Smoking Bans are Fascist

[Redballjets88]

Today's Anti-Smoking Purge Is Borrowed From The Nazis


Smoking is healthier than fascism



Prison Planet | April 25, 2007

Paul Joseph Watson



A wealth of overlooked yet frightening literature concerning the Nazi crusade against smoking provides a clear parallel to contemporary developments and an alarming warning that state restriction of personal habits is the pre-cursor to dictatorship.



Beginning in the early 1930's, as part of the Nazi agenda for racial purity, Hitler spearheaded a national campaign to ban smoking in all public buildings, and denounced the practice as a betrayal of the fascist drive for bodily purity.



"Brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?" stated one magazine.



As I wrote earlier this year , "The regulation of the personal habit of smoking, including new legislative moves in San Francisco to ban cigarettes in private homes, and its enforcement by an eager cadre of state snoops and snitches, represents nothing more than a move on behalf of big brother towards the complete subjugation and shackling of the individual."



Read these shocking parallels and compare them to the endless lecturing we are forced to endure today about our personal lifestyle choices by the state and their propaganda arm, the mass media.






Nazi anti-smoking propaganda poster.




- The Nazis banned tobacco advertising and financed huge public relations campaigns to propagandize people into giving up smoking.



- The Nazis banned smoking in government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces, and Hitler gave awards to associates who quit the habit.



- A ban on smoking in private vehicles was called for.



- The Nazi Reich Health Office warned that smoking caused impotence and produced posters depicting smoking as a dirty habit of Jews, Gypsies, blacks, intellectuals and Indians.



- Nazi lobbyists lectured terrified children in schools on the horrors of racial impurity as a result of smoking.



- The term "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined by the Nazi Anti-Tobacco League. Its author, Fritz Lickint, offered no supporting evidence to claim that smokers poisoned everyone around them, while also stating that drinking coffee caused cancer.



- Hitler was an ardent vegetarian and did not smoke or drink after the age of 30, even accrediting the rise of fascism to his success in kicking the habit. He forbade anyone from smoking in a room he might enter. Fellow fascist leaders Mussolini, Napoleon and Franco also detested smoking.




- The Nazi anti-smoking crusade was unleashed with the help of manufactured junk science on behalf of the medical and health establishment, one such example being that smoking caused "spontaneous abortions" in pregnant women.



- Hitler attempted to price out smoking for Germans, levying huge taxes on cigarettes.



- Despite the Nazi propaganda crusade against smoking, tobacco sales increased in Germany, leading some history professors to hypothesize that smoking was an act of cultural resistance against fascism, until the late 1930's after smoking was banned in most public buildings and tobacco sales rapidly declined.





Another Nazi anti-smoking propaganda poster depicts a jackboot kicking a cigarette, a cigar and a pipe.



What conclusions can we draw from these parallels? Either the Nazis were benign really cared about everyone's health or they used the specter of anti-smoking to exert massive control over people's lives and scale back basic freedoms, getting a foot in the door for the political dictatorship that was to follow.



Similarly today, either the same elite that advocate "mass culling" of the majority of the world's population really do care about public health and well-being or they are using the excuse of the anti-smoking drive to condition us to accept state regulation over every aspect of our personal lives.



It's all about control, it's all about letting you know who the bosses are. If the government can regulate personal habits and behavior, what's next? If the state is so concerned about our good health as they would have you believe, why not use the latest scientific advancements to remove that nasty aggressive gene that causes so much unhappiness? Well, you're causing those around you distress and harming their health so why not? Are your political opinions a mental illness? Are they harming society? Perhaps we should ban certain types of "free" speech that is offensive to others.



You see where this is all heading - how long before our wall mounted personal x-ray body scanners are accompanied by special smoke detectors that inform on you to the local Stasi if you dare to light up?



We live in a paranoid world overpopulated by ninnying jellyfish who dare not dip their toe in the water in case there's a law against it, it might upset someone, or it might be bad for their health.



Many people will read this article having lost loved ones as a result of smoking. Please don't have a knee jerk emotional reaction, try to understand that the point I'm making - smoking is unhealthy but it is healthier than fascism and government regulation of personal habits leads to dictatorship.



The fact that the very language and policies that we are now bombarded with as a justification for state regulation of our personal lifestyle choices are directly lifted from Nazi policies for racial hygiene from the 1930's should alarm us all and act as a wake up call to the true agenda behind today's anti-smoking purge.

[Redballjets88]

.

[knuckleboner]

wow. this is quite a stretch.


i assume that if we can find an old speech where hitler denounces murder, somebody will call our current murder statutes fascist...

[Guitar Shark]

The real question is how the Dallas school system can improve in the future.

[Nickdfresh]

Not to mention that the Nazis gassed their victims with many of the same ingredients found in tobacco smoke...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
The real question is how the Dallas school system can improve in the future.

So many children left behind...:(

[Redballjets88]

never went to a dallas school. i graduated from the top district in the state and go to college now

[Little Texan]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
"Brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?" stated one magazine.



Yet Hitler was a major Methhead. Do as I say, not as I do, I guess.

[binnie]

Ok, fascist might be a little OTT, but I do think that smoking bans are bordering on the ridiculous these days...

[Big Train]

PC culture is just polite fascism. Out of control for sure. Everyone on both sides needs to allow themselves to just be offended, or better yet, not be.

I don't think Hitler is the best argument for this, wasn't he experimenting with roids to make "super" soldiers??

Smoking bans are out of control nowadays. And I'm not a smoker nor do I deny that second hand smoke can cause issues. I don't think a guy needs to walk 200-400 ft . away from wherever just to smoke. There should be a smoking room in all social places.

[Angel]

I'm a smoker who has quit a couple of times, just not able to do it for good yet.

I am 100% behind smoking bans. I don't give a fuck if I have to be outside to smoke, why should others have to smell that shit?

[Ellyllions]

I detest the smoking argument. It's the fad platform of the day though.

Having dinner at the Olive Garden with my family.
Got a table in the non-smoking section because most of my family doesn't smoke. So after ordering the food, hubby and I made our way to the bar for a drink and a smoke.

Perched dead center of the bar was a lady having her dinner. I ask the bartender which direction the fans were blowing the smoke so I could get "down-wind" of her and she wouldn't be subjected to my smoke while she ate. He gave me my drink and pointed me to where I should sit.

Once I lit up, she lit into me about smoking and how it should be banned for everyone and everywhere (even outside). She had to yell because I was sitting about 10 feet from her. I asked her why she was sitting in the smoking section and she replied that non-smokers should have more rights than smokers because we are the ones who infringe upon their rights. To which I responded with, "I'm not having this conversation with you." She started yelling for the manager...

She was asked to leave.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Angel
I'm a smoker who has quit a couple of times, just not able to do it for good yet.

I am 100% behind smoking bans. I don't give a fuck if I have to be outside to smoke, why should others have to smell that shit?

Agreed. I don't smoke and never have. I personally don't give a damn if smokers have to walk a mile to puff a butt. I think bans should be in effect for all public eating establishments.

[knuckleboner]

smoking bans in places like restaurants are really nice for those of us who absolutely hate coming back and reeking of smoke and the coughing and other crap.

but we can choose not to go there.


the bans are more for the workers, like the busboys and the wait staff, who often don't have a lot of career opportunities. they're trying to earn a living. if they were in construction, there would be mandates on where and how they could work if there was dangerous asbestos in the building.

yet, in those smoking restaurants, there is no protection for the workers.

[Lqskdiver]

As one who performs weekly in night clubs, I come home reeking of smoke. I shed my clothes and toss them in the garage immediately so as not to stink up the house.

But it's my "stinking" choice to be in these nightclubs. I get paid to tolerate second hand smoke. So I don't see why any worker should have some degree of compensation when entering these places. Just like everyone has a choice to enter a restaurant where smoking is allowed. They recently passed an ordinance in the city where all public places, INCLUDING bars and nightclubs will ban smoking! That is going to kill the clientele and have many business owners in an uproar.

I don't smoke. But I don't chastize those that do. That's the beauty of freedom.

[knuckleboner]

again, though, what about asbestos? or other safety factors in a job?

if OSHA can mandate hardhats, then i see no problem mandating clean air for workplaces.


personally, i really don't care what an individual does when they're in their own home. but in a place of business, i'm all for it. ban it.


and, the losing business argument really doesn't hold up: NYC banned smoking in all bars; no problems with the bar revenues. DC did the same; again, no problems.

most smokers simply go outside to smoke. and those that don't are offset by the non-smokers who would previously refuse to go to smoke-filled establishments.
new york times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/nyregion/06xsmoke.html?ei=5090&en=c69782a611e94cf4&ex=1265346000&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all)

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Little Texan
Yet Hitler was a major Methhead. Do as I say, not as I do, I guess.

Yeah, I was just talking about this. I need to look up some more evidence. Didn't his scientists invent meth?

[Angel]

This is the third city that I've lived in that has bans in all restaurants and BARS...

It hasn't hurt business, even though the owners all kicked up a fuss that it would.

I don't even smoke in my own home, I'm so accustomed to going outside now... even when it's -40.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
They recently passed an ordinance in the city where all public places, INCLUDING bars and nightclubs will ban smoking! That is going to kill the clientele and have many business owners in an uproar.



The tobacco addicts and their lobbyists used that fear tactic before the statewide ban was passed here. I don't know of any bars, clubs, or restaurants that have gone out of business yet as a result.

As a matter of fact, I can say that a few places are getting at least a little bit more business..... the ones I used to go to before I developed an allergy to tobacco smoke. Now I can breathe in those places again, so I go back once in a while.

[Big Train]

I'm not a smoker but I hate PC culture far worse than second hand smoke. For those "why do I have to tolerate YOUR smoke" types, WHY do I have to tolerate your wife, who can't stop yakking or your kids who are running like crazy?

Smokers at least are very open and concerned for the most part about how their habit affects those around them. Most will offer to move or go to the smoking section etc. To push beyond that point is unfair and amounts to persecution.

Same things with workers. If you assume a job, you also assume the risks of the job. With someone above bringing up OSHA, they put in procedures in place and things like hardhats sure, but they aren't saying there still isn't danger in the workplace and the construction worker accepts that risk ( and the reward of the wage). Likewise, the nightclub staff. You can't give them gas masks (bad for business) , but you can ensure the place is properly ventilated, no big deal. Big suction fan over the bar.

The PC aspect of it has gone way to far I feel

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
I'm not a smoker but I hate PC culture far worse than second hand smoke. For those "why do I have to tolerate YOUR smoke" types, WHY do I have to tolerate your wife, who can't stop yakking or your kids who are running like crazy?



Yakking wives and running kids aren't likely to damage anyone's health. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, it's a legitimate health risk. That's a big difference.

[binnie]

Anyone know anyone who has died as a result of second hand smoke?

Thought not.

Anyone know someone who has died from a drunk-driver, or a fight caused by someone who was drunk? Anyone ever experienced a drunken wife beater?

Thought so.

Now, of course not every drinker causes those problems: but the potential for them is caused by the availability of alcohol. In the same way, not every smoker is going to kill you if you happen to be in their vaccinity, it would take excessive exposure to passive smoke to cause serious damage. As a result, I really don't see what is wrong with "Smoking" and "Non Smoking" sections in bars and restaurants. If you get any passive smoke in the non-smoking sections, it will be minimal.

Jeezus, how bad do you think the exhaust fumes for traffic is for your body. Whats the next move, ban transport becuase it damages our health.

I know, lets ban sports because there is a small chance that someone somewhere might get injured.

Rant over.

[ODShowtime]

I just wish they'd ban it straight up, everywhere. No sales. It is a vile and useless habit.

[binnie]

I really couldn't care less if people want to kill themselves, and make a huge donation to the treasury whilst they're at it...

In the UK, where cigarettes are over £5 ($10) a pack, the tax revenue from them was about £8 billion last I heard.

Puff away people, puff away.

[Ellyllions]

Whats funny about all of this?

If a business owner tried to open a "smoker friendly" eating establishment, clearly labeled that if you don't smoke...you might not like the environment. Non-smokers would be storming Capitol Hill crying foul.

It's not about infringement of rights or having to breathe someone else's smoke. It's simply trying to tell someone else what to do. It's just another desperate ploy to be special.

If tobacco was banned, the US economy would crash! Our government couldn't function without the repetitive lawsuit proceeds from the tobacco companies.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by FORD
Yakking wives and running kids aren't likely to damage anyone's health. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, it's a legitimate health risk. That's a big difference.

I agree. But I also agree with Ellyions, who are you to say what they do?

Like I posted previously, most smokers are willing to make concessions, go to great lengths and it is still not enough for those who "know better".

I could think booze is a filthy habit with long term health risks (which less face it, there are). Should I work on getting you banned from the restaurant, just because I don't like it? There are things to worry about like you driving or getting violent, which are a threat to me and my family.

[Lqskdiver]

Geezuz, it's getting to a point where you can't go out in publci anymore for fear of offending someone.

[Nickdfresh]

Smoking near me in a public place is fascist....

If I fucking sprayed gasoline all over you at a gas station (or any generally recognized toxic substance), then was told it was illegal, I don't think anyone would call you a fascist.

Fuck your own lungs up, not mine!

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
I agree. But I also agree with Ellyions, who are you to say what they do?



When it affects my health, it's my business. And I'm not talking long term lung cancer risk here, I'm talking immediate effects from allergies.

If you have a peanut allergy, you can avoid peanuts. If you have a sulfite allergy, you can avoid food with preservatives. You can't avoid breathing.

Most businesses which had "smoking sections" around here previously were a joke. Many of them didn't even have so much as a wall between sections, which effectively means, you're in the "smoking section" whether you want to be or not. And even most of the places with walls physically separating a smoking section didn't bother to install a separate ventilation system, so the stench poured into the non smoking section anyway..

I've lived in apartments where the shit has literally come through the walls, just as formaldehyde and other pollutants will.

There simply is NO way to have a healthy environment indoors where smoking is allowed. So the rights of the many (general health) should outweigh the "rights" of the few (tobacco addicts) in this case.

And comparing any of this to nagging wives, bratty kids, drunk drivers, or idiots on cellphones doesn't change the facts.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Smoking near me in a public place is fascist....

If I fucking sprayed gasoline all over you at a gas station (or any generally recognized toxic substance), then was told it was illegal, I don't think anyone would call you a fascist.

Fuck your own lungs up, not mine!

Spraying gasoline on smokers might make them reconsider their addictions..... ;)

[Lqskdiver]

How about spraying gas on pot smokers?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
How about spraying gas on pot smokers?

Once you can prove anyone has ever died from smoking pot, we can discuss that.

And the worst thing you would get from second hand pot smoke is a contact high.

[Ellyllions]

Um...one joint has 3 times the tar in it.

...Just had to interject that there....

If cigarette smoke irritates your allergies, then what does smoking pot do to them? Nothing? Well that's because the shit is gluing your bronchi together with tar.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by binnie
Anyone know anyone who has died as a result of second hand smoke?

Thought not.



Exactly!

I wish I didn't smoke so I could make this argument more strongly without seeming predjudiced.

I was with an American in Buenos Aires at a restaurant outside and the guy started screaming at a couple who were walking along smoking 50 feet away.

He smoked 3 packs a day for 30 years up until a couple of years ago.

I bet the reastaurant idiot mentioned earlier in the thread was an ex smoker. Ignoring the kids thing which is fine, smoking Nazi's are divided between hypochondriacs and ex smokers who still crave nicotine. The latter particularly annoy me because the hypocrisy is astonishing. That cunt Bloomberg is an ex smoker.

We were told forever that over 99% of people who got lung cancer were smokers. How come now all of a sudden there is this bunch of super delicate people like FORD that collapse in the presence of some smoke?

If you can't cope with a bit of second hand smoke then basically you are fighting against natural selection and shouldn't be able to survive anyway. You are too weak and not good for the species.:)

Seriously though the anti smoking nazi shit is out of control. If it was so fucking terrible then all we need is that smoking is illegal in public areas without them getting a smoking license. To get it maybe they should have to provide good AC or whatever. The delicate people could just avoid such places.

Last year we got the hardcore no fucking nonsence NYC/Irish smoking ban. If for example you are a truck driver who owns his own truck it's illegal for you to smoke in it as that's a place of business. It became illegal for me to smoke in my office even although I owned the business and all my staff also smoked.

Like the majority of smokers I am sensitive about it. My kids have never even seen me smoke never mind caught some fumes. Even if I'm outside walking along the road and I see someone walking towards me with a kid I cross the road.

There's an inevitability about this though which comes down to 2/3rds banning 1/3 completely. Half of Europe, California and NYC have already done it and I think in a couple of years time the only place you will be able to smoke in a bar will be in South America or Africa.

Oh and FORD as regards the peanut allergy, nuts are banned on planes so it does affect other people but fortunately nuts aren't yet banned from the intermet.:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by binnie
I really couldn't care less if people want to kill themselves, and make a huge donation to the treasury whilst they're at it...

In the UK, where cigarettes are over £5 ($10) a pack, the tax revenue from them was about £8 billion last I heard.

Puff away people, puff away.

That argument ignores the huge cost to society in the form of increased health care costs due to smoking-related diseases.

We all pay for it.

Still, banning smoking in all public places and some private businesses isn't the answer. Education is the best solution to a difficult problem.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Um...one joint has 3 times the tar in it.

...Just had to interject that there....

If cigarette smoke irritates your allergies, then what does smoking pot do to them? Nothing? Well that's because the shit is gluing your bronchi together with tar.

Yup. Actually the data I've read was that a joint was the eqiuvalent of 5 cigarettes.

[Nickdfresh]

Who gives a shit about pot...

If somebody smokes it and blows the shit in your face, get a cop!

And I'm not advocating gassing smokers with simply more of the ingredients that they're ingesting anyhoo... Nor am I saying they should be completely banned everywhere...

But I have rights too, and they include not partaking into somebody's bad habit. It's their choice, their lungs. And it's my choice.

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by FORD
Once you can prove anyone has ever died from smoking pot, we can discuss that.


Yeah, something told you'd come to the defense of the ganga. Listen, dopey, once you realize that cannabis makes you paranoid, you can slowly start weening off of it.

http://images.ibsys.com/2006/0428/9065493.jpg

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
That argument ignores the huge cost to society in the form of increased health care costs due to smoking-related diseases.

We all pay for it.


I'm surprised to read this post from an American.

It is the scary argument here where we have free health care.

The reaon I find the argument scary is that it is equally applicable to a ton of shit like dangerous sports, eating pizza, booze, not taking enough exercise etc.

To me NONE of that has anything to do with government.

Also incidently in a welfare state country like the UK or Canada smokers save the taxpayers a ton of cash by not living long.

A lot of the anti smoking facists seem to forget that we all die of something. The most expensive thing that you can get is some dribbling 90 year old ex lawyer living in a state old folks home who if they had smoked could have died in a massive heart attack at 65 costing us all fuck all.

It's a dumb argument.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by FORD
Once you can prove anyone has ever died from smoking pot, we can discuss that.

And the worst thing you would get from second hand pot smoke is a contact high.

Maybe not die, but the rising levels of THC are helping to onset paranoia and schizophrenia in some users. So there are chances that enough secondhand pot smoke can help trigger that in non-pot smokers.

[Seshmeister]

With all due respect second hand mental illness from pot is total fucking bullshit.

[Lqskdiver]

Look weed slows down reflexes and dulls the senses. It also heightens the sense of parania and leads to halluciations. If you want to go through life in an altered state of mind, that is your choice.

But you can't say that those around you are not affected by your actions. Can't say much about second hand smoke, cuz I think you have to be in a glass jar to contract a high.

But the implications itself is enough to stop. It's illegal. Plain and simple. One drop in our bloodstream and urine is enough to get you fired or keep from getting hired from your dream job.

Unless your dream job is working as a carny or at a incense shop.

[Nickdfresh]

Um yeah, I've never even heard that. And frankly, the whole contact high thing is way overstated and generally amounts to nothing.

Believe me, I've tried!

And you need to smoke it once or twice before pot even affects you...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Look weed slows down reflexes and dulls the senses. It also heightens the sense of parania and leads to halluciations. If you want to go through life in an altered state of mind, that is your choice.

...

Sounds like the remaining supporters of the Bush administration.:)

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by binnie
Anyone know anyone who has died as a result of second hand smoke?

Thought not.


Hm, I know someone who has developed cancer and the doctors point at his smoker wife as the primary cause. Think before you decide who I do and don't know.

His cancer is one of the rarest kinds (of its type, less than 1% of all cases develop into it), incredibly malignant and completely untreatable. He has been given 3 months to live, 18 max if they give him radiation therapy for the rest of his life.

You want to poison yourself? Go right ahead. Be considerate of others and do it outside.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver

But the implications itself is enough to stop. It's illegal. Plain and simple. One drop in our bloodstream and urine is enough to get you fired or keep from getting hired from your dream job.

Unless your dream job is working as a carny or at a incense shop.

I don't smoke dope these days but that argument annoys me.

Unless you are a pilot or something your employer has no fucking business testing you to see what you do in your personal life. If it affects your work then it does and so fine sack the guy. Otherwise employers have no fucking right sniffing around what the fuck people do out of hours.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
With all due respect second hand mental illness from pot is total fucking bullshit.

I'm not entirely sure about that.

One of my uncles used to be a serious stoner. He had a dog who was completely paranoid. No bullshit, this dog would hear any noise and start shaking. You even start walking toward her, she would start shaking. If you actually touched the poor thing, she would act like the San Andreas fault line during a 9.2 quake.

I jokingly said at the time that it was all the second hand pot smoke she had to breathe. Maybe it was?

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Sounds like the remaining supporters of the Bush administration.:)

The Sabres are going to have their asses handed to them.
;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I don't smoke dope these days but that argument annoys me.

Unless you are a pilot or something your employer has no fucking business testing you to see what you do in your personal life. If it affects your work then it does and so fine sack the guy. Otherwise employers have no fucking right sniffing around what the fuck people do out of hours.

Exactly what I was going to say. And I haven't taken a hit in 7 years.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by FORD
I'm not entirely sure about that.

One of my uncles used to be a serious stoner. He had a dog who was completely paranoid. No bullshit, this dog would hear any noise and start shaking. You even start walking toward her, she would start shaking. If you actually touched the poor thing, she would act like the San Andreas fault line during a 9.2 quake.

I jokingly said at the time that it was all the second hand pot smoke she had to breathe. Maybe it was?


Ok well that's cuntvinced me...:D

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Hm, I know someone who has developed cancer and the doctors point at his smoker wife as the primary cause. Think before you decide who I do and don't know.


A good friends mother died of lung cancer late 50s.

She didn't smoke, her husband didn't and she didn't work in a smoker environment.

She just got fucking unlucky like someone getting cancer of anywhere else.

Shit but there you go.

The doctors laying that guilt on the surviving spouse is shitty.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I don't smoke dope these days but that argument annoys me.

Unless you are a pilot or something your employer has no fucking business testing you to see what you do in your personal life. If it affects your work then it does and so fine sack the guy. Otherwise employers have no fucking right sniffing around what the fuck people do out of hours.

We had a guy in our production line lose a finger. He was tested as was the policy and was found he still had pot and cocaine in his system from the prior nights party.

Still annoyed with that argument.

Like I said, maybe a carny can live with it.

Then again:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/3d8643a7/joedirt.jpg

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by FORD
Exactly what I was going to say. And I haven't taken a hit in 7 years.

Suuuuure, you haven't.

;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Yeah, something told you'd come to the defense of the ganga. Listen, dopey, once you realize that cannabis makes you paranoid, you can slowly start weening off of it.



I never was more than a "weekend" pot smoker anyways, and that wasn't even every weekend. Haven't smoked in 7 years. Don't think much about doing it, but I'm in favor of legalization (but that's a seperate argument)

[Seshmeister]

Hah

When I'm spinning around on some ride looking at the fuckwits running the thing I guess that's part of the thrill...:)


Carnies are kind of a bad example, maybe they should be tested.

Some poor bastard pushing paper in a cubical definitely shouldn't.

[Redballjets88]

legalize it b/c it is less dangerous than the fucktards drinking every saturday night then killing people with their cars.

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by FORD
I never was more than a "weekend" pot smoker anyways, and that wasn't even every weekend. Haven't smoked in 7 years. Don't think much about doing it, but I'm in favor of legalization (but that's a seperate argument)

Come on!! The ONLY reason you gave it up is cuz of your job in social services. Guvment frowns on that shit. Hence the legalization argument.

Look, there are medicinal purposes to the plant...I recognize that. But, with all the dullards running around, you can't make that argument and be serious. Some people are stupid enough. They don't need anymore help.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/DJalltheway/tommy_chong_ColumbiaTriStar.jpg

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
A good friends mother died of lung cancer late 50s.

She didn't smoke, her husband didn't and she didn't work in a smoker environment.

She just got fucking unlucky like someone getting cancer of anywhere else.

Shit but there you go.

The doctors laying that guilt on the surviving spouse is shitty.

Cheers!

:gulp:

are you saying it's impossible that secondhand smoke can (emphasis on "can") lead to cancer?


ok, let's step back: you believe that although it does not affect 100% of users, that prolonged cigarette use increases the smoker's likelihood of developing lung cancer (and emphysima, etc.), right?


i'm going to go out on a limb and assume you do believe that. in which case, is it completely unreasonable to assume that secondhand smoke can lead to similar increases in disease incidents?

look, i'll give you that limited exposure to secondhand smoke, like 3 hours in a bar, 1 day a week, will have minimal to no impact on the non-smoker. but are you saying that prolonged, daily exposure to secondhand smoke from a restaurant/bar worker/spouse of a heavy smoker will also lead to no impact on lung diseases? i won't say that the increase in incidents of lung diseaes is exactly equal to that of the smoker. but i have to believe it's greater than zero.


again, i'm assuming you believe some link between the smoker and lung disease, so IF that's the case, then how can prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke NOT lead to some increased chances of lung diseases?

[Combat Ready]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Smoking near me in a public place is fascist....

If I fucking sprayed gasoline all over you at a gas station (or any generally recognized toxic substance), then was told it was illegal, I don't think anyone would call you a fascist.

Fuck your own lungs up, not mine!

Sit back, relax------have a smoke and unwind.......Let the anger go! Aint lookin' for somebody to fight.....baby don't get uptight. Ahhh----you know the song! LMFAO-----

[Combat Ready]

Originally posted by FORD
I'm not entirely sure about that.

One of my uncles used to be a serious stoner. He had a dog who was completely paranoid. No bullshit, this dog would hear any noise and start shaking. You even start walking toward her, she would start shaking. If you actually touched the poor thing, she would act like the San Andreas fault line during a 9.2 quake.

I jokingly said at the time that it was all the second hand pot smoke she had to breathe. Maybe it was?

What a bunch of fucking bullshit-----Maybe the dog thought you were some kind of freakin'....um.....yeah......freak? More likely scenerio? Maybe don't walk toward and attempt to touch the dog if it thinks you're a freak?

Remember----Dogs are an excellent judge of character! Hmmmmmm

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I'm surprised to read this post from an American.

It is the scary argument here where we have free health care.

The reaon I find the argument scary is that it is equally applicable to a ton of shit like dangerous sports, eating pizza, booze, not taking enough exercise etc.

To me NONE of that has anything to do with government.

Also incidently in a welfare state country like the UK or Canada smokers save the taxpayers a ton of cash by not living long.

A lot of the anti smoking facists seem to forget that we all die of something. The most expensive thing that you can get is some dribbling 90 year old ex lawyer living in a state old folks home who if they had smoked could have died in a massive heart attack at 65 costing us all fuck all.

It's a dumb argument.

Cheers!

:gulp:

I agree that we all die of something. But I've read studies which show that smoking related illnesses are much costlier to treat than other illnesses, simply because smoking affects a much larger group of people. In America, those costs take the form of higher health care costs for everyone, including non-smokers. Higher treatment costs, higher insurance rates, and reduced insurance availability. The problem is actually greater in America than in other countries with nationalized health care systems. Our health care costs are skyrocketing out of control and nobody seems to be addressing it.

[Seshmeister]

http://www.forces.org/evidence/long-list.htm


... And they call this science!
THE LONG LIST OF METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS IN THE JUNK SCIENCE OF PASSIVE SMOKE


PREFACE

May 4, 2005 - The public's growing awareness that the studies on passive smoke are statistical trash along with the knowledge that the health authorities are representing such trash as scientific evidence is a positive development. Many readers, however, have asked us for an exhaustive list of the reasons why these studies are trash.

The health authorities often state or imply that "smoking is indefensible." That statement is absurd. Smoking is perfectly defensible because none of the alarms swirling about passive smoke have any scientific foundation, while those regarding active smoking are huge exaggerations as well. Both are entirely based on incalculable factors. Let's set aside active smoking for now and consider the "dangers" of passive smoke that are the bases of smoking bans enacted to "protect the health of nonsmokers" - a protection that has no actual basis since passive smoke has never been demonstrated statistically or scientifically as dangerous, or risky. Thus what is indefensible is the false representation of evidence by authority. Such false representation is easily demonstrable.



THE LONG LIST OF METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS IN THE JUNK SCIENCE OF PASSIVE SMOKE

The claims of exposure are not authentic. Exposure is not measured. The studies actually measure nothing, but rely on the vague and grossly imprecise recall of queried subjects who attempt to evoke in a few minutes their individual lifetime memories of passive smoking exposure.

Errors in individual exposure recollection, most likely large, are unknown ,and are unknowable. Digitized numerical claims of exposure are, therefore, incongruous and impermissible. Their numerical representation gives an impression of reliability and precision that is demonstrably false and misleading.

A recall bias has been demonstrated to be larger in subjects, who are more likely to amplify their recall of passive smoking exposure as a justification for their disease, with lung cancer or cardio vascular disease.

A misclassification bias has been demonstrated to be larger in subjects with lung cancer or cardio vascular disease because they are more likely than healthy subjects to classify themselves as nonsmokers.

A mismatch error of cases and controls is inevitable because the groups compared are not homogeneous and differ in many characteristics other than recall of passive smoking exposure.
Confounding errors by definition are likely to be more prevalent among lung cancer and cardio vascular disease cases. Confounders are all other known and unknown potential causes of lung cancer and cardio vascular disease that interfere with the specific attribution of risk to passive smoking.

Probable errors of disease diagnosis are seldom addressed by passive smoking studies.
Publication errors have been found to favor the publication of studies that claim associations of increased risk.

Statistical errors of sampling and statistical significance are grossly inconsistent among passive smoking studies owing to the feeble differentials of exposure recall and the small number of subjects in each study. A majority of studies have not reached statistical significance. In any event, significant or not, the statistical indices of all passive smoking studies are illusory because they are derived from the grossly illusory and misleading numerical renderings of vague individual exposure recalls.

Results from different studies have not been consistent and reproducible.

Epidemiologic criteria of causal inference (the Hill criteria) are not met by passive smoking studies.

Attempts to summarize the results of different studies by meta-analysis statistical techniques are illegitimate. Results are obtained by pooling heterogeneous and selected studies, giving arbitrary preferential weights to certain studies, which, in any case, are handicapped by the sources of error listed above.
What must an epidemiologic study warrant?

A study must warrant that its numerical representations of individual lifetime ETS exposure recalls are true measures of actual exposures.

A study must warrant that an exposure recall bias affects cases and control groups, and exposed and non-exposed groups at the same rate.

A study must warrant that subject selection and misclassification biases affect cases and control groups, and exposed and non-exposed groups at the same rate.

A study must warrant that known causal confounders affect cases and control groups, and exposed and non-exposed groups at the same rate.

A study must warrant the accuracy of pathological and diagnostic records.

The results from different studies addressing the same subject must be consistently reproducible.
In any study, the statistical margin of error of reported risks should reach no less than the 95% level of significance.

If the above criteria are met, the results of a study should also be consistent with Hill’s criteria of causality. (See below)

Meta-analysis summations shall not be credible unless performed on the basis of all available studies. Such studies also must be of homogeneous design and conduct, and must have met the above criteria of validity.

Given that the above is universally and medically accepted as epidemiological practice:

It is incontrovertible that no extant study can warrant that the numerical representation of individual lifetime ETS exposure recalls is a reliable measure of actual exposures.

It is incontrovertible that no extant study can warrant that ETS exposure recall bias affects cases and control groups, and exposed and non-exposed groups at the same rate.

It is incontrovertible that no extant study can warrant that subject selection and misclassification biases (and other biases) affect cases and control groups, and exposed and non-exposed groups at the same rate.

It is incontrovertible that no extant study can warrant that known causal confounders affect cases and control groups, and exposed and non-exposed groups at the same rate.

It is incontrovertible that no extant study has warranted the accuracy of pathological and diagnostic records.

It is incontrovertible that results from different studies addressing the same subject have been grossly inconsistent and not reliably reproducible.

It is incontrovertible that only for a random minority of studies has the numerical margin of error of reported risks been at or below the 95% confidence level of statistical significance.

It is incontrovertible that no study of ETS has met Hill’s criteria of causality.

It is incontrovertible that no meta-analysis summation of ETS studies has been performed on the basis of all available studies, of studies that are of homogeneous design and conduct, and of studies that have met the above criteria of validity.

Hill's criteria

1) Strength of an association is a clue to causation, although a strong association is neither necessary nor sufficient to affirm causality, and a weak one is neither necessary nor sufficient to deny causality.

In the case of passive smoke it is clear that the associations are extremely weak, as confirmed by the authoritative opinions below:

National Cancer Institute - “In epidemiologic research, relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.” – National Cancer Institute, “Abortion and possible risk for breast cancer: analysis and inconsistencies,” October 26, 1994.

Sir Richard Doll - " ... when relative risk lies between 1 and 2 ... problems of interpretation may become acute, and it may be extremely difficult to disentangle the various contributions of biased information, confounding of two or more factors, and cause and effect."
“The Causes of Cancer," by Richard Doll, F.R.S. and Richard Peto. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 1219.

WHO/IARC - “Relative risks of less than 2.0 may readily reflect some unperceived bias or confounding factor, those over 5.0 are unlikely to do so.” - Breslow and Day, 1980, Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol. 1, The analysis of case control studies. Published by the World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Sci. Pub. No. 32, Lyon, p. 36
FDA - “Relative risks of 2 have a history of unreliability” - Robert Temple, M.D. Food and Drug Administration Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Letters, September 8, 1999

FDA - "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

Average cancer risk elevation for exposure to passive smoke: about 20% (relative risk=1.2)
Average cardiovascular disease risk elevation for exposure to passive smoke: about 30% (relative risk=1.3)
Quality of methodology and data gathering on passive smoke in all studies: trash



2) Consistency of results from different studies is an obvious attribute of true causal relationships.

Epidemiologic studies of passive smoke are grossly inconsistent, and epidemiologic associations that are inconsistent are quite unlikely to be true.
3) Specificity requires that a cause leads to a single effect, which is seldom the case in multi-factorial epidemiology.

Passive smoke has been claimed to cause many different effects.
4) Temporality. That effects must occur after the cause has a chance to act is a self-evident and trivial criterion of causality.

5) Dose-effect relationship is a useful criterion of causation, but does not resolve the matter.

Such an effect is the exception in passive smoke studies.
6) Plausibility. Whether an association is biologically plausible or not remains a matter of individual speculation and is far from being objective or conclusive.

7) Coherence. Agreement with other information may be a corollary attribute but not evidence of causation.

8) Experimental evidence. Experimental evidence in humans would indeed constitute proof of causation, but it is unavailable in the case of passive smoke.

9) Analogy is open to imagination and remains an invalid criterion of causation.
CASE CLOSED

The above are not opinions: these rules are the basis of science, epidemiology and statistics, rendering the supposed importance of the authority releasing the study - or the entity financing it - irrelevant. These fundamental rules are systematically violated to "square the balance", justifying prohibition, fulfilling an ugly thirst for power, as well as enacting the pharmaceutical agenda.

Even setting aside the violations we have demonstrated, the studies still demonstrate nothing, but they are nevertheless touted by the health authorities as if they meant something.

This is the reason why anti-tobacco operatives at all levels continue to refuse public debates on the validity of their junk science and the truthfulness of their statements.

[Hyman Roth]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
....If you can't cope with a bit of second hand smoke then basically you are fighting against natural selection and shouldn't be able to survive anyway. You are too weak and not good for the species.:)
....

Cheers!

:gulp:

I just had to log in and say:

LMMFAO!!

[Hyman Roth]

Originally posted by Seshmeister


...

The reaon I find the argument scary is that it is equally applicable to a ton of shit like dangerous sports, eating pizza, booze, not taking enough exercise etc.

To me NONE of that has anything to do with government.

...

Cheers!

:gulp:

Are you saying here that regulating the health and safety of the citizenry is not a legitimate function of government?

[binnie]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Exactly!

I wish I didn't smoke so I could make this argument more strongly without seeming predjudiced.

I was with an American in Buenos Aires at a restaurant outside and the guy started screaming at a couple who were walking along smoking 50 feet away.

He smoked 3 packs a day for 30 years up until a couple of years ago.

I bet the reastaurant idiot mentioned earlier in the thread was an ex smoker. Ignoring the kids thing which is fine, smoking Nazi's are divided between hypochondriacs and ex smokers who still crave nicotine. The latter particularly annoy me because the hypocrisy is astonishing. That cunt Bloomberg is an ex smoker.

We were told forever that over 99% of people who got lung cancer were smokers. How come now all of a sudden there is this bunch of super delicate people like FORD that collapse in the presence of some smoke?

If you can't cope with a bit of second hand smoke then basically you are fighting against natural selection and shouldn't be able to survive anyway. You are too weak and not good for the species.:)

Seriously though the anti smoking nazi shit is out of control. If it was so fucking terrible then all we need is that smoking is illegal in public areas without them getting a smoking license. To get it maybe they should have to provide good AC or whatever. The delicate people could just avoid such places.

Last year we got the hardcore no fucking nonsence NYC/Irish smoking ban. If for example you are a truck driver who owns his own truck it's illegal for you to smoke in it as that's a place of business. It became illegal for me to smoke in my office even although I owned the business and all my staff also smoked.

Like the majority of smokers I am sensitive about it. My kids have never even seen me smoke never mind caught some fumes. Even if I'm outside walking along the road and I see someone walking towards me with a kid I cross the road.

There's an inevitability about this though which comes down to 2/3rds banning 1/3 completely. Half of Europe, California and NYC have already done it and I think in a couple of years time the only place you will be able to smoke in a bar will be in South America or Africa.

Oh and FORD as regards the peanut allergy, nuts are banned on planes so it does affect other people but fortunately nuts aren't yet banned from the intermet.:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

I think that closes the argument, good points there Sesh...

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by Hyman Roth
Are you saying here that regulating the health and safety of the citizenry is not a legitimate function of government?

That's a sticky one for me. Socialistic government allows the overseeing of all public behavior. And I'm completely opposed to that on a micro-managing scale.

Construction of public use facilities should be regulated for safety, workplaces should be regulated for safety, but not the individual person's can do's/can't do. I fail to see the use for protecting people from themselves.

People keep talking about the taxing of the health care system here in the US and that's always been another confusing aspect to me. Our healthcare system is business based. So it seems that the more customers the system gets, the more money it makes. (Which is really how it works...) Since it's up to the medical professionals to tell the CDC what their patients are suffering from and why again we run into the prejudices of human beings. Besides, how many pot smokers lying in the ER actually tell the doc that they smoke the weed? How do the doctors record that data if they do? Afterall, smoking pot is a crime unless you're a celeb in CA....

To add, we have an enormous amount of non-citizen patients who come here when they get seriously ill and can't get the kind of medical attention they need in their own countries. So if we're trying to cheapen the healthcare system by eliminating tobacco use, shouldn't we take a look at the treatment for visiting foreigners (who have no health insurance) and the illegal aliens who try to cross the sea or the desert to get here that we treat free of charge? You do know that every illegal that dies within our borders gets an autopsy ($1100) at our expense, right?

If we really want to work on the healtcare system costs, we should put a cap on health insurance costs, and STOP frivilous ambulance chasing lawsuits.

Take away the government's tobacco money and we might just be in economic trouble.

Shesh, I have also found ex-smokers to be very bitter in the anti-smoking argument.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by FORD
When it affects my health, it's my business. And I'm not talking long term lung cancer risk here, I'm talking immediate effects from allergies.


There simply is NO way to have a healthy environment indoors where smoking is allowed. So the rights of the many (general health) should outweigh the "rights" of the few (tobacco addicts) in this case.

And comparing any of this to nagging wives, bratty kids, drunk drivers, or idiots on cellphones doesn't change the facts.

There is simply no way?

So you are saying if there was a place that was specifically for smokers, a bar lets say (which is segregation I might add...didn't know you value your health above civil rights of others), that would not be enough, as it is impossible to contain smoke, it would be coming through the walls and infecting passerby's and the stores next to it? I think your going a bit far here.

Not ignorning your "facts" , just wondering how on Earth a smoker can possibly satisfy these nuts persecuting them.

[Ellyllions]

Well, there has been attempts by business owners to open establishments that were to be for smokers but they can't get permits in their towns and ended up with protesting in city coucils because it was a "health risk" to non-smokers.

The argument they brought was that "they should be free to go anywhere they want without being exposed to another person's cigarette smoke, even if it is a SMOKE-friendly establishment". They said that because it caters to smokers it's against the non-smokers civil rights.

It's like non-smokers have all the rights they want, but smoker's can't do ANYTHING for themselves. It's all bullshit. What if....just what if smokers starting caterwalling as loud as non-smokers?

BWAHAHAHA

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
http://www.forces.org/evidence/long-list.htm


... And they call this science!
THE LONG LIST OF METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS IN THE JUNK SCIENCE OF PASSIVE SMOKE




sorry, sesh, but i think you may be a bit biased on this one, and that's possibly coloring your response to the (admitted) hyperbole that many of the zealous anti-smoking groups use.


(as i'm sure you know) the article you provided does not say scientifically that it’s impossible for fire to weaken steel (whoops! sorry, wrong conspiracy thread ;)) that it's impossible that breathing passive smoke produces an increase in the incident of lung diseases. the article says that none of the current clinical studies have been conducted properly.

in other words, the meat of the article doesn't directly call the dangers of passive smoking "junk science."


now, like i said, i'll give you that most of the anti-smoking groups use statistics to exaggerate. saying that smoking increases your likelihood of getting lung cancer by 2200%!!!! may be true, but doesn't actually mean much if the non-smoker's chances are 0.07%. yes, smokers might be 22 times as likely to get lung cancer, but they'd still be 98.48% NOT likely to get it.

and, those appear to be the actual numbers:
overall lung cancer incidence (http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/diseasemanagement/pulmonary/lungcancer/lungcancer.htm)
increase in incidence of lung cancer for smokers (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/cancer.htm)


so, anyone who claims that SMOKING WILL DEFINITELY KILL YOU! is obviously exaggerating the danger. but at the same time, it seems clear that smoking does increase one's likelihood of getting lung cancer.



now, for argument's sake, i'll actually assume that the above article on passive smoking junk science is completely correct that there have not been any actual, controlled scientific studies on the effects of passive smoke (which i'm not altogether sure is the case, but doesn't actually matter right now.)


still, logically speaking, if active smoking carries SOME level of increased health risk, how in the world would it be possible that passive smoke inhalation carries ZERO risk?

again, i'm not talking limited exposure, like a 2 hour dinner at a smoke-filled bar twice a week.

nor do i assume that prolonged exposure, such as 8 hours a day, 5 days a week waiting tables in a smoky bar will produce the exact same increase in the incidence in lung cancer as in active smokers.

so, obviously, if the actual incidence of lung cancer in ACTIVE smokers is marginal (1.52%), then prolonged exposure to passive smoke would likely be even more marginal. but at the end, is it logical to assume that it's completely zero?

[Ellyllions]

From what I understand it does somewhat boil down to genome science; in that people who are genetically predisposed to become ill with the trigger being smoke inhalation are more likely than someone who doesn't have that same illness as predominate in their genetic make-up or familial history.

In effect, making it somewhat impossible to make a generalization based on fact. From this angle it becomes more personalized. One may, while another may not.

Peter Jennings died of lung cancer without ever taking a draw off a cigarette. My uncle lived to the ripe old age of 80 without having one smoke free day in almost 60 years, and it wasn't lung cancer or heart disease that killed him.

[binnie]

For those who argue the "health" angle: car fumes can effect you in precisley the same way as cigarrette fumes.

Are you suggesting a ban on motor transport.

Perhaps we could bring back horse and carriges? Oh, wait some people will be allergic to horses too so that's out of the question.

My point is, legislation can begin to border on the ridiculous.

[Ellyllions]

I think we should ban the domesticus felinius myself.

They're ugly, hateful, moody, and TONS of people are allergic to them.

[binnie]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
I think we should ban the domesticus felinius myself.

They're ugly, hateful, moody, and TONS of people are allergic to them.


Elly, I bet you can be quite a fesity kitty when you want to be!

[steve]

Part of the problem with the argument against a “smoking ban”, or “shitting on someone else’s dinner in a public restaurant ban”, or any type of ban for the “common good” is the counterpoint argument that it encroaches on one’s “freedom” – as if we live in a free society.

We don’t live in freedom. Almost no one on the planet does. And despite car-commercial rhetoric thrown around lightly, no one really wants freedom.

We live in societies with rules. In the best cases, the rules are law and not by decree of some thug. In perhaps the best cases folks get to vote in elections and decide laws by pre-agreed (or just decreed a long time ago, but eventually accepted) -upon majority percentages (51%, 67%, 76%, etc…)

Police officers
Stop lights
Taxes
Selective Service
Private Property boundaries
Trademarks & Patents
HEALTH DEPARTMENT ENFORCEMENT (of which there are a million rules, of which smoking bans are increasingly becoming a part of)

These are just a few examples of the devices which folks have agreed are necessary tools to conduct their lives. All prevent the individual’s freedom.

[Ellyllions]

What bugs me about all of this?

The same people who want to live by John Lennon's "Imagine" are the ones who are barking mad about being subjected to cigarette smoke.

Everyone live in harmony...except "you".

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
From what I understand it does somewhat boil down to genome science; in that people who are genetically predisposed to become ill with the trigger being smoke inhalation are more likely than someone who doesn't have that same illness as predominate in their genetic make-up or familial history.

In effect, making it somewhat impossible to make a generalization based on fact. From this angle it becomes more personalized. One may, while another may not.

Peter Jennings died of lung cancer without ever taking a draw off a cigarette. My uncle lived to the ripe old age of 80 without having one smoke free day in almost 60 years, and it wasn't lung cancer or heart disease that killed him.

i still think you can generalize.

on an individual basis, smoke inhalation may not lead to differing health problems for 2 people.

but aggregated, and you wind up with it being a factor. those who may be genetically pre-disposed, as a group, still get lung cancer in lower numbers without smoke inhalation, then do the people who regularly smoke.


i may not be able to tell sesh that he, himself, has a 1.54% chance of getting lung cancer. but, on a general level, i can probably tell smokers that 1.54% of their group will get lung cancer, versus 0.07% of the non-smoking population.

(and FYI, while it doesn't really matter for your argument, peter jennings (http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/05/jennings.cancer/) definitely smoked. but dana reeves (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/03/07/reeve.obit/) didn't, and she got lung cancer, so it doesn't change your argument...;))

[Ellyllions]

LOL! thanks....I knew something was wrong with that sentence when I was proofing it...

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by binnie
For those who argue the "health" angle: car fumes can effect you in precisley the same way as cigarrette fumes.

Are you suggesting a ban on motor transport.

Perhaps we could bring back horse and carriges? Oh, wait some people will be allergic to horses too so that's out of the question.

My point is, legislation can begin to border on the ridiculous.

eh...all true. same with coal-fired power plants. the smog from our electricity generation increases illnesses and deaths on some people.

though, on the one hand, there is a trade off, there. without cars and electricity, and other advances, we wouldn't be able to produce the same level of medical advances and such that we now have.

symantics, you say? well, yeah, that's mostly symantics. the fact is that a garbage man in los angeles is working in a less healthy work environment then somebody in an office in boise, idaho.

so, why don't we protect his environment, like we are beginning to do for some restaurant workers? good question.


on the other hand, if it helps restaurant workers, then i'm not overly concerned that we're not also doing it for every other group in society. at some point, it's a balance.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Ellyllions

Peter Jennings died of lung cancer without ever taking a draw off a cigarette. My uncle lived to the ripe old age of 80 without having one smoke free day in almost 60 years, and it wasn't lung cancer or heart disease that killed him.

Peter Jennings was actually a heavy smoker for decades. He actually quit, but then briefly took up the habit again on 9-11-01 (so I guess you can count him among the casualties)

And one of my grandfathers, who smoked like a chimney until his Alzheimer's dementia made him burn holes in most of his shirts and he was forced to quit for his own safety. He was 84 when he passed away.

But considering his mother lived to be 101 and he had an uncle who made it to 97, it could easily be said that he died "young".

[Lqskdiver]

Let's end this argument.

Keep it out of eateries.

Leave it in bars EXCLUSIVE to alcohol consumption...with the exception of bar snacks.

All in favor?

[Ellyllions]

So say we all....;)

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Let's end this argument.

Keep it out of eateries.

Leave it in bars EXCLUSIVE to alcohol consumption...with the exception of bar snacks.

All in favor?

still have the bar worker problem...

personally, as much as i HATE bars/restaurants with smoke, i wouldn't outlaw it simply based on me and my limited time there. i have the opportunity to leave at any time. or to not go at all.

if i'm going to pass the law, it's going to be for the workers' benefit.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Let's end this argument.

Keep it out of eateries.

Leave it in bars EXCLUSIVE to alcohol consumption...with the exception of bar snacks.

All in favor?

I think if you asked any of the tobacco junkies in this state, they would have to admit that the ban isn't that big of a deal. Most establishments have provided a covered area for smoking, some even have propane heaters so they don't get cold. Hell, I even know of one club that built a second bar near the smoking area so the poor junkies wouldn't have to inconvenience themselves by walking to the other end of the club with their reduced lung capacities and all ;)

I'm sure it will be a cold day in Hell before Texas ever passes such a thing, but I can testify that it wasn't the end of the world for anybody.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Shesh, I have also found ex-smokers to be very bitter in the anti-smoking argument.

Stop calling me Shesh!:)

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by FORD
I think if you asked any of the tobacco junkies in this state, they would have to admit that the ban isn't that big of a deal. Most establishments have provided a covered area for smoking, some even have propane heaters so they don't get cold. Hell, I even know of one club that built a second bar near the smoking area so the poor junkies wouldn't have to inconvenience themselves by walking to the other end of the club with their reduced lung capacities and all ;)

I'm sure it will be a cold day in Hell before Texas ever passes such a thing, but I can testify that it wasn't the end of the world for anybody.

It can be a real misery though.

For example a couple of years ago I went out to a bar in Dublin with a couple who both smoked. The bar was popular and busy so no seats. You weren't allowed to take drinks outside but could only smoke outside.

So they would go out for a smoke leaving me holding our three drinks(so unable to drink and with noone to talk to) then they would come back and I would go out. Not a great night.

Also it can work against non smokers. I've been out where there is one non smoker left by himself constantly whilst the smokers disappear on mass every 30 minutes.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Let's end this argument.

Keep it out of eateries.

Leave it in bars EXCLUSIVE to alcohol consumption...with the exception of bar snacks.

All in favor?

I think the ultra fair option would be to ban it even from bars but allow bars to apply for a smoking license. To get the license they have to show they have good smoke extraction systems in the smoking areas.

I've been in a place that had that and I promise you no barstaff were
getting any passive smoke worth worrying about in any way.


Even a sissy like FORD wouldn't have complained...:)

I think these units cost around $12k or so, let the market decide.


The reason this hasn't been the case is that the second hand smoke health risk is a big 'smokescreen', pardon the pun.

The bans are about public health trying to get people to stop smoking.

A nanny state.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Big Troubles]

Originally posted by Seshmeister


The bans are about public health trying to get people to stop smoking.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Too bad the same "public health" isn't showing the same amount of concern towards alcoholism in the very same bars these potential smokers might be.

:D

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Troubles
Too bad the same "public health" isn't showing the same amount of concern towards alcoholism in the very same bars these potential smokers might be.

:D

If the bars kicked out alcoholics, they WOULD go out of business!!

Around here though, most places are very "anal" about over-serving and cops are known to walk through the bars and take notes of who they think might be over the limit, so they know who to follow at 2:00 AM

[Nickdfresh]

My consumption of alcohol doesn't really affect those around me, unless I drive of course, or spill beer into their mouths...

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Stop calling me Shesh!:)

Well what would you like to be called?
Your name is too long....:D

How about Meister?
Or SM?

Or just Hey you?

:D

[Ellyllions]

Wonder what the statistics are on people walking out on meal tabs or bar tabs without paying....using the excuse, "I'm going to have a smoke".

[Nickdfresh]

Sesh...

[Big Troubles]

Originally posted by FORD
If the bars kicked out alcoholics, they WOULD go out of business!!

Around here though, most places are very "anal" about over-serving and cops are known to walk through the bars and take notes of who they think might be over the limit, so they know who to follow at 2:00 AM

Well the bars wouldn't want to kick the "over the limit consumers" so much as maybe the "Public Heath" themselves. I just think it's ironic that the Gov. would spend BILLIONS on anti-smoking campaigns and when it comes to alcohol, they let the advertising fly!

Here in Canada Coors Light is probably the most popular beer, based on their "cool" commercials alone.

Cops dont walk thru our bars unless they're called in to stop a fight. Cops in a bar, or circling the block waiting for "possible" drunk drivers, has been deemed "entrapment".

I have a friend that's been an O.P.P for 3 or 4 years and he's always told me, he'd rather be involved in drug busts and domestic calls than RIDE programs.

He thinks like me. Drunks should just have their own lane to drive in. :p

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
It can be a real misery though.

For example a couple of years ago I went out to a bar in Dublin with a couple who both smoked. The bar was popular and busy so no seats. You weren't allowed to take drinks outside but could only smoke outside.

So they would go out for a smoke leaving me holding our three drinks(so unable to drink and with noone to talk to) then they would come back and I would go out. Not a great night.

Also it can work against non smokers. I've been out where there is one non smoker left by himself constantly whilst the smokers disappear on mass every 30 minutes.

Cheers!

:gulp:

If the smoking area is the type of patio where it's walled off from street access, then I don't see why drinking shouldn't be allowed in that area as well. Depending on the climate, they might as well throw some tables and chairs in and make a seating area out of it. But if it's a case of merely going out to the sidewalk to smoke, probably no way around the alcohol laws there.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I think the ultra fair option would be to ban it even from bars but allow bars to apply for a smoking license. To get the license they have to show they have good smoke extraction systems in the smoking areas.

I've been in a place that had that and I promise you no barstaff were
getting any passive smoke worth worrying about in any way.


Even a sissy like FORD wouldn't have complained...:)

I think these units cost around $12k or so, let the market decide.


The reason this hasn't been the case is that the second hand smoke health risk is a big 'smokescreen', pardon the pun.

The bans are about public health trying to get people to stop smoking.

A nanny state.

Cheers!

:gulp:

I've heard of such systems, but I can't say I've ever been in a venue where one was used. The ventilation systems around here, assuming a scale of 1 - 10 probably ranked from 0- 5.

Of course most of these systems are so old they were made in the days when we hadn't yet figured out that sticking radioactive carcinogen tainted burning leaves in your face just might not be good for you ;)

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Agreed. I don't smoke and never have. I personally don't give a damn if smokers have to walk a mile to puff a butt. I think bans should be in effect for all public eating establishments.

I smoke...

I don't care about not having a smoke @ a restaraunt while I'm eating. That's cool with me, I can wait.

The bars on the otherhand where smoking bans are in effect now is ridiculous. Even non-smokers light up after a drink of the tiger piss once in a while.

I just treat it like I would smoking around babies..

Non-smokers are babies.

They'll bitch about smelling a persons burning tobacco, get in their OVERSIZED VEHICLES, and torch on down the road throwing emissions into the air like nobody's buisness.
If smoking in public places is to be abolished, even outside, I move to ban anyone with less than 3 kids from owning an SUV, or truck unless they are pulling a horse trailer. You don't need a vehicle that size to tear ass around town in when it's just you, Mrs. Selfish, and little Poindexter. :mad:
So let it be written....

[Seshmeister]

You get more carbon monoxide sittiing in at a red light fro a few minutes than you'll get in hours in a smoking bar.

As far as global warming and all that shit I have to say I've reached an epiphany on it. It's fucking great!

I'm all for it.

My little country contributes 0.001% or something to the whole shit but it's getting warmer which is wonderful.

Scotland is a beautiful country but always ruined by the miserable weather. For the last few weeks it's been a tremendous 70 degrees, my kids can go out and play and we are going to get a ton of tourist money once it gets unbearably hot in other places.

Even better my house is at the top of a hill so no worries about the flooding.

The whole thing is tremendous.

I would like to urge Americans to keep on fucking up the planet for the sake of my kids.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by FORD
I've heard of such systems, but I can't say I've ever been in a venue where one was used. The ventilation systems around here, assuming a scale of 1 - 10 probably ranked from 0- 5.

Of course most of these systems are so old they were made in the days when we hadn't yet figured out that sticking radioactive carcinogen tainted burning leaves in your face just might not be good for you ;)

Have you considered the Zorb option?

http://www.at94.co.nz/images/zorb.jpg


These are inflatable bubbles that people bounce down hills in.

With a little modification you could sit in the bar in your Zorb with a wireless internet connection reading Alec Jones cuntspiracy theories and posting here without having to interact at all with the real world.

Modifying the Zorb to allow micro brewery beers to be poured through a funnel type device by the barstaff would be quite a simple upgrade.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Big Troubles]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
You get more carbon monoxide sittiing in at a red light fro a few minutes than you'll get in hours in a smoking bar.

As far as global warming and all that shit I have to say I've reached an epiphany on it. It's fucking great!

I'm all for it.

My little country contributes 0.001% or something to the whole shit but it's getting warmer which is wonderful.

Scotland is a beautiful country but always ruined by the miserable weather. For the last few weeks it's been a tremendous 70 degrees, my kids can go out and play and we are going to get a ton of tourist money once it gets unbearably hot in other places.

Even better my house is at the top of a hill so no worries about the flooding.

The whole thing is tremendous.

I would like to urge Americans to keep on fucking up the planet for the sake of my kids.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Now I don't feel bad for putting extra octane in my fuel tank or throwing pesticide all over the fuckin place! :D

[Seshmeister]

Go for it!:)

April/May used to be a misery here with constant rain. Now it's 70 at least.

No snow last Winter. Ok no snowmen for the kids but it made life a whole lot easier.

It's a bit ironic that places like here and the North East of the US will benefit from the Texans but I have to say 'bring it on'.:D

[Big Troubles]

LOL

It'll only be a problem for your grandchildren or great grandchildren I suppose.


In the 70's, we used to be able to slow cook an egg on the roadside. I kid you not. It would take a while, but when we'd get our "Indian" Summers (referring of course to the tanned skin) that's what we used to do. That and marbles. :D

Now our summers are nothing but WET. It's a marsh muggy air around August.

[Big Troubles]

Like Flappo's basement apt. in mid December. :D

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Go for it!:)

April/May used to be a misery here with constant rain. Now it's 70 at least.

No snow last Winter. Ok no snowmen for the kids but it made life a whole lot easier.

It's a bit ironic that places like here and the North East of the US will benefit from the Texans but I have to say 'bring it on'.:D

Jesus Cruise! How did that happen? We got your lousy weather in Apr./May and you're getting melanoma?

NAFTA?....

:dork:

Enjoy it,Sheesh.....but you will rue the day when you mow the lawn and become "illegal" in appearance.;)

[CVH Rulz]

http://www.areyouokwiththat.com/

[Seshmeister]

http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcsupply/5drintoox7.html

[scamper]

Originally posted by Big Troubles
Here in Canada Coors Light is probably the most popular beer

This is the most disturbing thing I've ever read on this forum.

[scamper]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I would like to urge Americans to keep on fucking up the planet

Nice

[Eddie's Booze]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
never went to a dallas school. i graduated from the top district in the state and go to college now

You lookin for a Medal????

http://www.mclknox.org/assets/images/Medal_of_Honor.jpg

:D