Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Smoking Ban; What should happen?
Topic Started: Mar 28 2007, 04:20 PM (948 Views)
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
There is some debate here in Minnesota about a smoking ban in restaurants and bars.

The pro-ban side says that waiters, waitresses, and other customers are at risk of second hand smoke and the side effects that come with that. It also creates a very unclean atmosphere that many would like to avoid.

The anti-ban side thinks that smokers should be free to smoke where they want and restaurant and bar owners are complaining about losing business because of these bans.

Should we have these bans or where should we draw the line with them?
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Comrade Jim
Member Avatar
The Apocalypse Itself
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I say just tax the cigrarette makers into the ground
Posted Image

http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html http://www.resnet.trinity.edu/ddamon/hiero...exicon_menu.htm http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/PartyLink.htm http://ninjagrizzlybear.azurenight.com/fightclub.htm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DirkNL
Member Avatar
Horrific poster
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
piercehawkeye45
Mar 28 2007, 05:20 PM
There is some debate here in Minnesota about a smoking ban in restaurants and bars.

The pro-ban side says that waiters, waitresses, and other customers are at risk of second hand smoke and the side effects that come with that. It also creates a very unclean atmosphere that many would like to avoid.

The anti-ban side thinks that smokers should be free to smoke where they want and restaurant and bar owners are complaining about losing business because of these bans.

Should we have these bans or where should we draw the line with them?

They're banning it here (well, at least trying to), and to that I call bullshit. They're legalizing (well, sort of) cannabis, whilst they're banning smoking. And also, smoking funds the government, since the Dutch government taxes cigarettes to extremes. Also, I have no problem with second hand smoking, who likes living to 90 years old? All you can (usually) do is sit in a rest home doing nothing (thus getting extremely bored), and if there's someone you can go whine to him/her about how much pain you have and earlier times. Also, more old people = more costs for the newer generations.

-Dirk

P.S, doesn't this belong in the Current Events section?
Posted Image
Posted ImageHail the wallflipping monochrome computer thingyPosted Image
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
agafaba
Member Avatar
douchebagga
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I see way to many kids smoking... anything that can help prevent 14 year old chain smokers is a good thing
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
DirkNL
 
Also, I have no problem with second hand smoking, who likes living to 90 years old?

Well not everyone doesn't care about getting lung cancer from not smoking. It also creates a really unclean atmosphere.

Quote:
 
P.S, doesn't this belong in the Current Events section?

This debate has been going on for a good 40 years so it really can't go under current events. I also didn't have a link from a news source which is the main reason I put it here.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DirkNL
Member Avatar
Horrific poster
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
piercehawkeye45
Mar 28 2007, 05:53 PM
DirkNL
 
Also, I have no problem with second hand smoking, who likes living to 90 years old?

Well not everyone doesn't care about getting lung cancer from not smoking. It also creates a really unclean atmosphere.

Then still, you can create a compromise by making a part for non-smokers and another part for those who do.

-Dirk
Posted Image
Posted ImageHail the wallflipping monochrome computer thingyPosted Image
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
piercehawkeye45
Mar 28 2007, 04:20 PM
There is some debate here in Minnesota about a smoking ban in restaurants and bars.

The pro-ban side says that waiters, waitresses, and other customers are at risk of second hand smoke and the side effects that come with that. It also creates a very unclean atmosphere that many would like to avoid.

The anti-ban side thinks that smokers should be free to smoke where they want and restaurant and bar owners are complaining about losing business because of these bans.

Should we have these bans or where should we draw the line with them?

A law like this has just recently(November) been put into effect here in Ohio. In restauraunts, I understand because you shouldn't be allowed to smoke around someone elses food. But in bars? You mean to tell me it's ok to set and get shitfaced all night(legally) get into your car(which is illeagle, but people do it all the time) and drive home risking killing yourself or someone else? Boy, those cigarettes sure are killers. There should be a line drawn between restauraunts or bars that prepare food and bars that don't serve food. They are even talking about banning smoking if you have kids in the car with you now. Why not piss on everyone's parade and bring prohibition back on the table. I don't feel safe with all the drunks driving around behind the wheel of 1800 pound killing machines.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mister Sinister
Member Avatar
Delusional Granduerist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
There is a debate going on in a town in...Florida? I can't recall the state, but the smoking ban would include public parks, sidewalks and ALL apartment buildings and duplexes. You won't be able to smoke on your apt balcony or inside your actual apartment. I used to smoke around 1.5 to 2.5 packs a day, I haven't smoked a cigarette in about five years, I still want one just about every day...I think the Tobacco companies are filthy little whores...It is definately the ONLY product in any store that when used as directed, CAN kill you (can doesn't mean will). Having said all that, I don't mind when someone lights up in my prescence, mainly because I have been around it my entire life...I barned tobacco on a family farm, and we rolled and smoked it, right out of the curing barn (best you'll ever have)...People have the right to smoke, period. Especially in their own rented duplex/flat/apartment or even the public park...It's a park for christ sakes! A whiff of tobacco may be unpleasant to some, but it will never ever cause you to have lung cancer and die...you'll have your own fair shot of that regardless of how much or little second hand smoke you are exposed to. What we walk around in our cities and breathe in every day is far far worse that a little puff of a cig.

When asked on the street of this smoking ban town, people said it was annoying.

Well so is cooking with curry! I say if you are pissed about having to breathe in an annoying odor while trying to enjoy your apt patio/deck/balcony, you should start with other people's nasty ass cooking!

I'd like to ask if anyone has any definitive credible evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that second hand smoke causes cancer...because I've just never seen any.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think as long as you are outside, you should have every right to smoke.

If you are inside, I think I agree with Bee. I don't want cigerette smoke around my food but the only argument for banning it in bars are to keep the bartenders and waiter/waitresses safe.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mister Sinister
Member Avatar
Delusional Granduerist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, like I say...I would really love to see some clear cut definitive evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous. I'm being serious. You may think it to be common sense that second hand smoke harms people, but I personally would like to see some evidence of that. You cannot go on "common sense" in situations where people's freedoms are involved, it just isn't fair, there has to be some sort of proof, not just repitition that it's dangerous, which is all I've ever seen. You prove that second hand smoke is dangerous, I don't ahve a problem taking it out of public places. If not, then second hand smoke is nothing more than an annoyance, in which case there are several things people do that need to change and I'd personally like to start with bathing habits.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Comrade Jim
Mar 28 2007, 04:23 PM
I say just tax the cigrarette makers into the ground

They already do. I don't know about the other states, but in Ohio they have taxed cigarettes almost to the point of being too expensive to buy. What I don't get is they haven't raised any taxes on alcohol in about the last 25 years.....as far as I remember alcohol related deaths are as numerous(or maybe even more) than smoking related.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NeoAegis
Member Avatar
Israel thug life
Admin
Isn't this why we have Smoking and Non-Smoking sections? The only thing I could see the anti-smoking guys bitch about is the (small) danger of fire. It's not like smokers are blowing smoke right in their faces just to spite them (some might, but that's when you need to lay the smack down on the bitch yourself).
Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image
Exit Mundi Post of the Year
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mister Sinister
Member Avatar
Delusional Granduerist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
There has got to be a study or documented statistics that prove it's dangerous. They can't just go around saying, "it's bad...mmmmkay?" and get legislation passed based on some overly inaffectual non-smokers. Does anyone know the study? OR has anyone seen the evidence? I've been looking and I can't come up with any thing definitive.

The EPA Report

In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.

Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.

Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.

Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a few important studies can skew the results considerably.

The term "Meta Study" is often used to describe this type of report, but the word "study" is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report.

Fact: The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies. The EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates.

Fact: The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30.

Fact: On page 3-46 of the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, "this would translate to the equivalent of about one-fifth of a cigarette per day."

Fact: Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.)

Fact: In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA report.

The CRS was highly critical of both the EPA's methods and conclusions.

Fact: According to the CRS "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, to determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies."

Questionnaires can be notoriously inaccurate, but in this case some of them were not even filled out by the people being studied, but by "surrogates." In other words, some of the information was unverified hearsay.


Fact: On page 23 of the study, paragraph 3, the CRS noted that out of 30 studies, only five found a statistically significant risk at the 95% confidence level, and one showed a statistically significant negative risk (a protective effect). The remaining 24 studies showed no statistically significant increase or decrease in risk.

Fact Worth Repeating: Instead of using the 95% confidence interval, the statistical standard that has been used for decades, the EPA doubled their margin of error to achieve their pre-announced results.

I am not advocating smoking, I am simply advocating the fact that I'd rather live in a society of smokers than a society of control freak fascists who slavishly seize upon any action of the individual in order to create yet another pretext for creating a Stasi system of informants, locking us all up and building the infrastructure of the prison planet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taslan
Member Avatar
Crazy Doctor's Apprentice
[ *  * ]
Smoking and drinking are harmful drugs, which should be banned in all forms.
Smoking provides no use in any field except for killing yourself (and slowly I add).

If anything, the government is very two face about this. Drugs like Mary Jane are banned, yet a cig isn't. People can argue about how the former is not as bad as the latter...

But it's a moot point. It's just as bad (over time) because how available it is. People could smoke several packs of them a day, very easily.

The only logical conclusion is that the companies pay off the government, like they always have.

If you want to take a more optimistic approach, then instead, maybe it's because America knows that if they ban something like that, then a new form of bootlegging would appear (just as what happened when they banned drinking).

If that is the case then, why not just make all drugs legal (by prescription, or sold by the government). Not only is it safer (for the user, because the best type of hash is the governments hash), cheaper (as any product that increases in supply), but it also would boost up the governments economy by a lot.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical.

-Taslan

"Who was the most beautiful Seraph in Heaven?"
And I reply, "Seraph Michael?"
"No."
And I reply, "Seraph Samael?"
"No."
And I reply in finality; "Then surely, Seraph Seraphiel."
"No.
The most beautiful Angel in Heaven was,
Seraph Lucifer
And as He fell, His feathers departed
Thusly, were the Souls of man and woman
Tis the reason why He wishes so desperately for
His Lost Feathers... His Wings...
To fly
Back Home."
-God to Taslan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mister Sinister
Member Avatar
Delusional Granduerist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Smoking and drinking are harmful drugs, which should be banned in all forms. Smoking provides no use in any field except for killing yourself (and slowly I add).


If it only harms my person, why do you even care? Do you have some desire to control the way I live my life?

I would rather die a slow painful death from lung cancer than live under your freaky ass rules! The way you live your life is one thing, you shouldn't presume to live mine, that's Fascism. You're not jackbooted are you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Made by Sionthede of the IFSZ.