Nazi Alert

Watermark said:
In hotels they solve this by having smoking/nonsmoking rooms. Legslation requiring the various kinds to be seperated, I believe, would better than legislation that completely banned smoking in apartments, which is a ridiculous concept.
Click to expand...

I actually think that is a nice compromise believe it or not.
 
Watermark said:
In hotels they solve this by having smoking/nonsmoking rooms. Legslation requiring the various kinds to be seperated, I believe, would better than legislation that completely banned smoking in apartments, which is a ridiculous concept.
Click to expand...


Oh no! That's completely nonsensical. It can't be settled unless we send men with guns.
 
I think we as a society should really be moving away from smoking in general. I don't really ever think tobacco should be banned, but I'd really like to see, maybe, 1% of the population smoking, rather than 20%.

Then again, once it gets that small it's going to get banned anyway.
 
Watermark said:
Oh come on. That's like expecting to get unbiased information about drinking laws from MADD. It isn't going to happen. Walking down the street and wiffing up some smoke isn't going to hurt you. And what are obviously very low amounts of smoke "wafting" in from apartments way off isn't going to kill you either. These are just sensationalists.
Click to expand...

http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=766

Researchers at the University of California, Riverside have found that breathing “second-hand” smoke reduces the speed at which wounds heal, leading to greater levels of scarring.

Look at that more non-governmental consensus on second hand smoke.
 
RStringfield said:
Oh no! That's completely nonsensical. It can't be settled unless we send men with guns.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know why they aren't already seperated that way. But if it takes a small push from legislation to get them all that way, I don't mind providing it. And anyway, it takes the guts out of the argument for just completely banning it.
 
RStringfield said:
ib1=nothing to add.

Sorry that line of argument was from Tiana, with her "neighbor smokes, I get headeache, therefore second hand make gave me the headache."
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight, you're now going to have the audacity to tell me what I do and don't get headaches from?
 
LadyT said:
Let me get this straight, you're now going to have the audacity to tell me what I do and don't get headaches from?
Click to expand...

From a conservative:

If you don't like it, it's always so terribly easy to move. No inconvnience at all.

And vicodin would take the sting right out of those headaches, but meany papa government won't let you get such helpful medication without a prescrition from a fascist doctor who would probably just tell you to use Aspirin. As if he knows what's best for ME!
 
RStringfield said:
What about your landlord or condo association?



Why do you insist on the strawman? I have not claimed anyone had any right to smoke much less that such a right overrides anyone elses right.

And again, this law is not about some unreasonable level of smoke so your noise analogy does not work. Under this law there is no reasonable amount.
Click to expand...
It is not a strawman. You seem to think it is because you refuse to recognize the fact that smoking is, by a quirk of the law, granted special status under the current status quo.

No, Stringy, the HOA has no recourse against someone who wants to smoke in their unit, even if the activity generates many complaints from neighbors. They can do so because they are doing it within the privacy of their own home, as they say, and no specific ordinance exists to prohibit excessive exercise of said "right."

You are presumed to have the right to do anything at all in the privacy of your own home unless some ordinance or statute specifically prohibits it. This is a very good principle and I support it entirely. It does, however, lead to some very . . . picky pieces of legislation.

Noise abatement ordinances exist to cover the specific case of too much noise. Entirely within the privacy of one's own home, it's still possible to inflict discomfort on other people in their own homes, if one insists on playing Black Sabbath at 130 decibels at 11:00 at night. For this reason there are ordinances in, probably, every community providing for legal sanction if one's neighbors complain about too much noise.

All I'm arguing is that it's perfectly reasonable to have a similar ordinance covering the spread of the smell of cigarette smoking. Or any other kind of smoking: there's no reason my neighbors should have to smell my Mendocino buds if they don't want to.

This specific ordinance MAY be flawed. I'm not sure. Frankly, though, it seems reasonable enough to let if fly and see if it really does poop on someone's birthday cake. Ordinances can be amended.
 
LadyT said:
Rstringfield:

And the numbers being thrown up are based on LIVING with or being in frequent and close proximity to a smoker, not being their neighbor.

Canadian Cancer Society
No amount of second-hand smoke is safe.

You seem to be under the misguided delusion that somehow even though the smoke is permeating to apartment that I'm magically immune to the ill effects of the smoke despite the fact that I even stated that it gave me headaches among other things.
Click to expand...

There it is ib1.

I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEIR IS GOOD EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT IT CAUSES OTHER ILLNESSES. Your response was that some expert that says exactly what I acknowleged is right and I am wrong.

This thread has blown up. If you think I can keep up with every study that is linked then you are wrong. I could pepper the thread with counter studies. Please show us the relevant data that is collected on effects from neighbors of smokers.
 
Now, really. A LOT of people must live in apartments for economic reasons. I don't think it's reasonable to just ban all smoking in them. Such a regulation is, at least, unfairly targeted at the poor.
 
RStringfield said:
Why should I deal with what you consider to be a reasonable amount of odor from your cooking? Now watch for the switchback "but cooking odors can't kill you" even though this line of argument is based on OrNot saying the health effects don't even matter.
Click to expand...

what "switchback?" I've been saying the same thing from the beginning of thread about the dangers and potential for death of second hand smoke and my right to not have to be subjected to it.
 
The supreme court ruled that right to privacy does not apply if the activity is harmful to onseself. I've always thought that that was overly broad (there are an infinite list of things that we do that could be interpreted as "harmful" to oneself). As it stands, the government exempts tobacco and alcohol from drug laws simply because of their popularity, but it could ban them at any time.

If they were required to be registered as drugs, obviously, they'd be outlawed, because there's no recourse for something to be merely of recreational value, it has to be of medicinal value to be considered legal. For instance, Marijunia, which is safer than most over the counter drugs, is classified in the same category as Heroine because it has little medicinal value. I've always thought that drugs should be able to be legalized because of recreational value too - as long as they do not cause signifigant dependency or harmful effects in the average user.

Tobacco, however, presents a special case. It is very harmful, very addictive, and not even all that pleasurable. I've never really liked it. However, it's clearly not caused our society to fall apart, so I see little reason to ban it.

Kind of got off subject there, eh? Well, anyway, RS, I don't think that there can be a right to smoke.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
And this study tracks neighbors of smokers?
Click to expand...

I've already shown you a consensus that says ANY AMOUNT OF SECOND HAND SMOKE IS DANGEROUS. Just so we're clear that's neighbors, roomates, people walking by smokers standing in hallways, people trying to get to their cars, etc. That's anyone that breathes in the carcinogens, arsenic, and amonia that smokers put into the air. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
 
Watermark said:
Tobacco, however, presents a special case. It is very harmful, very addictive, and not even all that pleasurable. I've never really liked it. However, it's clearly not caused our society to fall apart, so I see little reason to ban it.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't give two shits about what smokers want to do to their bodies. Quite frankly, I use the decrease in traffic that excessive smoking will eventually cause. What I don't like is the idea that they feel like smokers have some natural right to subject the general population to their second, or even third hand smoke.
 
LadyT said:
I've already shown you a consensus that says ANY AMOUNT OF SECOND HAND SMOKE IS DANGEROUS. Just so we're clear that's neighbors, roomates, people walking by smokers standing in hallways, people trying to get to their cars, etc. That's anyone that breathes in the carcinogens, arsenic, and amonia that smokers put into the air. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Click to expand...

That's sensationalist trash.
 
LadyT said:
Personally, I don't give two shits about what smokers want to do to their bodies. Quite frankly, I use the decrease in traffic that excessive smoking will eventually cause. What I don't like is the idea that they feel like smokers have some natural right to subject the general population to their second, or even third hand smoke.
Click to expand...

Excessive smoking doesn't cause increased traffic. If more people die then they simply build fewer roads.

Do you care what heroin users want to do to their bodies, Tiana?
 
Secondhand smoking is, of course, dangerous. But most of the studies were done with spousal or workplace smoking - day after day, year after year. Sensationalists like to coalesce this with the non-existant amount of evidence that walking by someone on a street will give them lung cancer.
 
Watermark said:
The supreme court ruled that right to privacy does not apply if the activity is harmful to onseself. I've always thought that that was overly broad (there are an infinite list of things that we do that could be interpreted as "harmful" to oneself). As it stands, the government exempts tobacco and alcohol from drug laws simply because of their popularity, but it could ban them at any time.

If they were required to be registered as drugs, obviously, they'd be outlawed, because there's no recourse for something to be merely of recreational value, it has to be of medicinal value to be considered legal. For instance, Marijunia, which is safer than most over the counter drugs, is classified in the same category as Heroine because it has little medicinal value. I've always thought that drugs should be able to be legalized because of recreational value too - as long as they do not cause signifigant dependency or harmful effects in the average user.

Tobacco, however, presents a special case. It is very harmful, very addictive, and not even all that pleasurable. I've never really liked it. However, it's clearly not caused our society to fall apart, so I see little reason to ban it.

Kind of got off subject there, eh? Well, anyway, RS, I don't think that there can be a right to smoke.
Click to expand...
I think that direct effects on other people have to be considered. Smoking produces smoke. That's rather the point, I suppose. Unlike a well behaved syringe, said smoke doesn't stay where it's put: if it did there'd be no problem.

And personally, I'd legalize -- or de-criminalize, more correctly -- all recreational drugs. Why not? The state has little legitimate interest in preventing you from harming yourself, only in preventing you from harming other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top