You say you have a house now, implying that you at one time lived in a condo or apartment? Smokers can't smell their own smoke, but you can smell fish. You never smelled one of your neighbor's cooking fish because it was coming through the vents? I have. And if you don't smoke, you smell the smoke. It's just a fact. You can disagree with the law, but Tiana isn't crazy because the smoke is coming into her apartment.
Nazi Alert
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
You say you have a house now, implying that you at one time lived in a condo or apartment? Smokers can't smell their own smoke, but you can smell fish. You never smelled one of your neighbor's cooking fish because it was coming through the vents? I have. And if you don't smoke, you smell the smoke. It's just a fact. You can disagree with the law, but Tiana isn't crazy because the smoke is coming into her apartment.
Hey I'm the first to admit my apartment complex is ghetto.
Smokers are worse than heroin addicts. I say that having been one. And I have to say all of this righteous indignation is scary. I hope I never sounded like that. It looks ridiculous.
LOL.
This is why l'll never be a libertarian. None of them seem to care about the victims in this situation. That's still 6 more than I'd chose to have. You still haven't addressed the fact that I'm forced to marinate in cigarette smoke, a known carcinogen, against my will.
It's a strawman, on many levels. Consitution has pretty much nothing to do with it. Further, I already pointed out the right to smoke is not even relevant here. The issue here is property rights.
If someone is violating your property rights with pollution that is one thing. But secondhand smoke from a neighboring apartment is not significant and to pretend it is, opens the door to state regulation of all sorts of activities.
And, as I mentioned, the inconsistent enforcement is a danger, for the same reasons it is a danger in the war on drgus.
Seriously.
I'd think that you'd Libertarian extremists would like that part of the law. If neighbors live harmoniously with second hand smoke then government intervention isn't an issue. However if the smoke is bothersome to one party then they have a recourse.
Kudos Northern Cal extremists!
They don't seem that approachable. It also makes me nervous because the complex they just came from burned down. I should get a police report.
Yes, and if one doesn't live harmoniously with his neighbor he calls the cops on em even though he did not on other neighbors. Maybe, they never say hi when they pass. Maybe, he doesn't like the bumpersticker on their car. Or maybe he prefer neighbors with different skin colors.
Second hand smoke studies are junk science
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html
Epicurus
Reasonable
http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/secondhandsmoke/a/NNALinUrine.htm
Gee.....who's word am I going to take RString's or A PhD's at The Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota. You can save that bullshit for some one else.
Now that's a strawman. Again. I have stated REPEATEDLY that I don't care what they smoke. what I care about is the impedence of their recreational activities on my well being and on my property.
Can you please tell me how the color of someone's skin is akin to them forcing me to inhale second hand smoke?
speaking of which.......maybe you can invent an injectable form of tobacco since you don't like it and everyone can be happy. I wouldn't give two shits if they were injecting.
Stupid response t. I no more wrote the article I sourced than you wrote the one you sourced.
Fact, is you need no PhD to know that most of the studies the fearmongering are based on are flawed. You can't get reliable data from an interview.
This is a better method but it really does not tell us much.
What were the levels? What are the levels of a smoker?
Further, this is in close proximity and 53% did not have detectable traces. Guess what thats likely to mean about the neighbors?
Fact, is you need no PhD to know that most of the studies the fearmongering are based on are flawed. You can't get reliable data from an interview.
This is a better method but it really does not tell us much.
What were the levels? What are the levels of a smoker?
Further, this is in close proximity and 53% did not have detectable traces. Guess what thats likely to mean about the neighbors?
Uhh, I don't think you know what a strawman is.
Further, you don't seem to comprehend the clear point I made. The point is that people will naturally complain inconsistently based on biases.
Actually, that's a stupid response. You've been marginalizing the effects of second hand smoke this entire thread! Just because you happen to find an author that talks of a few studies suddenly I'm supposed to discredit doctors from leading research facilities and governmental agencies who concur that secondhand smoke is bad.
FROM YOUR OWN ARTICLE:
Last July, introducing his office's latest report on secondhand smoke, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona asserted that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure," that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion," and that children exposed to secondhand smoke will "eventually . . . develop cardiovascular disease and cancers over time."
The Belmont City Council has voted to approve an ordinance prohibiting smoking in multiunit housing, a measure hailed by supporters as a landmark ban that would give residents relief from secondhand smoke drifting into their apartments and condominiums.
Holy crap! Hiltler would be proud.
Epicurus
Reasonable
I gather that you intended this to be sarcastic. We need to discuss your understanding of sarcasm.
Sarcasm would be used to ridicule an absurd idea, much like the ordinance that provoked this thread.
It works less well when your sarcastic statement is true.