Have the tobacco police gone too far? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-04-2011, 08:50 AM   #61
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,607
Local Time: 05:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicy View Post
There's an outside smoking ban in a couple of cities near me, which frankly I think is pretty ridiculous. It means you cant even stand outside your house on the sidewalk and smoke a cigarette. I'm sure the cops have better things to do than to cite people for smoking a cigarette.. OUTSIDE. I can understand a smoking ban in small parks for kids (there are signs at all my local parks that say no smoking and that's fine with me) or heavy populated public areas, but a huge park like Central Park or say Golden Gate park in San Fran, that's a little extreme.
agreed. i could see maybe a compromise and having areas of these huge parks be smoke-free, but the whole park is silly. i may hate cigarettes and being around them but i know just continually taking away where people can smoke isn't really going to make anyone quit. half will just not give a shit and just go somewhere else where they can smoke, half will dig their heels in and continue on as normal. maybe two people will quit but it's likely they would've anyway.
__________________

__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2011, 06:58 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 06:48 AM
The recent NYC ban has demonstrated that the anti-smoking groups are bent on destroying the individual rights of people who choose to use tobacco. They are not going to stop.

Their propaganda has been very effective in convincing the general public that second hand smoke will kill you.

If that is indeed true, then all the baby boomers should be dead now.They grew up constantly exposed to second hand smoke. Forty years ago smoking was allowed virtually everywhere.


Another news report:
New Statesman - Fuming mad in New York
__________________

__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2011, 07:04 PM   #63
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 05:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
The recent NYC ban has demonstrated that the anti-smoking groups are bent on destroying the individual rights of people who choose to use tobacco. They are not going to stop.
I think most of us can agree and indeed most in here have agreed that attempting to ban smoking in huge open air spaces is reaching a bit too far.

Quote:
Their propaganda has been very effective in convincing the general public that second hand smoke will kill you.

If that is indeed true, then all the baby boomers should be dead now.They grew up constantly exposed to second hand smoke. Forty years ago smoking was allowed virtually everywhere.
1. That's a gross oversimplification of the issue.

2. I'm unclear what you're arguing. Are you saying that there are no serious health issues associated with secondhand smoke?
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2011, 07:43 PM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 06:48 AM
"I think most of us can agree and indeed most in here have agreed that attempting to ban smoking in huge open air spaces is reaching a bit too far."

Good to know Diemen.



"2. I'm unclear what you're arguing. Are you saying that there are no serious health issues associated with secondhand smoke?"


Yes.


It seems the NYC council should be more concerned about the health issues related to the thousands of cars and trucks driving the the tight quarters of the city than a few smokers.

Would the NYC council choose to sit in a closed garage with a car running for ten minutes or outside sitting next to a guy smoking a fine cigar for an hour?
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2011, 07:55 PM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,874
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
"2. I'm unclear what you're arguing. Are you saying that there are no serious health issues associated with secondhand smoke?"


Yes.


It seems the NYC council should be more concerned about the health issues related to the thousands of cars and trucks driving the the tight quarters of the city than a few smokers.

Would the NYC council choose to sit in a closed garage with a car running for ten minutes or outside sitting next to a guy smoking a fine cigar for an hour?
Holy shit. This is painfully stupid.

You just basically said, "Would you rather be exposed to carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide?" Why are they the only two choices?

Also, if you think there are no health concerns with second hand smoke, you're an idiot.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2011, 08:49 PM   #66
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 05:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
"2. I'm unclear what you're arguing. Are you saying that there are no serious health issues associated with secondhand smoke?"


Yes.
I'm going to assume that you agree that there are serious health issues associated with smoking cigarettes directly (if not, please say so). Going on that assumption that there are known health risks to inhaling smoke firsthand, on what evidence are you basing this assertion that secondhand smoke poses no health risks? If the smoker him/herself is at risk, how is someone inhaling that same smoke next them not? The health risks may be to a lesser extent than the smoker, but I don't see how you can logically claim that there is no risk at all.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2011, 09:04 PM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I'm going to assume that you agree that there are serious health issues associated with smoking cigarettes directly (if not, please say so). Going on that assumption that there are known health risks to inhaling smoke firsthand, on what evidence are you basing this assertion that secondhand smoke poses no health risks? If the smoker him/herself is at risk, how is someone inhaling that same smoke next them not? The health risks may be to a lesser extent than the smoker, but I don't see how you can logically claim that there is no risk at all.

I guess my main drive here is that tobacco is still a legal product.

I believe the anti-tobacco groups have used a lot of junk science to scare the crap out of people.

I would not recommend anyone use tobacco.

I just think this issue has reached hyperbole to the max.

The people who choose to use tobacco should not be subject to restrictions.
I will agree that some restrictions are warranted.

One side note / the governments are raking in billions on the taxes.
They dont seem ready to make it totally against the law.


A good response on this issue:
The Myth of Second Hand Smoke (ETS) | Sex, Cigars & Booze Lifestyle Magazine
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2011, 11:31 PM   #68
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
I guess my main drive here is that tobacco is still a legal product.

and yet marijuana (which i do not use) is still illegal. crazy, no?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 03:08 AM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,874
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
I believe the anti-tobacco groups have used a lot of junk science to scare the crap out of people.
You say there is junk science. Can you post a link please?

/iron horse'd
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 09:22 AM   #70
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 05:48 AM
Peef, keep the personal digs out of it, please.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 05:06 PM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post

The people who choose to use tobacco should not be subject to restrictions.
I will agree that some restrictions are warranted.
What?

People who use tobacco are costing all the rest of us IMMENSE SUMS OF MONEY in terms of healthcare, and are directly contributing to the country's ballooning debt due to these costs. Which are tangible, measurable and inarguable (unless you're really out to pasture).
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 05:08 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:48 PM
Oh give it a rest. Tobacco products are very heavily taxed. If anything, smokers subsidise non-smokers. Non-smokers tend to live longer and as such cost the state huge sums in elder care. It is nothing but the purest hypocrisy to keep banging on about the evil smokers whilst ignoring the twin elephants in the room of health problems caused by work stress and automobile fumes.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 10:59 PM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Oh give it a rest. Tobacco products are very heavily taxed. If anything, smokers subsidise non-smokers. Non-smokers tend to live longer and as such cost the state huge sums in elder care. It is nothing but the purest hypocrisy to keep banging on about the evil smokers whilst ignoring the twin elephants in the room of health problems caused by work stress and automobile fumes.
This is simply not true in all places. The tax on cigarettes in a number of US states is very low, so low in fact that they are re-sold on the Canadian black market. Our taxes are higher, though not equally as high in all provinces.

I am not sure who is ignoring the other problems - I, for one, have many times posted here about automobile emissions, gas taxes, taxes on ridiculously large vehicles (like Hummers) and so on. And frankly if anyone understands work stress, it's probably the person who just put in an 82 hour week.

Get real - people like iron horse who are against tobacco taxes are the exact same people who oppose taxes on SUVs, increased gas taxes and so on, because it's their God given right to drive a Hummer across America.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 07:50 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Oh give it a rest. Tobacco products are very heavily taxed. If anything, smokers subsidise non-smokers. Non-smokers tend to live longer and as such cost the state huge sums in elder care. It is nothing but the purest hypocrisy to keep banging on about the evil smokers whilst ignoring the twin elephants in the room of health problems caused by work stress and automobile fumes.

elevation
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 03:27 PM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I am not sure who is ignoring the other problems - I, for one, have many times posted here about automobile emissions, gas taxes, taxes on ridiculously large vehicles (like Hummers) and so on. And frankly if anyone understands work stress, it's probably the person who just put in an 82 hour week.
Well, are you aware of the studies that have shown probable causal links between excessive working hours and increased risk of mortality? Would you favour European style working directive legislation being enacted in the US and Canada, limiting the number of hours an employee can work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Get real - people like iron horse who are against tobacco taxes are the exact same people who oppose taxes on SUVs, increased gas taxes and so on, because it's their God given right to drive a Hummer across America.
That may or may not be so, I cannot speak for Iron horse, but you'd have to admit there is very little attention given in the media to pollution caused by automobiles as compared to the seemingly never-ending campaigns to make smokers feel guilty about their habit.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com