uscitizen
Villified User
I have lined up a couple of jobs in the smoking zones
Works much better than playing golf with the snobs.
Nazi Alert
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
I have lined up a couple of jobs in the smoking zones
Works much better than playing golf with the snobs.
Laws are intended to benefit or protect the public welfare. There are not supposed to be laws to protect every single individual against every possible nuisance.
Second hand smoke is both a public welfare and property rights issue. It affects tens of millions of adults and children in all 50 states. There's no scientific or empirical evidence that your neighbor cooking green chiles is a significant public welfare issue, though it may affect you as an individual
couldn't have said it better.
So, because there is no study on the effects of capsaicin, even though it can be proven that the allergy exists and can cause serious health consequences, we should dismiss serious health effects of others? How much intrusion should be allowed based on this?
It is not proven that smoke that goes that much distance has any detrimental health effects on anybody at all. All of the studies are with people who live with a smoker or work in enclosed spaces with people who are smoking. Ignoring this to say it is all bad for you, when there is equal evidence on capsaicin danger to smoke danger over such distances, and in both cases you can "just shut the window"...
Please. Either I have the right to stop you from "invading" my home with something that can harm me or I don't. Why must we only limit it to cigarette smoke?
uscitizen
Villified User
but there is evidence that you cars exhaust harms others.
but no one wants to attack the holy way of american life, the automobile.
Heck we have killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq to protect the holy establishemnt of the automobile
And likewise we have regulations on how much exhaust cars can emit into the environment.
But further more, this is more about personal property and someone invading their harmful smoke on to my property.
That's why there are laws and regulations that attempt to adress the amount and health risk of emmssions. Remember the ban on leaded fuel? Oxygenation of gasoline? Sulfur reductions? Cars are the backbone of the economy. You can't eliminate them. No one ever promised that some law could eliminate all risk. Its a balance between what is technologically possible, balanced against economics and the public welfare. That's why we have elected representatives, and scientific bodies. To sort that out for us. If we don't like the way they sort it out, we vote them out of office.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Damo has a point. Cat boxes can get putrid and smell the whole place up. Or even incense, would these things be classified as invading property rights too if my neighbor didn't like it? Man this subject is touchy...
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It's impossible to live without remnants of your existance getting on other persons property. To act like you have some sort of right to live in a box that no one can even penetrate accidentally is ridiculous, and it's plain stupid to call it "invading my private property rights".
TheDanold
Unimatrix
I lived in a really shitty apartment when I first started out. I had neighbors above with the guy yelling all evening at whoever and the kids making way too much noise, I had to pound on the ceiling to get momentary peace. One time he threw a bike out the window. Windows getting smashed and bars put on later.
Then of course you had some druggies and drunks, 2 guys who got caught stealing laundry (one of them a perv, took some ladies panties). Loud music, occasional smell of pot and the worst was some of the cooking smells in the hall.
In all honesty I really can't remember ever giving a shit or noticing cigarette smoke and there was a lot of smokers and drinkers there.
It just seems like council should have bigger priorities, I mean honestly, there is a hell of a lot worse going on than being fussed about cigarette smoke.
Then of course you had some druggies and drunks, 2 guys who got caught stealing laundry (one of them a perv, took some ladies panties). Loud music, occasional smell of pot and the worst was some of the cooking smells in the hall.
In all honesty I really can't remember ever giving a shit or noticing cigarette smoke and there was a lot of smokers and drinkers there.
It just seems like council should have bigger priorities, I mean honestly, there is a hell of a lot worse going on than being fussed about cigarette smoke.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Hear hear! There is always some little annoyances you have to put up with from wherever you live, we really can't afford the government it would take to perfectly insulate everyone from their external pet peeves.
America needs fewer laws, not more prisons.
This study was from 2003, and from the outset was deemed controversial and flawed.
The authors did not apparently disclose their funding from tobacco companies, and :
There's is rarely ever going to be 100% consensus in science, but this one study, which was highly controversial, and tobacco-funded, does not negate the overwhelming consensus off all other independent studies, and the nearly worldwide consensus of Scientific bodies, with expertise in medical science.
+1 for watermark. If a person could possibly control air movement, then it would be reasonable to expect them to keep smoke out of your apt. If you want perfect air, it's up to you to filter your own space.
and why don't you seal up your apt better?
It's your fault smoke gets into your windows. If you're going to make humans responsible for air movement, then you're responsible for the air in your apt.
BTW if you don't like the smells of other people, WTF are you living in an apt for?
This is how you guys usually attack anything that does not agree with your pre held belief. Yet, you fail to consider the motivation of studies that agree with it. As water pointed out, ACS has an agenda, everybody does. Does not really matter if the methodology is good.
Tiana has already pointed out that this study uses the flawed methods of the EPA study (most of the data actually comes from ACS studies). That is a much better argument against it. I am inclined to dismiss the study.
Socrtease
Verified User
From the same EPA:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says all gasoline-powered automobiles, trucks, and boats emit a number of air toxins associated with both long-term and short-term health effects in people, including heart problems, asthma symptoms, eye and lung irritation, cancer, and premature death. In 2000 there were 28,146,424 motor vehicles registered in California whereas the CDC reported in 2004 there were 4,169,121 smokers in the state. With more than 5.5 times more pollution-producing motor vehicles than smokers, why are Californians still allowed to drive but not to smoke?
This is from a position paper from the American Council on Science and Health.
From Source Watch:
To its credit, it has taken a strong public position against the dangers of tobacco, one of the leading preventable causes of death in today's society. However, it takes a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry.
So ACSH is not in the pockets of big tobacco.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says all gasoline-powered automobiles, trucks, and boats emit a number of air toxins associated with both long-term and short-term health effects in people, including heart problems, asthma symptoms, eye and lung irritation, cancer, and premature death. In 2000 there were 28,146,424 motor vehicles registered in California whereas the CDC reported in 2004 there were 4,169,121 smokers in the state. With more than 5.5 times more pollution-producing motor vehicles than smokers, why are Californians still allowed to drive but not to smoke?
This is from a position paper from the American Council on Science and Health.
From Source Watch:
To its credit, it has taken a strong public position against the dangers of tobacco, one of the leading preventable causes of death in today's society. However, it takes a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry.
So ACSH is not in the pockets of big tobacco.
And you can continue to ignore my argument and pretend it is something else. Second hand smoke fairly obviously distributes carcinogens that can lead to cancer. To what degree and what level of increased risk is involved is still uncertain. Most use a flawed study to come up with ridiculous figures on deaths. There is better science on other illnesses. And finally, these studies are based upon conditions like living with a smoker, not being a neighbor or casual exposure.
As I have stated repeatedly without much response, every small intrusion cannot be treated as a property violation worthy of calling the cops. Especially when we are talking about units that are connected.
Round and round... Those are zero tolerance policies? No, they are not. This one is.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
If you can keep the smoke in your apartment and it doesn't seep up into ours, you'd have a point. But the fact is that it does get into other units. It gets through to the other apartments and units and it gets other people sick. Its not a victimless leisurely activity
Tell you what, when all the self-righteous anti-smokers stop driving cars and taking flights and kicking carcinogens into my face then I'll stop smoking.
We had similar hypocrisy in my former office, we had a carpark under the building that was largely open to the elements. We couldn't smoke under there when it rained because the anti-smokers complained. Didn't see any of them pushing their cars out of the carpark...
Tell you what, when all the self-righteous anti-smokers stop driving cars and taking flights and kicking carcinogens into my face then I'll stop smoking.
We had similar hypocrisy in my former office, we had a carpark under the building that was largely open to the elements. We couldn't smoke under there when it rained because the anti-smokers complained. Didn't see any of them pushing their cars out of the carpark...
Battleborne
Terminator
Bottom Line...........
Our country has been invaded by a group known as the Liberal bi-polar anti-Republic form of government our country was formed on...This minority assails everything and anything...example in point :What if I built a really nice apartment complex with all the amenities anyone could wish for..then designated it as a smoking only apartment complex...how long do you think it would be before I was drug into court being sued by the ACLU et al claiming discrimination...?
This would also apply if I started a airline for smokers only! Big government is a mask for oppression...if the intent was for aiding and protecting society it would be okay...however it is controlled by a minority of habitual Liberal whiners and complainers...trying to force their agenda on the majority!...end of story!
Our country has been invaded by a group known as the Liberal bi-polar anti-Republic form of government our country was formed on...This minority assails everything and anything...example in point :What if I built a really nice apartment complex with all the amenities anyone could wish for..then designated it as a smoking only apartment complex...how long do you think it would be before I was drug into court being sued by the ACLU et al claiming discrimination...?
This would also apply if I started a airline for smokers only! Big government is a mask for oppression...if the intent was for aiding and protecting society it would be okay...however it is controlled by a minority of habitual Liberal whiners and complainers...trying to force their agenda on the majority!...end of story!