|
On May 24 2011 20:41 RushWifDietCoke wrote:
This seems like a no brainer really, laws are designed to protect people. You can do whatever you want as long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone else. Smoking around someone hurts them so sorry go smoke in your closet. You should read the post I and several others have made regarding this very thin argument.
|
The thing is when I didn't smoke I literally can't remember having any problem at all with people smoking outside. As in, I don't even remember noticing it. Unless it was indoors, I couldn't smell it or register it at all. So I have trouble sympathising with people complaining about it. I mean, if it is affecting you then obviously that's an issue, it's pretty unpleasant for non smokers. It's just odd to me because I don't recall it ever being noticable.
Also a lot of people mention smoking as anti-social...I know what you mean but it's funny because for me it's totally a social thing. Like where I work, if you don't smoke you spend all your breaks alone. And in the summer me and my buddies always go sit on the grass with a beer and a cigarrette. Plus it's a good way to make friends in a new place, if other people smoke you go with them, offer them your lighter or a spare fag etc.
|
I think it is good, how can it not be?
My mother had alot of problems with her health because she smoked so much, she was forced to quit or die, she quit and is happier and healthier than she ever was when she was smoking several packs a day.
My story isent unique as im sure many people have family members who have gone through similar things. In EU, most places you can only smoke outside, there are very few indoor places where it is allowed anymore
|
On May 24 2011 20:46 Tyree wrote:
I think it is good, how can it not be?
My mother had alot of problems with her health because she smoked so much, she was forced to quit or die, she quit and is happier and healthier than she ever was when she was smoking several packs a day.
My story isent unique as im sure many people have family members who have gone through similar things. In EU, most places you can only smoke outside, there are very few indoor places where it is allowed anymore This thread is about the ban of smoking in parks, beaches and other outdoor public areas. Noone is arguing against smoking indoors at restaurants etc, because that is already banned and were fine with that.
|
On May 24 2011 20:43 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 20:41 RushWifDietCoke wrote:
This seems like a no brainer really, laws are designed to protect people. You can do whatever you want as long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone else. Smoking around someone hurts them so sorry go smoke in your closet. You should read the post I and several others have made regarding this very thin argument.
I read through your posts regarding the ventilation of SHS and how it's not harmful as long as its an open area. I think its better safe than sorry though either way. Can anyone guarantee that the smoke is going to be well ventilated? I'm sure there are times when the park is crowded and someone may be sitting down next to someone inconsiderate to smoke right next to them. It really doesn't seem fair for that person then to have to leave or bother the person who is smoking by asking them to stop. And in general, even if the area is well ventilated it may not be enough to warrent a problem as you said but SHS is still inhaled even if it is diluted. Imagine if a crowd of 50 smokers all got together in the park and all lit up. It would be hard to imagine that area is going to be extremely well ventilated.
|
On May 24 2011 21:22 RushWifDietCoke wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 20:43 Clearout wrote:On May 24 2011 20:41 RushWifDietCoke wrote:
This seems like a no brainer really, laws are designed to protect people. You can do whatever you want as long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone else. Smoking around someone hurts them so sorry go smoke in your closet. You should read the post I and several others have made regarding this very thin argument. I read through your posts regarding the ventilation of SHS and how it's not harmful as long as its an open area. I think its better safe than sorry though either way. Can anyone guarantee that the smoke is going to be well ventilated? I'm sure there are times when the park is crowded and someone may be sitting down next to someone inconsiderate to smoke right next to them. It really doesn't seem fair for that person then to have to leave or bother the person who is smoking by asking them to stop. And in general, even if the area is well ventilated it may not be enough to warrent a problem as you said but SHS is still inhaled even if it is diluted. Imagine if a crowd of 50 smokers all got together in the park and all lit up. It would be hard to imagine that area is going to be extremely well ventilated. Yeah that is where we disagree, I do not believe the SHS argument is valid for it to support a ban. It's all about where we feel a line should be drawn. I don't think this is the place, you may think so and then we can just disagree, because it really comes down to opinion. I believe it sets a terrible precedent, which may be used to further remove the privileges of some in favor of others (imo) mild discomfort. You believe this is the place to draw a line I respect that.
Edit: Regarding 50 people stacking up and smoking, that won't really happen without there being some sort of event, and then I agree it would be more justifiable to designate smokers to another area or such. Though this does not hold when it comes down the point of a person smoking on a bench where it may annoy 3-4 others passing by. It also comes down to respect of each other. If I sit on a bench next to someone smoking and this is discomforting them and bringing them harm, I'm an asshat. I should respect the other enough to either move away or make sure my smoke does not go onto them. If you disregard the possible harm (which is neglible) it can be compared to me sitting on a bench farting really badly next to someone. Unrespectful and something that I am an asshat for doing.
|
On May 24 2011 20:05 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 19:52 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:49 Nightfly wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 Nightfly wrote:On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote:
Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas. And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine? Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes. But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not. For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE. On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad.  The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations. No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that. There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.  Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers. For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225934¤tpage=12#231
i provided a source that show substantial direct activation (> 50%) of nicotinic receptors in brain (and likely other places) from a single puff of cigarette smoke that lasts 3+ hours. these receptors are how nicotine act in the human body and likely lead to the whatever actual effects that we see. this was from a few pages back (second paper in the post).
edit: i saw your reply on the next page. you clearly didn't read the actual 2nd article. abstracts don't tell the whole story my friend.
|
On May 24 2011 21:29 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 20:05 Clearout wrote:On May 24 2011 19:52 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:49 Nightfly wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 Nightfly wrote:On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote:
Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas. And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine? Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes. But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not. For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE. On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations. No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that. There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now. Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers. For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225934¤tpage=12#231i provided a source that show substantial direct activation (> 50%) of nicotinic receptors in brain (and likely other places) from a single puff of cigarette smoke that lasts 3+ hours. these receptors are how nicotine act in the human body and likely lead to the whatever actual effects that we see. this was from a few pages back (second paper in the post). edit: i saw your reply on the next page. you clearly didn't read the actual 2nd article. abstracts don't tell the whole story my friend. I didn't mention that because nicotine is not dangerous or the problem with SHS. It says that it concludes this keeps smokers smoking. Are you making a point about how outdoor SHS makes it more likely for other people to start smoking because they get nicotine when they pass by smokers? If that is your stance I don't believe that is enough either, just as how smoking 1 cigarette doesn't make you addicted to it. It requires regular exposure over quite a long time to make you an addict. Otherwise I don't see how that article really brings anything.
Edit: Their conclusion in the second article still limits it to cars and enclosed spaces, if the outdoor SHS was shown a problem, that would be huge and you can be sure they would mention it.
|
Most smokers are intelligent enough to realize that there are those around them who might not to inhale their smoke and adjust their distance accordingly when they do light up. If I was a non-smoker and a guy took a seat right next to me and started puffing away, I would be cheesed, and rightly so. I would feel the exact same way if a guy decided to eat his fish sandwich with raw onion and garlic within close smelling vicinity.
Some people are just inconsiderate of how they affect people around them, regardless of whether they smoke or not.
|
Coming from Greece I find these measures mindblowing and make me feel even more that I live a country that is decades behind from many EU countries and the USA.
I fucking hate smoking and although there's a law the forbids it in closed spaces, people consciously ignore it completely because you know.... nobody gives a fuck about the law.
Ohhh well I hope I can migrate off this shithole soon
|
|
|
On May 24 2011 21:28 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 21:22 RushWifDietCoke wrote:On May 24 2011 20:43 Clearout wrote:On May 24 2011 20:41 RushWifDietCoke wrote:
This seems like a no brainer really, laws are designed to protect people. You can do whatever you want as long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone else. Smoking around someone hurts them so sorry go smoke in your closet. You should read the post I and several others have made regarding this very thin argument. I read through your posts regarding the ventilation of SHS and how it's not harmful as long as its an open area. I think its better safe than sorry though either way. Can anyone guarantee that the smoke is going to be well ventilated? I'm sure there are times when the park is crowded and someone may be sitting down next to someone inconsiderate to smoke right next to them. It really doesn't seem fair for that person then to have to leave or bother the person who is smoking by asking them to stop. And in general, even if the area is well ventilated it may not be enough to warrent a problem as you said but SHS is still inhaled even if it is diluted. Imagine if a crowd of 50 smokers all got together in the park and all lit up. It would be hard to imagine that area is going to be extremely well ventilated. Yeah that is where we disagree, I do not believe the SHS argument is valid for it to support a ban. It's all about where we feel a line should be drawn. I don't think this is the place, you may think so and then we can just disagree, because it really comes down to opinion. I believe it sets a terrible precedent, which may be used to further remove the privileges of some in favor of others (imo) mild discomfort. You believe this is the place to draw a line I respect that. Edit: Regarding 50 people stacking up and smoking, that won't really happen without there being some sort of event, and then I agree it would be more justifiable to designate smokers to another area or such. Though this does not hold when it comes down the point of a person smoking on a bench where it may annoy 3-4 others passing by. It also comes down to respect of each other. If I sit on a bench next to someone smoking and this is discomforting them and bringing them harm, I'm an asshat. I should respect the other enough to either move away or make sure my smoke does not go onto them. If you disregard the possible harm (which is neglible) it can be compared to me sitting on a bench farting really badly next to someone. Unrespectful and something that I am an asshat for doing.
I get what you're saying. It really does come down to favoring one group of people over another. I guess the reason I favor the non-smoker is because they are not potentially harming anyone where as the smoker has the potential because of their actions. I'm really not big on drug regulation as it is but I think people should just be considerate as you said with the farting example lol. Unfortunately though a lot of people are not considerate (Especially in a huge city like NY) and if it comes to potentially harming someone then I think there needs to be some regulation because they don't mind being an asshat. It sounds like we differ in opinions as you said.
|
Haha that was funny 
|
On May 24 2011 21:37 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 21:29 fush wrote:On May 24 2011 20:05 Clearout wrote:On May 24 2011 19:52 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:49 Nightfly wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 Nightfly wrote:On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote:
Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas. And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine? Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes. But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not. For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE. On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations. No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that. There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now. Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers. For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225934¤tpage=12#231i provided a source that show substantial direct activation (> 50%) of nicotinic receptors in brain (and likely other places) from a single puff of cigarette smoke that lasts 3+ hours. these receptors are how nicotine act in the human body and likely lead to the whatever actual effects that we see. this was from a few pages back (second paper in the post). edit: i saw your reply on the next page. you clearly didn't read the actual 2nd article. abstracts don't tell the whole story my friend. I didn't mention that because nicotine is not dangerous or the problem with SHS. It says that it concludes this keeps smokers smoking. Are you making a point about how outdoor SHS makes it more likely for other people to start smoking because they get nicotine when they pass by smokers? If that is your stance I don't believe that is enough either, just as how smoking 1 cigarette doesn't make you addicted to it. It requires regular exposure over quite a long time to make you an addict. Otherwise I don't see how that article really brings anything. Edit: Their conclusion in the second article still limits it to cars and enclosed spaces, if the outdoor SHS was shown a problem, that would be huge and you can be sure they would mention it.
nicotine has more properties than addiction, even in the brain. nicotinic receptors are everywhere in the body as well. though not necessarily implied in the induction of cancer, you can have a lot of detrimental effects for attention, proper neuronal growth in the brain, many associated neurological issues, asthma, and many more that you can find with a simple pubmed search.
i appreciate you actually reading the articles, but while we don't know how small doses of nicotine can directly cause anything in a short time frame, we simply don't know how it can affect our health in a long term situation - especially when it comes to children. it's simply not hard to believe that if a single puff of cigarette smoke can occupy 50% of your brain receptors for 3 hours, that a couple of puffs while walking near a smoker on the way to work/school can have some effects down the line. brief applications of nicotine experimentally has shown that a titrated intake (such as in the brain) over even just a few minutes can cause significant changes in neuronal response to endogenous neurotransmitters and changes in cell transcription of nicotinic receptors. what's to say that these microscale changes don't add up over time?
of course there's been no breakthrough direct study that sums all these parts together into a definite link between short term shs and x or y health problems - but it's not unreasonable to believe that there will be problems judging by what smoking has been shown to do to you.
|
On May 24 2011 22:00 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 21:37 Clearout wrote:On May 24 2011 21:29 fush wrote:On May 24 2011 20:05 Clearout wrote:On May 24 2011 19:52 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:49 Nightfly wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 Nightfly wrote:On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote:
Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas. And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine? Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes. But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not. For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE. On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations. No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that. There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now. Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers. For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225934¤tpage=12#231i provided a source that show substantial direct activation (> 50%) of nicotinic receptors in brain (and likely other places) from a single puff of cigarette smoke that lasts 3+ hours. these receptors are how nicotine act in the human body and likely lead to the whatever actual effects that we see. this was from a few pages back (second paper in the post). edit: i saw your reply on the next page. you clearly didn't read the actual 2nd article. abstracts don't tell the whole story my friend. I didn't mention that because nicotine is not dangerous or the problem with SHS. It says that it concludes this keeps smokers smoking. Are you making a point about how outdoor SHS makes it more likely for other people to start smoking because they get nicotine when they pass by smokers? If that is your stance I don't believe that is enough either, just as how smoking 1 cigarette doesn't make you addicted to it. It requires regular exposure over quite a long time to make you an addict. Otherwise I don't see how that article really brings anything. Edit: Their conclusion in the second article still limits it to cars and enclosed spaces, if the outdoor SHS was shown a problem, that would be huge and you can be sure they would mention it. nicotine has more properties than addiction, even in the brain. nicotinic receptors are everywhere in the body as well. though not necessarily implied in the induction of cancer, you can have a lot of detrimental effects for attention, proper neuronal growth in the brain, many associated neurological issues, asthma, and many more that you can find with a simple pubmed search. i appreciate you actually reading the articles, but while we don't know how small doses of nicotine can directly cause anything in a short time frame, we simply don't know how it can affect our health in a long term situation - especially when it comes to children. it's simply not hard to believe that if a single puff of cigarette smoke can occupy 50% of your brain receptors for 3 hours, that a couple of puffs while walking near a smoker on the way to work/school can have some effects down the line. brief applications of nicotine experimentally has shown that a titrated intake (such as in the brain) over even just a few minutes can cause significant changes in neuronal response to endogenous neurotransmitters and changes in cell transcription of nicotinic receptors. what's to say that these microscale changes don't add up over time? of course there's been no breakthrough direct study that sums all these parts together into a definite link between short term shs and x or y health problems - but it's not unreasonable to believe that there will be problems judging by what smoking has been shown to do to you. I agree with what you are saying, we can't know, atleast yet. Though where we disagree is that you feel it's proper with a ban just in case, I mean it can't hurt so I understand that. I believe just in case is not a good enough reason for a ban that removes the privileges of some. So we are again disagreeing about where the line for such things should be drawn. I value the privileges granted to people more than the possible dangers it brings, where you are on the other side of that fence. Feels as if every one I discuss with here, we end up with it coming down to differing values and opinions regarding health and "freedom" (Hate to use that word, because it really takes away from debates). Which is a good thing, because it shows how much of a gray areas these things are. Not black and white as the rhetoric used by politicians and the news often make it out to be.
|
I don't smoke cigarettes and I agree with the ban they have here on smoking in indoor public places (bars/shops/restaurants etc.) but I think a ban on smoking OUTSIDE is pretty ridiculous, parks are generally pretty big, you don't have to sit next to the guy smoking and even if you are, how much harm can it do when you're out in fresh air? -_- I've never experienced a problem with it.
|
Its the same here. Smoking isnt allowed inside or in restaurants/bars. Also starting next year stores cant keep out the smokepacks on shelves or anywhere you can see them. You get to pick what you want from a catalog and they will then give it to you.
|
this is fucking stupid and fascist. and america calls itself the home of the free....
|
On May 24 2011 22:08 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 22:00 fush wrote:On May 24 2011 21:37 Clearout wrote:On May 24 2011 21:29 fush wrote:On May 24 2011 20:05 Clearout wrote:On May 24 2011 19:52 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:49 Nightfly wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 Nightfly wrote:On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote:
Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas. And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine? Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes. But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not. For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE. On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:[quote] ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations. No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that. There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now. Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers. For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225934¤tpage=12#231i provided a source that show substantial direct activation (> 50%) of nicotinic receptors in brain (and likely other places) from a single puff of cigarette smoke that lasts 3+ hours. these receptors are how nicotine act in the human body and likely lead to the whatever actual effects that we see. this was from a few pages back (second paper in the post). edit: i saw your reply on the next page. you clearly didn't read the actual 2nd article. abstracts don't tell the whole story my friend. I didn't mention that because nicotine is not dangerous or the problem with SHS. It says that it concludes this keeps smokers smoking. Are you making a point about how outdoor SHS makes it more likely for other people to start smoking because they get nicotine when they pass by smokers? If that is your stance I don't believe that is enough either, just as how smoking 1 cigarette doesn't make you addicted to it. It requires regular exposure over quite a long time to make you an addict. Otherwise I don't see how that article really brings anything. Edit: Their conclusion in the second article still limits it to cars and enclosed spaces, if the outdoor SHS was shown a problem, that would be huge and you can be sure they would mention it. nicotine has more properties than addiction, even in the brain. nicotinic receptors are everywhere in the body as well. though not necessarily implied in the induction of cancer, you can have a lot of detrimental effects for attention, proper neuronal growth in the brain, many associated neurological issues, asthma, and many more that you can find with a simple pubmed search. i appreciate you actually reading the articles, but while we don't know how small doses of nicotine can directly cause anything in a short time frame, we simply don't know how it can affect our health in a long term situation - especially when it comes to children. it's simply not hard to believe that if a single puff of cigarette smoke can occupy 50% of your brain receptors for 3 hours, that a couple of puffs while walking near a smoker on the way to work/school can have some effects down the line. brief applications of nicotine experimentally has shown that a titrated intake (such as in the brain) over even just a few minutes can cause significant changes in neuronal response to endogenous neurotransmitters and changes in cell transcription of nicotinic receptors. what's to say that these microscale changes don't add up over time? of course there's been no breakthrough direct study that sums all these parts together into a definite link between short term shs and x or y health problems - but it's not unreasonable to believe that there will be problems judging by what smoking has been shown to do to you. I agree with what you are saying, we can't know, atleast yet. Though where we disagree is that you feel it's proper with a ban just in case, I mean it can't hurt so I understand that. I believe just in case is not a good enough reason for a ban that removes the privileges of some. So we are again disagreeing about where the line for such things should be drawn. I value the privileges granted to people more than the possible dangers it brings, where you are on the other side of that fence. Feels as if every one I discuss with here, we end up with it coming down to differing values and opinions regarding health and "freedom" (Hate to use that word, because it really takes away from debates). Which is a good thing, because it shows how much of a gray areas these things are. Not black and white as the rhetoric used by politicians and the news often make it out to be.
i get what you're saying and i can't expect everyone to have the same stance on this as me. glad most posters here have the maturity to voice their concerns and provide a good base for their arguments as opposed to many other threads.
i just feel strongly on this subject because it's where i do my research and i tend to feel that because of what we know now, we can reasonably expect there to be significant effects of even relatively brief exposure to shs can have lasting effects (as i outlined previously). waiting for a definitive study in humans will take god knows how long - or it'll never be done - since these effects may/may not manifest, and over the many years, how do you attribute this solely to shs? just to make a poor analogy (since i know nothing about nuclear power), we have a nuclear reactor showing some signs of instability, something similar to what was seen before - say chernobyl - but not exactly the same parameters. do you take precautions now even if it means losing money? or wait til the meltdown to be certain it's a problem before taking action?
|
Personally I don't care what people do to their own bodies, kill yourself or cut off your legs or whatever, it's your own life. The thing with smoking is that it hurts other people not just the smoker. It's illegal to walk around and spread toxic chemicals and other poisons and for good reason.
To argue that smokers should get to smoke in public places is ridiculous, this argument only works if the smoker is the only one affected, this is not the case. If you think smoking should be legal in public places then you should support legalizing walking around with toxic chemicals and throwing them on people even if they are harmful to humans. They should just add cigarette smoke to the list of toxic chemicals which you aren't allowed to go around and fling on people.
It's a non-issue in my mind and simply a question whether or not there is a group of people that are allowed to physically harm other humans because they have power to control laws or whether or not laws should be fair and protect people from physical abuse, which smoking causes to the human body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.reelingreviews.com/bubbleboypic.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.solvemygirlproblems.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/don-draper-final.jpg)
