Jump to content
Finally, the perfect place for me to pull donuts.
Could you be any more transparently partisan? Besides, politics are just a distraction, a safety valve for public unrest. Jim Crow laws came about when the Populist movement started gaining momentum with both blacks and poor whites. It was meant to set them against each other, and it worked. Now we have two parties that should be working together, but instead are pretty effective at stopping each other from doing anything, which is exactly what the corporatocracy wants. Debt is control, no wonder the federal reserve(incidentally not federal, or a reserve) is so willing to lend to either party. The most we can do is lift ourselves and be the change we want to see in the world and not expect politicians or the elite to save us.
Well, voters have decided that you can't be drunk and drive "in the confines of their automobile". Are you not ok with that? Besides, I don't really care what you do in your own home. We're talking about places that we have to share. You can step outside easily, I can't very well take my meal outside to eat.
But you don't agree that smokers are infringing on non-smokers' rights? Don't non-smokers, and really all people have the right to clean air? I've lived in several cities when these kinds of ordinances have gone into place while I was there and it usually takes anywhere from a few months to a year or more, but eventually there's no one smoking inside. I don't know why that is, but some places will get known as smoker hangouts and then the place must get busted and fined or something because then one day there's no one smoking there.
The harm is not minimal. You blindly believe that, because you want to believe that and seek out research that reinforces the views you want to hold. You also keep referring to non-smoker's as selfish, but you seem to be arguing selfishly as a smoker yourself. We are asking you to be considerate, and you are refusing. You do not have the freedom to take away the freedoms of others and you have lost sight of that. Stand outside and be a considerate human being.
No, I'm pretty sure we can't agree that it's silly. It infringes on smoker's rights, because smoker's were infringing on non-smoker's rights, and non-smokers out-number smokers.
That link worked that time, thanks. I read it, and then I read the comments and one of them in particular analyzed a lot of the arguments made and went through the different studies and showed that the doctor was referring to old studies and cherry-picking data to support his opinion. The author makes the claim that because no one has ever put "Second Hand Smoke" on a death certificate as a cause of death no one has ever died from second hand smoke. That's true, they don't put that on death certificates, they put lung cancer or heart disease instead, because that is the ultimate cause of death. Now what caused the cancer or heart disease though? That's what the vast majority of recent studies have tried to answer and have reached strikingly similar conclusions
So you are arguing now that there are many risky activities in life, yet we still do them anyway. That's true, but we actively seek to minimize our risks and take action to put ourselves in danger as little as possible. I would also argue that there isn't a risk that I'll be hurt by second hand smoke, it's a definitive fact that any amount of second hand smoke will hurt me. The risk is whether or not it gives me some kind of symptomatic disease or not.
Also, risky activities that put people in harm's way are often outlawed or banned. The majority of voters decided that they did not want to be put in harm's way by the smokers of Fulton and so here we are.
I think 60,000 is a lot, especially if you're one of them. I don't think demeaning those lives helps your argument. Also, I just finished reading the articles you sent, the first one didn't work by the way. The 3rd link you sent refers to a study funded by the tobacco industry and then the article goes on to say that in 2002 the International Agency for Research on Cancer combined 58 different studies and found that secondhand smoke raised cancer risks significantly. The other article admits in the first sentence that second hand smoke is indeed a major cause of heart disease and lung cancer, and then goes on to say that 30 minutes of exposure isn't that bad. I'm sure exposure length is a large factor, but why should I have to be exposed to it all? Just because smokers would only be hurting others for a relatively small amount time is ok? What about the employees of the businesses?
I actually just tried to find research indicating second hand smoke wasn't as bad as it has been reported and all I could find were ones saying that second smoke kills about 60,000 people a year. I'd be interested to see the research you're referring to. Also, I think the health issue is important, but there are other issues, like not having clothes and hair saturated with smoke. If someone were to come in and spray people with a foul-smelling substance that wouldn't be acceptable, it's the same thing.
It takes 5 cents to produce a kilowatt hour of power or .5 cents to save one by insulating your home or caulking around windows.
submit your event
© 2013 Fulton Sun