Anti - anti-smoking rant

Mm.. i'd pretty much wanted to say what i'said and leave it at that, but i think there's a couple of issues with your thinking there, just in the first paragraph, which to be fair you then point out in your scond.

nobody's saying ban tobacco (although to be fair in the uk chewing baccy is non existant),but that method of nicotine delivery, nicotine itself isn't a pleasant substance (nicotine plants produce it so they don't get eaten) but not particularly harmful compared to the plethora of other substances in cigarettes and in much rolling tobacco used as preservatives etc. It's this particular method, inhaling the product of a chemical reaction thru burning that is the issue. i guess this method of delivery is particularly effective at delivering the "hit" also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce

Let's just cut to the quick here: everything that's dangerous to the point of being able to cause death, regardless of how far in the future from its use, must be outlawed.

---

Or in other words: "Throwing out the baby with the bathwater"

To the argument that second hand smoke inhalation has not been proven to cause adverse effects on health, I don't want to take that chance. Even if it was proven 100% that it doesn't effect ones health, I don't like choking on smoke that I don't voluntarily put into my lungs. On the other side of things, if smokers had an area of the same quality as non smokers in an establishment, what's the harm in them lighting up in a restaurant, pub or anywhere else? The bans on smoking in a wide open public park is ridiculous. If you were standing two feet from someone and blowing smoke in their faces that's another thing entirely. But seriously, how many people actually do that? The majority of smokers are more considerate of non-smokers than the non-smokers are of them. Most will, as many here have said they do, try to move so that the smoke they produce doesn't drift toward the non-smokers, yet the more extreme of the non-smoking crowd get angered at the mere sight of someone smoking in public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Stink bombs are not deadly either, but if a large number of people started throwing them in public spaces, it would be made illegal as well.
You're basically arguing that since throwing stink bombs is not deadly, you should be allowed to do it.

---

You're ignoring the fact that the majority of the smoking bans are rooted in claims that second hand smoke is deadly and and thus the choice of the smoker regarding their own health is negated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

You are basically saying it is not the government's business, except when it is. :)

---

No, I'm saying that its not the govts business to interfere with a choice that can be legally made by a member of the populace regarding their own health. If I want to eat fried chicken till I get a heart attack thats my business, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

No, it is mostly supported by non smokers who absolutely hate it when e.g. they are enjoying diner and the person next to them starts blowing smoke across the tables.

---

No, its not. Most people dont really care enough about smoking to donate the gobs of money being thrown into anti-smoking propaganda, and they dont have the pull to make things like these bans happen. The only explanation is that someone is profiting by it. I'd wondered who was funding these bans for a long time until I looked into it more deeply. A cash rich and influential movement like this just doesn't pop out of the blue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

There are millions of dollars in damage, the NY tunnels got flooded, cities got flooded and people had to evacuate.
Are you saying it is not a disaster? Should people not have done anything?
If the tunnels had been in use, everyone in there would have drowned.

---

And any people hang gliding would have been killed too :). You're not in the US, so you probably don't understand the amount of media attention and hype that was given to this storm. They were acting like it was so dangerous that even looking at it wrong would kill you. Of course you need to take simple precautions when dealing with a hurricane, but exaggerating the danger of it for ratings is a bad thing. People who went through this storm will be less likely to give the respect a really dangerous storm deserves. I'm pretty sure many less people were killed in that area than would have been killed during that time period normally.

All the damage they're going on about is now mainly inconvenience. So yes, I am saying that it isn't a disaster. The media is trying to save face b/c there has been some blowback about the hype. I've been through at least 6 to 12 maybe hurricanes and tropical storms, so I'm familiar with their aftermath. Andrew is the only recent hurricane that comes to mind that was a disaster on its own. Katrina was a more of a disaster of incompetence...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Most people in charge care about getting elected.
The majority of the people support a smoking ban. This is not just a small minority.
Now, in case of the US government, laws tend to be very draconian and without much room for being reasonable about things.

---

True enough about the draconian part, I think thats rooted in what I said before about people wanting to make others do what they want. But I disagree with a majority of people wanting bans. If there was enough demand for a businesses such as a bar to disallow smoking they would do so on their own. Most don't unless forced to by a govt imposed smoking ban, then they do it kicking and screaming about the money they're losing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niftyshaving

Neither do I ....
Lets us go and ponder the differences between
goose quill pens and gold nibs on a modern pen.

Better yet we should sing the praise of a fine
shave soap or the availability of good badger
brushes should global warming prove to be more
or less than the pundits tell us.

---

There is much wisdom in what you say...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete_S

1) There has never been a death proven to be related to second hand smoke. Its that simple. No, not one. Sorry.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete_S

You're ignoring the fact that the majority of the smoking bans are rooted in claims that second hand smoke is deadly and and thus the choice of the smoker regarding their own health is negated.

---

BBC News - A World Health Organization study in 192 countries states that second hand smoke causes 600,000 dearths world wide annually.

The problem with the "proof" idea is that you can not say that had these specific people not been exposed to smoke they would still be alive, because they were and are now dead. Personally I think the comparative analysis provides compelling proof and I take the view that the WHO are not a bunch of propagandists publishing falsified studies.

IMO those that take the attitude that their 2nd hand smoke is harmless to others are just choosing to believe what is comfortable to them.

I am prepared to consider the possibility that my opinion is wrong and that 2nd hand smoke is fine, in which case the impact on smokers has been at a social and convenience level. However, if one considers the possibility that it is right the impact on non smokers is on a medical level. So which is more important?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeltz

BBC News - A World Health Organization study in 192 countries states that second hand smoke causes 600,000 dearths world wide annually.

The problem with the "proof" idea is that you can not say that had these specific people not been exposed to smoke they would still be alive, because they were and are now dead. Personally I think the comparative analysis provides compelling proof and I take the view that the WHO are not a bunch of propagandists publishing falsified studies.

IMO those that take the attitude that their 2nd hand smoke is harmless to others are just choosing to believe what is comfortable to them.

I am prepared to consider the possibility that my opinion is wrong and that 2nd hand smoke is fine, in which case the impact on smokers has been at a social and convenience level. However, if one considers the possibility that it is right the impact on non smokers is on a medical level. So which is more important?

---

Well, first, regarding the report you linked, its pretty much extrapolated information. "We released a study saying that 1 in 1000 people exposed to second smoke will die in a year. 600 million people died last year. So, therefore, 600,000 people must have died from secondhand smoke." Those figures I listed are just made up, of course, but you get the idea.

I actually figured that second hand smoke was dangerous for a while as well, but it just doesn't add up. There should be things like clear statics showing that more people died from cancer related illnesses caused by second hand smoke when smoking was more prevalent, but I've never seen them or hear of them. There were several studies that showed secondhand smoke was not dangerous in the 90s, including a report from OSHA that clearly stated that it didn't contain the amount toxic levels of ...anything. Then suddenly in the early 2000s reports stated popping up and news people would say things akin to "A report finally shows that second hand smoke is dangerous". That sounded to me more like studies where they set out to prove a result, instead of proving or disproving it, something thats been discussed in this forum a few times on various subjects like global warming. These reports coincided with the ramping up of production of smoking cessation medicines, and I think its unlikely that was a coincidence. Tobacco is a 6 billion a year business, and a slice of that is enough to cause plenty of motivation and "studies".

As far as the WHO is concerned, I don't think much of them or their integrity at all. But thats a whole other thing all together.

Regarding your last paragraph I'd say that the govt staying out of peoples business is the most important. Someone phrased my feeling on it much better than I ever could--

"The most cogent reason for restricting the interference of government is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power."

Anyway, this is winding down, and I don't wish to appear boorish so I'll go ahead and retire from this thread. There were many good points made by all.