Nazi Alert

[TRGLDTE]

I am not listening to anyone person. Carmona's claims are based on the EPA's 1993 study which contains the flaws I have noted. You two can keep cackling about sources all you like but you cannot change the fact that an interview is not a reliable basis for a study of this sort and you have not even bothered to challenge that. You just throw out ad homs.

And since you know the government is always the best source of information and science I am sure you will both agree with Petraeus and further the info given in the lead up to the war.

That was the EPA report that didn't conform to EPA methodolgy / standards wasn't it? AS I recall they dropped the confidence levels to make the data fit.

 

[Timshel]

That was the EPA report that didn't conform to EPA methodolgy / standards wasn't it? AS I recall they dropped the confidence levels to make the data fit.

There is some dispute on that part of the criticism. Not sure what to make of it yet. Still, relying on interviews as the method of determining exposure is obviously flawed.

 

[blackascoal]

Been over this alreadt. Yall guys keep spinning around in circles.

So smells from my neighbors coooking should be treated as trespasses?

You all have avoided answering cause you are bunch of intellectual cowards. Either that, or you will fall back to, "cooking smells wont kill you".. duhhh. This response completely ignores the position you set up where YOU not I (like I fucking claimed I should be the one empowered to decide or it should be written on a stone somewhere) get to determine what is a violation of your property. And there is no proof that this level of seconhand smoke will kill.

No, YOU, do not get to decide what is a trespass. Your neighbor's cat crosses into your lawn, does not mean YOU get to shoot the cat or the neighbor for trespassing.

You're so lost in th confusion of your own illogic that now you're just sounding silly.

What in the hell does "your neighbor's cat" have to do with this? Stupid

The American Lung Association has determined ...

-- Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen)

-- Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.

-- Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

-- Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.

-- Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.

-- Fifteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon and Utah have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken full effect yet.

-- Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.

-- Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.

-- In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.

-- Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.

-- New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.

-- The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

YOU know better than the American Lung Association?

I ask again .. who the fuck are you to determine what others see as a risk to THEIR health and well-being and that of their children?

That bullshit you keep spouting about "no evidence" is dumb and an outright lie. You sir are an intellectual coward.

There is small wonder why libertarians don't amount to much more than a cult.

 

[Timshel]

You're so lost in th confusion of your own illogic that now you're just sounding silly.

What in the hell does "your neighbor's cat" have to do with this? Stupid

Back to the beginning of the chorus.

YOUR ARGUMENT WAS THAT IT'S A PROPERTY TRESPASS AND ONLY YOUR OPINION, AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, ON WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE TRESPASS IS RELEVANT. This was a line that came out of me stating that the increased risks or nuissance is not shown to be sufficient.

If all levels of trespass regardless of the degree of nuissance/risks is a trespass then.... what about cooking smells? What about cat smells? Etc.

Now you circle back to it being a health risks, which was already previously addressed (you do not have proof of sufficient risk increase). Let's guess the next line of the song... "WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT IS A SUFFICENT NUISSANCE TO ME AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, blah blah blah".

Get a new line.

 

[Timshel]

I ask again .. who the fuck are you to determine what others see as a risk to THEIR health and well-being and that of their children?

That bullshit you keep spouting about "no evidence" is dumb and an outright lie. You sir are an intellectual coward.

There is small wonder why libertarians don't amount to much more than a cult.

Oh wait, dumbass did not even wait a beat to start the chorus again.

WHO ARE YOU TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CAT IS A NUISSANCE?

Once a-fucking-gain, I do not claim to be the decider. If you can prove a risk increase take it to court. But, you can't.

And again, the studies you cite are based on living with a smoker not being their neighbor.

As far as being an intellectual coward, it is you that have now tucked tail and runout on three threads and counting. Still waiting for the history lesson on gold. Still waiting to hear you explain why it is unthinkable to call Feingold a civil libertarian but fine to call Boortz a straighup libertarian.

 

[blackascoal]

Back to the beginning of the chorus.

YOUR ARGUMENT WAS THAT IT'S A PROPERTY TRESPASS AND ONLY YOUR OPINION, AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, ON WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE TRESPASS IS RELEVANT. This was a line that came out of me stating that the increased risks or nuissance is not shown to be sufficient.

If all levels of trespass regardless of the degree of nuissance/risks is a trespass then.... what about cooking smells? What about cat smells? Etc.

Now you circle back to it being a health risks, which was already previously addressed (you do not have proof of sufficient risk increase). Let's guess the next line of the song... "WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT IS A SUFFICENT NUISSANCE TO ME AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, blah blah blah".

Get a new line.

More intellectual cowardice .. as expected.

Who cares if a cat crosses your lawn .. but is there an argument if your dog constantly shits on my lawn? Is that a question of property rights?

And, as expected, you came back with the same ignorant response about "no proof" .. yet you did not, nor could you, challenge the findings of THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION ..

Who cares if libertarian cultists have a problem with the ordinance or anything else? Society moves on without asking the permission of people who can't even follow their own illogic.

AND THAT is the bottom line. No one cares about libertarian fantasy. This ordinance is in place, it mirrors other like ordinances, and there will be many more to come.

 

[Damocles]

However, cigarettes do not make it possible to run the modern economy, while automobiles do. Cigarettes are solely for personal enjoyment, must you place others at risk for your selfish pleasure?

Are we to ban all non-business car use then?

[Devil's Advocate]
Pleasure in an automobile adds to the economy and could not be easily replaced. If you extended "business use" to include going out to dinner, movies, to the local pub, to the gas station for your chewing tobacco (can't smoke, mind you), then yes, ban all usage of the vehicle that does not contribute to the economy.
[/Devil's Advocate]

 

[Damocles]

Now we are back to more polution with another name...why the need for more fuel when we will not be able to afford going to work or out for..PLEASURE! No work no paycheck!


redundant argument devils advocete #1


Advocate#2 says pffft!

[Devil's Advocate]

Yet we are not, the new fuel produces less pollution, the farmers would lose none of their lifestyle changing over to a new crop.

As was previously noted, the automobile is the machine that fuels today's modern economy. Until a better and more efficient means of travel is invented, it is the thing that cements our ability to conduct business today. Cigarettes do not hold such a position in the economy.

 

[Damocles]

Sure, but tobacco has contributed many billions to the economy. look at the income from tobacco ie TAXES and AG income / Jobs and income taxes on the earnings + corporate income tax in several states over the past 25 years.

[Devil's Advocate]

This is the reason I warned against "sin tax" long ago, it becomes their responsibility to smoke and we must continue to allow it because it funds <insert whatever you want here>. It is foolish to connect responsible government action to irresponsible personal behavior.

[/Devil's Advocate]

 

[Timshel]

More intellectual cowardice .. as expected.

Who cares if a cat crosses your lawn .. but is there an argument if your dog constantly shits on my lawn? Is that a question of property rights?

bawc (like a chicken)

Both are questions of property rights. The difference is what is a reasonable and tolerable level. It is degree. Yet you maintain that no one, accept you, are entitled to determine what is acceptable. Therefore the questions about cat's and other minor nuissances.

And, as expected, you came back with the same ignorant response about "no proof" .. yet you did not, nor could you, challenge the findings of THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION ..

Sure I did. None of them concern neighbors. Show me one that can give us some idea of the risks increases to neighbors.

Who cares if libertarian cultists have a problem with the ordinance or anything else? Society moves on without asking the permission of people who can't even follow their own illogic.

AND THAT is the bottom line. No one cares about libertarian fantasy. This ordinance is in place, it mirrors other like ordinances, and there will be many more to come.

Click of the thread jackass, turn off the computer and go get your info from reliable "scientific" sources, like Faux News. Nobody is forcing you to join the convo and you are not adding anything worthwhile. So... go back to your hiding place.... again.

 

[blackascoal]

bawc (like a chicken)

Both are questions of property rights. The difference is what is a reasonable and tolerable level. It is degree. Yet you maintain that noe accept you are entitled to determine what is acceptable. Therefore the questions about cat's and other minor nuissances.

Stupid as a motherfucker.

Sure I did. None of them concern neighbors. Show me one that can give us some idea of the risks increases to neighbors.

What in the hell do you think the argument about second hand smoke is about?

More intellectual fraud and cowardice. Address the findings.

Click of the thread jackass, turn off the computer and go get your info from reliable "scientific" sources, like Faux News. Nobody is forcing you to join the convo and you are not adding anything worthwhile. So... go back to your hiding place.... again.

Whaa whaa .. sounds like you need your diaper changed.

If only you had such power to make me do any fucking thing.

Let me reiterate this point ..

Who cares if libertarian cultists have a problem with the ordinance or anything else? Society moves on without asking the permission of people who can't even follow their own illogic.

Whaaaa .. nobody takes libertarians seriously.

 

[Timshel]

Stupid as a motherfucker.

Chickenshit has no response.

What in the hell do you think the argument about second hand smoke is about?

More intellectual fraud and cowardice. Address the findings.

This again relates to your cowardly evasions. Risks visited upon the unwilling are the issue or simply pollution. But you are showing us data on exposure levels that are much than what a neighbor would experience.

Whaa whaa .. sounds like you need your diaper changed.

If only you had such power to make me do any fucking thing.

No buddy, you are the one pissing and moaning about how you don't want to be bothered with libertarian arguments. Well, easy solution. And noone is attempting to make you do a fucking thing. Just pointing how retarded it is whine about the arguments when you can easily ignore them.

Let me reiterate this point ..

Who cares if libertarian cultists have a problem with the ordinance or anything else? Society moves on without asking the permission of people who can't even follow their own illogic.

Whaaaa .. nobody takes libertarians seriously.

Waaaa... waaaa! Make the libertarians stop posting! I don't want to hear it, but am too much of baby to simply quit listening.

Simple solution take the next chickenshit step and ignore.

 

[blackascoal]

Chickenshit has no response.

Yes I did .. Stupid as a motherfucker.

This again relates to your cowardly evasions. Risks visited upon the unwilling are the issue or simply pollution. But you are showing us data on exposure levels that are much than what a neighbor would experience.

How the fuck do you know what a neighbor would be exposed to?

Again, this is why people like you are ignored.

No buddy, you are the one pissing and moaning about how you don't want to be bothered with libertarian arguments. Well, easy solution. And noone is attempting to make you do a fucking thing. Just pointing how retarded it is whine about the arguments when you can easily ignore them.

Are you kidding me? I jump in with both feet when libertarians post stupid shit. You've NEVER read me say they shouldn't be allowed to post what they think. In fact, I enjoy it because they're so easy to refute .. just like now.

I don't want to ignore them, I'd much rather point out how myopic and delusional they are.

Waaaa... waaaa! Make the libertarians stop posting! I don't want to hear it, but am too much of baby to simply quit listening.

Simple solution take the next chickenshit step and ignore.

Damn, you're dumb.

You'd like for me to "stop listening", put you on "ignore", "click off the thread", and "turn off the computer", ... because you're dumb and can't civily engage in intellectual debate ... but it ain't gonna happen girlfriend.

I get much joy-joy from reading your stupid shit and tearing it apart. In case you haven't noticed, I jump on almost every Ron Paul/libertarian thread and when people like you quickly run out of argument .. you run and create another thread .. then I go there and spank that ass.

I even created a Ron Paul thread myself hoping you'd come there with that ignorance.

Nope, no ignore, turning off my computer, or dodging any libertarian comment or thought.

I'm having fun.

 

[TheDanold]

BAC - 2nd hand smoke becomes less and less a health risk depending on how far the smoke has to travel, how thick it is and what obstacles it faces, do you or any study you've read document the effects of it between walls?
I'm sure if someone somewhere in the city lit up a cig anywhere, it would affect someone somewhere however minutely.
Legislation such as this pretty much pushes cigarette smoking into the impossible to do legally for a LOT of people. A lot of those are not just going to quit, they are going to do it illegally, it will be difficult to crack down on them, it will be costly to do so both in court cases and law enforcement and it will make yet another group of otherwise law-abiding people criminals.

It's overreaching and wrong and like most of government it will grow in ways neither of us can really foresee. Keeping the "door" closed is the best way to deal with this...in more ways than one.

 

[Timshel]

Yes I did .. Stupid as a motherfucker.

That is nonresponsive. It's the same sort of bluff and bluster you posted in the gold thread and then ran away from.

How the fuck do you know what a neighbor would be exposed to?

Again, this is why people like you are ignored.

I don't and neither do you.

How many post on this thread? How many from you? I feel so ignored...

Are you kidding me? I jump in with both feet when libertarians post stupid shit. You've NEVER read me say they shouldn't be allowed to post what they think. In fact, I enjoy it because they're so easy to refute .. just like now.

I don't want to ignore them, I'd much rather point out how myopic and delusional they are.

eyeroll... "who cares what libertarians say" "this is why people like you are ignored" wah wah wah...

You can't refute anything but yourself as you do here.

blah blah blah

Nope, no ignore, turning off my computer, or dodging any libertarian comment or thought.

I'm having fun.

Yeah, where is you response on the threads you ran away from?

 

[Immanuel]

Yes. It does in my apartment. They put some kind of stopper at their door, so it doesn't come into my apartment as much, but it definitely does. And yes, it is nauseating and it has given us headaches.

What really sucks even more is being forcefully subjected to second hand smoke in your home/refuge without any say in the matter. If you don't want your nicotine fix to be so regulated, I'd suggest finding a method that doesn't impead on the general population.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the reason you are smelling it, if you are and it is not just in your head, is that they are going out on the patio to smoke because they don't want the smell in their homes either therefore it is entering your apartment from the outside.

Thanks to the continued harrassment of smokers, of which I am not nor ever have I been except for one week when I was 13 been one, many smokers are choosing to smoke outside their homes. Your neighbors may be doing this.

Then again, if you have made a nuisance of yourselves by insisting they don't smoke, maybe they are actually blowing it into your home just to get your goat.

Just a thought.

BTW the smell is nauseating. It gets into your clothing and your hair and everything else. But, I am still opposed to the government forcing smokers to quit by interfereing with something that the smoker does to his/her body especially in their own homes. Isn't that strange? An anti-abortion conservative using the same argument that the pro-abortion lobby uses! Go figure!!

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I have a house now anyway, but still. If Tiana and the Regulate Crew can stretch a justification for banning smoking to apartments then I don't think houses would be too far behind.

Of course not... someday you might sell your home to a non-smoker therefore you do not have the right to smoke in your home because future owners might not be able to remove the odor.

Makes perfect legal sense.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

My guess is that it's largely because of circulation.

I work on the top floor of our building. Because it's a Med. School and has a myriad of laboratories and offices, and in keeping with a statewide ban on smoking in state facilities, smoking is prohibited here. It's supposed to be prohibited outside as well, but no reg. has teeth unless it's enforced. In any event, people do sneak out and try to get their smoking in at the loading docks. Unfortunately, this area is not too far from the air intake for our part of the building -- several floors above, mind you. I'm in the interior of the building and have had to block off one of the major air supplies in my lab because the smoke-laden air flows directly over me. This can play havoc with some of the extremely sensitive equipment that I use, and in addition to this makes me feel quite ill. Even air from inside the building seems to be funnelled in here. I'm especially sensitive to artificial scents (perfumes, etc.) and for some reason they seem to coalesce and find their way right in here. Same problem with the equipment and when these scents do show up I suffer headache, chest pains, disorientation, etc.

It's important to realize that when you're in a multi-unit complex, even though it seems that you're isolated you really are not alone. Air is only one of the things you share, but if you're altering the state of the air then others in the complex will suffer.

So would you ban people with communicable diseases from public facilities?

Serious question, not an attack on you.

Immie

 

[blackascoal]

BAC - 2nd hand smoke becomes less and less a health risk depending on how far the smoke has to travel, how thick it is and what obstacles it faces, do you or any study you've read document the effects of it between walls?
I'm sure if someone somewhere in the city lit up a cig anywhere, it would affect someone somewhere however minutely.
Legislation such as this pretty much pushes cigarette smoking into the impossible to do legally for a LOT of people. A lot of those are not just going to quit, they are going to do it illegally, it will be difficult to crack down on them, it will be costly to do so both in court cases and law enforcement and it will make yet another group of otherwise law-abiding people criminals.

It's overreaching and wrong and like most of government it will grow in ways neither of us can really foresee. Keeping the "door" closed is the best way to deal with this...in more ways than one.

I respectfully disagree. There are no safe levels of second hand smoke.

From the National Cancer Institute ...

What is a safe level of secondhand smoke?

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Studies have shown that even low levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Greater exposure means greater risks, but all exposure comes with risks.

What about children?

Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), ear infections, colds, pneumonia, bronchitis, and more severe asthma. Being exposed to secondhand smoke slows the growth of children’s lungs and can cause them to cough, wheeze, and feel breathless

I ask you, should children be put at risk because of someone's bad habit?

Frankly, I wouldn't care if smoking was banned everywhere. No one has a right to endanger the health of others for the sake of a bad habit.

There is no ambiguity about smoking. It comes with tremendous health risks that affect more than just the smoker.

There is no right to smoke?

 

[Immanuel]

You're so lost in th confusion of your own illogic that now you're just sounding silly.

What in the hell does "your neighbor's cat" have to do with this? Stupid

The American Lung Association has determined ...

-- Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen)

-- Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.

-- Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

-- Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.

-- Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.

-- Fifteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon and Utah have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken full effect yet.

-- Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.

-- Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.

-- In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.

-- Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.

-- New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.

-- The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

YOU know better than the American Lung Association?

I ask again .. who the fuck are you to determine what others see as a risk to THEIR health and well-being and that of their children?

That bullshit you keep spouting about "no evidence" is dumb and an outright lie. You sir are an intellectual coward.

There is small wonder why libertarians don't amount to much more than a cult.

Someone said it earlier but this is like asking MADD to give its opinion on the effects of Drunk Driving. Right or wrong, the American Lung Association has an agenda not to mention a monetary stake in this argument.

Immie