quote Originally posted by cliffw: Still waiting Tinton. Anyone else want to field this for him ? I think he is having trouble.

Great link Tinton......

"After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30% more likely to develop lung cancer. "

They "suggested"???????? I suggest that they have no proof in studies, just suggestions.

Close, but no cigar for you. I can post a link to the British Medical Journal article dated in 2003 that states they found thru studies no direct link between secondhand smoke and cancer.

Your article was dated a year before that article. I'd be happy to post that article link, but I'd have to do it tomorrow. It's 1:30am here in Iraq and I need to get some sleep instead of looking up that article.

C'mon people, the medical community can only SUGGEST that smoking is directly linked to cancer. My stockbroker makes suggestions to me all of the time. That doesn't mean his suggestions are right. My doctor suggests that I quit smoking because it's bad for my health...........RIGHT AFTER A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH ON A PHYSICAL!

I was in a smoking study 9 years ago in which they examined my lungs before and after the study. I smoked an average of 3 packs a day at that time for 10 years. My personal results: My lungs looked like that of a casual smoker after 1 year of smoking 1/2 pack a day. The doctor stated that I threw the study way off of what the "normal" smoker's lungs looked like. I collected my $1500 and walked out commenting that maybe they ought to research the genes of cancer victims instead of what's inside the paper I light on fire.

[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 08-04-2005).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw:

I already fielded it cliff. And you're at it again expecting me to have my life revolve around you and what you say, oh I'm so excited to see you post! Not . The problem isn't the victim, it is the person creating the problem, the person who smokes.

quote Originally posted by Tinton: The problem isn't the victim, it is the person creating the problem, the person who smokes.

If you are in a bar where there is smoking going on, and it bothers you, and you don't leave, then you are not a victim...you would be an idiot.

quote Originally posted by Chump: If you are in a bar where there is smoking going on, and it bothers you, and you don't leave, then you are not a victim...you would be an idiot.

I have said before I ignore it in bars, heck I rarely even enter bars because of it. When I'm at a restaurant or a similar place and I'm choking on fumes it really pisses me off, I am the victim then.

Tinton,

Even your own links just make the point I have been saying.

These biased doctors with an ax to grind look at the available literature. They really WANT it to conclude that second hand smoke causes cancer. And it might. BUT, here is the point I have been making and saying:

They give NO suggestion of the amount of exposure over what time frame.

Then the second link. You don't think they are trying to be biased. Look at the unrelated amount of fact they use to try to get you to emotionally react:

"...second hand smoke contains over FOUR THOUSAND CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS!!!!" Oh no. FOUR THOUSAND! Well, wait, only 60 are known OR SUSPECTED to cause cancer. How many of each? Doesn't say. But, MORE IMPORTANTLY, how much is required to cause cancer?? Doesn't say that, either.

I am NOT defending smoking. I hate it. I am against it.

But don't use innuendo and bias and scare tactic on the issue. Be SCIENTIFICALLY THINKING AND OBJECTIVE.

Here is the point (AGAIN): how much smoke over what time period.

In a bar-yes.
Smoker in the home-yes.
Daily in the work place-depends on how much smoke and how big of an air space.

In a restaurant-highly unlikely due to the amount of time spent in the restaurant, the volume of air in the open space, etc.

So could we PLEASE grasp the concept of concentration and duration of exposure and relative risk.

For example, did you know that RADIATION CAN CAUSE CANCER??? Yeah. Did you know that includes the sun's radiation??? We should make a law against the sun because it causes cancer. Sound retarded? Yeah, I know. Just as retarded as saying there are 60 potential cancer causing chemicals in cigarette smoke WITHOUT QUANTIFYING THE AMOUNT, TOXICITY, AND EXPOSURE DURATION.

Man, can you tell I'm getting frustrated with you ignoring the point?

I am not for smoking. Second hand smoke CAN be bad and often is IF ENOUGH EXPOSURE OVER ENOUGH TIME.

And by the way, when they are saying PUBLIC restaurants, they are referring to PUBLIC ACCESS to the restaurant, not PUBLIC CONTROL of the restaurant.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Whoo Hoo, I own page six. That means you can smoke in it.

Pass the cigar.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Tinton, Even your own links just make the point I have been saying. These biased doctors with an ax to grind look at the available literature. They really WANT it to conclude that second hand smoke causes cancer. And it might. BUT, here is the point I have been making and saying: They give NO suggestion of the amount of exposure over what time frame. Then the second link. You don't think they are trying to be biased. Look at the unrelated amount of fact they use to try to get you to emotionally react: "...second hand smoke contains over FOUR THOUSAND CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS!!!!" Oh no. FOUR THOUSAND! Well, wait, only 60 are known OR SUSPECTED to cause cancer. How many of each? Doesn't say. But, MORE IMPORTANTLY, how much is required to cause cancer?? Doesn't say that, either. I am NOT defending smoking. I hate it. I am against it. But don't use innuendo and bias and scare tactic on the issue. Be SCIENTIFICALLY THINKING AND OBJECTIVE. Here is the point (AGAIN): how much smoke over what time period. In a bar-yes. Smoker in the home-yes. Daily in the work place-depends on how much smoke and how big of an air space. In a restaurant-highly unlikely due to the amount of time spent in the restaurant, the volume of air in the open space, etc. So could we PLEASE grasp the concept of concentration and duration of exposure and relative risk. For example, did you know that RADIATION CAN CAUSE CANCER??? Yeah. Did you know that includes the sun's radiation??? We should make a law against the sun because it causes cancer. Sound retarded? Yeah, I know. Just as retarded as saying there are 60 potential cancer causing chemicals in cigarette smoke WITHOUT QUANTIFYING THE AMOUNT, TOXICITY, AND EXPOSURE DURATION. Man, can you tell I'm getting frustrated with you ignoring the point? I am not for smoking. Second hand smoke CAN be bad and often is IF ENOUGH EXPOSURE OVER ENOUGH TIME. And by the way, when they are saying PUBLIC restaurants, they are referring to PUBLIC ACCESS to the restaurant, not PUBLIC CONTROL of the restaurant.

Thanks for the post, I would like to announce that I am now against the sun. Yes, the sun's radiation has been a menace to us all for FAR too long! It definitely causes cancer and harms millions of people. I say we enact laws to limit the sun's power, and if the sun does not comply, we will blow it up! We have the power!!!

Mr. Lobe very good post. We can agree on some things and disagree on others, I don't think that posting here will really change anyone's opinions on anything. I agree that second hand smoke is bad through enough exposure over time. We also agree that they're talking about public access to the restaurant, which is something I was trying to point out. Interesting discussion, wanna call a truce? I gotta get back to work.

quote Originally posted by Tinton: I already fielded it cliff. And you're at it again expecting me to have my life revolve around you and what you say, oh I'm so excited to see you post! Not . The problem isn't the victim, it is the person creating the problem, the person who smokes.

unless you are being chased down and force to inhale 2nd hand smoke (with the intent to do this to you) by a smoker, then you are not a victum.
you can not subject yourself to it by walking in under your own free will and claim victumhood, at best your either an idiot or a town troll for doing so.

if they allow people to smoke "legallY" in their establishment , stay out for your own well being. if the place is so dam good that you just cant restrain yourself from going in , shut the hell up , do you business and get the hell out. you are an invited guest in those establishments , your privilage to be there can be revoked without reason by the owner . if you do not beleive that , then try explaining it to the police officer who is putting cuffs on you for trespassing. the fact is you are an invited guest, your rights are limited "not nullified" to the guideline of conduct that the owner is willing to subject the rest of his clientail to.. and since your are invited but are not bound by law to except the invite , dont go in if you beleive your healthy would be at risk.

you have a right to choose wheather or not you will do business with any business , but likewise they have a right to choose wheather or not to do business with you. if they invite you in and you accept "do your business" its not your right to play enviromental enforcer while you are there.

look you have everyone in agreement that no-one should be forced to inhale 2nd hand smoke "regardless of the level of health risk" if they themselve choose not to smoke. (SO NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT POINT). The arguement becomes devisive when we are talking about liberties,civil rights, property rights, and personal freedoms. You can not establish a fair law that gives more privilage to some than it does with others. The law yeilds to you when i am a guest on your property because you have the right to be there , where I, am only a privilaged guest for as long as you are willing. The exact same is true for privately own, privately funded, and privately liable businesses. the owner of the business has the property rights "given by law" , the liability for damages on his/her property, and the financial risk of loosing the money they have poured into the business from their own pockets....

added:

but you do have the right to stand outside on public property near that business and protest all day long for a boycott until they make their place smoke free "if you can get enough people who agree with you to join your effort then that is with in your free speech rights" maybe you'll even have enough of an economic impact that will motivate the owner to go smoke free "that would not bother me 1 bit - because the owner still gets the ultimate choice on how to run his/her business"

[This message has been edited by JRM-2M6 (edited 08-04-2005).]

Tinton,

I've taken a deep breath now. I'm settled down again.

Sorry.

I'm not going to argue the hithertos and whatnots of the issue at hand. I get the impression that it'd be like arguing with a brick wall. But I'd like to interject with this:

Smoking is a dummy tax... only dummies pay it. If you're a smoker, keep track of the amount of money you spend on cigarettes. At the end of the year, total it up. Then ask yourself if you'd mind rolling up all that money and lighting it on fire. Because in essence, that's what you're doing.

I used to be a smoker. I'm familiar with the "smoking scene". In a nutshell, it's like a death cult... a special little club for the terminally stupid. I cancelled my membership several years ago.

Let's see how many smokers give me negs because they don't like what I just wrote.

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: Smoking is a dummy tax... only dummies pay it. If you're a smoker, keep track of the amount of money you spend on cigarettes. At the end of the year, total it up. Then ask yourself if you'd mind rolling up all that money and lighting it on fire. Because in essence, that's what you're doing. Let's see how many smokers give me negs because they don't like what I just wrote.

I don't think any smoker here has tried to equate a High IQ with the decission to smoke.

however , Congratulation on quitting , your health and savings will be your reward.

also, I myself have not given but 2 negitives and 1 got banned before i could change my mind.
i never give a negive for idealogical, phylosophical, or theological differances between me another member.
but i am greatly tempted to when i see anyone "resote to name calling and petty critism of charactor" in the absence of a logical position or personal opinion. everyone has a right to disagree with me. it would not be fair to contribute to their being banned for just having a differing view or opinion than mine.

treat others as you would expect them to treat you. regardless of how they treat you "disclaimer: this only applies as along as they are not trying to physically assult me" at that point - may the sharper mind and quicker fist rule the moment...

------------------
James M.
AkA
JRM-2M6

†

It cost me close to 4 grand a year to smoke. I smoked for 12 years. Uhm ya I spent a lot on smoking. Wait, when I started it was only about 400 per year. Uhm boy did prices go up. I started when it was around a buck a pack, now it is near 10 per pack. I am so glad I quit.

But I still think the people that smoke should have the right to light up.

------------------
85GT 5spd MSD Everything,4.9 With Nitrous. www.captfiero.com

quote Originally posted by Tinton: I already fielded it cliff. And you're at it again expecting me to have my life revolve around you and what you say, oh I'm so excited to see you post! Not . The problem isn't the victim, it is the person creating the problem, the person who smokes.

quote Originally posted by Tinton: Even though you will always find some way of discrediting it .

Discredit it ? Where did it say you were required to breath second hand smoke ?

EDIT

quote Originally posted by cliffw: What proof do you have that second hand smoke causes cancer or causes your clothes or hair to stink in a place that you are not required to go to.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-05-2005).]

Thank you for not breathing while I smoke.

Cliffw I already said that this thread was over (at least for me). You're taking 2 quotes out of context and glueing them together when they don't belong, assshole. The discrediting part is for a Link that I posted, I knew you would find some way to discredit what the Mayo clinic, the CDC, etc have to say.

And yes when I go into Chilis and I'm eating dinner and I'm put next to the smoking section I'm forced to sit there and breath your **** -air. Like dezie said before, I CAN'T ****ING TAKE MY POTATOES OUTSIDE TO EAT THEM. I'm the ****ing victim because I'm being forced to either stay home and be a ****ing hermit or go outside and choke on your bull****. WHY SHOULD I BE THE ONE FORCED TO LEAVE? That's so ****ing asinine its like saying its my fault I got shot when I'm going out to wendys at night to get me some food. "Ohhhh you're such a dumbass Tinton you should know not to go outside at night you might get shot, its your fault", how come its not the fault of the guy who pulled the trigger? Its suddenly my fault because I had an option to stay at home at eat Top Ramen?

[This message has been edited by Tinton (edited 08-05-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Tinton: assshole. "warning : negitive word" And yes when I go into Chilis and I'm eating dinner and I'm put next to the smoking section I'm forced to sit there and breath your **** -air.

i'm sorry to hear that you were wrongfully detained and force to pay for patatoes and smoke filled air.
unless you were cuffed to the chair or a quadraplegic laying on the floor with way to leave that unhealthy enviroment, you made yourself the victum by CHOOSING to stay. your choice not the smokers , not the wait staffs, and not even the own or management of that business. it was completely your choice not to leave.

you may not be able to take your potatoes outside , but you certainly dont have to eat potatoes at chilis.. order take out or go somewhere else. that smoker has just as much right to be there as you do .

take some responsibility for your own actions before you blame others..

------------------
James M.
AkA
JRM-2M6

†

quote Originally posted by Tinton: Cliffw I already said that this thread was over (at least for me). You're taking 2 quotes out of context and glueing them together when they don't belong, assshole. The discrediting part is for a Link that I posted, I knew you would find some way to discredit what the Mayo clinic, the CDC, etc have to say. And yes when I go into Chilis and I'm eating dinner and I'm put next to the smoking section I'm forced to sit there and breath your **** -air. Like dezie said before, I CAN'T ****ING TAKE MY POTATOES OUTSIDE TO EAT THEM. I'm the ****ing victim because I'm being forced to either stay home and be a ****ing hermit or go outside and choke on your bull****. WHY SHOULD I BE THE ONE FORCED TO LEAVE? That's so ****ing asinine its like saying its my fault I got shot when I'm going out to wendys at night to get me some food. "Ohhhh you're such a dumbass Tinton you should know not to go outside at night you might get shot, its your fault", how come its not the fault of the guy who pulled the trigger? Its suddenly my fault because I had an option to stay at home at eat Top Ramen?

It would be the fault of the person pulling the trigger. Just as it would be your fault if you knowingly go into a place that allows smoking. I still don't get why you (and many other non-smokers) think you have more or better rights than the smoker? That's my problem with this. I think most non-smokers have this arrogant holier-than-thou attitude because THEY don't smoke. Like that's somehow being MORE RIGHT than the person who DOES smoke. I'm a non-smoker, but I don't think like that! In fact, I think most non-smokers attitude is so appalling that I don't even like to admit I'm one of them. Most non-smokers are arrogant, sanctimonious, and pretentious, thinking they have ALL THE RIGHTS. Bull! My feeling is that most people who piss and moan about smoking are just attention whores, following the pack. I bet most people who are so outspoken today never gave it a second thought until it got made into this big political thing, giving platform to a bunch of bored activists looking for something to whine and complain about. Wah wah wah, I can't go out ever again because people smoke. Sheesh, give me a break. I don't like to breathe smoke necessarily, I think it's a disgusting habit and can't believe it took me 15 years to quit. However, I don't think smokers have less rights than me. If I don't want to breathe it, I don't go around it. And if I DO go someplace where it's allowed, I sure don't try to impose my standards onto someone else, I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for my decision to go wherever there is smoking. And if it becomes intolerable (which never happens, mostly because I'm not some simpering pity-seeking crybaby looking for an excuse to be upset) I leave. Why is that so difficult? Oh, and by the way, I do sometimes have allergic reactions to the smoke...but again, I'm a big boy who didn't always have things his way as a child, so I deal with it.

quote Originally posted by Tinton: And you're at it again expecting me to have my life revolve around you and what you say, oh I'm so excited to see you post!

quote Originally posted by Tinton: Oh yeah I'm still waiting cliffw. Anyone else want to take this for him? He seems to be having trouble. Afterall, his life revolves around pennocks, he's gotta be sitting there wetting his pants because he's scared he can't make a good response.

quote Originally posted by Tinton: ...assshole.

I might suggest an attitude adjustment. I would hate for you to claim victim status because you do not like my bubble.

quote Originally posted by Tinton: Like dezie said before, I CAN'T ****ING TAKE MY POTATOES OUTSIDE TO EAT THEM.

Why ****ing not ?

quote Originally posted by Tinton: People will get over it or if they really need to smoke that badly they'll drive the extra 10-20 miles to the next county/city to enjoy their cigarettes.

No one needs to smoke. Some want to. Again, who in this thread has said you must visit a place where people smoke. I am not trying to tell you what to do, why are you trying to tell me what to do ?

quote Originally posted by JRM-2M6: i'm sorry to hear that you were wrongfully detained and force to pay for patatoes and smoke filled air. unless you were cuffed to the chair or a quadraplegic laying on the floor with way to leave that unhealthy enviroment, you made yourself the victum by CHOOSING to stay. your choice not the smokers , not the wait staffs, and not even the own or management of that business. it was completely your choice not to leave. you may not be able to take your potatoes outside , but you certainly dont have to eat potatoes at chilis.. order take out or go somewhere else. that smoker has just as much right to be there as you do . take some responsibility for your own actions before you blame others..

No that's utter bullshit and you know it JRM. Why the **** should I be forced to leave when he's the ******* doing something wrong. You're saying I should stand up and leave my meal there and just walk out? Or are you saying I should stay at home full time because its MY FAULT that that guy is fouling up the air with his **** ? I'll come over and kick your ass and tell you its your fault because you were at the wrong place at the wrong time, you should have been home it was your choice to come to the same place I was and its your fault I kicked your ass.

quote Originally posted by Tinton: No that's utter bullshit and you know it JRM. Why the **** should I be forced to leave when he's the ******* doing something wrong.

And there's the attitude right there. What makes you so perfect? His activity is perfectly legal, so how is it "wrong"? Unhealthy? Yeah, probably, but are you so gullible as to believe that 30 or 40 minutes of exposure to cigarette smoke once in a while is actually going to cause you ill health? Dude, even if you smoke for 50 years, if you quit, your lungs will clear and heal themselves. A few minutes here and there aren't as terminal as you and the rest of "STAND" crowd would like us to believe.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: It would be the fault of the person pulling the trigger. Just as it would be your fault if you knowingly go into a place that allows smoking. I still don't get why you (and many other non-smokers) think you have more or better rights than the smoker? That's my problem with this. I think most non-smokers have this arrogant holier-than-thou attitude because THEY don't smoke. Like that's somehow being MORE RIGHT than the person who DOES smoke. I'm a non-smoker, but I don't think like that! In fact, I think most non-smokers attitude is so appalling that I don't even like to admit I'm one of them. Most non-smokers are arrogant, sanctimonious, and pretentious, thinking they have ALL THE RIGHTS. Bull! My feeling is that most people who piss and moan about smoking are just attention whores, following the pack. I bet most people who are so outspoken today never gave it a second thought until it got made into this big political thing, giving platform to a bunch of bored activists looking for something to whine and complain about. Wah wah wah, I can't go out ever again because people smoke. Sheesh, give me a break. I don't like to breathe smoke necessarily, I think it's a disgusting habit and can't believe it took me 15 years to quit. However, I don't think smokers have less rights than me. If I don't want to breathe it, I don't go around it. And if I DO go someplace where it's allowed, I sure don't try to impose my standards onto someone else, I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for my decision to go wherever there is smoking. And if it becomes intolerable (which never happens, mostly because I'm not some simpering pity-seeking crybaby looking for an excuse to be upset) I leave. Why is that so difficult? Oh, and by the way, I do sometimes have allergic reactions to the smoke...but again, I'm a big boy who didn't always have things his way as a child, so I deal with it.

Do I have to explain everything to you? I am not in the place of the guy pulling the trigger, I am the guy getting shot because I chose to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, same as I'm choosing to be at the place with the smoke. I have some responsibility, but not as much as the guy pulling the trigger or smoking.

So basicaly you're saying if you dive into a vat of boiling water and are scalded to death, it's the waters' fault?

quote Originally posted by Tinton: No that's utter bullshit and you know it JRM. Why the **** should I be forced to leave when he's the ******* doing something wrong

1st off they are not doing anything wrong , just something that personally offends you. which makes this a personal problem and makes you wrong for demanding others bend to your conveince... what they are doing is LEGAL. and since they have a legal right to do it, your actions are nothing short of harrasment and discrimination (ILLEGAL).

quote . You're saying I should stand up and leave my meal there and just walk out?

no I'm saying that if you smelt smoke and didn't want to breath it. use your right to leave before you bother to order.

quote are you saying I should stay at home full time because its MY FAULT that that guy is fouling up the air with his **** ?

No , I'm saying you should demand a seat further from smoking or go to an different restraunt altogether. if there are no non-smoking restraunts in town, get you picket signs ready and use your freedom of speech. if that too much work for you "then fine eat at home" and quit villifying law biding citizens just because you can't control where you go , where you stay , or when you leave

quote I'll come over and kick your ass and tell you its your fault because you were at the wrong place at the wrong time, you should have been home it was your choice to come to the same place I was and its your fault I kicked your ass.

the fact that you think this was remotely relavent to your point of view is puzzling . otherwise this extreme example is plain ole silly talk = your grasping!

------------------
James M.
AkA
JRM-2M6

†

quote Originally posted by Tinton: No that's utter bullshit and you know it JRM. Why the **** should I be forced to leave when he's the ******* doing something wrong.

quote Originally posted by Tinton: Back to topic then? Excluding my own opinions I doubt that a smoking ban will hurt bars in the long run. People will get over it or if they really need to smoke that badly they'll drive the extra 10-20 miles to the next county/city to enjoy their cigarettes.

Why should they (smokers) have to drive 10-20 miles (30 to 40 minutes in town) just so they can find a place that will let them smoke? Also at this place 10-20 miles away will be other non-smokers trying to outlaw smoking there...what about them? (or do you not care about them as long as it dosen't affect you?) Next smokers will drive 30-40 miles to get to a smoking establishment untill that one is banned too. Now think about all of the added car exhaust and how that will affect your breathing....and this time while you are outside.

Oh...and for the record, it will hurt bars in the long run because the bars in your area will go out of buisness and then you will have to drive 10-20 miles to go to a bar. Or at least untill that one goes out of buisness too.

[This message has been edited by Chump (edited 08-05-2005).]

One more thing.......

quote Originally posted by Tinton: I have said before I ignore it in bars, heck I rarely even enter bars because of it.

ummm......how old are you ?

Tinton ;

if someone is doing something wrong in your town , that means they must be breaking the law.
in which you may need some one who is qualified to decide if the perp needs to be delt with.
so out of concern i have taken the liberty to link you to the most qualified individuals to determine
wheather or not you are being done wrong by another member of the community Click Here for help and information

they are a local group in your area that is partially fund by the federal , state , and city in an effort to protect you from wrong do-ers