Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
Its not a misspelling, its the British spelling.
Bad spelling is such a mood-killer...
Second hand smoke is made up of mostly air and the harmful chemicals inside it are the equivalent of a single grain of salt in your hand.
WHO didn`t publish a study they completed over 36 years the most long term study. Which didn`t show any ill effects to second hand smokers.
Wait, what is that?
The police can stop you "on suspicion" of other crimes too. Would you want them to not chase a thief unless they actually personally saw him steal something? Or let a murderer walk away because they didn`t observe him pulling the trigger? It`s called probable cause.
jayme21 - if you`re just gonna copy-pasta an argument off the internet, you`d be better off posting the link. Nobody is going to read a series of upside-down paragraphs.And I`d rather engage YOU in discussion than an article. Feel free to quote things to refer to facts and evidence, but don`t just get someone else to do the talking for you.
Equally, not 100% of people who get shot in the head die, and plenty of people die without being shot in the head. This is a ridiculous counter-argument.The evidence that shows alcohol inhibits perceptiveness, reaction times etc etc is all well documented. If you get behind the wheel of a car drunk, you are not in control of that car.
[quote]My point in all this is the absurdity of our laws and loss of freedoms.[/quote]
You do not have the freedom to put another person`s life at risk. At that point, your freedom is over-reaching. Every civilised society accepts this.
Roy castle claims it wads smoke from clubs etc doesent make it so. I have gilberts syndrome i drink orange juice wow must be the cause. Exact same causation many of these flawed reports are done. All you who say it affects you ever heard placibo effect you think it will so it does. Why you probably buy overpriced brand named painkillers or order anti depressants of tv not because it does but because someone in a white coat aiming to make money tells you to.
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: “Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms!
Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent ” The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: ‘There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.’ ” And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke
concludes that “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed.” What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers…
My point in all this is the absurdity of our laws and loss of freedoms. Because of the drunk driving laws police can now pull people over on "suspicion" and this is something our forefathers thought they were protecting us from when they penned the constitution. The ban on smoking has opened up sign regulations reminding us all of something we know we can`t do anyway.
In a free society business owners should be able to determine if smokers fit into their business plan. How about an all smoking bar where non smokers are banned? And I don`t know if you`re aware of this or not but the people who write and pass these laws are allowed to smoke in their offices.
Now I would like to see the research papers which conclude that exposure to children causes serious long-term health problems and even premature death. And it can`t be from some anti-child lobby.
madest: drink-driving is a threatening act. You`re putting the lives of everyone else on the road at risk when you`re not in full control of a car, just like I would be putting someone`s life at risk by holding a gun to their head.As Baal has pointed out, "no harm no foul" either applies to both drink-driving AND putting a gun to someone`s head, or neither.
None of thos
Geez madest, I totally support your right to free speech, right up to that blatantly racist/derogatory comment at the end which I`ve deleted from the above quote. If you think about what you said there again, I think you`ll agree I could`ve swung the banhammer on that one, but ur a member of longstanding and usually have some interesting things to say so I`m just censoring a bit instead. Bit of cross-cultural sensitivity next time though ok?
Tell that to Roy Castle`s family you prat.
From there, you can click the links to all the reports, studies and so on and so forth detailing why the link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization.
Also, Madest:"No harm, no foul" is in direct contradiction of you saying you care if someone points a gun to someone`s head.
No harm, no foul. There is no harm. There is no foul. In the case of the gun, there is no harm, there is no foul.
The analogy only fails because it beats your argument.
starting four days ago, i can no longer smoke at my local bowling alley (actually it`s illegal to smoke indoors in any public place where i live), and that`s just not right. a bowling alley just isn`t the same without that thin smokey haze and smell of cigamarettes.
if you can`t deal with cigarette smoke, i don`t know how you are able to put up with car exhaust, loud children, or bad farts. they are all just as annoying and equally harmful to your health/sanity.
the next person who asks me to put out my cigarette will have their eyeball used as an ashtray...damn it i need a cigarette >-(
Hahaha forget secondhand smoke, there isn`t, and has to date never been, a study that proves scientifically that smoking is harmful to even the smoker. There is a ... L ... O ... T ... of circumstantial evidence to support it, but no actual proof.
Can we ban everyone that has a drink from ever receiving an organ its their fault they had a drink.
While were at it lets ban free speech (or what remnant we have of it in the uk) Its damaging to my health as some hate preacher indoctrinates some boy to blow me up.
You want a government to shape citizens into exactly what they want and their standards move to iran, china, north korea,cuba or any other country with a totalitarian regime. Because this is the slop we are starting on with you smug uppity people who read sensationalized conjecture don`t research it and force your view on others from inaccurate information
Many here would complain that big business have too much influence on the government. Well same with these advocacy groups that just lie and create fake figures to get what they want from the government http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/10/tobacco-display-ban-misleading-figures ban on shop displays for cigerretes where only those it would benifit were asked ie big supermarkets and anti smoking lobby.
Interesting POV crakrjak. For the record:
Changing CD or tapeSmokingTextingUsing cellphone or SatNav without handsfree installationEatingDrinkingDoing Makeup or using mirror for anything other than watching behind car
...are all illegal, instant loss of licence, in Australia.
(PS its "every day" not "everyday", "everday" is an adjective).
Ahem, People die on the roads driving sober everyday. Things like dropping a cd on the floorboard, Dropping a cigarette ember in your lap, texting, using a cellphone, eating, fixing makeup, etc.. have all contributed to wrecks.
But none of the above are prosecuted like drunk drivers are. I`m not suggesting they should be either. We have too many laws and mandatory sentencing guidelines as it is.
Today you demonize drunk drivers, Tomorrow it will be your habit that is demonized.
I don`t think drunk driving is good at any time, Use good judgment and call a cab or have a designated driver. However .08 is a really arbitrary alcohol level, Skinny light weights might be dangerous at that level while the big and tall may still be relatively sober.
The real problem are the obscene penalties that MADD has pushed through state legislatures that leave even first time offenders broke, Jobless, and unable to drive again for 6 months. The punishment should fit the crime, Not be a major source of income for the state and lawyers.
Gamblers, Shoplifters, and Prostitutes aren`t treated as badly as drunk drivers are in court.
As for your "argument," it is so ridiculous that it`s not worth the effort to ridicule it further. The bob`s seem to have taken care of that sufficiently already... Thanks guys!
Frankly I`m stunned that you`re arguing that drink-driving should be acceptable unless you actually cause an accident. Do you also believe that holding a gun to someone`s head is acceptable unless you actually pull the trigger?
Drink-driving causes thousands of deaths every year, and all too often it`s innocent bystanders who die. There is no excuse for taking that risk with someone else`s life.
hahahahah! that was so funny
Are you suggesting that ANY of these things were good? I remember them but certainly don`t miss them! And one`s freedoms should not inflict harm on another person otherwise your freedom is at somebody else`s cost. Secondhand smoke and drunk driving inflict harm. I am glad that the law protects me from them!
Would you mind presenting any more such stunning nuggets of wisdom?
If you`re not willing to a condemn an activity by virtue of how it affects others, by what basis can you condemn other such anti-social activities as theft and murder?
No. These laws that limit freedom exist to protect the populace in a justifiable role. Driving drunk and secondhand smoke can injure others and so are banned in the former case and restricted in the latter.
You can not seriously argue that it should be legal whether or not it harms others. The purpose of banning such activities is to protect individuals who otherwise have no choice in the matter.
One of my friends was killed by a drunk driver and I`ll be damned if I`ll condone more people dying for the sake of your self-indulgence.
Okay, that`s just straight up retarded.
Why the frak would you object to a law that tells you to do something, if you`re already supposedly doing it because you`re such a caring and sensible parent? If I wore red every day and they passed a law saying "everyone must wear red", surely I would simply say "So what, no skin off my nose, I`m already there."
You could only object if you DO smoke in the car with your kids, in which case, go to the Doc and get your parenting skills checked out.
Good point... is anyone taking a poll on how many of these "vice-less" people don`t wash their hands after using a restroom and then walk around touching things and people? I think thats drating more disgusting than smoking... and whats more... I bet more people do it.
Our freedoms are being taken away and governments are trying to create a society matching their authoutarian beliefs. Its hypocritical anyway know how much money smokers contributed to the nhs in tax a lot more then they ever took out. You dont smoke fine but dont force your view on others.
And to those who say you do dramtics because their is a smoker next to you, man up or shut up
They are gearing up to tax, regulate, or outright ban things like these: Soda, Chips, Trans-fats, Tanning salons, Movie theater popcorn, Fruity alcohol drinks, Violent video games, Booze games, Candy, Texting, Driving with your dogs head hanging out the window, Styrofoam, Fireplaces, and many others on the way.
Congregation? So it`s in a church? Ahh I get it. Lol. Even a church is obliged to put up no-smoking notices after the ban.
I support them too, as long as they do it way the f*ck away from me.
I`ve already been told by my doctor at my last visit that my lungs were literally BLACK from all the second-hand smoke.
I`ve never picked up a cig in my life, and never will (since that sh*t killed my father), but I live with people who all smoke (or smoked at the time) at least a pack a day.
I make it a point to make an ass of myself `til they go outside if they try to smoke while I`m in the room. I know it`s irritating, and a little disrespectful, but in the end it`s the best for them too.
If you were never addicted to smoking, well you just wouldn`t understand. It`s f-ing wonderful! And yes, I smokers now smell like crap to me and I think it`s disgusting, but I still support a smokers right to choose.
If I had a bar I would create an indoor-outhouse type offshoot where all the smokers can hang and drink.
Our freedoms are being lost daily, Taken by the social elite that think they know what`s best for the rest of us and also believe those laws don`t apply to themselves.