Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 12:09 AM        Next phase in attack on smokers...?
What do you guys think? Does the slope continue to get slippery???

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...9/BA233199.DTL

Bill favors smokers' neighbors
Assemblyman wants to clear air in apartments, condominiums

Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Sunday, March 9, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

Sacramento -- California has banned smoking in businesses and bars and near playgrounds, but now a San Rafael lawmaker wants to go even further by regulating smoking in apartment and condominium complexes.

Assemblyman Joe Nation said that if apartment dwellers can make nuisance complaints against neighbors who blast stereos at 2 a.m., they should have the same recourse against neighbors who foul the air with secondhand smoke.

"Someone who lives in a multifamily home has the right to breathe clean air, " the Democratic lawmaker said. "Do the rights of the nonsmoker supersede the rights of the smoker? I think it is more important to protect the nonsmoker than to ensure the smoker has a place to smoke."

But critics say that trying to control what people are allowed to do in their own homes is an Orwellian nightmare come true. The plan is unworkable, they say, and pits smoker against nonsmoker, landlord against tenant.

Nation's bill, AB210, which has yet to be heard in a committee, has two parts. First, it would ban smoking from all common areas, including outdoor spots such as pools, and would declare "the drifting, wafting or blowing of tobacco smoke" a nuisance. This would allow renters or landowners to take action against anyone whose lighting up causes a problem.

Then, starting on Jan. 1, 2006, smoking would be prohibited in all housing units unless specifically designated as units where smoking is permitted. Current residents would be exempt until they move into a new unit. Violation of this would lead to a $100 fine.

Exposure to secondhand smoke causes an estimated 3,000 deaths from lung cancer among American adults every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Scientific studies also link secondhand smoke with heart disease.

Nation admitted the bill still needs work, saying details about how the law would be enforced and who would pay or collect the fine still need to be determined. It's not clear whether a landlord or building association could vote to make an entire building a smoking area.

The intent of the bill is to make it easier for people to take legal action if secondhand smoke becomes a nuisance.

Ellen Dolores of Novato wishes she could avoid the smoke in the townhouse next to hers. She said she can't open the windows or garden on her patio without breathing the smoke. Even with the windows closed, it seeps into her bedroom.

"I can't go into their house and point a gun at them, so why can they go into my house and ruin my air?" she asked.

Meredith Cain, 29, also is frustrated by her neighbor's smoke. She and her husband chose their Sunnyvale apartment for their family because it has two large porches. This allows Cain, who is pregnant, to enjoy watching her 2 1/2- year-old son draw with chalk or play with his basketball set without having to go far from home.

"Now our upstairs neighbor is often outside smoking, and it's unbearable," Cain said.

But Martha Hughes lives in an apartment and believes the proposed law is "stupid."

"I don't smoke, but if they want to in their own apartment, that is their business," said the 44-year-old San Franciscan.

Both landowners and tobacco companies are looking closely at the bill, concerned about the invasion of people's privacy and the ability to enforce it.

Banning smoking would set up even more tension between landlords and residents, said Deb Carlton, senior vice president of the California Apartment Association. The group has not yet taken a formal position on the bill.

"This pits owners against tenants," she said. "Owners want all tenants to live in peace and quiet and enjoyment. But they don't want to interfere with their rights in their own units."

Tobacco giant Philip Morris Cos. Inc. opposes the legislation, saying people should have the right to smoke outside and in their own homes.

"An individual's decision to smoke or allow smoking in the privacy of their own home should be respected," said Tom Ryan, a spokesman for the company.

Ryan said the company also is against prohibiting smoking outdoors, except in areas designated for children.

Nation said the idea is to get people to be responsible about their secondhand smoke, perhaps by using ashtrays designed to trap the air.

The American Lung Association of California gets many calls from people who suffer from asthma and are fearful for their lives, said Paul Knepprath, a lobbyist for the association.

"There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke," he said. "We have a toxic pollutant that is wafting about and exposing people in their apartments or condos. We have to protect the health of people in these situations."

Another bill pending in the Legislature for the second time would increase the minimum smoking age from 18 to 21. The bill stalled last year as lawmakers struggled with the realization that they needed money from the tobacco tax to help close the state's budget shortfall.

AB221 by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, will probably run into the same obstacles this year. Gov. Gray Davis has proposed raising the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.10.
-30-

E-mail Lynda Gledhill at lgledhill@sfchronicle.com.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 12:46 AM       
Well I fucking hate smokers with every ounce of my being. They are the most inconsiderate and utterly foul assholes on earth.

However I support their right to smoke, just as long as I don't have to be around it. Its fine if people are around smoke because they wish to partake in its foul goodness, but when another party is unwillingly forced to suffer under it's cloud of stank, it becomes intolerable.

It is a gas, and diffuses throughout the room. Obviously you can't do it everywhere. Smokers seem to think this is funny. It isn't funny when you're a 4 year old who can't breathe and thinks hes going to die because he just discovered he has asthma by playing "Ninja Turtles" in a smokey arcade.

I hope they all get fucking cancer and die miserable, painful deaths crying because they have no family or anyone who loves them, while wearing a trash bag, living in a garbage can.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 10:18 AM       
Comparing this piece of legislation to noise laws doesn't work because you need to have a certain level of noise before you can call it a nuisance, whereas this bill proposes a blanket ban. If the smoking is excessive, then something ought to be done about it. At any rate, I don't agree with a blanket ban, but if it is passed it would be lightly enforced I think, and only in cases of flagrant abuse.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 01:43 PM       
Can I point out that there is no scientific evidence of second hand smoking causing cancer?

Oh, and here is a great one.

In NYC, Mayor Ashole Bloomberg has put a hiring freeze on city employees. Thats cops, firefighters, teachers, snaitation etc. Stuff you need to run a city. Not only that, but the next budget will me mean serious layoffs.

After all this, he finds money to pay a bunch of people 13.00 and hour to go around to bars and clubs to enforce some wierd smoking ban.

I know its a bit off topic, I just had to rant.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 04:49 PM       
Since smoking causes cancer, it should be pretty fucking obvious second-hand smoke can cause it too. The body does not filter out all harmful elements and extort april fresh scent to the company around you. I don't believe you'll get cancer from second-hand smoke any sooner than you'll get it from drinking too much wine or eating too much pork, but there's little sense in denying it.

I've never smoked in my life and I haven't been bothered with smoke since I was a little kid. It's a nasty and stupid habit, but one that should be resolved by people amongst themselves. If you're hooked on the crap, have the decency to ask in a company if anyone objects to you smoking, go outside if it does. It's your choice, don't start whining. In my opinion, the law shouldn't come into play until a smoker insists on ignoring complaints.

And yeah yeah, we all know about the annoying fuckers who start coughing theatrically the moment someone lights up in their vincinity, complain till your head falls off, etcetera. They endure your smoke, you endure their whining.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 07:51 PM       
Quote:
Can I point out that there is no scientific evidence of second hand smoking causing cancer?
None whatsoever?

Exposure to secondhand smoke causes an estimated 3,000 deaths from lung cancer among American adults every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Scientific studies also link secondhand smoke with heart disease.

From the article above. It's not particularly nice to asthmatics either.

As Winston said before, smoking confers absolutely no social benefit. Wear a patch, chew gum, deal.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Skulhedface Skulhedface is offline
Asspunch McGruf
Skulhedface's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: !GNODAB
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 09:53 PM       
OK, but if we go by the "We should ban smoking because secondhand smoke kills people!" philosophy, let's ban everything else that might be inconvenient or harmful in the slightest bit?

NO MORE DRIVING!! Cars throw out gases that are harmful to the environment, I might actually experience a slight cough or two if I happen to be standing RIGHT BY THE FREEWAY! BUT NO MORE DRIVING BECAUSE IT FOULS UP MY AIR! IT MIGHT GIVE ME CANCER ARRRRRRRARAHGH!!

Or better yet, NO MORE SUN! The SUN could give me cancer! Hell, that Baywatch tan I've been working on every summer could give me a TUMOR! THE SUN!! THE SUN MUST BE STOPPED, LEST ONE FUCKING PERSON CATCH CANCER FROM IT!

BUT THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL STOP EATING!! EVERYONE KNOWS PRESERVATIVES IN FOOD JUST MIGHTCAUSE CANCER, IT DOES IN LAB ANIMALS!! No more hot dogs for me. Nope. No more meat because it might have preservatives in it that might make one of my bodily cells go renegade! No more VEGGIES because they put PESTICIDES on them! They'll FOR SURE give us cancer! No more ANYTHING! Well, ice. Maybe ice. BUT WAIT! Ice comes from water, water has to come from SOMEWHERE, and odds are... THAT WATER PROBABLY HAS SOME VERY MINISCULE, MINUTE TRACE OF SOME LITTLE KNOWN AND VERY WEAK CARCINOGEN IN IT! IT MIGHT GIVE ME CANCER IF I EAT 15 BILLION ICE CUBES IN MY LIFE! FUCK!!!

The POINT to all this is, it's insane to make LAWS against something because it's a SLIGHT inconvienience to someone else. So it may cause cancer, it's not as if it'll cause it after ONE BIG BREATH, will it?

"Jeezus, I was perfectly healthy, then I took one big puff of this gas cloud and now I've got ten thousand kinds of cancer! And by the way, since I didn't put on sunblock, I went outside once, and I got SKIN CANCER! Oh yes, then I ate a hot dog in New York, now I've got INTESTINAL CANCER! ARGH!"

On the statistics: More people die in car accidents than do by secondhand smoke, shall we ban automobiles too? Besides, no one said YOU HAD TO STAND RIGHT NEXT TO THE FUCKING FREEWAY ANYWAY, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO STAND NEXT TO A SMOKER?

On smoking being banned in apartments: People could be doing MUCH worse, like looking at child porn, but at least they are doing it in their OWN HOUSE.
It's not as if a significant amount of smoke is getting through the system, if even a 3 pack a day smoker lived next door to you, unless you had walls thinner than paper or more cracks than a big time dealer has in his pocket AND his teeth, the amount of smoke that would get through would not be significant enough to cause cancer unless you lived to be 120, stayed at home ALL DAY breathing it in, and you stood by the cracks WAITING to inhale it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Zero Signal Zero Signal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: /dev/null
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 09:58 PM        Hah
You guys need to watch the Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode where they debunk secondhand smoke using something called logic and scientific evidence (actually, lack OF that very evidence). Something that many of you are lacking.
__________________
I-Mockery Forums: Turn-based stupidity in a real-time world
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Skulhedface Skulhedface is offline
Asspunch McGruf
Skulhedface's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: !GNODAB
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 10:05 PM       
I just thought it was funny that I could be semi-militant about something :D

Seriously, I do think smokers should be more considerate about non-smokers, but I just felt like pointing out all the logic inconsistancies (sp?) Some people. Quick to ban one thing while overlooking something just as relevant (ie smoking, cars...it goes on and on...)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 10:05 PM       
I don't give a flying fuck if it causes cancer. It SERIOUSLY fucks up people with asthma. It came close to KILLING me when I was 4 years old.

On top of that it is very very painful to the lungs, and the smell gets in peoples hair and clothes.

skulhedface: It is more than a slight inconvienience. Plus all of your examples except for the driving one were completely inapplicable because noone else is affacted by your actions when you eat or are exposed to the sun.

The point is that others may not want to be surrounded in smoker's gassy foul cloud of nastiness. A cloud which DOES do damage to certain individuals. That is a fact. I know this.

By the way, Penn and Teller may be very funny and talented, but if thats your primary source of information in the medical science field, then you are an idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Skulhedface Skulhedface is offline
Asspunch McGruf
Skulhedface's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: !GNODAB
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 10:20 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
skulhedface: It is more than a slight inconvienience. Plus all of your examples except for the driving one were completely innapplicable because noone else is affacted by your actions when you eat or are exposed to the sun.
The eating and sun examples were intended to point out that you can catch cancer just as easily from these as you can from secondhand smoke (but I admit I was being conservative, it would do more harm if it was steadier, but the types that seem to want to ban smoking seem to be the types that care only for themselves)
All those examples did was take out the middleman (ie the guy smoking the cigarette)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
It SERIOUSLY fucks up people with asthma. It came close to KILLING me when I was 4 years old.
Which is why, since I am respectful of other people, I will move or put out my cigarette if told. I like annoying people, not seriously hurting them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
The point is that others may not want to be surrounded in smokers gassy foul cloud of nastiness. A cloud which DOES do damage to certain individuals. That is a fact. I know this.
Again, this is why I would move or put out my smoke if asked nicely.

out of the little diatribe, I will honestly say that I do smoke, that I do so in public, but if asked, I will be polite enough to move or put it out. I have no problems with people I encounter in personal life. Where I DO have a problem is people forcing the law to regulate it. I am well aware that this is an extreme example, but this is to put it in perspective:

We all know Hell is bad, right? Well, people still want to act like they want, but they have their morals so they will behave themselves when told or when the situation is inappropriate (much like I will not be an asshole and light a smoke in a room full of kids or in a non-smoking section) But then, someone says "Well, Hell is REALLY bad, and I FEEL THAT I SHOULD WRITE TO CONGRESS TO PASS A LAW TO FORCE EVERYONE TO CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY, BECAUSE HELL IS BAD FOR YOU AND I WOULD RATHER YOU CHANGE YOUR ENTIRE LIFESTYLE THAN FOR YOU TO BE AROUND AND DRAG ME TO HELL WITH YOU."

In other words, I know it's bad for some people, and others don't care, but if I were on the other side, I would just either ask politely for them to move/die it out, or move myself, instead of having my panties in a budge so to speak and try to pass laws to force my point of view down your throat. The beauty of this country (or at least above the fine print on the advertising) is that for the most part, we do have our freedoms, and we don't mind so much when someone wants to ask us nicely if we'd put aside those freedoms for a few moments rather than passing a law and totally ripping our freedoms off of us. We gave up a little freedom willingly after the 9/11 attacks, but would we have been as perceptive, scared as we were, if Dubya were to just say "OK, assholes, you can NEVER DO THIS AGAIN!!"

Does this make any sense?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Zero Signal Zero Signal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: /dev/null
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 10:23 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
By the way, Penn and Teller may be very funny and talented, but if thats your primary source of information in the medical science field, then you are an idiot.
They used the same sources as your "scientific evidence" (probably more), so who's the idiot?
__________________
I-Mockery Forums: Turn-based stupidity in a real-time world
Reply With Quote
  #13  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 10:30 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Quote:
Can I point out that there is no scientific evidence of second hand smoking causing cancer?
None whatsoever?

Exposure to secondhand smoke causes an estimated 3,000 deaths from lung cancer among American adults every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Scientific studies also link secondhand smoke with heart disease.

From the article above. It's not particularly nice to asthmatics either.

As Winston said before, smoking confers absolutely no social benefit. Wear a patch, chew gum, deal.
Thats not evidence. Show me the scientific studies. Who does these estimates?

Walk away, don't go where smokers gather, deal.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Skulhedface Skulhedface is offline
Asspunch McGruf
Skulhedface's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: !GNODAB
Old Mar 10th, 2003, 10:43 PM       
It amazes me that they don't include everything in those statistics. How many of those people lived around factories? Big cities? How many smoked themselves? In other words, I just believe that it's WRONG to say that secondhand smoke CAUSED 3,000 deaths, it's more correct to say that it CONTRIBUTED to 3,000 deaths. If someone's asthmatic, it's not completely safe but it is reasonable to say that that asthma might've one day killed you, but it was accelerated by secondhand smoke. Asthma was still the CAUSE of death, but secondhand smoke CONTRIBUTED. Or you might say that secondhand smoke contributed to giving you lung cancer, and the lung cancer was the CAUSE of death. But to nitpickers, to directly say that smoking CAUSES your death is presumptuous and it comes across like someone has an agenda to advance. It might not be good, no one will deny that, but to say it will kill you is a little rushed, and when people peruse these kind of things rather than read them and analyze them, they go out with this phobia of all secondhand smoke. That's when mistakes start being made, people get more militant, and suddenly we have smokanazis trying to pass all sorts of laws against it, when ALL THAT WAS NEEDED WAS A SIMPLE "Hey, I don't really care for smoke, man, would you mind putting it out for a little bit?"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Mar 11th, 2003, 12:09 AM       
El Blanco:

A Medline search turned up hundreds, if not thousands of articles relevant to secondhand smoke (aka passive, environmental tobacco smoke). A great majority seemed to say that extensive exposure to secondhand smoke is probably bad, though as epidemiology methods can be suspect, some letters questioned the methodology of certain articles and other articles disputed the link. Anyway, here's a link to PubMed so you can see for yourself (Ovid is a better search tool but unless you have a password or access to a library you can't use it, I don't believe): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

A few interesting articles. The last three pertain to biomarkers that are used to assess exposure from secondhand smoke. Didn't necessarily read all the abstracts (and certainly didn't read the articles!) so some of them may even contradict waht I've said. Hah!

1. He J, Vupputuri S, Allen K, Prerost MR, Hughes J, Whelton PK. Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease - a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies. N Engl J Med 1999;340:920-6.

2. 3. Wells AJ. Passive smoking as a cause of heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:546-54.

3. Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence. BMJ 1997;315:973-80

4. Morabia A, Bernstein M, Heritier S, Khatchatrian N. Relation of breast cancer with passive and active exposure to tobacco smoke. Am J Epidemiol 1996;143:918-28

5. Davis JW, Shelton L, Watanabe IS, Arnold J. Passive smoking affects endothelium and platelets. Arch Intern Med 1989;149:386-9

6. Eisner MD. Environmental tobacco smoke and adult asthma. [Review] [51 refs] [Journal Article. Review. Review, Tutorial] Clinics in Chest Medicine. 23(4):749-61, 2002 Dec.

7. Peat JK. Keena V. Harakeh Z. Marks G. Parental smoking and respiratory tract infections in children. [Review] [41 refs] [Journal Article. Review. Review, Tutorial] Paediatric Respiratory Reviews. 2(3):207-13, 2001 Sep.

8. Landau LI. Parental smoking: asthma and wheezing illnesses in infants and children. [Review] [23 refs] [Journal Article. Review. Review, Tutorial] Paediatric Respiratory Reviews. 2(3):202-6, 2001 Sep

9. Johnson KC. Hu J. Mao Y. The Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group. Lifetime residential and workplace exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in never-smoking women, Canada 1994-97. [Journal Article] International Journal of Cancer. 93(6):902-6, 2001 Sep15.

10. Husgafvel-Pursiainen K. Boffetta P. Kannio A. Nyberg F. Pershagen G. Mukeria A. Constantinescu V. Fortes C. Benhamou S. p53 mutations and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in a multicenter study on lung cancer. [Journal Article. Multicenter Study] Cancer Research. 60(11):2906-11, 2000 Jun 1.

11. Preston AM, Rodriguez C, Rivera CE, Sahai H. Related Articles, Links Influence of environmental tobacco smoke on vitamin C status in children.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):167-72.

12. Preston AM, Rodriguez C, Rivera CE, Sahai H. Related Articles, Links

Influence of environmental tobacco smoke on vitamin C status in children.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):167-72.


Skulhedface: A moot point. Epidemiology is hardly an exact science, but every epidemiologist is conscious of the correlation v causation question. Freshman level stuff.

Quote:
Or you might say that secondhand smoke contributed to giving you lung cancer, and the lung cancer was the CAUSE of death.
A stupid point. Years of alcohol abuse "contributes" to cirrhosis but doesn't "kill" you? It is a matter of degree, yes, but the conclusion of the scientific community is that there _is_ a strong correlation between secondhand smoke and various health problems. No agenda, just the cold hard facts. The Surgeon General, CDC, EPA, WHO, and many prominent scientists have gone on record saying it's bad.

Considering myself agendaless (I have enough unhealthy habits, and occasional exposure to carcinogens is the least of my worries), I am interested mostly in the facts. If the facts are unclear or in dispute, within reason we should always err on the worst-case scenario. Like how you would suit up before handlign monkeys, "just in case" they may be carring herpes. Public policy, in many instances, should follow similar precedents -- such as how restaurants can't serve you food touched with feces or how new homes can't contain asbestos.

I have tried to give an even-handed account of the issues here. Are there more zealous anti-tobacco people out there? Sure. I think they're annoying too, but I also think they are right.[/url]
Reply With Quote
  #16  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
Old Mar 11th, 2003, 12:12 AM       
Second-hand smoke does cause cancer. There's a lady who's in a big anti-smoking campaign from the Canadian government who was a waitress for 40 years and is dying of lung cancer caused by cigarette smoke, even though she herself is not a smoker.

They're considering a blanket ban on smoking in all public places here in Winnipeg. And you know what? It's gonna happen.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Mar 11th, 2003, 12:15 AM       
Edit to above post: Reference 12 is a double post -- should have been one on nicotine content in hair as a biomarker. Too lazy to find it now though.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Mar 11th, 2003, 12:21 AM       
The American Lung Association is a pretty reputable source. Some more factoids: http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/fda.html
Reply With Quote
  #19  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Mar 11th, 2003, 02:27 AM       
Yeah, I don't think it does the "pro-smoking" camp any service to dismiss the health consequences of second hand smoke. It really only makes you seem indifferent to the problem of cigarettes anyway, and you don't need to take that route.

Another thing "pro-smokers" need to stop doing is saying "if you don't like my cigarette, get away!" When a pack of smokers are standing outside the exit to a building, and I have little option but to walk through their cloud, I see that as a violation of my right to breath and not be choked or gagged. This is coming from an asthmatic who is VERY sympathetic towards smokers on more libertarian grounds than anything else. I don't smoke, however.

With examples such as this legislation, I don't feel it's necessary to take the kind of reactionary stance that pro-smokers have historically taken. This legislation, IMO, is a clear violation of civil liberties. If someone wants to kill themselves in their apartment, they should be allowed to (I agree with Spinster that the "noise" comparison sets a weak precedent).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
MrAdventure MrAdventure is offline
MY DAD
MrAdventure's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: HEAVEN
Old Mar 11th, 2003, 02:28 AM       
Quote:
"I can't go into their house and point a gun at them, so why can they go into my house and ruin my air?" she asked.
IF ANYTHING SHE'S STEALING SMOKE FROM SMOKERS
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #21  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
Old Mar 11th, 2003, 10:24 AM       
Sucks as it may, you DON'T have the right to kill yourself. If that were true, euthanasia'd be legal (in the US) and people who made suicide attempts would be left to die. As a smoker, you just don't have any rights other than the ones the government might toss at you. Since smoking is addictive, it'll grow into what seems like a basic need, and impairment on that will logically piss you off, but much as I respect a smoker's choice and aren't bothered by smoke myself, I can never take a smoker demanding his rights to smoke seriously.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Old Mar 11th, 2003, 02:01 PM       
I SAY WE ROUND UP ALL THEM SMOKERS IN DEATH CAMPS

ALONG WITH THE FAGETS AND JEWS
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #23  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
Old Mar 11th, 2003, 03:22 PM       
I SAY WE TAKE ALL THE CIGARETTES IN THE WORLD AND ALL THE SMOKERS IN THE WORLD AND PUT ALL THE SMOKERS IN THE WORLD IN A ROOM AND NOT LET THEM LEAVE UNTIL THEY'VE SMOKED ALL THE CIGARETTES IN THE WORLD
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
sineasy sineasy is offline
Junior Member
sineasy's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thursday
Old Mar 17th, 2003, 07:09 AM       
Im deeply addicted to cigarettes and unhappy that I can't make myself give up

this is from 'Choke' (the same guy wrote Fight Club)

'Sundays mean Leeza. Leeza sweats yellow with nicotine. You can almost put your hands around her waist since her abs are rock-hard from coughing. Tanya always smuggles in some rubber sex toy, usually a dildo or a sting of latex beads.'

Do you think the author here is pro-smoking or anti-smoking? I don't know why I included the last sentence, it's kind of distracting.
__________________
Ha. Hahah. HAHAHAHA!!!
Good one.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:40 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.