nairi Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 I was addressing to Azat request about statistics, I asked him if he wanted statistics about indoor smoking. I don't think there is any point in discussing with you about this issue, when you compared laws about restricting non smokers with laws restricting smokers. The differences was so obvious that your comparaison was very much surprising comming from you, I could have expected something like this from anonymouse, but not from you. The only difference I have gathered so far is that smokers have shown considerable tolerance and patience towards anti-smoking laws, whereas anti-smoking law supporters have not done so whatsoever towards smokers. Hence why I don't understand what you're talking about. It would help if you actually explained why my logic is flawed rather than just saying it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 For those reasons a total ban is the only workable option. The question is: who are you to decide that? Why can you not leave this up to the owners and their customers? As for employees, they should know what restaurant they are applying to get a job at. There will probably be many more vacancies in non-smoking restaurants than smoking ones, since there will be more non-smoking restaurants than smoking ones. Leave the people alone. I'm getting increasingly tired of stupid legislations only set to piss off a great part of the world population, which includes region codes on DVDs and players. Whatever you argue, you're on the side of totalitarian fascism, whether you like to agree with this or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neko Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 Whatever you argue, you're on the side of totalitarian fascism, whether you like to agree with this or not. That kinda sounds like the sort of thing a totalitarion fascist would be expected say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 The only difference I have gathered so far is that smokers have shown considerable tolerance and patience towards anti-smoking laws, whereas anti-smoking law supporters have not done so whatsoever towards smokers. Hence why I don't understand what you're talking about. It would help if you actually explained why my logic is flawed rather than just saying it is. Your logic is totally flawed. You can not compare a non-act with an act. Non-smoking is there by default, it is not the logical opposit of smoking, it is simply a non act. Just for comparaison, lets take two situation, you going to work, or rather deciding to sleep. Here we have two acts, the act of sleeping and the act of going to work. Both being acts, there could be laws regulating both, because we can place a law on an act. Non-smoking is even not an act, it is there by default. How can you compare regulating smoking which is an act by itself, with something there by default, which actually is not an act. For those reasons, you can not in anyway compare smoking with non-smoking in terms of regulations. You can not compare a restriction of non-smoking in the streets with a restriction of smoking in the streets. How could non-smoking in anyway affect the liberty of those serounding this non smoker, when this guy/girl, isen't even commiting an act? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 Indoor or Outdoor. But I want medical journal stats not just some organization. I can give you some heads up if you want. On JAMA(Journal of American Medical Association) which is the most respected journal in the health industry you are going to find that Majority of the stats like 25,000+ people die from second hand smoke is false. the numbers are much lower. MUCH My main problem as I have stated before is that the business should make that decision and not the government if they are going to allow smokers or not. How would many of you feel if the government passed laws against serving beef in all restaurants as we all know eating red meat increases the chances of getting colon cancer. Also the smoke from grilling increases the chances of getting cancer. Lets ban that as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 Indoor or Outdoor. But I want medical journal stats not just some organization. I can give you some heads up if you want. On JAMA(Journal of American Medical Association) which is the most respected journal in the health industry you are going to find that Majority of the stats like 25,000+ people die from second hand smoke is false. the numbers are much lower. MUCH My main problem as I have stated before is that the business should make that decision and not the government if they are going to allow smokers or not. How would many of you feel if the government passed laws against serving beef in all restaurants as we all know eating red meat increases the chances of getting colon cancer. Also the smoke from grilling increases the chances of getting cancer. Lets ban that as well... I don't think that it would be fair to call the JAMA the most respected, the Lancet for example is considered just as much. Also, death is not the only indicator. And the JAMA (by its publications) does support the claim that second hand smoking is bad. A recent article from the JAMA (Daniel Menzies et al. Respiratory Symptoms, Pulmonary Function, and Markers of Inflammation Among Bar Workers Before and After a Legislative Ban on Smoking in Public Places) does show a differences of very highly sifficance between pre and after legislation, the results are in the order that if a medication could creat such a difference, it would be considered as one of its best in its kind. Also, the numbers of articles having been published in the JAMA, with conclusions proposing anti smoking legislations are abound. (See for example, Gonghuan Yang et al. Smoking in China: Findings of the 1996 National Prevalence Survey JAMA, Oct 1999; 282: 1247 - 1253.) There is no doubt that indoor second hand smoking is bad. As for your second point about beef. Different, when you eat the beef, there will be no particules of beef injested by others. Smoke from grilling increases Cancer? Yeh, but there is no Cadmium or such potent very dangerous substances, at least smoke of grilling contain substances which the body by coevolution has way to get rid of the most from the lungs. And I doubt you will find people grilling in the open on bus stops, in offices, in schools etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 I still need stats Domino. cold hard stats that show X people die from second hand smoke per year... As for the beef or grilling example you did not get the essence of my question. Let me put it this way. I DONT think restaurants should serve food to even the people who dont mind getting sick from eating beef or eating grilled foods. Because they individually cant make that decision I think the government should force restaurants not to serve the food... Is that fair? Let me also answer it for you Domino says: no azat I dont think it is fair because if a person chooses to eat beef or grilled food it is their decision not the government. and now I completely understand when you say that restaurant operators should make the decision if they want to offer all smoking, all non smoking or mixed dining premises and the patrons can choose to attend it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 I still need stats Fadi. cold hard stats that show X people die from second hand smoke per year... As for the beef or grilling example you did not get the essence of my question. Let me put it this way. I DONT think restaurants should serve food to even the people who dont mind getting sick from eating beef or eating grilled foods. Because they individually cant make that decision I think the government should force restaurants not to serve the food... Is that fair? Let me also answer it for you Fadi says: no azat I dont think it is fair because if a person chooses to eat beef or grilled food it is their decision not the government. and now I completely understand when you say that restaurant operators should make the decision if they want to offer all smoking, all non smoking or mixed dining premises and the patrons can choose to attend it or not. Azat, I am all for restorants only for smokers, private restorants for adults, so your analogy does not work. What I oppose is indoor smoke in public places where the general population is present. The cold hard fact you request has already been done, in the UK for example, deaths associated with workplace second hand smoking. The The British Medical Association has cited various studies about secondhand smoking. Surgeons for years have reported physically observable differences in the lung and heart of secondhand smokers. The French National Accademia of Medecine has done the similar(citing various research and reporting the observations of their members), there are various statistics published in their bulletins. (example, http://www.metranep.org/telechargement/gdubois.pdf) On sciencedirect or various other databasis, you will find various, various conditions associated with secondhand smoking according to those researchs. It is true that there are conspiracy theories claiming no associations, but the limited research they refer too (most of those with large samples have as authors the same limited bunch who are consultants for tobacco compagnies) is insgnificant with the bunch in the scientific literature, and conter answers have been published relating to methodological flaws. Just take the time to search in the databasis and see by yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 I am someone who think that not only prostitution should be decriminilized, but should also be legal. And those girls should have their punch card, and report to the government the revenues they are making etc., like any other legitimate works. But I oppose that those prostitution houses be open to the general public. When I go to a restorant, sorry to say, but I don't want to smell tobacco scrapping the good odour of food or my taste. Unless the restorants in which people can smoke are for adults and written specifically and clearly that they are for smokers, they should not be given the right to exist. If the owners of the restorants want to cut the restorant in two pieces with proper isolation, good for him, I oppose the governent restricting that. I also am all for making illegal smoking in a house where there are childens 16 years old and younger. Much like here in Quebec by law children are forced to go to school up until 16 years old. Parents who smoke and blow smoke in the face of their kids are bad parents not caring for the health of their kids. I consider governments intrusion to force parents to stop smoking in homes similar to the governments intrusion when parents are beating their childs. We live in a society, and unlike what Nairi seems to believe we are not free to do whatever we want. If your freedom does not affect the freedom of another person, you can do whatever you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 ahhhh this is great news Mr Domino... So now that you agree that there can be establishments that are completely for smokers, lets see if we agree on this. I as the proprietor can open up a restaurant for smokers and if a non smoker comes in its up to them, but they cant bitch about the smoke covering up the odor of their food and such. agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 ahhhh this is great news Mr Fadi... So now that you agree that there can be establishments that are completely for smokers, lets see if we agree on this. I as the proprietor can open up a restaurant for smokers and if a non smoker comes in its up to them, but they cant bitch about the smoke covering up the odor of their food and such. agree? Where did I disagree with that? I already in this thread agreed that I have no problem with that, if it is specified it is a smoker establishment and for adults only. Private and not public. My disagreement was Nairi claim that the owner should decide for a public place, like a restorant. If a restorant owner should have a smokers restorant, so be it, but it should not be considered as a public place, but a private place open to adults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 A bit young, but then you can't take her to fine dining restaurants. Brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 Indoor or Outdoor. But I want medical journal stats not just some organization. I can give you some heads up if you want. On JAMA(Journal of American Medical Association) which is the most respected journal in the health industry you are going to find that Majority of the stats like 25,000+ people die from second hand smoke is false. the numbers are much lower. MUCH My main problem as I have stated before is that the business should make that decision and not the government if they are going to allow smokers or not. How would many of you feel if the government passed laws against serving beef in all restaurants as we all know eating red meat increases the chances of getting colon cancer. Also the smoke from grilling increases the chances of getting cancer. Lets ban that as well... I don't think we have to die to elect that pollution is bad - and by that I don't necessarily mean cigarette smoke but everything from pesticides to detergents. So who dies from detergents or pesticides, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 ahhhh this is great news Mr Domino... So now that you agree that there can be establishments that are completely for smokers, lets see if we agree on this. I as the proprietor can open up a restaurant for smokers and if a non smoker comes in its up to them, but they cant bitch about the smoke covering up the odor of their food and such. agree? Absolutely agree here. And on the note about beef... It's not even a comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubépine Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 Brilliant. On second thought I totally forgot about happy meals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 Your logic is totally flawed. You can not compare a non-act with an act. Non-smoking is there by default, it is not the logical opposit of smoking, it is simply a non act. Just for comparaison, lets take two situation, you going to work, or rather deciding to sleep. Here we have two acts, the act of sleeping and the act of going to work. Both being acts, there could be laws regulating both, because we can place a law on an act. Non-smoking is even not an act, it is there by default. How can you compare regulating smoking which is an act by itself, with something there by default, which actually is not an act. For those reasons, you can not in anyway compare smoking with non-smoking in terms of regulations. You can not compare a restriction of non-smoking in the streets with a restriction of smoking in the streets. How could non-smoking in anyway affect the liberty of those serounding this non smoker, when this guy/girl, isen't even commiting an act? I knew you'd respond with this. The point was why you should restrict (=act) me from smoking when I am tolerant enough not to force you to smoke (=act). In other words, I am all for non-smoking restaurants, bars, and clubs, even if they don't attract a flee. This basically means that if I step into a non-smoking restaurant, bar, or club, I will behave accordingly, i.e. not light up. But why is it that "neko" (and his consorts) have so much trouble allowing smoking restaurants, bars, and clubs, among other enclosed establishments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 We live in a society, and unlike what Nairi seems to believe we are not free to do whatever we want. I have never supported anarchy, so I don't see where you got this from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 My disagreement was Nairi claim that the owner should decide for a public place, like a restorant. But Domino, a restaurant is private by definition!! Besides, you're changing your tune; which in this discussion can only be a good thing, i.e. you have now finally come to conclusion that maybe it's okay for owners to choose what they want to do with their own establishments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 But Fadi, a restaurant is private by definition!! Besides, you're changing your tune; which in this discussion can only be a good thing, i.e. you have now finally come to conclusion that maybe it's okay for owners to choose what they want to do with their own establishments. I did not meant public as defined as being to the collectivity or being to the government. But public places as somewhere the general population meet. Restorants are considered as public by that definition even if private. When I meant private, I meant a place not considered to be for the general population but a selected number of people, adults and smokers. A typical restorant is public when it is open to the general population, since opened to non-smokers, I think it is the least to do to restrict smoking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 I knew you'd respond with this. The point was why you should restrict (=act) me from smoking when I am tolerant enough not to force you to smoke (=act). In other words, I am all for non-smoking restaurants, bars, and clubs, even if they don't attract a flee. This basically means that if I step into a non-smoking restaurant, bar, or club, I will behave accordingly, i.e. not light up. But why is it that "neko" (and his consorts) have so much trouble allowing smoking restaurants, bars, and clubs, among other enclosed establishments? Here is something you don't understand. You can not restrict non-smokers to access somewhere. If you do that you are beinf prejudicial, the comparaison is not valid. There are no restorants or other public places where they restrict smokers, they restrict smoking in such restorants, they restrict the act. If you restrict non-smokers you restrict a non-act, so for that person to go there, he/she will be forced to smoke even if not a smoker. Non-smoking is there by default, a smoker by not smoking is not commiting the act of non-smoking, and when non comiting that act, he/she is free to go anywhere he/she wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD5hkHpW0qg&NR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted December 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 I guess someone of your youth and blind arrogance hasn't yet got the undersanding that most people don't work for the fun of it - they work because they have to, and they do not have the luxury to pick-and-choose jobs. With your well-developed ideology, why not start up a business using children to clean chimneys - it'll be OK because based on your reasoning they will all be knowingly going into that kind of work. And why not open a match factory, use phosphorus chemicals, and market them as "Ye Old Traditional Matches" at a premium price - won't matter that your workers will all get cancer because they will all be knowingly going into that kind of work. Want more business opportunites? There will be a ready market for a cheap providor of asbestos disposal methods - all the cost comes from protecting the employees, so you will be able to slash those costs using your unique morality. And because your workers will know the risks it will be OK that they will be all dead by 60. Do I smell a fusion of Lenin, Mao and Chomsky? I could have sworn I was talking to The Left with his high brow intellectual "Do as I say" attitude. Nice job of avoiding the main point against your fallacious reasoning. To date, you have not redeemed your poor analytical and reasoning in establishing your pitiful argument. People work because they have to and some work because they enjoy, wow such wisdom! We certainly did not know that one! Thanks for pointing that out Captain Obvious. However, that is not the issue. There are many jobs to choose from. Does working as a bouncer or a bartender at a bar/restaurant prevent person A from doing something else that does not expose him to alot of second hand smoke? Chances are, he likes what he is doing because he probably likes to serve drinks to hot chicks who he can potentially hook up with, or the bouncer likes the feeling of power to boot people and bully people. Think about what you're talking about nerfbrain, and then take your high brow, "I'm older and I know better" attitude to the ballet wearing a Chairman Mao hat. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/hatstore_1929_3316872.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neko Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Mr Anonymouse, you took a while to reply. have you only now recovered from your Christmas celebrations? You should have waited another 24 hours to post, and then I could have said "I waited a whole year for your reply and when it came it wasn't worth the wait!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 (edited) As a ten-day old non-smoker who smoked for a good fifteen years of her life, I think I have the right to share my opinion here about life as a non-smoker and about people who complain about second-hand smoke and how it supposedly kills millions of lives every year. Here's my experience: I still like the smell of smoke, even though it gives me a light headache when I smell it. Maybe it's because I've avoided all cigarette smoke for ten days, so it hit me harder yesterday than it normally would have. But here's what hit my head even harder today: the smell of gasoline. I remember feeling sick as a kid whenever we stopped at a gas station or drove long-distance. I never felt the headache and nausea so strongly in all the years that I smoked, probably because smoking suppressed my sense of smell and had a settling effect on my stomach. But now that I quit smoking, the smell hit my head like a brick and stirred my heart (to use an Armenian expression). I've been home for a good eight hours now, but I'm still feeling sick from the car ride and the smell of gasoline. Which leaves me with only one plausible conclusion: if cigarette smoke merely gives me a light headache that fades almost as soon as I move away from it, but gasoline literally paralizes me all day after a slight whiff of it, it can only mean one thing: a whiff of gasoline must be much more harmful than a deep inhalation of smoke from a cigarette. Which got me thinking.. I happened to catch a recent film on TV the other day (The Life of David Gale (2003)), in which Kate Winslet's character gives her smoking partner a dirty look and tells him that she can still smell his disgusting cigarette, even though he's standing about 500 meters away from her, in the cold and rain. Ironically, just seconds later, we see her step into a car and drive off into a beautifully isolated landscape in Arizona (or was it Texas?--whatever). It got me thinking.. It has become so acceptable and trendy to bash smokers that we are forgetting to point our fingers at the real evildoers, namely, drivers. Apparently it's okay to isolate smokers into tiny cabins where they choke on their own smoke, and it's okay to ban them from just about everywhere, including the streets, but it's not okay to stigmatize and punish guzzlers of gas for their habits. So.. next time a non-smoking driver or consumer of gasoline (such as people standing at a bus-stop waiting for that gas-guzzling monster) complains in that typically annoying way complaining non-smokers do about second-hand smoke supposedly bothering their precious nostrils and lungs, I will do exactly the same every time they step into their cars or on the bus, recklessly farting out their gasoline into my precious nostrils, lungs, brains, and stomach. P.S.: I know Domino mentioned something earlier about the hypocrisy of banning cigarettes when cars are still allowed to drive freely on gasoline, but I only really understood what the difference was on a personal level (as opposed to an environmental study) after being reminded of the effects that gasoline has on sober me. And, of course, it is hypocritical, especially coming from a country like the US, where all this "second-hand smoke kills"-propaganda started, when even a two-year-old knows that you'll live longer as a chain smoker in the plains of Mongolia than as a non-smoker in Los Angeles. Edited June 23, 2008 by nairi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) Wow, a quitter. My own philosophy on quitting was that I had gone a significant amount (almost 30 days) and to resort back to it would be pointless. "If I have gone that long without smoking, to do so now, well...it would throw all of that time I withstood the urges down to the gutter and I would have to start all over." I'm lazy. So I figured I better quit once and it better be the first time. It's been 7 months. Edited June 26, 2008 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.