Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
This is your brain.A_Wanderer said:Martha said to keep it in this thread; smoking sucks this is the result
This is your brain on CRACK.
This is your brain.A_Wanderer said:Martha said to keep it in this thread; smoking sucks this is the result
A_Wanderer said:
Now as for protecting employees it is a scientific fact that exposure to second hand smoke is detrimental; it has does all the damage that the smoke does through the smokers lungs and long term exposure will deliver the concequences; now the question is this - are employees consenting to this exposure by continuing to work a job where they are being exposed, are employers liable to the health damages incurred, is the employer legally bound to maintain a healthy work environment and how may that be delivered - bit it better ventilation systems to keep smoking areas contained or banning smoking to protect themselves from future lawsuits (and maybe even attract all that extra business that non-smoking venues will attract).
A_Wanderer said:Historicism is a highlight of authoritrian systems according to some; employers will act in their own interests - and if that interest is making more money by running a clean non-smoking venue then they will do that and if it means covering their arses from loosing house and home to a former employees lawsuit or fines and workplace investigations then they will do that. You seem to assume that regulation and prohibition is the solution.
A_Wanderer said:If the precautionary principle guided all public policy then why shouldn't we ban things that will kill people outright like tobacco, fatty foods, tanning salons and yes alcohol because even though moderate use is positive it is still the most highly abused drug.
The rights of the employees to not contract cancer and other diseases associated with smoking come before any rights of employers who allow smoking in their workplaces.A_Wanderer said:Because there is a question of consensuality on behalf of the employee versis the obligations of the employer given the known damage that second hand smoke does.
I'm only talking about employees and employers here.A_Wanderer said:
If the precautionary principle guided all public policy then why shouldn't we ban things that will kill people outright like tobacco, fatty foods, tanning salons and yes alcohol because even though moderate use is positive it is still the most highly abused drug.
A_Wanderer said:Anything more recent?
A_Wanderer said:because kids in cars can't consent and harming them is child abuse.
Harry Vest said:
This is such bullshit from the extreme politically correct facists - I was born in 1960 to 2 parents that smoked (that was quite common back then) - both me and my sister spent 20 years in my parents company - in the smoke filled house, the smoke filled car etc. etc. Neither of us has asthma or ANY "smoke related" diseases. In fact most people I know grew up in exactly the same kind of smoke filled atmospheres as I did and NONE of them have any "smoke related" diseases (even those who still smoke). During those years it was extremely rare to meet ANYONE that had asthma - I mean ANYONE!!! Now it seems to be rampant (along with peanut allergies) in kids everywhere. This CANNOT be because of smoking because now hardly anyone smokes in front of children - if you do you are labelled "evil" and a "child abuser" - therefore I pose this question...why, if most people are trying so hard to not expose children to second hand smoke, why are there SO MANY more children with asthma????????????????????????????
Having said that I still believe it's a good idea not to expose children to second hand smoke but I just can't stand society constantly using smoking as an excuse for every health problem. There is much more to the picture than meets the eye (i.e. the food we eat, trans fats, exhaust, pollution, chemicals etc.) - obviously.
U2democrat said:
you can go shove your cig up your bum.
One of the very first things you will find in science is that anecdotal evidence is bullshit - see your sample size of two closely genetically related individuals doesn't hold the same weight as studies involving thousands of people; given the wealth of scientific literature of the effects of cigarrette smoke and second hand smoke that supports the notion that it will effect those who aree exposed health and that children are not capable of consent or to have harm inflicted upon them (should go for circumcision as well) then such a law is not unreasonable.Harry Vest said:
This is such bullshit from the extreme politically correct facists - I was born in 1960 to 2 parents that smoked (that was quite common back then) - both me and my sister spent 20 years in my parents company - in the smoke filled house, the smoke filled car etc. etc. Neither of us has asthma or ANY "smoke related" diseases. In fact most people I know grew up in exactly the same kind of smoke filled atmospheres as I did and NONE of them have any "smoke related" diseases (even those who still smoke). During those years it was extremely rare to meet ANYONE that had asthma - I mean ANYONE!!! Now it seems to be rampant (along with peanut allergies) in kids everywhere. This CANNOT be because of smoking because now hardly anyone smokes in front of children - if you do you are labelled "evil" and a "child abuser" - therefore I pose this question...why, if most people are trying so hard to not expose children to second hand smoke, why are there SO MANY more children with asthma????????????????????????????
Having said that I still believe it's a good idea not to expose children to second hand smoke but I just can't stand society constantly using smoking as an excuse for every health problem. There is much more to the picture than meets the eye ( i.e. the foods we eat, trans fats, exhaust, pollution, chemicals etc. etc.) - obviously.
Canadiens1160 said:Doesn't matter. Smoking has done the cultural acceptance 360 and if you're a smoker, you're obviously weak and/or a nazi.
Harry Vest said:
This is such bullshit from the extreme politically correct facists - I was born in 1960 to 2 parents that smoked (that was quite common back then) - both me and my sister spent 20 years in my parents company - in the smoke filled house, the smoke filled car etc. etc. Neither of us has asthma or ANY "smoke related" diseases. In fact most people I know grew up in exactly the same kind of smoke filled atmospheres as I did and NONE of them have any "smoke related" diseases (even those who still smoke). During those years it was extremely rare to meet ANYONE that had asthma - I mean ANYONE!!! Now it seems to be rampant (along with peanut allergies) in kids everywhere. This CANNOT be because of smoking because now hardly anyone smokes in front of children - if you do you are labelled "evil" and a "child abuser" - therefore I pose this question...why, if most people are trying so hard to not expose children to second hand smoke, why are there SO MANY more children with asthma????????????????????????????
Having said that I still believe it's a good idea not to expose children to second hand smoke but I just can't stand society constantly using smoking as an excuse for every health problem. There is much more to the picture than meets the eye ( i.e. the foods we eat, trans fats, exhaust, pollution, chemicals etc. etc.) - obviously.
deep said:
you've been watching too many prison films
I've been smoking between a half pack and a full pack a day for 5 years now. It's terrible. But I love it at the same time. Cigarettes, as strange as it sounds, have become almost like a friend to me. Something I can rely on everyday. To calm me down. A routine...something that keeps a bit of normalcy in the day to day struggle.
But I fear that I will never quit. I don't see how, at any time in the future, I will be able to eat a big meal without going out for a smoke afterward. Or have a cup of coffee without a smoke. Or have a smoke after my morning shower. And that doesn't even bring into account how hard it would be to have a sip of alcohol without lighting up. These triggers are going to be very difficult to get rid of.
Oh well...
Jesus Christ did you type this through my fingers?
Here's hoping I don't start again.