EPTAnti-Smoking Conspiracy? - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Sawajiri
Austria417 Posts
=) | ||
|
humblegar
Norway883 Posts
| ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On October 07 2007 20:21 Sawajiri wrote: I hate smoking and am very pleased to see that we non-smokers are winning the battle all around the globe. =) its not a war you fucking idiot -_- is my right to do what i want... so yeah you are winning the battle against freedom and liberties... awesome! you douchebag. I dont know whats the argument against smoking zones in restaurants/bars... i mean seriously wtf is wrong with that?. If health were the problem the goverment should just make mandatory a good ventilation and air extraction system in restaurants and bars, and if workers dont like it dont fucking take the job, its a hazzard of the job, you are not willing to take it, then dont apply god dammnit, like in every other fucking job. I hate you ppl i really do -_- | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On October 07 2007 19:04 BluzMan wrote: Looks like bullshit because even Wikipedia (which is very anti-smoke propagandistic) states that smoking health effects take 10-20 years to kick in. They introduced the ban in March 2006. One year is absolutely neglible. They may have not mentioned some other health program that kicked in that year or just purely made up the data. Another thing that may have kicked is just the stress effect - those who were previously stressed by smokers near them are now feeling more content, therefore effectively reducing risks. Yeah that was before those studies. Guess what studies are for. They are proving theories. It´s called evidence. It was more effective than anyone would have thought before. Yes surprising, but numbers are numbers. | ||
|
Dariush
Romania330 Posts
On October 07 2007 20:41 baal wrote: its not a war you fucking idiot -_- is my right to do what i want... so yeah you are winning the battle against freedom and liberties... awesome! you douchebag. I dont know whats the argument against smoking zones in restaurants/bars... i mean seriously wtf is wrong with that?. If health were the problem the goverment should just make mandatory a good ventilation and air extraction system in restaurants and bars, and if workers dont like it dont fucking take the job, its a hazzard of the job, you are not willing to take it, then dont apply god dammnit, like in every other fucking job. I hate you ppl i really do -_- qft. | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On October 07 2007 21:16 Maenander wrote: Yeah that was before those studies. Guess what studies are for. They are proving theories. It´s called evidence. It was more effective than anyone would have thought before. Yes surprising, but numbers are numbers. You don't think wikipedia links their sources, right? The thought that the counter-argument might be as well based on evidence did not come to you or you just want to put in a remark you and only you might consider "smart" or "sarcastic"? The 20% decrease in one year sounds like bullshit to any person with common sense, contradicts tons of data acquired in previous researches and is effectively biased because that article links two facts that are not necessary linked without any research on what other factors could influence thier numbers and they quote biased parties in the first place. | ||
|
humblegar
Norway883 Posts
On October 07 2007 20:41 baal wrote: its not a war you fucking idiot -_- is my right to do what i want... so yeah you are winning the battle against freedom and liberties... awesome! you douchebag. I dont know whats the argument against smoking zones in restaurants/bars... i mean seriously wtf is wrong with that?. If health were the problem the goverment should just make mandatory a good ventilation and air extraction system in restaurants and bars, and if workers dont like it dont fucking take the job, its a hazzard of the job, you are not willing to take it, then dont apply god dammnit, like in every other fucking job. I hate you ppl i really do -_- Scenario 1: A restaurant does not allow smoking. People work there and actually stay healthy. Everyone can go there, even parents with small kids without exposing them to smoking. You can go there too, but you need to keep your nerves in check and not smoke for a little while, or go outside (most bars have heated seatings outside in Norway after they banned smoking), lets hope you don't show your insecurities and call people douchebag and idiots, oh wait, its too late. Scenario 2: You can smoke as much as you want in the restaurant. Some people will have to quit their job/not start working there or simply live with the issues. People with allergies or people with kids will mostly choose not to go there. But its ok, its "freedom and liberties", everyone not agreeing with you are idiots and douchebag, right? Its funny how important it is for you to be allowed to smoke in a restaurant, but its not important that people can work there and actually survive. How about its my liberty and freedom to eat and drink without risking my life for it? Oh I forgot, when you say freedom and liberties, you mean you personally not giving a shit about other people. I read alot about health and babies these days, try reading about smoking and infants, or smoking and SIDS. But its all propaganda and a conspiracy you know; those scientists and midwives rarely know what they talk about. And this is of course withouth even talking about COPD-related costs and so on. | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On October 07 2007 23:32 humblegar wrote: Scenario 1: A restaurant does not allow smoking. People work there and actually stay healthy. Everyone can go there, even parents with small kids without exposing them to smoking. You can go there too, but you need to keep your nerves in check and not smoke for a little while, or go outside (most bars have heated seatings outside in Norway after they banned smoking), lets hope you don't show your insecurities and call people douchebag and idiots, oh wait, its too late. Scenario 2: You can smoke as much as you want in the restaurant. Some people will have to quit their job/not start working there or simply live with the issues. People with allergies or people with kids will mostly choose not to go there. But its ok, its "freedom and liberties", everyone not agreeing with you are idiots and douchebag, right? Its funny how important it is for you to be allowed to smoke in a restaurant, but its not important that people can work there and actually survive. How about its my liberty and freedom to eat and drink without risking my life for it? Oh I forgot, when you say freedom and liberties, you mean you personally not giving a shit about other people. I read alot about health and babies these days, try reading about smoking and infants, or smoking and SIDS. But its all propaganda and a conspiracy you know; those scientists and midwives rarely know what they talk about. And this is of course withouth even talking about COPD-related costs and so on. How about scenario 3: "There are restaurants that allow smoking, there are restaurants that don't. Everyone happy." which is what every person in this thread is talking about. Care to read? | ||
|
Gandalf
Pakistan1905 Posts
On October 07 2007 20:41 baal wrote: its not a war you fucking idiot -_- is my right to do what i want... so yeah you are winning the battle against freedom and liberties... awesome! you douchebag. I dont know whats the argument against smoking zones in restaurants/bars... i mean seriously wtf is wrong with that?. If health were the problem the goverment should just make mandatory a good ventilation and air extraction system in restaurants and bars, and if workers dont like it dont fucking take the job, its a hazzard of the job, you are not willing to take it, then dont apply god dammnit, like in every other fucking job. I hate you ppl i really do -_- Sure you have the right to do what you want, but so do others. If your freedom impinges on that of others, then theres a problem, and a reasonable line needs to be drawn. One post gave the example of some random guy not wiping the toilet clean after using it. That might be how he wants to act, but it inconveniences the next guy. Maybe that guy wants to use a clean toilet. So whos right? Or, what if I dont like a guy, so I go kill him. Hey, I'm just doing what I want to do. Whats wrong with that? Whats wrong is that my "freedom" to do as I please directly damages other people, and hence compromises their right to live how they wish to live. And thats pretty much what rules are for. You've got to decide where to draw the line, Sure, not everyone will agree, but its still a lot better than letting everyone do as they please. You might want to smoke in a restaurant, but maybe the guy next to you wants to be in a place where people dont smoke. If you think he should just get up and go to a place where there are no smokers, hes entitled to the opinion that you should get up and go to a place thats exclusive for smokers. So whos right for freedom is greater? And lets not even talk about the damage smoking causes. Its a risk factor for roughly a third of all cancers. Lung cancer, CAD and strokes are the top 3 causes of morbidity and mortality in the US, and smoking is a major risk factor for all three. And there are tons of non cancerous conditions caused by smoking. And unfortunately, second hand smoke IS dangerous. So when you're smoking and someones kids next to you are inhaling that smoke, you're damaging them. Whats more, you might be influencing them at an age when they're not smart enough to really understand the implications of such a habit. So stop thinking about your freedom all the time, and try to realize that compromises have to be made in civil society. | ||
ToKoreaWithLove
Norway10161 Posts
But if you have to go outside, while not terribly inconvinient, you will smoke less. No matter how one rages on about mommy government, this is a good thing. As humblegar mentioned most bars, resturants, public places have accomondations for smokers outside. I'll use my country as an example yet again: Smoking inside public places was disallowed from 2004 I belive. We had a massive debate leading up to that. Nobody likes to be told what to do. But the funny thing is that everybody are positive now. The smokers are happy because they smoke less. The non-smokers are happy because they smell better and can breathe better. The employees reports less health problems. The government combined the ban with a massive campaign against smoking, and the results are positive - the numbers have dwindled from about 30% smokers in 2003 to about 25% now, and is still going down. I'm not saying this is the only option. Viable options includes separate smoking rooms, smoking "clubs", etc. | ||
|
Gandalf
Pakistan1905 Posts
On October 07 2007 10:31 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Claiming that they're actually harming you by any significant amount is ludicrous. Unless they're blowing it directly into your face it diffuses into the rest of the polluted air you are breathing and becomes a toxic mix of all the other crap you're inhaling. And that claim is ludicrous because? Because you think so? Because you heard so somewhere? CMDT, 2007, quoted verbatim: "Of approximately 450,000 smoking-related deaths in the United States annually, as many as 53,000 are attributable to environmental tobacco smoke." 53,000 people dying because of second hand smoke every year just in the USA is pretty significant. I dont find anything ludicrous about it. The book just has a page on smoking, but its still pretty scary. Whats more, the time period where most people start smoking is high school and college. Do you really think a high school kid is wise enough to make a decision that can potentially massively influence his entire life? Whats more, the decision to start smoking is pretty much always uninformed. Sure, everyones heard smoking causes cancer and COPD, but nobody really researches a bit before picking it up. I also dont get why you think passive smoking will only be damaging if blown directly into ones face, and I dont know where you got this idea from. Is that how you "think" tobacco smoke works? Gas diffuses, and you dont need to pump someone lungs with 100kgs of tobacco smoke everyday for him or her to suffer the ill effects. And tobacco smoke doesnt need to "mix" with the rest of the polluted air to be harmful. It carries 40+ identified carcinogens, god knows how many unidentified ones. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On October 07 2007 22:56 BluzMan wrote: You don't think wikipedia links their sources, right? The thought that the counter-argument might be as well based on evidence did not come to you or you just want to put in a remark you and only you might consider "smart" or "sarcastic"? The 20% decrease in one year sounds like bullshit to any person with common sense, contradicts tons of data acquired in previous researches and is effectively biased because that article links two facts that are not necessary linked without any research on what other factors could influence thier numbers and they quote biased parties in the first place. I just read the wikipedia-article concerning smoking bans and yes it contains the scottish study among health effects. It links to BBC as source. So what are you talking about? Maybe your information is outdated? Of course effects on deaths inflicted by lung cancer are only expected in the long run, but they are talking about heart attacks. It seems like exposure to smoke can induce heart attacks for already endangered individuals. A 17%-drop was never seen before, you really think a health program could do that ??? Only a change of lifestyle could do that, now guess what change there was in scotland ... | ||
|
ToKoreaWithLove
Norway10161 Posts
| ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
I personally think banning smoking in restaurants and bars is a bad idea. It seperates peoples and creates a new social group which in turn results in segregation. To every non-smoker who thinks they are 'winning the war' on smoking, you may as well call yourself a fucking racist, or a homophobe, or a nazi... ;/ | ||
|
sundance
Slovakia3201 Posts
On October 08 2007 05:30 Amber[LighT] wrote: To every non-smoker who thinks they are 'winning the war' on smoking, you may as well call yourself a fucking racist, or a homophobe, or a nazi... ;/ This is pretty stupid because you can't choose your race or sexual orientation but you can choose to not start or quit smoking. I quit after 5 years of smoking pack a day w/o nicotine patches or progressively lowering amount of smoked cigarettes. One day I just decided to stop smoking and i did that => so people who are crying that they can't stop are just pussy crybabies with no will. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12248 Posts
From a financial perspective, think of it as a variation of the "First They Came" poem. First they came for the money of the smokers, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a smoker. It's really quite ridiculous. EDIT: Oh, and I should also mention that the above is exactly why smoking will never be banned. The government relies on smokers too heavily to fund their bills. | ||
|
Hans-Titan
Denmark1711 Posts
Thank you very much. | ||
| ||
