Nazi Alert

RStringfield said:
Study on second hand smoke finds no link to ill effects.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full...om&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! :p Priceless. You're entire stance thus far has been that interviews are not a good method of determining a correllation between cancer & second hand smoke and this is why the EPA's 1993 report was no good.

I believe you said:

"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."

Then I take a look at the study you provided us with:

To assess the current status of surviving cohort members, in mid-1999 we sent out a two page questionnaire on smoking and lifestyle to those participants with an address for 1995 or later on their driver's licence.

Hmmmmm, seems suspiciously like an interview to me.
 
If someone wants to smoke in his or her own home, they should have every right to. All he or she would have to do is to build an airtight room and filter the exhaust. No nuisance, no problem.
 
Watermark said:
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?
Click to expand...

well, there will certainly be less on the roads that are already built. And no, I don't care what drug addicts do to their bodies. Its what they do under the influence to the general population that concerns me.
 
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 what it likely said in its headline. Do you not know that studies often come out with strong synopsis and headlines that are not really supported by the data? Where is the data to support it. I doubt seriously you did anything but swallow the headline whole. Can you provide any part that shows they studied effects on neighbors or people walking by?

By your claim, that it includes all of these casual exposures, the study could not hope to make any assertion since just about 100% of people have had this level of exposure. How would they go about even calculating an increased risk?
 
OrnotBitwise said:
If someone wants to smoke in his or her own home, they should have every right to. All he or she would have to do is to build an airtight room and filter the exhaust. No nuisance, no problem.
Click to expand...

That's the trouble with far lefties. :)

I don't even know if you're serious when you say this.
 
LadyT said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! :p Priceless. You're entire stance thus far has been that interviews are not a good method of determining a correllation between cancer & second hand smoke and this is why the EPA's 1993 report was no good.

I believe you said:

"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."

Then I take a look at the study you provided us with:

To assess the current status of surviving cohort members, in mid-1999 we sent out a two page questionnaire on smoking and lifestyle to those participants with an address for 1995 or later on their driver's licence.

Hmmmmm, seems suspiciously like an interview to me.
Click to expand...

I only posted this to show there are other studies in response to you continuously falling back on authority arguments when you have nothing to add of your own. I made no claim about it's accuracy or methodology. Just as you did with all the links you posted, I did not review it.
 
LadyT said:
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.
Click to expand...

lol... It's useless. You can't stop spinning in circles.

For others that can read, the point was in regards to OrNot arguing that it does no matter about health effects. Any intrusion of smoke is a violation. Well then any intrusion of odor, sound whatever is also a violation.
 
Warren said:
That's the trouble with far lefties. :)

I don't even know if you're serious when you say this.
Click to expand...
In a sense, I am. The problem with smoking isn't the effect on the smoker. Not in the legal and ethical sense. The problem with smoking is that the smoke spreads and other people have to breath it in too.

Quite honestly, it shouldn't really matter WHY the other people don't want to breath your smoke. That's their business. Maybe they believe that secondhand smoke is a major health hazard. Maybe they really hate the smell. Maybe they find it offensive to their religion. Who knows? Who cares? It's not anyone's business other than the objector's.

Now, public spaces are one thing. There, I think, a balance has to be struck between the smoker's desire to smoke and the non-smoker's desire to be smoke free. Frankly, I think some ordinances against smoking in public places have gone a bit too far in recent years. Where one's own home is concerned, however, the stakes become much higher.

In the scenario under discussion, the smoker is intruding into another's home by means of his smoke. If he can stop the smoke from spreading somehow then he's good to go, as far as I'm concerned.
 
RStringfield said:
lol... It's useless. You can't stop spinning in circles.

For others that can read, the point was in regards to OrNot arguing that it does no matter about health effects. Any intrusion of smoke is a violation. Well then any intrusion of odor, sound whatever is also a violation.
Click to expand...
No, any intrusion of smoke is a potential violation. Any intrusion of noise is a potential violation. Any intrusion of radio interference is a potential violation.

This is what we have police and judges FOR after all. It's to mediate disputes between individuals where interpretation of individual rights comes into question.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Oh man. I wish I could remember the tread it was in, but wasn't it you or one of your Pauliticos that was saying, in response to the smoking ban somewhere, "cept in the constitution!" they didn't have a right to smoke.

Yeah, that was definitely you. Then you accused me of being a statist.

So, you have in the past said people have a constitutional right to smoke. I'll pull it up if you make me.
Click to expand...

BS! Let's see you produce the thread. More than likely you were just too stupid to understand. Probably confusing the point that the feds have no right to ban it with being an argument for a right.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
No, any intrusion of smoke is a potential violation. Any intrusion of noise is a potential violation. Any intrusion of radio interference is a potential violation.

This is what we have police and judges FOR after all. It's to mediate disputes between individuals where interpretation of individual rights comes into question.
Click to expand...

Again, this law calls for treating any smoking as an intrusion whether or not it is excessive or ther is no intrusion at all. If your neighbor complains, you can't smoke, period. Nothing in it says it even has to cross into your home.
 
RStringfield said:
BS! Let's see you produce the thread. More than likely you were just too stupid to understand. Probably confusing the point that the feds have no right to ban it with being an argument for a right.
Click to expand...

Nah. I remember it very distinctly, and I already tried to look for it but the search engine on this site blows chunks.

In response to something someone said about smokers not having a "right" to smoke, you said something to the effect of "'cept in the constitution." To which I replied something to the effect of the argument involving enumerated rights, which I expected to be your elaboration (which you rarely offer unless pressed to do so). Then you accused that of being the "statist response."

I remember quite distinctly. Does anyone else remember that? It wasn't long ago at all.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Nah. I remember it very distinctly, and I already tried to look for it but the search engine on this site blows chunks.

In response to something someone said about smokers not having a "right" to smoke, you said something to the effect of "'cept in the constitution." To which I replied something to the effect of the argument involving enumerated rights, which I expected to be your elaboration (which you rarely offer unless pressed to do so). Then you accused that of being the "statist response."

I remember quite distinctly. Does anyone else remember that? It wasn't long ago at all.
Click to expand...


BS! You're a liar or just too stupid. Go find the thread. I have argued repeatedly that though the drug war is unconstitutional there is no constitutional right to smoke pot. If a state outlaws it, that is within their powers.

Again, you were probably just too stupid understand.
 
We see that you erected the enumerated rights. My argument was that there is no grant of power to the feds. I doubt you even understand it now, but anyone with more than two brain cells can figure it out.
 
RStringfield said:
Again, this law calls for treating any smoking as an intrusion whether or not it is excessive or ther is no intrusion at all. If your neighbor complains, you can't smoke, period. Nothing in it says it even has to cross into your home.
Click to expand...
In most communities there's no hard standard for noise complaints or RF interference complaints either. Such ordinances are simply a tool: they give the courts the authority to step in where it's needed.

It's up to the courts to apply the law with judiciousness. And it's up to people to only file criminal complaints when nothing else has worked.
 
But the ordinances prohibit unreasonable noise, not noise.

This law allows police to fine smokers. There is no need to go before a court. And it is not based on any excessive infiltration of smoke into your neighbors home or infiltration of smoke at all. It prohibits smoking in mutli unit housing. That's it. Your reading into it and your analogy does not work.
 
RStringfield said:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/13/BA1BS4NJH.DTL




I really love the way they point out that it is not likely to be enforced consistently, as if that is a good feature for a law.
Click to expand...

rs

Soon, if you live in a multi-unit building, your insurance will go up if there are one or more smokers in the building

Additionally, if second hand smoke is bad for you and your neighbors smoke comes into your home (apartment/condo etc.) could you sue them

Yep, they are closing in on smoking making it more and more difficult to smoke

Now if you live in a single unit dwelling, it may still affect your insurance cost…

Oh well
:tongout:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top