I hate cigarettes and cigarette smoke and would be completely fine if cigarettes were illegal. Of course we couldn’t make them illegal right away, we’d have to ease into it over a period of a decade or more to give the stupid cigarette companies that haven’t diversified the chance to make another product (preferably something that doesn’t kill people or make life miserable for everyone around it). Plus, that would give plenty of time for the people who are still smoking to quit. If you can’t quit with a 10-year notice, you’re a sad, sad person.
Somehow our society was smart enough to make bathrooms. Rather than just letting everyone crap all over the place, we have designated rooms where you can even sit down and “let it out.” Excrement smells bad, but it isn’t a major problem, because we don’t allow people to “do their business” in public.
Unfortunately, smoking is still allowed in most places in this country. If all smokers were courteous, we wouldn’t have a problem. They would simply smoke away from nonsmokers and take care of their cigarettes. Of course, that’s not the case. The nonsmokers have to breathe in the toxic smoke and see the littered cigarette butts everywhere.
I’m not exactly sure, but I think the smoker argument is something like, “It’s my right to pollute the air, make others sick, litter, give myself cancer, and be a drain on society when I have all kinds of operations I can’t afford but need because of the 3000 diseases smoking causes. Did I mention I deserve a 10 minute smoke break every hour?”
And the nonsmoker argument is something like, “I have the right to breathe clean air.” It isn’t as long, but somehow it just seems… oh, I don’t know, legitimate.
UW has the right idea. They’ve decided to make their campuses smoke-free. Washington State, in general, has been tougher on smokers than most states, eliminating smoking near any public buildings. Next, we need to enact national hygiene laws that make it illegal to smell bad. This would make life so much better and solve the problem that makes public transportation not work.
Smokers, if you actually want to quit (thank you!) and are having trouble, there are many books out there that can help. A friend of mine had a lot of success with that one, so give it a try.
You don’t smoke and are so inconsiderate as to say nobody should. You do so because you think it’s fashionable.If people like you prevail no one will have any freedom before long. Get a life.
I’m not sure what your argument is. I guess you believe I want people to not have freedom, but it appears to me that you value the rights of a few individuals over the rights of the majority. Is there some basis to your claim that people should have the right to smoke (besides that it is that way now)? Maybe you think everyone should be able to drive without any licensing procedure and that we shouldn’t have speed limits? Our country used to be that way, but we realized that it’s safer for everyone to have certain restrictions (not to mention more economical). If everyone should be allowed to smoke, should there be restrictions? Should strangers be able to breathe smoke into my face and flick their cigarette butts all over the ground? Is that the mark of a great society?
I’m afraid to disappoint you by letting you know that I don’t have my opinions because they are “fashionable.” I just think that when I have 10 minutes between class and have to walk across campus, I should be able to breathe the fresh air rather than second-hand smoke.
As far as getting a life goes, I’ve been looking on eBay for quite some time, but apparently that advice is such a cliché that all the good lives have been purchased already. Thank your for demonstrating my inconsideration with a dose of your own.
You wanna argue about this. pal? You don’t have a leg to stand on. Your right to complain about smoking is based on a 1992 EPC study that was overturned by a federal judge on the grounds that it was fraudulent. So the only honest objection you have is that you don’t like to smell it. Well,I can remember when they sold cologne that smelled like tobacco.
So take your phony coughing fits ten feet back and knock off trying to dictate to your fellow citizens. They may give it back to you double one day.
I’m glad you know my sources better than I do. Otherwise, I’d think I was using studies done by several groups and companies, summarized by the EPA.
What tobacco-company-funded facts do you have that go against this data?
Do you believe in the 1 in a billion odds?
You’re right that I don’t like the smell of it. I clearly said so and made the semi-serious joke that we should have hygiene laws. It doesn’t take any study to show that stench (cigarette or otherwise) can cause problems. There’s been several times where a smoker has come into class late and sat near me and my eyes started to itch and water. Obviously, you believe the 20% of Americans who smoke are more important than the 80% of those who don’t. Do you have any reason for believing this (besides probably being a smoker)?
You are just a fucking idiot Nazi asshole who has probably converted to Islam.
You proceed to quote the fraudulent EPA study as though it were fact. It’s obvious you have found a religion in anti-tobacco propaganda. Your complaints about the “stench” of a burning leaf is no reason to deprive smokers of their freedom nor is the 80 vs 20 argument. A free society by definition is free of mob rule.
This argument will go nowhere because your prejudice is set in concrete.
I won’t bother with Antonin. As said elsewhere, “It’s unfair to enter a battle of wits with the unarmed.”
“unimpeachably declared fraudulent.” If you’re referring to the 1998 EPA case (previously you said “1992 EPC”) that declared the 1992/1993 EPA report “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders” was invalid, the EPA successfully appealed that decision in 2002. Regardless, that was a study of multiple other studies. The World Health Organization believes that second-hand smoke is bad. The International Agency for Research on Cancer believes that secondhand smoke is bad. The US National Toxicology Program believes secondhand smoke is bad. The current US Surgeon General believes secondhand smoke is bad. The 2006 US Surgeon General’s report says:
Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that we don’t believe in facts from multiple studies, science, public officials, etc. In that case, we would have to use logic. We know that smoking can cause cancer, heart disease, etc. We have to assume that if I were to stand 1 inch away from someone’s cigarette and breathed in all the smoke, I would be exposed to the 50+ carcinogenic chemicals in cigarettes and would probably have an exposure level very close to that of the smoker. So, we’ve established that second-hand smoke does cause problems. Let’s say, far the sake of argument, that at 3 feet away the smoke becomes magically delicious, and the average person’s body can completely fight off the effects of the chemicals after a small recovery period. The argument would then be, “at a ‘reasonable’ distance and after a ‘reasonable’ amount of time, the effects of secondhand smoke are diminished.” Let me know if your argument is different.
Based on this argument, I say it is legal for me to slap you across the face, because “after a ‘reasonable’ amount of time, the effects of the slap are diminished” since your body heals quickly. Slapping you across the face relieves my stress just as smoking relieves your stress. It’s probably quite addictive, like cigarettes. You probably don’t want to be slapped across the face, but I don’t want to breathe smoke second hand and you don’t care about that, so I don’t care that you don’t want to be slapped.
Sure, it sounds ridiculous, but so is making me breathe your smoke. Should someone be able to walk up to you with a paper bag that has had the inside sprayed with spray paint and force you to breathe it? It seems like that should be okay based on the smokers’ argument. Maybe you should be able to force people to drink alcohol, since in small doses it isn’t harmful either.
I shouldn’t have to breathe in smoke when walking between classes or when walking downtown. Babies shouldn’t have to breathe in the smoke of their mothers/fathers (would you argue that parents have the right to give their babies smoke-related diseases or do you believe that the 150,000-300,000 cases in the US each year are coincidence?). Society shouldn’t be paying the medical bills of people who willingly smoke and get lung cancer, heart disease, etc.
I don’t believe in mob rule, but I do believe in restrictions for the benefit of society. Do you think people should have the right to own a nuclear weapon? The risks to the many are not worth the benefits to the few.
There are legitimate studes that show secondhand smoke to be harmless–Congressional Research Service ,OSHA and others. There are junk science studies–EPA,Cancer Society and others. None of the above apply to your situation of squawking about smoke in the breezy outdoors, where a passing car emits more pollution than a thousand cigarettes.
Incidentally. I apologize for sending a similar message twice–I didn’t think the first one went through.
Also incidentally, Carmona was relieved of his post after publishing a study a mother wouldn’t believe.
The bottom line is that nobody has ever proven smoking or smelling it has caused ANY disease,the presstitutes on the boob tube notwithstanding. It doesn’t matter what you yourself believe because these decisions are dictated by politicians who do whatever they’re bribed to do.
Goodbye, and if you want to get smarter,log on to FORCES INTERNATIONAL.
I don’tknow or care who the current Acting Surgeon General is–Richard Carmona was relieved of his post after publishing a report that a mother wouldn’t believe.
Some studies are legitimate–Congressional Research Service, OSHA et al, others junk science and propaganda–Surgeon General, EPA,Cancer Society et al. None of the above apply to your squawk about smoke in the breezy outdoors where a passing car emits more pollutants than a thousand cigarettes.
I’m through trying to educate you to the fact that smoking or smelling it has never been proven to cause ANY disease regardless of the multibillon dollar bribes Big Pharma pays political dictators.
If you want to get smart, log onto FORCES INTERNATIONAL.
If you honestly believe that cigarettes have no links to any diseases whatsoever, then you have obviously made up your mind on the issue and won’t listen to any facts that might go against your opinion. Smoking cigarettes is even linked to one of the causes of blindness (AMD). I’m surprised that Philip Morris USA has admitted that smoking cigarettes “causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases,” but you deny it still. I guess you even think the CDC reports (referenced here) are bogus in their claim that “Tobacco-related diseases kill over 440,000 people a year in the United States.”
Forces International? You have to be kidding! From their site: “FORCES International with its affiliates and supporters is proud to announce the celebration of the fourth World Smokers’ Day on October 12, 2004 – October 11th North America.” Is there a more biased site where you could get your information? It sounds like your beliefs come entirely from them. The majority of anti-smoking information comes from pharmaceutical companies, according to Forces. I guess the claim is that they make a lot of money on nicotine patches and the like, but I would take a wild guess and say that they probably can charge a lot more on the medications for the dozens of diseases that smoking causes than they can charge on nicotine patches and other products to help people quit smoking.
From a purely design perspective, that site is hideous. I think it says a lot when you have to rely on such a terribly designed site for your “facts.”
That site actually says that there is no solid proof of smoking causing diseases just statistics and speculative associations.
Feel free to read from that source (bolding added by me). Why does that sound like evidence to me but not to Forces? What does it take before you call something evidence?
Wow, quite the heated debate here today. Looking at this link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Cancer_smoking_lung_cancer_correlation_from_NIH.png I have no idea how one can argue there is absolutely no correlation between smoking and health problems. Personally, I don’t want to die, the smoke hurts my eyes, tightens my chest and gives me a headache – I don’t want to be exposed to that.
I’d sure like to set you straight but you’ll have to turn your spam filter off.
It appears that the caching plug-in is having some trouble realizing when it needs to refresh content, so that’s why your comments weren’t appearing right after you posted. When you tried to repost one of your previous messages, that triggered the spam filter. I manually recovered all of your comments but the spam filter was re-triggered by the frequency of your postings and it went back and flagged them all as spam again. I’ve recovered them all once more, and I tweaked some of the settings of the spam filter, so that shouldn’t be a problem again. The caching plug-in is a bit trickier and I can’t do much at the moment to get it to properly display new comments, but I have lowered the time before refreshes are forced to about 20 minutes. So if you post a comment and it doesn’t show up, it should show up after about twenty minutes. I’ll keep an eye on the spam filter too in order to make sure it doesn’t become overly aggressive again. Sorry for the hassle.
I would love to see some attribution to the “legitimate studes that show secondhand smoke to be harmless”. Will FORCES INTERNATIONAL come to your help on that? They may claim that there have been studies but Ian is very good about pointing us to studies he references. Let’s see the same from you too Ed. I would love to believe your arguments but you have to claim your sources and it can’t just be, ‘oh I read it on a webpage somewhere’.