Originally posted by Toku KingIndeed, what has been? And in case you say smoke (second hand smoke to be specific), it would be nice to show some studies.
And what has been a trigger for it?Exactly.
Originally posted by Forum NinjaIt is their choice to expose themselves to it. If they don't want to be exposed to smoke, they should do business somewhere else.
I guess I didn't have to be a psychic to have KNOWN this was coming:Regardless of it being in their home, vehicles or business ... That cigarette smoke still has a negative effect on the people surrounding them and those individuals have a right not to smoke. Let us take the business for example. A lot of businesses have citizens coming in and out of them. These people also suffer the bodily penalty for YOU smoking. It's not like smoking is something that only the user suffers from. Smoke travels, my friend.
Your first paragraph is something I would agree with if the smoke did not effect others, to be honest with you.
Besides, the risks of second hand smoking are vastly overhyped.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Indeed, what has been? And in case you say smoke (second hand smoke to be specific), it would be nice to show some studies.
http://www.healthline.com/blogs/smoking_cessation/2008/03/smoking-and-lung-cancer.html
http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com/lung-cancer.html
Originally posted by Toku King
http://www.healthline.com/blogs/smoking_cessation/2008/03/smoking-and-lung-cancer.htmlhttp://www.quit-smoking-stop.com/lung-cancer.html
the first 3 aren't studies, and at the very least, have no references. There is a link from the first to a series of studies, and the last link has some, although none of them appear to deal with children exposed to second hand smoke, and none specifically addressing the issue of the car.
Most deal with women who live with a smoker and are exposed continuously to second hand smoke in the home.
That most children don't live with the parents for as long as the wife would with a husband calls any conclusions you might extrapolate from these studies into question, unless of course you can provide statistics on mortality rates of people/children exposed to cigarette smoke in the car, as that is what we are discussion and science can't be generalized in the way you are trying to do.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Indeed, what has been? And in case you say smoke (second hand smoke to be specific), it would be nice to show some studies. It is their choice to expose themselves to it. If they don't want to be exposed to smoke, they should do business somewhere else.
That's wrong and the same could be (And should be) said reversely.
If smokers want to smoke, they should do their business somewhere else. I'm sorry but that's the way it should be considering these products have absolutely no positive effect (There's not even evidence to suggest they relieve stress, a common excuse among addicts.)
Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/shs-fs-eng.php
That is in Canada alone. What about the country I'm in?
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp
Part of North America alone experiences thousands upon thousands of deaths due to second hand smoke. This is smoke ingested without the non-smokers consent.
Is it freedom to allow smoking? How free are you? Really?
Besides, the risks of second hand smoking are vastly overhyped. [/B]
Completely untrue. It's simple logic. Unfiltered smoke is regurgitated into the air for another entity to inhale.
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
That's wrong and the same could be (And should be) said reversely.If smokers want to smoke, they should do their business somewhere else. I'm sorry but that's the way it should be considering these products have absolutely no positive effect (There's not even evidence to suggest they relieve stress, a common excuse among addicts.)
Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/shs-fs-eng.php
That is in Canada alone. What about the country I'm in?
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp
Part of North America alone experiences thousands upon thousands of deaths due to second hand smoke. This is smoke ingested without the non-smokers consent.
Is it freedom to allow smoking? How free are you? Really?
awesome that neither deal in any significant way with car based smoke, only provide passing reference
lol, and one is a government page with no references
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Completely untrue. It's simple logic. Unfiltered smoke is regurgitated into the air for another entity to inhale.
sorry sir, but second hand smoke is extremely exaggerated. Look up other things that kill more people each year. You might as well ban cars.
Just to emphasize this last point:
in Canada, at least 5 people die PER DAY from workplace related injuries and diseases. 5 x 365 = 1825 per year.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/cana-d29.shtml
this is more than the 800 deaths in the Canadian government article posted above.
From the logic proposed, workplaces should be banned
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Is it freedom to allow smoking? How free are you? Really?
since the dawn of philosophy, freedom, justice and liberty have been envisioned as things with a double edge. Whether it is the sword of lady liberty or the axe of shango, people have understood that with freedom comes a necessary cost.
EDIT: I am the post master
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
That's wrong and the same could be (And should be) said reversely.If smokers want to smoke, they should do their business somewhere else. I'm sorry but that's the way it should be considering these products have absolutely no positive effect (There's not even evidence to suggest they relieve stress, a common excuse among addicts.)
But if it is their business? 😐
Originally posted by Toku King
Not at all. I completely understand your view, but at the same time I don't understand how that makes smoking in cars with children ok.In a way it makes sense, and doesn't at the same time. If it's a company's car, smoking in it is a terrible idea, if not moronic. If it's your car, then you should be able to do whatever you wish. That is, of course, up until you smoke in the car with children present.
Now you're missing your own point...You said (in response to my saying that it legally didn't matter who owned the car, if it was for work purposes it was illegal to smoke in it) that it did matter who owned it...i responded by saying no it didn't matter...it was a legal issue...It being illegal to smoke in a car used for work regardless of whether it's a personally owned car or not.
None of that part of the conversation was about whether children are in the car or not as i was merely highlighting what i beleive to be the government bringing absurd legislation and enforcing more of, what we in the UK call the nanny state....in other words unwarrented government intervention in people's everyday lives.
I believe that legally enforcing the banning of smoking in cars where children are present is again an example of a government going too far with interfering in people's lives. I totally agree, from a health perspective, that it's a good idea but it'd also be hypocritical because if the government were really interested in people's health then they would ban smoking...The reason they don't is because they get huge revenues from levies on cigarette sales.
Not to mention that it would be completely unenforcable.
Originally posted by inimalist
since the dawn of philosophy, freedom, justice and liberty have been envisioned as things with a double edge. Whether it is the sword of lady liberty or the axe of shango, people have understood that with freedom comes a necessary cost.EDIT: I am the post master
Okay, the cost will be smoking.
Originally posted by inimalist
Just to emphasize this last point:in Canada, at least 5 people die PER DAY from workplace related injuries and diseases. 5 x 365 = 1825 per year.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/cana-d29.shtml
this is more than the 800 deaths in the Canadian government article posted above.
From the logic proposed, workplaces should be banned
No, you're not seeing past it here. Do people have a choice to work at a dangerous location under fair circumstance? Yes!
And only eight hundred deaths? This is essentially an aftershock of the effects smoking have.
Also, most of these workplace related deaths happened due to irresponsibility. If you take the proper measures and secure yourself at the workplace, you should not die. How many of those incidents do you believe were due to someone not paying attention to something or someone not wearing a safety harness? Proper equipment? Breaking rules?
Choice, my friend. Do people who inhale second hand smoke have a choice? Not really. This is due to the fact that smoking is allowed to publicly take place.
If you knew anything about logic, you'd know you just strawmanned the debate into shitsville. The circumstances of smoking are different than workplace related casualties. How many people do you think are disabled or primarily unhealthy due to secondhand smoke?
I could completely understand if smoking only harmed yourself. Sure. Due it all you want. That's a part of our freedom as people. Unfortunately, it bears no positive effect (Scientifically) and only serves purpose to injure/hurt the user or to injure/hurt those around the user.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/smoking/deaths.htm
People choose to work in dangerous places and five die daily, correct?
Well, when people choose to smoke, FIFTY die per hour.
I mean, since were doing comparisons. I can go by your logic here, right? Do you propose it is correct?
If it isn't, you'll call me out on it. Effectively, you'd only be spitting on your own pattern of debating as well.
I cannot wait for your response.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But if it is their business? 😐
Well, do the people that enter their business belong to them?