Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Second hand smoke not a threat!
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Second hand smoke not a threat! Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Oct 8th, 2003 11:38 AM
Anonymous
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundtest
You know, the obligatory picture of a diseased lung or organ for shock value is so played out it hurts... maybe it's just the fact that I am a smoker and live in Canada - where every cigarette package purchased by law has a similar image covering half its surface area - but it just doesn't bother me anymore. Perhaps I'm desensitized, but when I look at a picture of a healthy lung or organ it's not exactly appealing either... :/
What they should put on cigarette packs is a picture of Juno from Beetlejuice. Not that I have such a picture at the moment, but still...
Oct 8th, 2003 11:29 AM
soundtest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immortal Goat
While you go and smoke your cigarettes, just picture this...


emphysema

Happy smoking,Kahl.

You know, the obligatory picture of a diseased lung or organ for shock value is so played out it hurts... maybe it's just the fact that I am a smoker and live in Canada - where every cigarette package purchased by law has a similar image covering half its surface area - but it just doesn't bother me anymore. Perhaps I'm desensitized, but when I look at a picture of a healthy lung or organ it's not exactly appealing either... :/
Oct 8th, 2003 04:16 AM
The_Rorschach We're all sucking wind anyway, who gives a fuck.

The air in most cities is more lethal than anything the last few hundred cigarettes I've smoked could ever hope to be. The fucking rain that raises our crops melts stone for Christ's sake. We don't ban cars because we need em, well, those waiters need customers - Even the ones that smoke. If you want to live forever, strap on your birkenstocks, hike on down to the rainforest and gum granola for all eternity. As for me, I'm going to continue to suck down cigarettes and suck down whiskey until my liver and lungs implode, at which time I'll suck on a winchester.

I agree with both Kev and Kahl on this one: Banning cigarettes is execessive and stupid, we have larger things to worry about.
Oct 7th, 2003 10:09 PM
Spooky I say we all follow Denis Leary's opinions on smoking.
Oct 7th, 2003 09:54 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only
Quit changing the topic. We are talking about smoking. (Also, while I don't think really think those laws need to go, I don't think they are necessary.)
Jackass, tell me how this is off topic. The argument is essentially ABOUT government regulation, to ban smoking, or to not ban smoking. The discussion is about regulation, and if you can't address my points, please, don't play the straw man argument of "stay on topic."

Quote:
Do what? Make smoking in buildings illegal?

As I said before, most businesses have already made a "no smoking inside the building" policy.

Besides, if people choose to work for higher wages instead of care about their health, isn't that their own damn fault? Are you trying to say that people can't take care of themselves?
I'm saying people are placed in positions where they need to prioritize. Families often needed to send their children to work in factories, and private businesses didn't just stop doing that and put up little signs. I'm saying people will be exploited, and to buy into your little Libertarian fantasy of self-regulation is asinine stupidity.

Quote:
Business has, and always will, regulate itself based on the consumer's and worker's demands.
Read above.

Quote:
Unfortunately, everyone has this image of big, evil corporations taking over the world put in their mind from revisionist history. If I only had a nickel for how many times my history book infers that a strong, central goverment is key to prosperity...
An activist central government, yes. What history books are you reading?? It seems you're only interested in the history provided by www.lp.org.

Quote:
The disadvantages should be obvious. If people are constantly leaving because of the owners smoking policy, it would be simpler to have designated smoking areas set up for those who do smoke. It takes time to find new employees; it's true it doesn't take much in many fields, but even a day can be damaging.
Bar tending, particularly in cities and college towns, much like waiting tables, is a VERY competitive field. Tips are good, and the hours are often plenty. This isn't about the customers who leave, it's about the workers who need to pay bills, just like workers have ALWAYS chosen to sacrifice their own health and well being in order to feed their families and pay the rent or mortgage. Your utopian fantasy of a business world that has always reghulated itself is just that, a fantasy. Give me examples, tell me of major events when businesses changed their policies not merely for profit, but for the good of their workers. Did the motor industry? How about the factories during industrializing America in the 19th Century...? Hell, even today, people are working longer hours for less pay, and in some fields, the attempt to unionize can still cost you your job.


Quote:
Don't like the smoke as an employee? Think about it this way. If smoking were banned is such places, you might not have the job in the first place. After all, smokers do constitute a large number of people who frequent these areas...
I agree. However, when the laws are instituted, after a period of adjustment, smokers will give in and return to these places. The jobs will be there again, just like smokers dealt with losing the right to smoke up every other place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbers
I would like to add that I support Kahl's last 3 or so posts. Poeple keep calling restaurants public places. They are not. They are privately owned institutions. The owners should be allowed to show discrepancy.
And again I say show me a proivate establishment that has complete autonomy over itself. Koitchens must be clean, food must be prepared in a sanitary fashion, and workers must wash their hands when they piss or shit. Regulation exists on MANY common sense levels, and anybody who has frequented all-night diners would know that these bans don't seem to far out of step with the previously mentioned regulations.
Oct 7th, 2003 05:38 PM
kahljorn "Happy smoking,Kahl. "

That picture looked like the kung pao chicken I had te other day.
Oct 7th, 2003 05:10 PM
O71394658 I would like to add that I support Kahl's last 3 or so posts. Poeple keep calling restaurants public places. They are not. They are privately owned institutions. The owners should be allowed to show discrepancy.
Oct 7th, 2003 04:45 PM
The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
Such as? What regulations, on this topic, do you think should go...? Maybe the appearance of a kitchen? Maybe you'd like it if Cooks and servers didn't need to clean their hands after wiping there asses, then handling your food...? Come on, I know you have devised this tyranical portrait of the government in your head, but use some comon sense...
Quit changing the topic. We are talking about smoking. (Also, while I don't think really think those laws need to go, I don't think they are necessary.)

Quote:
Awwww. *pats you on the head*

The problem with this argument is that people generally always choose poor health standards over not having enough money to pay bills or feed their families. For every 10 employees that complain about the standards, there are 20 more waiting to take their shitty job, especially these days....

No, you need someone to enforce such standards. I know you've turned the government into a monster, but private interests will not regulate themselves at the risk of raising costs. Someone has to make them do it....
Do what? Make smoking in buildings illegal?

As I said before, most businesses have already made a "no smoking inside the building" policy.

Besides, if people choose to work for higher wages instead of care about their health, isn't that their own damn fault? Are you trying to say that people can't take care of themselves?

Business has, and always will, regulate itself based on the consumer's and worker's demands. Unfortunately, everyone has this image of big, evil corporations taking over the world put in their mind from revisionist history. If I only had a nickel for how many times my history book infers that a strong, central goverment is key to prosperity...

Quote:
What disadvantage will there be? Smokers will go there to smoke, and there will always be people to take the place of disgruntled employees. You act as if employyees haven't complained about these things, or haven't organized against it. You expect the private market to regulate itself all of the time, but that simply won't happen.
The disadvantages should be obvious. If people are constantly leaving because of the owners smoking policy, it would be simpler to have designated smoking areas set up for those who do smoke. It takes time to find new employees; it's true it doesn't take much in many fields, but even a day can be damaging.

Quote:
Like what, diners? How about bars? Restaurants? These places wanted and thrived off the money of smokers. Owners want there places to seem friendly to everybody, but places such as diners and bars have taken a hit from these laws. They were never going to willingly change...
Then don't go to those bars, restaurants, or diners. Aside from the occasional run-down bar, places often have areas set aside for non-smokers anyway.

Don't like the smoke as an employee? Think about it this way. If smoking were banned is such places, you might not have the job in the first place. After all, smokers do constitute a large number of people who frequent these areas...
Oct 7th, 2003 04:27 PM
Immortal Goat While you go and smoke your cigarettes, just picture this...


emphysema

Happy smoking,Kahl.
Oct 6th, 2003 11:35 PM
kahljorn I'm going to go buy a pack of cigarettes now just to piss you off
Oct 6th, 2003 11:19 PM
AChimp Can't we all just agree that smoking is gay, that prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke DOES cause cancer and that it's fun to piss off smokers by banning their favourite past-time?
Oct 6th, 2003 10:56 PM
Immortal Goat And do you absolutely LOVE your job?
Oct 6th, 2003 09:35 PM
kahljorn People who work are stupid.

I work at sears.
Oct 6th, 2003 09:20 PM
Immortal Goat People do not always have the choice of where they want to work, Kahl. Take it from me. If I had that choice, I wouldn't be working in fucking Red Lobster. I would be working in a Gamestop or Best Buy. I am stuck at Red Lobster because I am under 18 (not for long, though) and I got hired only because my mother has worked there for 20 or so years. I need to pay for my school tuition, and if I quit, then I am out of school.

So, Kahl, do you still have any smart-ass comments about where people work? I can argue all night about it.
Oct 6th, 2003 08:16 PM
kahljorn I see, I think places should be able to choose if their restaurant is smoke-free or not, and certain types of places should have no choice in the matter, Like a medical lab/hospitol, and gas stations. While a bar or a diner should be able to do whatever the fuck they want, and if a person complains they can get their food to go.
Employees have this wonderful choice of deciding where they want to work, so they can base it off of whether or not the companies work ethics are to their standards. Somebody getting a construction job shouldn't do it, then complain that they have to do physical labor.

Personally, I hate the smell of smoke.
Oct 6th, 2003 06:21 PM
Immortal Goat Fair enough about the bar comment. However, it is not only a few people complaining about the smoke. Most of the people there that do not smoke HATE working in the smoking section. Is it because they are afraid of getting cancer? NO! It is because it is a disgusting habit that should not be allowed in public places. It is the same thing with pot. I don't think it should be illeagal, necessarily, but it shouldn't be allowed in public places.
Oct 6th, 2003 05:53 PM
kahljorn "You are obviously not getting it, Kahljorn. A WHISP of smoke may not harm you, but being in a building where HUNDREDS of smokers are coming in all day (for example, the restaurant I work in), the smoke has very little chance to escape anywhere except the non-smoking section."

If hundreds of people smoke there, and only seven or eight are bitching about it, is it okay to tell the hundreds who dont care about the smoke they can't because it's an inconvenience to one or two people who don't want to go eat somewhere else, or even eat outside? Or just like, shut the fuck up and eat their food then leave? Or even eat at home?
There are plenty of restaurants that are smoke-free already without enforcing it on everyone.
And not being able to smoke in a bar is lame :/

Thought I should respond to that.
Oct 6th, 2003 05:47 PM
kahljorn Nope, but I would have to live with it, wouldn't I?
Oct 6th, 2003 05:46 PM
FS kahl, do you think it would be fair if you'd get seated next to an incredibly fat person on an airplane?
Oct 6th, 2003 05:28 PM
kahljorn the sick dont need to eat in a restaurant :/
Oct 6th, 2003 04:52 PM
Immortal Goat OK. You are obviously not getting it, Kahljorn. A WHISP of smoke may not harm you, but being in a building where HUNDREDS of smokers are coming in all day (for example, the restaurant I work in), the smoke has very little chance to escape anywhere except the non-smoking section. Then, we get people in there who cannot breath the smoke. I have been working as a seater for about three weeks, and already I have seated 10 people who have to carry around a tank of air attatched to their nose. You cannot tell me that they have less of a right to eat in a restaurant than the smokers do. The smokers do not HAVE to smoke, it is a choice, but the sick do not have a choice.



Just fucking smoke outside if you have to. Or better yet, just fucking quit. It's a disgusting habit anyway.
Oct 6th, 2003 04:39 PM
kahljorn Then making out with a cigarette should be safe to. Woe for metaphores.
Oct 6th, 2003 01:52 PM
Perndog Making out with a person with AIDS is pretty much safe. It's not transmitted in saliva.
Oct 6th, 2003 04:49 AM
kahljorn It's wonderful that the basic statement was of comparison. But hey, you're using a computer, right? Adding to the waste in the enviroment, jackass. BUT A LITTLE MORE WONT HURT, RIGHT? WHY DONT YOU JUST GO TAKE A DIP IN A TOXIC WASTE DUMP CAUSE YOU KNOW A LITTLE EXTRA POLLUTION WONT HURT ANYTHING.

Smelling smoke and inhaling it are two different things, inhaling smoke and breathing it are also two different things. It's like breathing the same air as a person with aids, then making out with them. Big difference.
I also believe in order to develop lung cancer some kind of damage needs to occur to the lungs, because cancer is basically a damaged cell reproducting like crazy.
A wisp of smoke here and there won't hurt anything, just like getting a little nick on your arms won't bleed you to death.
I am aware of wind, as well as car exhaust rising to the same policy as the smoke.
But damn, when you're sitting on a freeway in traffic don't tell me you can't smell that fucking exhaust.
Maybe everybody should just grow their own tobacco and smoke it clean and clear. Would it be "Safer"?
Oct 6th, 2003 03:54 AM
punkgrrrlie10
Quote:
The idea of the earths air not being as bad as second hand smoke is really dumb, unless you are in wyoming or some shit you are going to be succepted to a billion cars exhaust fumes, along with industrial venting and all that shit. Cigarette smoke is tiny and insignificant compared to that. Smoke goes away very quickly. You are really stupid if you think one cigarette can fill an entire restaurant with enough smoke to cause any negative effects. Everybody inside would need to smoke, and possible smoke on the cieling. Did you know heat rises? Oh.
Great reasoning. Perhaps you should go swimming in a toxic waste dump...I mean seriously it's just an accumulation of everything else that's bad for you so having extra won't hurt you, right? oh.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:28 PM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.