Nazi Alert
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
"scholling" us?
Anyway, we were we in the same thread? The thread I was I cited sources that clearly stated that second hand smoke exposure has been clearly linked to increase chances of developing cancer.
I don't know, Gio does work for CATO and tobacco companies. I gotta say, its a tough one.
http://www.webmd.com/Smoking-Cessation/news/20051116/30-minutes-of-secondhand-smoke-hurts
Guess these guys are full 'o shit too.
Guess these guys are full 'o shit too.
They've all been taken in by the one fraudlent "interview" being passed off as a study, don't you see?
It took RS to expose it!
Riiiight.
RS and some dude from CATO, bested the US Surgeon General, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization, and the American Cancer Society.
lol
And RS? Please stop hanging your hat on something or other from 1993. you're just like the global warming denialists. The science on second hand smoke has advanced just a tad in the last 18 years, since 1993.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
String is always the guy talking about ideology getting in the way of reason - yet here is his letting his "let me do what I wanna do and fuck everyone else" ideology get in the way of what is obviously true. Second hand smoke increases cancer risk. There's no question.
To admit that much, however, would make his position very difficult to defend. And whales are better off with global warming. And baby seals look more supple when covered with spilled oil.
To admit that much, however, would make his position very difficult to defend. And whales are better off with global warming. And baby seals look more supple when covered with spilled oil.
I think tonight I'll get a bull horn and start yelling out BB babble at 3:00 in morning. My neighbors may be a tad upset and not like it but, I will be in my own apartment and if I'm in my apartment I can do what I want. Fuck my neighbors and disturbing the peace laws.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Waft some second-hand smoke their way while you're at it.
String - What I don't get is why you are up in arms about the smoker's property right but fail to even consider for a moment the right of the non-smoker not to have their property rights infringed by the smoke of others.
Why should Lady T cede her right to a smoke free home simply based on the so-called proprty right of the smoker next door? The smoker should have the burden to ensure that his or her conduct does not have an adverse impact on others, not vice versa.
While I agree that the regulation is heavy handed, your summary dismissal of the property rights of non-smokers such as Lady T are pretty inconsistent with so-called libertarian philosophy.
Why should Lady T cede her right to a smoke free home simply based on the so-called proprty right of the smoker next door? The smoker should have the burden to ensure that his or her conduct does not have an adverse impact on others, not vice versa.
While I agree that the regulation is heavy handed, your summary dismissal of the property rights of non-smokers such as Lady T are pretty inconsistent with so-called libertarian philosophy.
I'm picturing you yelling "BB babble" into a bullhorn at 3 am. It's hysterical. Too bad you don't live next to RS though. That's just what everybody wants to listen to at 3am. An incoherent drunk screaming about the vietnam war, asking if they're fat, and ending with a song.
Obvious, typo. I know that it is spelled with a k.
The article you linked only said they found carcinogens in the urine. There was nothing about risks. Exposure to carcinogens is pretty much unavoidable and not necessarily a risk. Further, the article only spoke about those with direct exposure.
What are you not getting Cypress. The WHO and the Surgeon General based there reports on the 1993 EPA study. You do not have three sources independently reaching the same conclusion. You have three sources all using the same flawed study. It is you that is hanging hat on one item.
Another strawman.
No, it would not make my position hard to defend (which isn't what you pretend). Further, I don't doubt that second hand smoke increases risk. To me it seems reasonable to assume it would. However, I have nothing to show me that it is a signifcant risk increase.
Every independent study done since 1993, shows a statitically significant link between second hand smoke, lung cancer, and other respiratory ailments. These are independent studies. I gave you the link.
The National Academy of Sciences is on my side. The World Health Organization. The USEPA. The US Surgeon General. Every major known Scientific body in the country, and perhaps the planet, that has expertise in medical science concurs with me.
You've got a tobacco funded dude. And he only CLAIMS the 1993 study is flawed. His claim, does not make fact. Especially in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus by all mainstream medical scientific bodies.
I have acknowledged her rights. If she had a real claim then I would fully support her taking it court. But minute amounts of second hand smoke that cannot be shown to have significant effects are not sufficient. Not liking the smell is not either. We are talking about a situation where she has accepted the burdens of living in close proximity to her neighbors and that is obviously going to involve some level of sharing their pollutants, whether it is smoke, farts, noise or odors from garbage or food.
That's an absurd and unworkable standard. Let's take the noise pollution example Tiana gave. Should her neighbor have to prove that turning on his tv will not have an adverse impact on her?
There has been no dismissal of her rights.
Last edited:
I will take a look at the link. I don't doubt there are health effects, especially for those with direct exposure (live with a smoker). I am primarily talking about the ridiculous claims of 3000-50000 deaths per year and other such bs. Since the EPA study is the source of those ridiculous claims, that is what I am attacking.
There are plenty of studies that have found no link, UCLA 2003 is one. Some of the ones included in the EPAs metastudy even found a positive impact.