do with poison. You shouldn't have to pay extra health care just because you grew up in a house of smokers.

How does this, in any way, equate to beating your child until they can't stand it?



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Ahh, another bright sunshine day filled with non-smoker anxiety syndrome. I hate to miss out on contributing to their cause!

Tell me non smokers...if your wishes were to come true..which they wont, and then find out the cig smoke had absolutely nothing to do with your weak immune system, what would you go after next to blame for your problems?

(lights up a smoke).



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 1-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Hey there, can we turn this around and could you answer this for us instead?

I was all for not posting anymore since I am wayyy bored. I never knew smokers could be annoying online too.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Ummmm, I missed the link or reference to where clean air is a right. Maybe I am going blind?


i'm not a lawyer but i'd say clean air as a right is derived from the declaration of independence, bill of rights and constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."




If your complaint is the air quality due to cigarette smoking, it is certainly not an unrelated topic. So is your complaint/contention that smokers are damaging air quality, or not? If not, what exactly is your complaint/contention?


as long as i can't smell that damaged air quality while i'm having dinner in my own dwelling, and it does not put my life in danger i don't immediately care about industrial emissions. our way of life makes these emissions unavoidable. if we want to continue having electricity, plastics, medication then we have to live with some of that pollution.

on the other hand forcing me to smell someone's tobacco smoke (or loud music/fighting, etc) is not smth i consider is a "right" of that trouble maker. especially since it's a proven fact that even second hand smoking causes nasty diseases.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret
 


You know what? There are bad smells everywhere. By your logic, funky toilet smells should be illegal. Simply smelling that someone had a cigarette is not going to destroy you.

This is almost as silly as vegetarians saying that they get sick from eating meat when the only reason that happens is because they've deprived themselves of it for so long that their bodies don't know what to do.

The air you breathe is much more toxic than a cigarette.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Funny, over here in the UK I read that the Govt. is secretly very worried about two smoking related concerns. One, that they are losing mega millions of tax on tobacco due to it being smuggled into the UK from some other EU Countries where the tax on cigarettes is much lower. The incidence of smuggling apparently increases in direct proportion to the annual UK budget tobacco tax increases.

Secondly, they are worried at the alarming rate that British Pubs are closing down for good, which most people in the Trade blame on the total no smoking ban in said Pubs.

Common sense would suggest that the Govt gradually lowers the tax on tobacco until it is in harmony with other EU countries, and thus eliminates smuggling. They could also introduce a compromise re smoking in Pubs, ie, allow for designated smoking and non-smoking areas.

There is a problem with this approach however, Govts in general don't apply common sense.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris

Hey there, can we turn this around and could you answer this for us instead?


Well howdy. Exactly what do you wish for me to answer? The question of what the non smokers would shoot for after learning first hand that 2nd hand smoke doesnt contribute to their health problems?

I cant answer that. I smoke. (lights up another)



Originally posted by Mynaeris
I was all for not posting anymore since I am wayyy bored. I never knew smokers could be annoying online too.


No one is forcing you, even us smokers, to be annoyed by our position on our right and choice to smoke. I think what is annoying to you is the fact that no matter if this thread or any other reaches a gazillion pages, we wont bend to your whims and will definately stand up for our rights.

We dont attempt to stomp out your rights, so please do us the honor of the same.

Thanks! Have a great day!



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TasteTheMagick
 


Do you look down on everybody who doesn't participate in things you do? I mean now you're picking on vegetarians. Can others decide what to eat or not to eat? More meat for you to have with your smokes.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Hey, TasteTheMagick, can I butt in on this one? I'm in a mood today.


reply to post by DarkSecret

so because your parents poisoned you, it's ok to do so to your kids.

I am assuming you have heard the concept of 'observation of results'?

That means, in case you have not, that when something new is tried (as in the anti-smoking drive we have suffered through for the past couple decades), one occasionally checks to make sure that the procedure is producing the desired results. In this case, a decrease in smoking was attempted in order to decrease the number of 'smoking-related' illnesses.

Now, from the propaganda we have been spoon-fed by our incorruptible, perfect government (
), those illnesses include cancer (primarily lung cancer), emphysema, asthma, heart disease, etc. Smoking has decreased. The stated illnesses have increased. Now, to my mind, that means that the results have not been conducive to the theory that smoking is the major cause of these illnesses. Perhaps you have a different take on why the results have been the opposite of what was expected and predicted. Please, I'd love to hear your explanation of this.

Let's see, people I know personally who have grown up in smoking households who have had no smoking-related illnesses: myself, both of my children, my father, my mother, my best friend,his 5 siblings, numerous cousins, uncles, aunts, friends, parents of friends, let's just be conservative and say the number is well into the hundreds.

People I have known who have grown up in households that smoked and have had smoking-related illnesses... I can think of two. People I know who have grown up in smoke-free households and yet have smoking related illnesses, around 20.

Allegation of smoking being a primary cause of 'smoking related' illnesses is hereby disproved.


as for the "extra money" for health care - i think both the parent and the future adult child should have to pay extra for health care because they grew up in a household of smokers which could potentially cause future issues. maybe parents will think twice about smoking around their kids knowing that. it is after all a "pre-existing condition"...


I don't know, sounds to me like you are the one with heath concerns... perhaps you should pay extra for your health care. After all, I'm not the one of us who is using the services of the health care industry, nor do I have any medical indications that I will be doing so (DOT physical every 2 years). You, on the other hand, seem awfully worried about keeling over from the effects of breathing...

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Missed you too!

Nope what smokers will do when the final results come in and masses of people have died from second hand smoking. Will you cry and say "OMG I am so sorry" or just keep driving up Denial Lane?



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris
 


No, I don't care what people do. If you want to eat only vegetables, be my guest: veg it up. If you don't want to smoke, fine, don't. It doesn't effect me either way if you don't want to smoke. No one's putting a gun to your head. But no one else should be whining about what I choose to do. You don't want to smoke, I do...now leave me alone.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TasteTheMagick
 


Does smoking make you more irritable? I know people sometimes say that smoking marijuana makes then irritable. Hmm I must send a check to the local anti-smoking organization so they can research the link between smoking and irritability.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by Mynaeris]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret

i'm not a lawyer but i'd say clean air as a right is derived from the declaration of independence, bill of rights and constitution.

Well, you didn't quote the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights, only the Declaration of Independence.

But let's go with that. You should be outraged! You have the right to live! How dare anyone have to die! We should just make disease illegal, and death illegal while we're at it.

Please, you surely realize how flimsy that argument is, lawyer or not.


as long as i can't smell that damaged air quality while i'm having dinner in my own dwelling, and it does not put my life in danger i don't immediately care about industrial emissions.

So is it the smell or the 'dangers' that trouble you/ you do realize these two things do not go hand-in-hand, right? Carbon monoxide is a powerful asphyxiant that has caused many deaths, but it is odorless.

Now, if you are concerned about the dangers, the amount of arsenic, toluene, naphthalene, sulfur dioxide, hydrochloride, etc. that you are breathing in comes primarily from industrial sources, not from cigarettes. the only reason these substances are in cigarettes is because they are used industrially to cure the tobacco in order to speed up an otherwise natural process and increase profits. Perhaps you can imagine a way we could combat this problem without removing the legality of someone to choose to smoke? I can, it's called 'industrial regulation'.


on the other hand forcing me to smell someone's tobacco smoke (or loud music/fighting, etc) is not smth i consider is a "right" of that trouble maker. especially since it's a proven fact that even second hand smoking causes nasty diseases.

you really should check facts before going off on these accusations... check my post to you above. The evidence that smokers are the major cause of these problems is looking pretty thin. Not saying cigarettes are health food, by any means, but there is this nasty matter of evidence...

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris

Hmm I must send a check to the local anti-smoking organization so they can research the link between smoking and irritability.

That relationship is already known. Smoking tends to relax people.

Come on, I was nice enough to write you a nice little essay on the known effects and properties of cigarettes. You didn't even read it? How rude...

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris
 


Smoking calms me down. It calms my smoking friends down. The only time I've ever seen them get irritable is when they go a long time without smoking. That doesn't effect me personally.

Nicotine has been proven to make people happy.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
what smokers will do when the final results come in and masses of people have died from second hand smoking. Will you cry and say "OMG I am so sorry" or just keep driving up Denial Lane?


Sorry for taking so long to reply. It took me a while to get to a place where I could respond to this seriously.

Ever watch an episode of CSI or something like it? Figuring out what killed someone is not an exact science; it's quite subjective.

1OO years ago, a 70 year old man dies in his sleep - his heart just stopped. The death certificate says "natural causes" or maybe even "old age."

Today, a 70 year old man dies in his sleep - his heart just stopped. The M.E. starts asking questions: Was he overweight? No. Did he have high cholesterol? No. Did he smoke? Well, for about 5 years in the military while he was over...

Ah, there we go! Cause of death. The death certificate says something like "Heart disease due to tobacco use." And another smoking-related death is added to the stats.

Or when someone dies of lung cancer, the first question is "Did he ever smoke?" Never mind that he worked in a coal mine for 10 years or was exposed to Agent Orange overseas - it was, of course, the tobacco use that caused it.


With few exceptions, like isolating the bacteria that caused someone to have pneumonia, there is no perfectly accurate way to determine what caused an illness that someone died of. They speculate, they make educated guesses, they try to figure it out, but when someone dies of a chronic illness there usually isn't anything that clearly points to what originally caused it. The popular villain may get the nod even if he only played a minor supporting role.

If they ever finally admit that refined sugar consumption plays a (big) role in diabetes, what will all the people who fed their kids candy and sweets do?

When the final negative health effects of waste chemicals in the environment are tallied up, what will all the people who used dishwashers and poured cleaning chemicals down their drains do?

The preservatives added to processed snack foods are at least as likely to give you cancer as exposure to second hand smoke, but they smell GOOD and taste GOOD so you aren't complaining about that.

A few years ago butter was evil stuff. They are now finally (and very quietly) beginning to admit that butter isn't actually all that bad after all, and in fact some of the nasty stuff they've been putting in margarine all these years is probably WORSE for your health.

I think it is far more likely that, sometime in the future, they will have to (very quietly) admit that second hand smoke isn't quite as dangerous as they thought it was. Then will you anti-smokers have any remorse for your persecution of smokers? Or will you continue to jump cheerfully on whatever bandwagon is going by without looking too hard at the evidence?



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join