So you're happy to provide a claim that cigarette damage is less than exhaust damage, happy to provide as evidence for that a link to exhaust damage (with no quantification or comparison), but unhappy to back up the actual comparison?Originally Posted by Being
Not worth my time. You obviously know everything there is to know about the topic.
Smoking really gets you riled up, Rand.
Not that smoking isn't dangerous, but engine exhaust causes more pollution. Cumulatively and globally. Especially older cars and trucks (lead in soil and water) not to mention their factories (foundries and smelting, etc). Kinda like saying Chinese should stop smoking for their health, while industrial pollution is far worse.
Claiming something without evidence is obviously not a proper way to debate. You however are the last motherfucker that should get to jump on someone else for doing it.
RB has a pathological hatred of smoking. Very strange. Did your parents smoke?
Lewkowksi has a pathological hatred for petty thieves. Very strange. Did your parents shoot strangers in the dark?
Maybe we should ban smoking while driving on the freeway in stop and go traffic since the smoke exits the car and becomes second hand smoke.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
I said Baby
You know when you bend over I see every bit of Christmas
And when you bend back I'm looking right into the new year
She said Honey, you know I gave up cigarettes for my new year's resolution
But I didn't give up smoking
I said Woman, you going to walk a mile for a Camel
Or are you going to make like Mr Chesterfield and satisfy?
She said That all depends on what your packing
Regular or kingsize
Then she pulled out my Jim Beam, and to her surprise
It was every bit as hard as my Canadian Club
I said What now you got to say baby?
She said Umm...
I don't know
My oh my oh my
I don't know
But my baby's holding down
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Not really. My mother never did, my father I barely remember ever smoking. He gave up when I was young, when his father got throat cancer. Grandad gave up at the same time and recovered from the throat cancer and is still with us more than 20 years later
Why not just enforce litter laws to begin with? I see people throwing cigarettes, wrappers, etc, on the ground and the cops in this area are too busy on their phones to pay attention.
Since I guess the OP article is in NY, Central Park itself is such a huge property; how would one effectively enforce such a policy? Cops are already stretched thin. Will there be an anti-smoking volunteer league to follow people around, shouting "Put that out!"
I think smokers are as dumb as anyone, but since I like to hit the booze I'm just as dumb and would not like alcohol to be limited more than it already is.
Point is that both of these laws could be slippery slopes to police states. If the police see one smoker "all by himself" and don't fine (arrest?) him, what will they do? In my city, they will leave him alone, using their famous "common sense"... The fact that the smoke may be wafting somewhere else would generally be ignored, though.
We have a large number of ordinances that are enforced by the police as they see fit.
Can someone point me to the research that substantiates this claim? I've been looking, and all I found was "research shows". I'm not dismissing the claim, I just find it odd.City health officials say that people seated within three feet of a smoker are exposed to roughly the same levels of secondhand smoke, regardless of whether they are indoors or outdoors.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Then why so passionate about smoking? This topic gets you more fired up then pretty much anything else discussed here.Not really. My mother never did, my father I barely remember ever smoking. He gave up when I was young, when his father got throat cancer. Grandad gave up at the same time and recovered from the throat cancer and is still with us more than 20 years later
No but if they had shot strangers in the dark who were thieves that would have been cool.
Disrespect for property rights is my beef with thieves. You'll find me as opposed to increases in taxes as I am in favor of harsh punishments for thieves.
this mentions a bunch of sources, conclusion on page 2
http://www.repace.com/pdf/OTS_FACT_SHEET.pdf
Let's just repeal all anti-smoking laws, but at the same time repeal all regulation of the industry altogether. In fact, let's encourage them to use even more toxic chemicals in cigarettes and pipe tobacco so the smokers kick-off all the faster.
The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless
Not quite was I was looking for. I was looking for the claim: 3 feet away from a smoker delivers roughly the same second hand smoke indoors and outdoors.
Conclusions from the pdf
1. In an outdoor cafe surrounded by smokers, one is always downwind to a smoker.
2.They also show that under some conditions, outdoor levels of tobacco smoke etc etc
Also in there:
Thanks anyway, this was closer than anything I could find.SHS concentrations persist for hours after smoking ceases indoors, while OTS
concentrations dissipate rapidly after smoking stops outdoors. However, during
smoking, OTS levels outdoors may be as high as SHS indoors.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
That's a great idea which will surely have no effect on passive smokers at all. /facepalm
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Hmm, I just saw that post about the actor exemption. This is what I'm talking about: the police can pick and choose who they fine.
"Are you practicing for a theatrical production by smoking?"
"Yes, sir."
Now the police officer has two choices. If he "believes" the smoker, he can leave him alone... or he can ticket the guy. Leaving the law to the hands of the police is classic police state...
Judge Dredd ftw.
aga, your imagination...I'm almost jealous
The actor exemption is a carry over from the smoking ban in bars. Some bars have even set themselves up as an improv spot, with bar attendees signing in as actors, to get around the ban.
You simple don't get an actor, on the job, smoking on the beach, without some sort of support staff or documentation.
Don't be silly, this just reflects the unnecessary hedging from the papers. "Under some conditions" is because they don't dare generalise (due to idiots who'll make stupid complaints--you didn't measure it during a rainstorm!!--regardless of whether or not they generalise). The "may" is due to the variable conditions you get outdoors, it doesn't reflect a LOW LIKELIHOOD. Rapid dissipation and reduction of concentration with distance is still a problem when you have lots of people smoking, and esp. if you happen to be in the wrong place in relation to a smoker (ie. if the assclown places himself in the wrong position relative to you).
The levels of exposure you get indoors are high. If the exposure is even half as high outdoors as it is indoors it's still pretty high.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Ok, I'll take your advice and I won't respond to the rest of your post before I figure out whether you are trolling or lack reading comprehension.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
So you're questioning my comprehension after your ridiculous irrational and biased nitpicking above?Ok, I'll take your advice and I won't respond to the rest of your post before I figure out whether you are trolling or lack reading comprehension.
What you did in that post is what Creationists do when they attack the "theory" of evolution.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No, I'm not questioning it anymore. I'm certain of the lack of it now.So you're questioning my comprehension after your ridiculous irrational and biased nitpicking above?
I question a general claim and ask for a source to back it up which tells me that the claim only is true under certain circumstances. I'm satisfied with that conclusion. I never judged the claim, I just asked out of interest.
But you are free to prove me wrong and point out where I am dissing the making of the claim or where I claimed that outdoor levels of second hand smoking cannot be an issue. Go ahead. This can be a little tricky for you, because it means actually reading my posts. Hey, first time for everything, right?
It seems reading comprehension isn't your only weakness. This is wrong on two levels.What you did in that post is what Creationists do when they attack the "theory" of evolution.
1. You flew off the handle for shit I never did.
2. Even if I did the shit you accuse me off, it's still not the same. One is making a reverse general claim making the same error as the original claim (you called it a nitpick, which is actually also false. You go girl!), the other is a missunderstanding of the word "theory" when talking about scientific theories.
Even you as a smoker hating non-smoker would have to raise an eyebrow at the claim that second hand smoke levels indoor and outdoor are the same. And you did. You did when you said: "The levels of exposure you get indoors are high. If the exposure is even half as high outdoors as it is indoors it's still pretty high"
So Minx. Please. With cherries on top and all. Fuck off why don't you
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
well I'm sorry I interpreted your insidious and cleverly bolded post as implying that there's a huge gap between the original claim and the reference keen produced in support of that claim based on the assumption that you were still the way you always have been in these discussions.i suppose everyone can change
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No worries mate
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Nice try
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
So that source specifically says that its a "low-risk" factor but because it affects more people its cumulative. Seems to match what was said already, thanks for backing us up Being.
So now you agree with me? We'd save a multitude more lives banning auto exhaust than second hand smoke. Bulley for you.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
No I don't, the source in fact specifically didn't say that.So now you agree with me? We'd save a multitude more lives banning auto exhaust than second hand smoke. Bulley for you.
Did you even read your own article?While passive smoking was not included in this study, Nawrot said the effects of second-hand smoke were likely to be similar to that of outdoor air pollution, and noted previous research which found that bans on smoking in public places have significantly reduced heart attack rates.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
