[QUOTE=MrEndangered;28512673]"Hey, lead in paint is annoying when kids lick it, but if they don't lick it - no problem!"
[/QUOTE]
"Hey, being hyperbolic makes me sound smart!"
Licking lead kills you. Breathing in smoke occasionally doesn't.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28513149]"Hey, being hyperbolic makes me sound smart!"
Licking lead kills you. Breathing in smoke occasionally doesn't.[/QUOTE]
"Using anecdotal evidence makes me irrefutable!"
'Occasionally' is a lot different from 'has no proven scientific evidence'.
Breathing in smoke has no proven scientific evidence doesn't?
What?
How are you sposed to know whats in stock?
[QUOTE=Sanius;28513936]Breathing in has no proven scientific evidence doesn't?
What?[/QUOTE]
What?
[QUOTE=TraderRager;28511834]I never said it kills everyone, now did I? But it DOES kill people, and yet is for some reason legal.[/QUOTE]
So what? You can't possibly be naive enough to believe in a god damn prohibition...
Though, this is facepunch.
Forks kill people. Bridges kill people. Air probably kills people.
BAAAAN IT ALL
this is stupid
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28519047]So what? You can't possibly be naive enough to believe in a god damn prohibition...
Though, this is facepunch.
Forks kill people. Bridges kill people. Air probably kills people.
BAAAAN IT ALL[/QUOTE]
Dont you think your going a little over board? Sure those things kill people but unlike those things 2nd hand smoking death is easily preventable if the smoker just either walked a block or waited a while until there weren't to many people around him before smoking. But whats the use you already ingored me because I disagree with your smoking views.
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Archy;28519251]this is stupid[/QUOTE]
Same. I don't see how this will have an effect.
This ban has been around in Canada for years now, stores can't display their tobacco products in the open. It doesn't really seem to do much, the whole "out of sight, out of mind" thing is bullshit because everyone knows all the stores have cigs.
I don't see how this helps. It's not like "out of sight = out of mind" works when you see people smoking all the time.
Here in Montreal they've forced shop owners to cover cigarette displays with big flaps that you have to raise to see/get at the smokes. Teen smoking rates have gone up since they started enforcing this, so it apparently doesn't make any difference.
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
:ninja: nice wording commie
[QUOTE=TraderRager;28510032][URL]http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondhandsmoke/a/secondhandsmoke.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]
What I've found doing all my research is that all of these anti tobacco sites far overstate any and all studies that find some negative aspect about second hand smoke. Just to get this out of the way, second hand smoke can affect babies and young children, this is pretty well proven. It makes perfect sense to not allow people to smoke around children or places where children would be. But the argument isn't that it can have bad affects on the very young or very ill, the argument is that it can affect any healthy person.
So then the question is: how does it affect healthy individuals above that age group? A good percentage of the studies show that there is no harm from second hand smoke. The other studies find that it can cause some harm, but there is nothing to indicate a strong link. As far as the research goes, it is a big stretch to say that second hand smoke is definitely dangerous seeing how the a decent portion of the studies refute that claim. It is far far too large of a stretch, even for the imagination, to say that smoking definitely kills when it isn't even known for sure that it can cause damage.
Seriously, take some time and look at a lot of the research and what doctors are saying about it. I'll post some of the main points of each one because I doubt you or others will want to read through them, but I really suggest you actually read through the articles to make sure I don't take anything out of context.
[URL]http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1[/URL]
[quote]"If someone is just exposed for 30 minutes, it's completely reversible, and it's not gonna cause hardening of the arteries," Siegel said.
Siegel, who helped ban smoking in restaurants and bars, now says his movement is distorting science.
"It has turned into more of a crusade," Siegel said. "The cause has kind of taken over."
Some anti-smoking advocates want it banned even inside apartments.
... Frankly, I like the smoke-free zones, but the science behind them may be a myth.
"I think the documented health effects of secondhand smoke are enough. I don't think we need to be stretching the truth," Siegel said[/quote][URL]http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/[/URL]
This is a bit of a long read, but I really suggest you go through it. It has a lot of the history involved and talks a lot about a number of studies. I'm not going to quote anything from it because it is better to read as whole. I also suggest reading some of the comments as there is more information in there, not all of it supporting that second hand smoke isn't bad.
[URL]http://cagecanada.homestead.com/InterviewWithPrEven.html[/URL]
[quote]There are about a hundred studies on the issue. [B]First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health.[/B] The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. [B]Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.[/B][/quote]
[quote]The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.[/quote]
[URL]http://psyed.org/r/crit/crd/second_smoke.html[/URL]
[quote]"We found no measurable effect from being exposed to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer in nonsmokers -- not at any time or at any level," lead researcher James Enstrom, PhD, MPH, of the UCLA School of Public Health, tells WebMD. "The only thing we did find, which was not reported in the study, is that nonsmokers who live with smokers have a increased risk of widowhood because their smoking spouses do die prematurely."[/quote][URL]http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest6.html[/URL]
[quote][B]The biggest study on this topic[/B], covering 39 years, and involving 118,094 adults, with particular focus on 35,561 who never smoked, and had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits, came to this conclusion: "The results [B]do not[/B] support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. [B]The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.[/B]"[/quote][quote]Several other studies support these results, including one from the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, published back in 1975, when smoking was rampant in bars and other public places. [B]The paper concluded that the concentration of ETS contaminants in these smoky confines was equal to the effects of smoking 0.004 cigarettes per hour. In other words, you would have to hang out for 250 hours to match the effects of smoking one cigarette[/B].
But this issue is controversial, right? Just a few days ago, the trend-setting California Air Resources Board announced results of their draft report, "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant." [B]The report concludes that women exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke have a 90 percent higher risk of breast cancer. The document also pegs the annual death toll of secondhand smoke at 73,400.[/B]
[B]It should be noted that the World Health Organization and other groups that examined the same evidence found no link to breast cancer[/B]. Furthermore, the Air Resources Board gives more weight to animal studies, but much epidemiology of suspected human carcinogens indicates that animal data overstates the actual risk.[/quote]
There is a lot out there and I suggest reading it if you really want to have an informed opinion. I really just you to do your own research on it and not just base everything off of a few links I posted. My goal with this post isn't to convince you or others that second hand smoke isn't dangerous, but more to open you up to the idea that the dangers are far overstated. This isn't just directed at whoever I'm replying to, this is directed at anybody who thinks second hand smoke is a major hazard to someone's health.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;28507451]I think they should just be illegal, I guess this is one step closer to that[/QUOTE]
Stop telling people what they can and can't do with their body.
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;28508708]
When this 'product' is a main cause of cancer, and costs millions on health care costs, they should take steps. I agree it shouldn't be banned, but it shouldn't be allowed to be without restrictions when it's a known carcinogenic.[/QUOTE]
One, cancer is not contagious. Don't ban cigarettes for everyone just because they don't appeal to you. Two, those millions on health care costs means more jobs. The smokers know the risks. Doctors, nurses, technicians, scientists, all these people are employed because of these smokers.
Why should there be restrictions on it? So what if it's a carcinogenic? What if I don't care? Who are you to tell me what to do? You say it's dangerous, skydiving is dangerous too, so is scuba diving, riding bikes, rafting, countless other activities. Why don't you put restrictions on them while you're at it?
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;28519977]Stop telling people what they can and can't do with their body.
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
One, cancer is not contagious. Don't ban cigarettes for everyone just because they don't appeal to you. Two, those millions on health care costs means more jobs. The smokers know the risks. Doctors, nurses, technicians, scientists, all these people are employed because of these smokers.
Why should there be restrictions on it? So what if it's a carcinogenic? What if I don't care? Who are you to tell me what to do? You say it's dangerous, skydiving is dangerous too, so is scuba diving, riding bikes, rafting, countless other activities. Why don't you put restrictions on them while you're at it?[/QUOTE]
To that end part, they do, you need proper training and licenses to do most of those activities. The reason people think of a smoking ban is because of the secondhand smoke, if you want to wreck your body, they don't care so much, but they're worried about you wrecking other people's bodies. As the guy above you showed, the effects of secondhand smoke may be overstated, but there are still negative effects on other people, and those who are against it are thinking more of those other people the smokers are near. I personally can't stand secondhand, I cough lightly for a while being around it before I get accustomed to it, and no, I'm not asthmatic. Now, I understand it is an addiction, and I support the bans of it from most public/commercial, public transit, trains, and airplanes, those are all fairly closed-in areas but I don't think that it should be outright banned, there's enough shit in the air outside that'll give me cancer already, adding this into it won't change shit, all it does to me when outside is cause a bit of irritation due to the smell and smoke mostly. There's enough air circulation outside that the secondhand doesn't really have the same kind of effect it would indoors in a low-circulation area where it stays mostly stagnant.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;28520332]I'm telling people what they can do with their bodies when it affects me[/QUOTE]
my smoking a cigarette doesn't affect you.
actually, it does I bet, the tax money goes to a program you use, and the immediate money seen by vendors in your area helps them out too, subsequently making your life easier by association. But yeah, you don't see a single fucking benefit of that.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;28520332]I'm telling people what they can do with their bodies when it affects me[/QUOTE]
Please tell me how smoking has affected you and why anybody should care.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;28507581]let's make cocaine and heroin legal then. after all, people should be able to do what they want with their bodies, right?[/QUOTE]
With regulation, sure thing!
[editline]10th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sanius;28520795]Please tell me how smoking has affected you and why anybody should care.[/QUOTE]
Let's ban cars - in fact - lets ban all sources which emit smoke that is harmful...
I for welcome the new stone age.
I think it works in at least one way. Every time I go to a store that would sell cigs, I never think about them because I don't see them. It won't really stop current smokers, but it does, at least in personal experience, keep them out of mind of a non-smoker, unless some guy is ahead in line and buys some.
I've got a new proposition. Whenever someone buys a tobacco product, the cashier by law must verbally tell warn them of the dangers of smoking tobacco. If the cashier: fails to do it; doesn't take it seriously; or make doesn't maintain eye contact; there should be serious repercussions. Smoking tobacco is not a joke.
[QUOTE=Pepin;28522148]I've got a new proposition. Whenever someone buys a tobacco product, the cashier by law must verbally tell warn them of the dangers of smoking tobacco. If the cashier: fails to do it; doesn't take it seriously; or make doesn't maintain eye contact; there should be serious repercussions. Smoking tobacco is not a joke.[/QUOTE]
That is the stupidest idea ever and you should feel bad.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28522208]That is the stupidest idea ever and you should feel bad.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img]
[editline]10th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pepin;28519933]What I've found doing all my research is that all of these anti tobacco sites far overstate any and all studies that find some negative aspect about second hand smoke. Just to get this out of the way, second hand smoke can affect babies and young children, this is pretty well proven. It makes perfect sense to not allow people to smoke around children or places where children would be. But the argument isn't that it can have bad affects on the very young or very ill, the argument is that it can affect any healthy person.
So then the question is: how does it affect healthy individuals above that age group? A good percentage of the studies show that there is no harm from second hand smoke. The other studies find that it can cause some harm, but there is nothing to indicate a strong link. As far as the research goes, it is a big stretch to say that second hand smoke is definitely dangerous seeing how the a decent portion of the studies refute that claim. It is far far too large of a stretch, even for the imagination, to say that smoking definitely kills when it isn't even known for sure that it can cause damage.
Seriously, take some time and look at a lot of the research and what doctors are saying about it. I'll post some of the main points of each one because I doubt you or others will want to read through them, but I really suggest you actually read through the articles to make sure I don't take anything out of context.
[URL]http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1[/URL]
[URL]http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/[/URL]
This is a bit of a long read, but I really suggest you go through it. It has a lot of the history involved and talks a lot about a number of studies. I'm not going to quote anything from it because it is better to read as whole. I also suggest reading some of the comments as there is more information in there, not all of it supporting that second hand smoke isn't bad.
[URL]http://cagecanada.homestead.com/InterviewWithPrEven.html[/URL]
[URL]http://psyed.org/r/crit/crd/second_smoke.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest6.html[/URL]
There is a lot out there and I suggest reading it if you really want to have an informed opinion. I really just you to do your own research on it and not just base everything off of a few links I posted. My goal with this post isn't to convince you or others that second hand smoke isn't dangerous, but more to open you up to the idea that the dangers are far overstated. This isn't just directed at whoever I'm replying to, this is directed at anybody who thinks second hand smoke is a major hazard to someone's health.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for that informative post.
I thought they were already
this has been around in australia for years now
[QUOTE=MrTwicks;28522285]this has been around in australia for years now[/QUOTE]
It hasn't been that long, more like months.
[quote=article]The strategy - unveiled on No Smoking Day - also sets out "national ambitions" to reduce smoking rates from 21.2% to 18.5% by the end of 2015, with specific targets for pregnant women and 15-year-olds.[/quote]
Wait, what the heck. Their plan makes absolutely makes no sense. Hiding the displays isn't going to stop 15 year-olds from getting a hold of tobacco. There is no reasoning in this. They need to stop trying to involve themselves in other people's decisions. It's ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28522208]That is the stupidest idea ever and you should feel bad.[/QUOTE]
It should be pretty obvious that I'm not being serious with the idea given my previous posts in this thread and how over the top idea is. The statement is also to make a point that the bill proposed in the OP is more a hassle to the shop owners and the customer than a deterrent.
[editline]10th March 2011[/editline]
[quote=Article]On banning shop displays, he added: "Regular smokers know what brand they smoke before they go into the shop and don't need a display to remind them. In truth, these displays serve two functions - they promote brands to new young smokers and they trigger sales to people who did not intend to buy. Every morning when the ex-smoker goes into a shop to buy a paper the tobacco companies are waiting for them, putting their brand in front of them."[/quote]
Let's hide alcohol behind to prevent recovering alcoholics from going back.
Many people are addicted to gambling, so we should also not allow advertisement. If someone wants to gamble, they will know where they want to go, they don't need advertisement
Eating fast food regularly can also be pretty bad for your health. Having all the brands and advertisements out in the open makes it far too tempting to poor/hungry/fat people. All of the fast food restaurants should be in plain looking enclosures and hidden. This will encourage people to try healthier options. If people really want to be healthy, they'll surely eventually find a McDonalds.
I mean advertising triggers sales in people who did not intend to buy. People who are young are often open to exploring and trying new things, so it makes most sense to try to eliminate a new group from using their money on stuff we oppose.Who cares if they are at or above the age where they must legally be responsible for themselves because we know what is best for them.
Should I include a SarcMac?
[QUOTE=Pepin;28522443]Wait, what the heck. Their plan makes absolutely makes no sense. Hiding the displays isn't going to stop 15 year-olds from getting a hold of tobacco. There is no reasoning in this. They need to stop trying to involve themselves in other people's decisions. It's ridiculous.
It should be pretty obvious that I'm not being serious with the idea given my previous posts in this thread and how over the top idea is. The statement is also to make a point that the bill proposed in the OP is more a hassle to the shop owners and the customer than a deterrent.
[editline]10th March 2011[/editline]
Let's hide alcohol behind to prevent recovering alcoholics from going back.
Many people are addicted to gambling, so we should also not allow advertisement. If someone wants to gamble, they will know where they want to go, they don't need advertisement
Eating fast food regularly can also be pretty bad for your health. Having all the brands and advertisements out in the open makes it far too tempting to poor/hungry/fat people. All of the fast food restaurants should be in plain looking enclosures and hidden. This will encourage people to try healthier options. If people really want to be healthy, they'll surely eventually find a McDonalds.
I mean advertising triggers sales in people who did not intend to buy. People who are young are often open to exploring and trying new things, so it makes most sense to try to eliminate a new group from using their money on stuff we oppose.Who cares if they are at or above the age where they must legally be responsible for themselves because we know what is best for them.
Should I include a SarcMac?[/QUOTE]
Definitely needed a (!), become people actually think things that stupid.
[B]I am addicted to sex, women should be banned from wearing anything that shows skin.[/B]
I'm in Australia and this is already in effect (at least at Woolworths). It's actually kind of ridiculous because people at the service desk aren't even allowed to keep the cupboard containing all the cigarettes open during store hours. Open cupboard, get cigarettes out, close it.
[editline]10th March 2011[/editline]
Which means it's a bit difficult to keep it stocked.
[QUOTE=Jallen;28508999]I dislike people smoking in public because it stinks / is bad for you, but making tobacco illegal would be a terrible idea. The shit would hit the fan BIG TIME. I mean, we're talking riots on the streets and shit.[/QUOTE]
I can't wait to see that ocean of electric scooters, oxygen tanks, and tracheotomy holes.
[editline]10th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sanius;28510728]My dad has been smoking heavily in the house for my entire life and I have no health problems. I'm not offering this anecdote as evidence against the "horrors" of second-hand smoke, just putting that out there.[/QUOTE]
That's because you're 17, Jeremy. Unless you have a heavy sensitivity to it, the effects of second hand smoke won't start hitting you until further down the line.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
