+- 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 - A Black Falcon - 13th July 2003
Okay, maybe Virginia doesn't have the cigarettes out by the checkout.
But the states in that area do keep things such as smokeless tobacco in convenience stores in stands that are just out in the store... something that is quite definitely illegal up here.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 14th July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Okay, maybe Virginia doesn't have the cigarettes out by the checkout.
But the states in that area do keep things such as smokeless tobacco in convenience stores in stands that are just out in the store... something that is quite definitely illegal up here.
Wrong again. Snuff and chew are kept in the same locked areas that smokes are. That's a federal law, I believe.
Yet beer and wines aren't locked up. Ever. Now, in Virginia all liquors are sold directly from state ABC stores, so minors can't easily get to the hard stuff, but beer and wine can do just as much damage.
What I can't understand is that while alcohol is a serious threat and a much faster and deadlier killer than tobacco, it's tobacco that is always under the microscope. I don't know about you guys, but a substance that results in not only deaths resulting from drunk driving (which kills FAR more innocents than Secondhand smoking does), to say nothing of how it destroys the lives of individuals and their families seems, to me anyway, a far more serious health hazard than a substance which might kill you if you expose yourself to it for years on end. You have as much chance of getting skin cancer from standing out in the sun unprotected as you do getting lung cancer from second-hand smoke.
Therefore, I propose we ban the sun, since some people are forced to work in an environment where they cannot avoid sun exposure.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 14th July 2003
No, I was in several stores where it was in a stand...
The smoking debate - Dark Jaguar - 14th July 2003
Except we NEED the sun, and sunlight is actually good for us in moderation! There is no need at all for cigs, ever. *Solid Snake squeezing through laser sensors* Snake: Says you!
I do agree though. Drunk driving is a much more serious threat than second hand smoke exposure. Drinking really helps nothing at all (oh wow, alchohol can clear up arteries, but hey, so can frickin' EXCERCISE) and just pretty much kills. To be honest I have no problem with people hurting their own bodies, but when under the influence, they loose their senses and such. Fortunatly, drinking and driving is already illegal.
Condeming the smoker themselves isn't what laws like these do. Just the act they are doing is being condemned. They can live without their little buzz. They are still plenty welcome so long as they don't do that. They aren't permanently smoking after all! They can just get over themselves and enjoy the world the way the rest of us do! As I said, cancer may or may not be an issue, but smoke in one's lungs does damage that has nothing to do with cancer. It's why people die in fires usually because they are standing instead of risking the hot floor. It's why people who have been smoking for years have terrible coughing fits. It's why people who smoke die young and upon examination one finds blackened almost ashy looking lungs, as opposed to healthy pink lungs. Smoking is a slow killer indeed. It doesn't need to be cancerous at all because it kills in the most obvious way.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 14th July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by Dark Jaguar
Except we NEED the sun, and sunlight is actually good for us in moderation! There is no need at all for cigs, ever. *Solid Snake squeezing through laser sensors* Snake: Says you!
I do agree though. Drunk driving is a much more serious threat than second hand smoke exposure. Drinking really helps nothing at all (oh wow, alchohol can clear up arteries, but hey, so can frickin' EXCERCISE) and just pretty much kills. To be honest I have no problem with people hurting their own bodies, but when under the influence, they loose their senses and such. Fortunatly, drinking and driving is already illegal.
Condeming the smoker themselves isn't what laws like these do. Just the act they are doing is being condemned. They can live without their little buzz. They are still plenty welcome so long as they don't do that. They aren't permanently smoking after all! They can just get over themselves and enjoy the world the way the rest of us do! As I said, cancer may or may not be an issue, but smoke in one's lungs does damage that has nothing to do with cancer. It's why people die in fires usually because they are standing instead of risking the hot floor. It's why people who have been smoking for years have terrible coughing fits. It's why people who smoke die young and upon examination one finds blackened almost ashy looking lungs, as opposed to healthy pink lungs. Smoking is a slow killer indeed. It doesn't need to be cancerous at all because it kills in the most obvious way.
But I thought the whole point of this debate was second-hand smoke, not the effects of direct smoke inhalation.
The smoking debate - Dark Jaguar - 14th July 2003
Smoke is smoke, the only diff is there's less of it and it's already been in someone else's lungs. Same effects, but obviously it'll take longer for a non-smoker to have such deadly effects take hold as an actual smoker.
Oh, I saw a hilarious commercial just now. Never seen one like it either. Apparently some religious message is trying to be spread about tobacco by the natives around here. They are saying that in the old days native americans only used tobacco for religious reasons, and saying "casual smoking of tobacco IS disrespect" as the overarcing theme. Weird, but funny.
The smoking debate - alien space marine - 14th July 2003
I remeber a freind of mine went into a one of those indian swet lodges, the Shaman (spiritual indian priest) . said that if they stayed inside eventually the spirits would contact them.
But we cannot forget that smoking weed or getting your hyberventilated can cause hallucinations and indeed thats what happened to him. He came back talking about some deer and a owl and so fourth . The Shaman said that the owl represented death and the deer represented a parent or sibling in my freinds life. It so happens his mother died the day before, kind of strange and in alot of ways intriguing. Kind of makes you wish turning into a bear or wolf was possible.
But reality sucks .
The smoking debate - Dark Jaguar - 14th July 2003
Amazing! He predicted the past!
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 14th July 2003
Quote:Smoke is smoke, the only diff is there's less of it and it's already been in someone else's lungs. Same effects, but obviously it'll take longer for a non-smoker to have such deadly effects take hold as an actual smoker.
Yup, pretty much.
The smoking debate - alien space marine - 15th July 2003
whats with medical marriyuna? their is no study or proof that it helps , so why are we now giving money so inmates can smoke weed and do drugs on tax payers money.
The smoking debate - big guy - 15th July 2003
i still wanna know why the government thinks its their place to tell me that i can't do something legal, like smoke a cigarette, in a public facility where smoking is generally considered acceptable (a bar for instance). personal opinions about the good and bad of smoking aside, how is it the governments place to govern this. i mean, where does it end?
and on the topic of alcohol, anyone who's ever tried to booty dance will know that drunkeness is vital. it's the only way to do it without laughing at how ridiculous it is. but when under the influence, it is fun...then again, so are most things.
and for anyone who says "why can't you just enjoy life without substances?" i say, you enjoy your life without videogames, roller coaster rides, tv, books...the fact of the matter is, that in moderation alcohol doesn't do any real damage to your system, and it's a good way to take the edge off the monotany of every day life. it's a way to feel extraordinarily...like riding a roller coaster, or going tubing...you know, behind a boat...which, now that i think of it, is probably more dangerous...as long as you're not drinking and driving...which i don't.
anyhoo, i like smoking.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 15th July 2003
Oh, its such a terrible idea to want to protect the health of the bar workers... so sorry to even consider wanting more people not to get lung cancer...
The smoking debate - Weltall - 15th July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Oh, its such a terrible idea to want to protect the health of the bar workers... so sorry to even consider wanting more people not to get lung cancer...
It is a conscious decision to be either a smoker or a barhop. Therefore, no special governmental consideration should be given either way.
Even if secondhand smoke was even a tenth as dangerous as you claim it to be, there are many, many other professions that harbor a much greater and immediate risk to life and limb. In comparison to something as common as construction or utilities work, barhopping is of no significant health risk whatsoever.
Thus again, it comes down to that you're using a very weak issue of health to disguise your true imperative: To install more governmental control over business and life in general, both because your admitted dream is a completely government-controlled society, and because you simply don't like smoking personally. The issue of health risk to an extraordinarily small minority of people is just a way to give it some semblance of credibility. I'd have so much more respect for you if you were honest about that.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 15th July 2003
You very, very greatly underestimate the problems of passive smoke.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 15th July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
You very, very greatly underestimate the problems of passive smoke.
It's a chance killer. Very SMALL chance killer.
In the two decades I lived with my parents, they smoked for all but perhaps three. And neither I, nor my sister, nor they themselves have any respiratory problems whatsoever.
I mean, if passive smoke were a real hazard, you'd think it would actually be killing people once in awhile. Getting bronchitis once in awhile hardly qualifies as an immenent threat to public health.
If I thought you actually cared about anyone's health I'd say you're greatly overestimating it's evils.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 15th July 2003
Ooh, big scientific study of four proves it for sure!
The smoking debate - big guy - 15th July 2003
i think it also needs to be taken into consideration that many, many barhops and waitpeople are also smokers. granted, not all of them are, but many.
i worked in a restaurant that was smoke-free due to a managerial decision, not government intervention, and i think all of the waitstaff smoked. as did most of the kitchen staff. again, i'm not saying that all people who work in restaurants are smokers, but there are a lot of smokers out there and a lot of them work in bars and restaurants, and i don't think these individuals are concerned with the health risks of second hand smoke.
and, like weltall said, no one forces a person to be a waitperson or barhop, they choose to place themselves in a situation where they're dealing with second hand smoke.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 15th July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Ooh, big scientific study of four proves it for sure!
It's certainly more conclusive than anything you've offered. Almost all 'expert' data on passive smoke effects are pretty much exclusively full of "may", "might", "could", and "has a chance of" causing all of these maladies. But when you look at reality, you never, ever hear of anyone dying from it, and you quite rarely even hear of anyone getting serious yet non-fatal problems from it, and considering how there is this crazy anti-tobacco crusade going on, I find that both hilarious and quite informative at the same time.
Smoking kills. That I will not dispute. But passive smoke is nothing but an annoyance, as non-smokers almost never expose themselves to enough smoke to cause even slight damage to themselves. Now you can deny that all you want, but until you can show large numbers of deaths that were, beyond doubt, traced to passive smoke, then your position is baseless. And no, propaganda telling me it might kill me doesn't count. Proof would be documented cases of deaths that are the exclusive result of passive smoke inhalation.
I'm quite confident you won't find any such proof. I'm almost as confident that you won't even try to find any such proof. But in this case I can't blame you, because how can you find something that doesn't exist?
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 15th July 2003
"may, might, and could"? NO. That is false. Passive smoke kills. How people can dispute that makes absolutely no sense.
SMOKE IS STILL SMOKE ONCE EXHALED!
Sure, its less deadly. But it still builds up. And people who DONT smoke, but live/work in very smoky environments, GET SMOKING-CAUSED CANCER. They do. It is a fact. Some of those links I gave say that... you just ignore it because it doesn't suit your interpretation of what should be done.
The smoking debate - alien space marine - 16th July 2003
just visiting a smoking area every now and a again isnt a threat to health, but if you worked their for like 30 years eventually second hand smoke will take its toll on you.I think smokers should have isolated glass walls like tom hortons had that kept the smoke were it should be in the smoking section, it didnt stop the smokers from coming.
The smoking debate - Weltall - 16th July 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
"may, might, and could"? NO. That is false. Passive smoke kills. How people can dispute that makes absolutely no sense.
SMOKE IS STILL SMOKE ONCE EXHALED!
Sure, its less deadly. But it still builds up. And people who DONT smoke, but live/work in very smoky environments, GET SMOKING-CAUSED CANCER. They do. It is a fact. Some of those links I gave say that... you just ignore it because it doesn't suit your interpretation of what should be done.
It happens. It just happens incredibly rarely. That is also fact. There are almost no establishments that have unrestricted smoking as it is, so exposure to secondhand smoke is already limited even in such jobs.
You claim passive smoke is a 'major public health hazard' and even by your own admission it only affects an extreme minority of people.
I know you'll never acknowledge it even if I repeat your phrase a dozen more times, but passive smoke doesn't even begin to qualify as a major public health hazard.
All that you're proving to me is that passive smoke can kill, which I already know, and that so few people die from it that it hardly warrants governmental interference. You just keep ignoring that fact and keep repeating the same bullshit anti-tobacco propaganda. Why? Besides your position based on data that doesn't apply to real life, it's the only thing that prevents you from looking like a total lunatic. You claim it kills, and you think your will should rule even though it kills about as often as lightning strikes and lottery winnings.
That it kills a minute number of people is irrelevant to me. Even if it actually killed as much as you say, it doesn't change the fact that people choose to expose themselves to smoke by working in such an environment and as you know, I don't believe people deserve governmental protection for their own decisions.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 16th July 2003
Quote:It happens. It just happens incredibly rarely. That is also fact. There are almost no establishments that have unrestricted smoking as it is, so exposure to secondhand smoke is already limited even in such jobs.
Bars and restaurants in states such as yours are the issue...
Oh, and I'd find more facts from the dozen links I provided a few weeks ago as to how much of a major hazard this is, but you'd ignore them now just like you ignored them a few weeks ago so it really would be pointless.
The smoking debate - geoboy - 16th July 2003
Quote:Passive smoking 'killing workers'
Tobacco smoke is linked to many diseases
Passive smoking at work kills three people every day, according to research.
The study found that around 900 office workers, 165 bar workers and 145 manufacturing workers die each year as a direct result of breathing in other people's tobacco smoke at work.
It also found that there are three times as many deaths a year from passive smoking at work as there are from workplace injuries.
It is estimated that three million people in the UK are exposed to second-hand smoke while at work.
More people died in 2002 from passive smoking at work in the UK than were killed by the Great London smog of 1952
James Repace
Study was carried out by James Repace, who has previously conducted research into passive smoking for the California Department of Health.
He said: "More people died in 2002 from passive smoking at work in the UK than were killed by the Great London smog of 1952.
"This study shows that previous research has seriously underestimated the number of people killed by second-hand smoke at work."
Source: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2925633.stm">BBC News</a>
Now call me crazy, but I think the BBC is a pretty reputable source.
You don't NEED one documented case. There are plenty of cases that speak for themselves.
I've always found smoking to be a nusiance, and believe the government has a right to ban it in public family places. Not a bar, however. When you're 21, you are pretty capable of making choices and knowing their outcome -- whether it's working at that bar or drinking there.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 16th July 2003
Nahhh.... BBC? Liberal lies!
The smoking debate - N_A - 18th July 2003
Doctor's point of view: Smoking is bad
I don't think theres a need to say too much more than that.
The smoking debate - Nintendarse - 18th July 2003
Did nobody think of a very different type of passive smoking: when a parent smokes frequently in the house? I'm not talking about a pregnant woman smoking, but more about the effects of frequent second-hand smoke on a growing human being. Have there been no studies done on this?
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 18th July 2003
That kind of smoke does lots of damage to young children and fetuses... but we can't legislate that away. You've just got to hope the parents aren't stupid...
The smoking debate - big guy - 20th July 2003
i think a lot of people are overlooking the body's ability to regenerate itself (with the exception of neurons). passive smoke won't just build up and build up inside your lungs, turning them a horrible black...because your lungs will renew themselves in time. if a smoker can have good as new lungs within 7 years of quitting, i think a passive smokers time would be much, much less. and i haven't conducted a scientific study on this, but i wouldn't be suprised if the small amount of passive smoke that a person has to deal with in their 8 hours at the restaurant, was all but dealt with by the next time they went to work. i don't know howfast the human body regenerates, but i can't see small amounts of smoking building up faster than the human lungs can keep themselves clean.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 20th July 2003
Lungs will regenerate before a passive smoke-exposed person can get damage? I thought I'd heard everything already, but that takes the cake...
The smoking debate - geoboy - 20th July 2003
Smoke coats the alveoli (the lung tissue that exchanges oxygen and carbon dioxide) and gradually builds up over time. This causes permanent damage to the alveoli because of irreversible destruction of a protein in the lung called elastin that is important for maintaining the strength of the alveolar walls. The loss of elastin also causes collapse or narrowing of the smallest air passages, called bronchioles, which in turn limits airflow out of the lung.
This is a condition called emphysema. You have to be a pretty heavy smoker to get emphysema, but that doesn't mean your lungs don't experience irreversible damage from passive smoke. But beer will also kill brain cells that cannot regenerate. My point is, a little bit really won't hurt, but it DOES IN FACT cause permanent damage.
The smoking debate - big guy - 21st July 2003
i'm not saying that people have wolverine style regeneration rates. but the small amount of smoke that they encounter through passive smoking is constantly being fought against by the bodies natural healing ability. this would then extend the amount of time that it takes for the body to develop serious health risks considerably.
i guess i left a fairly long winded post earlier, but the basic gist is that all of the second hand smoke that they breath in does not remain in their lungs and build up, only a fraction of it does. and i feel that it would take years upon years of second hand exposure to even develop a cough.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 21st July 2003
Sorry, but that isn't true. Smoke does permanant damage. Sure, if all it is is an hour of passive smoke you won't get much permanant lung damage... but if you do that every day you will, without a doubt. And even though its not much if its just once in a while it still is direct, permanant lung damage... as explained.
I also know I have read that you do permanant damage to yourself as soon as you smoke your first cigarette. Not a lot of it.. but some. And it gets worse from there.
The smoking debate - Dark Lord Neo - 21st July 2003
Your mentions of alchohol being kept from children reminded me of somthing
Is it true that in some areas of the US stores like 7-11 and Wal-Mart sell alchohol, i mean even beer and wine?
It was only recently that the government here(provincial) started to privatize liquor sales (including beer and wine) but they are still in seprate stores. In some small comunities a convenience store may have an alchohol section but only because the comunity can't support a store that only sells alchohol, and these are usually kept behind the counter and yo have to fill out a form to get them. In some provinces like BC until recently even in government owned stores you had to fill out a form to get alchohol since it was kept behind the counter, and in BC they have finally alowed private stores that sell beer and wine but liquor can still only be sold in government store. Other provinces still have complete government control over alchohol sales while in others beer and wine can be sold in private store but liquor can't.
In Quebec though you have always been able to get beer at the corner store, but not hard liquor
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 21st July 2003
You mean in Canada places like 7-11 and other gas station minimarts don't sell beer? They do in the US, that's for sure... don't know about wine, though. Maybe some. As for harder liquors, for that you'd probably have to go to a supermarket or liquor store... I don't know really, I just know that supermarkets have a lot of that stuff.
The smoking debate - Dark Lord Neo - 21st July 2003
no, with the exeption of Quebec where beer can be sold in a convenience store and stores in small comunities that have seperate sections and need special permits.
It's also a criminal offence for an unacompanied minor to enter a liquor store, so if you're caught trying to buy alchohol underage not only are you nailed for that but you are often nailed for being in the store too
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 21st July 2003
It does vary some state to state, of course... some regions may be more restrictive, but not too much...
Well, except for some left over blue laws in parts of the northeast. :)
Oh, and anywhere with a liquor liscence can sell it, in most states... and that means pretty much every minimart and supermarket. You just need to check ID for if the people are under 21...
The smoking debate - geoboy - 22nd July 2003
There's a convenience store in my town called "Family Beer & Liquor". I kid you not. And it just isn't an official hic town until you have a family beer and liquor store. :D
The smoking debate - Moiraine - 13th August 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Sorry, but that isn't true. Smoke does permanant damage. Sure, if all it is is an hour of passive smoke you won't get much permanant lung damage... but if you do that every day you will, without a doubt. And even though its not much if its just once in a while it still is direct, permanant lung damage... as explained.
I also know I have read that you do permanant damage to yourself as soon as you smoke your first cigarette. Not a lot of it.. but some. And it gets worse from there.
BS I am a smoker and I am tryin to quit lil by lil but I also noticed that normal Air pollution I.E. The exhaust from burning fuels in automobiles, homes, and
industries, can do the same damage and more to a person then second hand smoke.
I haven't seen you mention the damage car exhaust and all that shit can do to your lungs and you breathe that stuff everyday. Yet you are still alive.
The smoking debate - geoboy - 31st August 2003
Car exhaust is only truly damaging in super high concentrations. Fuel today is much cleaner than it was 20 years ago (with the exception of diesel). The main byproduct of the fuel is virtually harmless CO2. But if you run a car in an enclosed room, it will produce carbon monoxide, which will quickly kill you in high quantities. So unless you operate your car inside the house or you decide to put your mouth over the tailpipe, car exhaust is considerably much less harmful than cigarette smoke.
The smoking debate - Darunia - 31st August 2003
But if you run a car in an enclosed room, it will produce carbon monoxide, which will quickly kill you in high quantities. So unless you operate your car inside the house or you decide to put your mouth over the tailpipe, car exhaust is considerably much less harmful than cigarette smoke.
JUST LIKE THE GUY TRIED TO DO IN OFFICE SPACE!!
The smoking debate - Weltall - 1st September 2003
Quote:Originally posted by geoboy
Car exhaust is only truly damaging in super high concentrations. Fuel today is much cleaner than it was 20 years ago (with the exception of diesel). The main byproduct of the fuel is virtually harmless CO2. But if you run a car in an enclosed room, it will produce carbon monoxide, which will quickly kill you in high quantities. So unless you operate your car inside the house or you decide to put your mouth over the tailpipe, car exhaust is considerably much less harmful than cigarette smoke.
Not if you were to ask any of the silly fools who think car exhaust is a contributing factor to this global warming that they don't realize is a very natural process that has happened countless thousands of times in the billions of years that our wonderful little planet has experienced weather patterns of any sort.
Far be it for me to open another can of worms, but for every single moron who truly believes that global warming is caused by humans, I remind you that when Earth Day was founded in the early 1970's it was founded primarily to inform about the evils of global cooling that would supposedly herald a second ice age. Wonder whatever happened to that?
And now, insanities that only ABF could believe!
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 1st September 2003
Ah, one classic misunderstanding. Global Warming doesn't just mean warming. Actually, it means warmer summers, colder winters, more strange tides, more destructive weather, more stuff like El Nino, and a lot other effects...
Oh yeah, and that thing about the next ice age hasn't really changed. We're still right on the edge of where we should start dropping into another ice age... and its uncertain if global warming has warmed it so much that that cycle will change.
One of the stupidest things in the world is people still trying to deny that global warming is occuring. ALL of the relevant science proves it. It is absolutely insane and ludicrous to deny that it is happening... even President Bush was forced to admit a while back that there is global warming! Sure, he then said some idiotic stuff about how we can't do anything to avoid it, but after looking at the science even HE had to admit that it is occuring.
And fossil fuels are CLEARLY one of the prime reasons... that comes from everything I've read that is remotely releveant from this issue...
And finally. That link there is a small minority of left-wing people. Its about as accurate as if I linked a page with quotes from Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh and said that they are the views of the whole of concervatism...
I don't agree with most of those quotes, and a big part of the reason is that that website did its best to find the most radical quotes they could find...
There is of course one vital question on this issue.
Which will happen first:
-Running out of oil
-Irrevocably destroying the ecosystem beyond the point of no return...
The smoking debate - OB1 - 1st September 2003
Global Warming is a real thing, but it's not really caused by man. Global Warming is a natural occurance that has been going on for much longer than cars have existed. However, pollution does make it go faster.
The smoking debate - A Black Falcon - 2nd September 2003
Yeah, the question that we don't know a complete answer to is "how much does pollution affect global warming?". We know it does, and it seems like it does a lot... but the extent isn't certain.