Disgruntled has owned your ass on this. Sorry but he's produced an equal protion of case studies as you have. Possibly better sources.
I'm not conviced personally. I still thinks it bad for you.
Doesn't change my point that you're a Nazi piece of though.
I'm gonna have to check that one out.yes, it was. i'm glad i didn't have my daughter that night
the how stuff works on beer last night on Disc HD was also pretty good. They spent a bit of time on both Sierra Nevada and Dogfish Head.
Its sad that something like weed is outlawed like it is. Where cigs and booze that have far worse personal ramifications are as legal as apple pie.
I'm fairly certain that Blake thinks it ok to draw someones blood forcefully if they refuse a breath test.
For the greater good of course.
Just because it is not an illegal activity doesn't mean that is not an unhealthy/dangerous activity that the government should discourage it's citizens from using...especially in an environment that is open to the public.
Are people paying to go in there and smoke? Is smoking inherent to the success of the business? Now, I don't know enough to say whether it is or it isn't, but unless it absolutely is, then banning smoking has little to no effect on the success of the establishment.
Cokes are bad for you...but they are not inherently dangerous. I can drink a 6-pack of Coke every day of my life, but if I burn enough calories through physical activity, the negative effects of the soda can be counter-acted. If I smoke a pack a day, no amount of jogging will get the cancer out of my lungs.
Also...I think the government should take an active role in discouraging drinks like soda (especially with children).
And I can agree with that...which is why, ultimately, I don't have a problem with this one way or the other. I sort of support a ban, but not passionately enough to be bothered if it didn't happen.
I have seen multiple analogies to food and drink, and so I thought I would add this food for thought:
California became the first state in the country to ban artery-clogging trans fats yesterday when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a measure to phase them out in restaurants beginning in 2010 and from baked goods by 2011.
"California is a leader in promoting health and nutrition, and I am pleased to continue that tradition by being the first state in the nation to phase out trans fats," Schwarzenegger (R) said.
Trans fatty acids, or trans fats, are commonly found in partially hydrogenated oils, which became popular at fast-food restaurants and bakeries because they have a longer shelf life than other oils.
But a series of studies over the past decade has shown that trans fats can lower "good cholesterol" (high-density lipoproteins) and raise "bad cholesterol" (low-density lipoproteins), which can contribute to heart disease and other ailments.
Researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health estimate that artificial trans fats cause 50,000 premature heart-attack deaths every year.
Violators of the California law will incur fines of $25 to $1,000. Food sold in manufacturer-sealed packaging will be exempt.
"Trans fat is generally recognized as the single most harmful fat in the food supply on a gram-per-gram basis," said Michael Jacobson, executive director of Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based health advocacy group that has called for trans fat labeling since the 1990s. "This is a historic day."
California, the country's most populous state, has long been a trendsetter for health and nutrition issues, and similar bills are pending in more than a dozen other states. Trans fat bans already are on the books in a number of cities and counties, including Montgomery County, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and New York City.
Montgomery County's ban on trans fats in oils, shortening and margarines used for frying took effect on Jan. 1, 2008. On Jan. 1, 2009, it expands to include all other foods, as well as oils and shortenings used for deep frying.
Public health advocates hope that the California ban will encourage national and regional chain restaurants to alter their recipes elsewhere. Though the Cheesecake Factory, Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald's, Taco Bell and Wendy's have begun to move away from trans fats, other chains, including Burger King, continue to use partially hydrogenated oil in their restaurants.
The California Restaurant Association fought hard against the bill, arguing that the federal government, not individual states, should develop regulations on trans fat use.
But, association spokesman Daniel Conway said yesterday, "We're confident that our members can meet the mandate because many of them are already voluntarily phasing out the use of trans fats."
Opponents also argued that it was not clear if subs utes for trans fats would be any better for public health, but CSPI's Jacobson said, "All the evidence shows is that trans fats are the most harmful. You can subs ute anything in their place, and it will be an improvement."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072502308.html
The entire world is waiting because it simply doesn't exist.
And the point of who funds who's research is idiotic. If it is junk science or a study heavily influenced, then it won't hold up to peer review. Like the initial EPA study. Of course that point was completely glossed over...wonder why.
Honestly, the anti-smoking contingent has become just as vile as big tobacco. IMO, the ends do not justify the means. If the health risks are there, then prove it scientifically. Truth be told, they'll probably never be able to show that there is a significant risk associated with SHS because it is extremely hard to prove. That's why they've turned to outlandish claims like "30 minutes of exposure increases risk of heart attacks/heart damage". You wouldn't need to do that if you had science on your side, would you?
It is the parents responsibility to teach their kids to eat right and not the governments job to ban sodas and crap. Be parents and slap that drink and ho-ho out of those chubby hands and let the government worry about more important things.
Seems like the alternatives go undetected. As in there is no taste difference.
I wonder.
If there was a cigarette that eliminated the potential of causing cancer would these wads shut up.
Answer no. People don't like smoke, don't like the smell or the taste.
For the most part thats what it boils down to.
A preference.
Like closing down 21 and up bars. Drawing blood and writing bailout checks.
But the government is telling these restaurants that they can not serve a specific legal substance to anyone in their privately-owned businesses.
Yep I think its wrong. They should have first fought to make the substance illegal thru the food and drug administration. The allow the law to correct itself.
Like that ephedra or however you spell.
see, I was just about to say "at least B2B has arguments to where I can see where he is coming from.........he is wrong as ........but at least I can see where he is coming from"; disgruntled however is acting like he missed the 9th grade biology.
Disgruntled has owned your ass on this. Sorry but he's produced an equal protion of case studies as you have. Possibly better sources.
I'm not conviced personally. I still thinks it bad for you.
Doesn't change my point that you're a Nazi piece of though.
I don't really have to present anything because it's what's called "common knowledge" that secondhand smoke is bad for you
Of course, since B2B is asking for some more of a beatdown, I'll oblige.
.....and for the record, just because two people post three different links, does not mean that they cancel each other out.....
that would of course be from the U.S. Surgeon General2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.
Supporting Evidence
Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Ins ute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.
4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
Supporting Evidence
Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Supporting Evidence
Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.
6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
Supporting Evidence
Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.
Citation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...actsheet6.html
This is where I normally say, "if you'd like another serving of footupyourass just let me know" but honestly, it would be like dunking on a kid in a wheelchair and I don't need to keep proving something that you can find in any pamphlet at the doctor's office.
National Security!!!!! Those bailout checks are more important than banning damn sodas. At least to me they are.
Go fight to make tobacco illegal. When it is I have no argument.
Then we can only argue its legality.
back on the trans fat point. Do we have people demanding its use? Wanting it served? I don't know...I don't think so. I don't know of anyone fighting for it. Seems like everyone thinks its a good idea to not use it. If people are fighting for it I'd like to know why. They certainly have a right to it up until its made illegal across the country.
Not everyone thinks that smoking should be outlawed.
you oughtta talk to some cops about that.
Too many drunk ass idiots get off scott free because they refuse a breathalyzer.
Cops are not gonna drag someone downtown for a blood test unless the idiot is slurring and stumbling all over the place.
Don't forget. I agree with you that its bad.
If its so bad and so horrible why is it not completely illegal altogether. If our government is just looking out for us then why not drop the bomb and outlaw it.
My point has always been that as long as its legal it should be allowed in an adults only business. When its illegal we can argue over that. Until them I'm right by law. I'm mearly pointing out that the city and states that decide to twist and maul it to fit their preference are in violation of our right to what is legal. Make it illegal and shut me up for good.
They picked the wrong smoke sad to say. Should have outlawed tobacco.
Now that, I would agree is wrong.
So I'm right you don't believe in the rights of the citizen you believe they should draw blood without consent. opinion. a jury. Shove the needle in him.
Then when he's not drunk and has Hep A,B or C. Oh well.
So this kind of government intervention is wrong but giving you the option to not be exposed to cancer air is ing unreasonable.
THIS IS ING GETTING OUT OF HAND.
Who's the ing hypocrate now.
Ding ding. We have a winner. It only took 500 pages.
That's why it is becoming illegal all over the place.........because politicians are realizing just how bad and horrible it is to subject someone else that isn't directly smoking to that crap.
Until then you have no argument. Right now its legal and sold legally. Violating our rights in the interm is exactly what the cons ution is supposed to protect us from. Unlawful force.
I could care less if its illegal. Until then you and your cronies have no right.
Didn't take me 500 pages. Go have a Federal Law inacted and make it illegal then enforce it.
Good luck.
bump. 30 mins without a post = unacceptable. i suggest we smoke out lab rats with cig smoke and see what happens.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
