+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Den of the Philociraptor (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=43)
+--- Thread: The smoking debate (/showthread.php?tid=821)
Pages:
1
2
The smoking debate - Weltall - 1st July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
The other vacation (to Virginia)
Whereabouts?
The smoking debate - OB1 - 1st July 2003
Hey you guys can meet up with each other! Then maybe I can go over to Virginia at the same time and we can have a mini TC get-together! And then we can fight, which is bound to happen since we disagree on so many things.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 1st July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Hey you guys can meet up with each other! Then maybe I can go over to Virginia at the same time and we can have a mini TC get-together! And then we can fight, which is bound to happen since we disagree on so many things.
Awesome idea!
And I don't know about you, but I own a sabre and a swordbreaker, and ABF is too pacifist to own weapons, so a physical fight might be a cinch for me :D
The smoking debate - OB1 - 1st July 2003
Pfft, your little swords would mean nothing against my Taiji Kung Fu and this big spear that I have.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 1st July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Pfft, your little swords would mean nothing against my Taiji Kung Fu and this big spear that I have.
Really now. Big spears are unwieldy, and all the kung-fu in the world won't stop a blade penetrating your stomach. Or two, as the case may be. Booyah. :samcut:
The smoking debate - OB1 - 1st July 2003
You've obviously never seen an experienced martial artist fight with a spear, because you could kick someone's ass in a matter of seconds. You've got speed, flexibility, and reach.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 1st July 2003
Same place I went last summer and the one before that -- Chincoteague (sp).
For beach vacation I'd still MUCH rather be in Cape Cod (Mass.), but some other relatives disagree, so there we are. :(
I have some relatives that live somewhere else in Virginia, but I've never been to where they live so I don't know where that is.
And no, I don't have any swords. :)
And doesn't OB1 live in Colorado? I doubt its realistic... :)
I'll be in Virginia from the coming Saturday until the weekend after that -- a week.
Oh, have I mentioned that a week without the internet really stinks?
The smoking debate - EdenMaster - 1st July 2003
Why the hell do you have swords?
The smoking debate - OB1 - 1st July 2003
I lied. I don't actually have a spear. But I do have this machine gun here that could take on Weltall and his girly swords.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 2nd July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by OB1
You've obviously never seen an experienced martial artist fight with a spear, because you could kick someone's ass in a matter of seconds. You've got speed, flexibility, and reach.
This is Virginia, pal. Guns are easier to find here than candy.
The smoking debate - OB1 - 2nd July 2003
Not this kind of gun. It comes with a force field and... and a rocket pack. It makes me invincible!
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 2nd July 2003
The weirdest thing I can think of in Virginia is tobacco... they actually have stuff like cigarettes and chewing tobacco in the checkout isle next to the candy in supermarkets... in Maine all of that stuff has had to be in seperate locked cases for many years now...
The smoking debate - Dark Jaguar - 2nd July 2003
Really? That is weird! Oklahoma seems to have that same law, with all the tobacco stuff locked away, needing to be asked for (but considering the number of tobacco addicts in this state, it's a VERY large locked cabinet I've noticed, DOMINATING the area behind the register, I love using the word "dominate" to describe volume displacement ratio of stuff :D). I'm surprised putting all that stuff next to delicious candy is actually allowed anywhere in America.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 2nd July 2003
They're also very cheap because Virginia has very low taxes on the stuff.
And lets just say that they don't have anything like our laws that say that you can't smoke in restaurants (or, soon, bars and lounges)... which, by the way, is a great law.
Complaints in Boston and New York about people going to surrounding communities? How about just making it a state law like we have? :)
The smoking debate - OB1 - 2nd July 2003
:topic: :kiss:
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 2nd July 2003
Oh no! Not an off-topic thread! We never do that here!
The smoking debate - OB1 - 2nd July 2003
:stick:
The smoking debate - lazyfatbum - 2nd July 2003
Stupid humans. Bringing swords to a penis fight...
*zip* EN GARDE!
*theme to Hunt for Red October*
MY NAME IS LAZYFATBUM, YOU KILLED MY FATHER, PREPARE TO DIE! ALTHOUGH YOU DIDN'T KILL MY FATHER I STILL HOLD ANGER TOWARDS YOU IN THE INSTANCE THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE KILLED HIM IF HE DIES FROM UNNATURAL CAUSES.... HO-HO! *parry*
The smoking debate - Undertow - 2nd July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Complaints in Boston and New York about people going to surrounding communities? How about just making it a state law like we have? :)
That's not too far off, there's already some speculation right now whether or not people will be allowed to smoke in bars, etc. People are putting up a stink, though.
The smoking debate - Dark Jaguar - 2nd July 2003
The lazy one, hath returned! My leige, what shall I do with the infedels? Them being, well, the sea monkeys...
The smoking debate - Weltall - 2nd July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
The weirdest thing I can think of in Virginia is tobacco... they actually have stuff like cigarettes and chewing tobacco in the checkout isle next to the candy in supermarkets... in Maine all of that stuff has had to be in seperate locked cases for many years now...
No they don't. They're locked away here too. Everywhere.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 2nd July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
They're also very cheap because Virginia has very low taxes on the stuff.
And lets just say that they don't have anything like our laws that say that you can't smoke in restaurants (or, soon, bars and lounges)... which, by the way, is a great law.
Complaints in Boston and New York about people going to surrounding communities? How about just making it a state law like we have? :)
Because most people don't LIKE totalitarianism. What a retarded law.
Our cigarettes are dirt cheap though, tax is only like four cents a pack here as opposed to, say, New York, where the tax is almost two dollars a pack. Of course, because of that, there is a rather large smuggling problem.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 2nd July 2003
Ooh, how totalitarian to say that I shouldn't have to get lung cancer because I want to eat in a restaurant!
The smoking debate - OB1 - 2nd July 2003
I have no problem with allowing smoking in bars, but in restaurants and other public places? No thanks.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 2nd July 2003
It makes for a much, much more pleasant atmosphere... especally for people who hate the smell of cigarette smoke like me...
The smoking debate - big guy - 2nd July 2003
and out of the cracks come the smokers (am i the only smoker here?). i have to say that to outlaw smoking in bars is terrible. when one has had a few drinks, there's nothing they'd rather do than smoke a cigarette, and asking them to go outside is just ridiculous. restaurants are a little bit more understandable, but still...after a meal, a cigarette is great. i think it should be an independant, managerial decision...any bars or restaurants that want to be smoke free, can be...but it shouldn't be state law...that's the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
The smoking debate - big guy - 2nd July 2003
also, i bought the gameboy player today...but haven't set it up yet, since i also bought the war3 expansion. it has thus far been rather cool.
The smoking debate - EdenMaster - 2nd July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by big guy
and out of the cracks come the smokers (am i the only smoker here?). i have to say that to outlaw smoking in bars is terrible. when one has had a few drinks, there's nothing they'd rather do than smoke a cigarette, and asking them to go outside is just ridiculous. restaurants are a little bit more understandable, but still...after a meal, a cigarette is great. i think it should be an independant, managerial decision...any bars or restaurants that want to be smoke free, can be...but it shouldn't be state law...that's the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
You want me to come sit in the seat behind you in that restaurant and fart throughout your meal? Thats how non-smokers feel when you're puffing away. Is simple consideration that difficult? Smoking is a disgusting and deadly habit and, believe it or not, some people would rather breathe OXYGEN. Why should people be subjected to coughing fits and watering eyes just because you choose to vaporize your lungs?
Take it outside, where it belongs.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 2nd July 2003
Oh yeah, I'd rather not turn my lungs black when I have a choice, thank you very much...
The smoking debate - Weltall - 2nd July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by EdenMaster
You want me to come sit in the seat behind you in that restaurant and fart throughout your meal? Thats how non-smokers feel when you're puffing away. Is simple consideration that difficult? Smoking is a disgusting and deadly habit and, believe it or not, some people would rather breathe OXYGEN. Why should people be subjected to coughing fits and watering eyes just because you choose to vaporize your lungs?
Take it outside, where it belongs.
That's why there are segregated areas for smokers.
I seriously think you're all blowing it all out of proportion. Especially ABF, who seems to think an hour's worth of scant exposure to cigarette smoke in a restaurant can give you coalminer's lung. Hell, you go to a restaurant, you're eating fat foods, you're doing just as much damage to yourself.
I don't like smoke myself, as I've stated before, but it's really not something that irritates me bad enough to want a law telling other people not to do it. Especially in private business establishments. It should be the manager's decision ONLY as to whether to allow smoking. Having government edict is totally unneccessary.
The smoking debate - Dark Lord Neo - 3rd July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by big guy
after a meal, a cigarette is great.
They can leave then since they are done
The smoking debate - big guy - 3rd July 2003
and i frequently have found myself leaving restaurants to go smoke, but like weltall said, they do have segregated areas (although they're often only separated by a waist high glass divider), and so it's not a huge deal, IMO. i wasn't always a smoker, and i never minded sitting in restaurants with smoking areas before...just so long as i wasn't right next to said area.
and as i and weltall said, it's not the governments place to say what private businesses can and cannot allow to happen within their building (unless people are being murdered/tortured or some other horrible and bizarre thing that could possibly happen inside of a building).
oh, and i tried out my gameboy player today on golden sun 2 and found myself underwhelmed. but i'm hoping that i'll get a different reaction when i pop in Tactics Ogre, later.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 3rd July 2003
Exactly, back they banned them I remember them... glass dividers at best. Now... lets note: SMOKE IS AIRBORNE!
IT DOES NOT STOP AT THAT GLASS DIVIDER!
Wow, that's so hard to understand!
Oh, and the law is as much for the restaurant/bar employees as it is for the customers... it leads to a huge improvement for them.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 3rd July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Exactly, back they banned them I remember them... glass dividers at best. Now... lets note: SMOKE IS AIRBORNE!
IT DOES NOT STOP AT THAT GLASS DIVIDER!
Wow, that's so hard to understand!
Oh, and the law is as much for the restaurant/bar employees as it is for the customers... it leads to a huge improvement for them.
Perhaps so. But no one forces anyone to work at a restaurant, and certainly no one forces anyone to patronize one either. It's not like a hospital or something where someone has no choice but to go.
Therefore, it's not the government's place to tell businesses that they cannot allow smoking. Human beings are capable of making their own decisions.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 3rd July 2003
Lots of people just don't have that much choice. And they just suffer through the smoke and slowly build it up in their lungs without smoking... bad for them and their health. If smoking didn't cause damage to anyone else I wouldn't care, but it DOES! It causes a LOT of damage! Its a major public health hazard! That just shouldn't be allowed in most enclosed places or workplaces!
The smoking debate - Weltall - 3rd July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Lots of people just don't have that much choice. And they just suffer through the smoke and slowly build it up in their lungs without smoking... bad for them and their health. If smoking didn't cause damage to anyone else I wouldn't care, but it DOES! It causes a LOT of damage! Its a major public health hazard! That just shouldn't be allowed in most enclosed places or workplaces!
Has there ever been even a single case of cancer directly caused by casual exposure to second-hand smoke? I don't recall ever hearing of one. It's hardly a major public health hazard. And again, even if it were, everyone has a choice whether or not they expose themselves to it.
That said, you're really full of shit. If it takes smoking two packs a day for twenty years to get lung cancer, there's no way in hell air-dissipated second-hand smoke is going to do it to you. If you think rationally and utilize a bit of common sense, you would know that.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 3rd July 2003
Not a single case of cancer from secondhand smoke? Are you sane at all? No? Didn't think so...
I don't have numbers offhand of course but the case for 'secondhand smoke isn't dangerous' is, I'm pretty sure, just about as strong as the case that 'cigarettes don't kill you'.
Ie its a lie made up by cigarette manufacturers to sell more product.
No, it absolutely insane to say that...
Oh, and you're in for quite a surprise if you think that it actually takes 20 years of 2 packs a day to get cancer from smoking. I know i've seen studies that show that the very first time you smoke one there's immediate harm to your health... and plenty of people get cancer from smoking far less for not nearly that long. No, both of your assertions are absolutely outrageous.
The smoking debate - Sacred Jellybean - 3rd July 2003
I wouldn't say they're "outrageous"... and I'd like some proof of your claims from objective sources, if you don't mind.
Eh, since I'm posting, I might as well give my opinion on the matter. I'm in the same boat as Weltaii; the government has no place to tell private businesses to prohibit smoking on their property, especially when it's just catering to the minority of anti-smoking zealots. Deal with it, you bunch of whiny little maggots. ;)
big guy: No, you're not alone; I'm a light smoker.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 3rd July 2003
His claims are totally unsupported by science. Of course, that's nothing new for him. He just wants yet more of his crazed minority will imposed upon everyone... something he always accuses me of yet is constantly guilty of it himself.
I mean, the idea that your first drag on a cigarette causes immediate and irrevocable harm to your body is so asanine that only ABF would claim it.
Now I added the word irrevocable, even though he didn't say it. Because, if it isn't permanent, then it isn't even close to being relevant.
I mean, if you can show me some case of lung cancer that was shown to be a direct result of secondhand smoke inhalation, from a credible source, then perhaps things may be different. Hell, since you claim secondhand smoke to be, in your own words, a "major public health hazard", you would think that there would be loads of publicized cases of this, and yet you never hear of any.
Now I'm not claiming secondhand smoke is safe, but the only way it's going to do any harm to you is if you're exposed to it constantly for many, many years. Claiming that it's an immediate threat to national health is nothing less than pure absurdity or stupid hyperbole.
The smoking debate - lazyfatbum - 4th July 2003
It's true, there isn't a single case that has been proven to show a direct link to second hand smoke and cancer. Which is now thought to be mostly genetic in nature.
Second hand smoke does cause sore throat and dry eyes and can make people sick to the point of throwing up. But forming actual cancer takes DECADES of exposure to second and first hand smoke.
Non-smokers always act like their so much better than smokers, it's kinda funny. But the truth is that tobacco is medicinal. Being a light smoker (less than a pack a week) is as safe as tap water. Anything can be used to an unhealthy degree to the point of causing illness. Including tap water.
The smoking debate - OB1 - 4th July 2003
Hooboy. Now lazy is calling smoking medicinal.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 4th July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by OB1
It does help people lose weight...
The smoking debate - OB1 - 4th July 2003
:stupid:
The smoking debate - Great Rumbler - 4th July 2003
You probably won't have any harm done to you if you're only exposed to smoke for an hour or so the few times a week that you eat a restaurant, but I personally can't stand cigarette smoke; it makes me feel sick and it gives me a headache, so I'd prefer not to be around people that do smoke.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 4th July 2003
http://www.ymn.org/newstats/secondhand.shtml
http://www.wellman.org.au/smoking.html
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/f52d604cfdcb49364c256973007c4028?OpenDocument
http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/smoking_factsheet99.html
http://dmoz.org/Health/Addictions/Substance_Abuse/Tobacco/Secondhand_Smoke/Health_Risks/
http://epw.senate.gov/~epw/105th/munzer.htm
http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/finalets.html
This is just grabbing a few of the first results when searching for this in Yahoo.
You people are idiots if you think that secondhand smoke doesn't hurt you.
http://www.no-smoking.org/july01/07-03-01-1.html
http://www.adf.org.au/drughit/facts/cignet.html
Note these parts.
Quote:Immediate effects
# smoking one cigarette immediately raises a person's blood pressure and heart rate and decreases the blood flow to body extremities like the fingers and toes;
# brain and the nervous system activity is stimulated for a short time and then reduced;
# a smoker may also experience dizziness, nausea, watery eyes and acid in the stomach; and
# appetite, taste and smell are weakened.top
Quote:# passive smoking, where a person is subject to breathing in the cigarette smoke of others, can cause lung damage, including cancer and heart disease;
Also, you are addicted after smoking for just a few weeks.
http://www.umassmed.edu/pap/news/2002/08_29_02.cfm
Quote:WORCESTER, Mass.-A startling new study published today in the international journal Tobacco Control shows that kids typically get hooked on nicotine with alarming speed and at levels of tobacco use that are so low that few researchers had even considered addiction possible.
Because adults who are hooked on nicotine generally smoke at least ten cigarettes every day, scientists have always assumed that a person could not become hooked until he or she smoked at least that much. It usually takes a few years for young smokers to progress to smoking ten cigarettes per day so it was also assumed that nicotine dependence was very slow to develop. The study, however, indicated that just the opposite is true: kids get hooked more quickly while smoking much less.
Quote:The study showed that for the teenage girls who got hooked, it took only an average of three weeks from when they started to smoke occasionally. Among the boys who got hooked, half were hooked within six months of the start of occasional smoking. "Some of these kids were hooked within a few days of starting to smoke," reported Dr. DiFranza. "We are unable to explain why girls get hooked faster but we have begun a new study sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to explore the differences between the sexes."
I'd have more, but spending more than 5 or 10 minuites on this would be pointless.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 4th July 2003
I didn't ask for anti-tobacco propaganda, I merely asked for some cases of lung-cancer that was directly caused by second-hand smoke.
Sure, second-hand smoke CAN cause it. No shit. But so far as I can tell, second-hand smoke is almost never a direct cause of cancer, ESPECIALLY from causal exposure for an hour in a fucking restaurant.
And none of those immediate effects appear anywhere near life-threatening or permanent.
I'm sorry, you failed to convince me that this is a major public health hazard just because constant exposure to second hand smoke for years has a chance of causing cancer. I don't see any indication that this is such an inevitable doomsday event that it requires governmental intervention.
But you get an A for effort :love:
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 4th July 2003
Yeah, I thought that direct scientific proof of these things would be ignored by you, which is why I didn't spend more time on this.
DIRECT SCIENTIFIC PROOF, PROVEN IN MANY STUDIES.
I mean... what kind of proof do you WANT? That's as good as it gets!
You won't get lung cancer from an hour at a restaurant. However, if you work at one, it CAN and WILL cause lung cancer.
The smoking debate - EdenMaster - 5th July 2003
Okay ABF, I'm against smoking for the most part, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. People can smoke their whole abbreviated life without developing lung cancer, while others it can form more quickly. We still don't know a lot about cancer. I may not be pleased having to inhale seocnd-hand smoke but I'm not concerned about getting lung cancer from it.
I know your proof is there, but consider. If you had to live with a smoker and were always around them, then yeah, you <i><b>might</i></b> develop some lung disorder. However exposure to tobacco for short periods of time with long gaps between them may be uncomfortable and annoying, but not life-threatening.
If you sit by a smoker in a restaurant, you'll cough, but you won't die.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 5th July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Yeah, I thought that direct scientific proof of these things would be ignored by you, which is why I didn't spend more time on this.
DIRECT SCIENTIFIC PROOF, PROVEN IN MANY STUDIES.
I mean... what kind of proof do you WANT? That's as good as it gets!
You won't get lung cancer from an hour at a restaurant. However, if you work at one, it CAN and WILL cause lung cancer.
I still have never seen a case of lung cancer that was proven to be caused directly by exposure to secondhand smoke. That is what I asked for and you did not provide it, though you did provide studies showing that it is somewhat possible in theory. But I certainly do not see even a half-decent case for banning public smoking since the amount of secondhand smoke exposure required to theoretically cause lung cancer is much, much longer than most restaurant employees (one of the highest turnover rates) would even work at a restaurant. Even if there were the odd case of SSS-caused cancer, it would definitely be classified as anomalous and certainly not worthy of being called a major public health hazard, nor is it worthy of a public ban.
If you were honest, you'd just simply admit that the reason you want smoking banned is because it annoys you personally. You're not concerned one iota about the possible long-term health risks because you know as well as I do that they are always overstated in anti-tobacco propaganda but never actually seem to happen in real life. You just want to infringe on other people's habits because you don't approve of them.
If you were honest.
The smoking debate - Dark Jaguar - 11th July 2003
ABF's cancer claims aside, I think some of us are forgetting a major fact about smoking. It TURNS YOUR LUNGS BLACK. That IS a prooven fact, and this slowly kills parts of it and makes it harder to get oxygen, eventually it can kill people due to, not cancer, but well, the word for the lung disease caused by the blackening, you know... I forget the name... It doesn't NEED to be cancerous to be deadly.
To be honest, smoking to me is like drunk driving. If they want their precious tobacco so much, CHEW IT or something! At least that way they aren't affecting me. Big deal if other things are deadly too, why should I care? I refuse to accomodate idiocy. I'm not going to go out of my way to allow others to do something stupid to themselves. They can do as they will if I have to do NOTHING for them, and that's that.
Oh and, for those of you pointing out things like "after a meal, a ciggarette is great", what's your point? I have NO desire for any of that after I eat, so I have no sympathy for your whole "but I wanna" idiocy. Why should I care what some drug addict's prefferences in when to use their drug of choice are? And don't kid yourselves into thinking that non-smokers secretly want to. It's called addiction. If one isn't addicted, there really isn't a single part of them that desires a "smoke" at all. The part of you that desires it is the chemicals affecting your brain, and that's it. Don't kid yourselves into thinking it's anything more.