• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

ludahai said:
And the government has a public interest to make establishments as safe as possible.
Click to expand...

When it starts infringing on our rights they have overstepped and are at that point only taking liberty.

ludahai said:
Surely even you don't think 100% capitalism is effective. That was done away with 200 years ago.
Click to expand...

Of course not. But the US government has gone berserk.

ludahai said:
I think medical organizations can evaulate that evidence a little better than unelected judges can.
Click to expand...

So you are ignoring the bulk of the data I posted, and saying you are smart enough to evaluate the evidence but judges are not?

ludahai said:
You are talking to a cycle commuter. I strongly favor much higher standards on automotive emmissions.
Click to expand...

Screw you hippy! ;)

ludahai said:
Even if that first statement were true, and it isn't according to many researchers, the fact that it could exaccerbate pre-existing conditions is reason enough for concern.
Click to expand...

Yes there is reason for concern, but not restricting it by law.

Typical government over reaction much like guns.

ludahai said:
Here, I am talking about a home free of a known cancer-causing poison.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean like Radon?
 
Blackdog said:
ludahai said:
WHO | 10 facts about tobacco and second-hand smoke

World health caught lying again...

PASSIVE SMOKING DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER - OFFICIAL

FORCES - EVIDENCE - PASSIVE SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER - OFFICIAL
Click to expand...

SPECTULATION from MORE THAN TEN YEARS AGO??? :rofl

Based on the lack of scientific evidence, there is no conclusive data which says secondhand smoke causes cancer.

Does Secondhand Smoke Really Cause Cancer?
Click to expand...

And just who the heck is Ty Magnum? :rofl

Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer

Smoking does not cause lung cancer, WHO 1999 statistics. Editorial from the Journal of Theoretics
Click to expand...

An EDITORIAL from nearly TEN YEARS ago? :rofl

Is that the best you can do? :rofl
Click to expand...
 
Blackdog said:
When it starts infringing on our rights they have overstepped and are at that point only taking liberty.
Click to expand...

SO, people don't have the right to be free from poisonous tobacco smoke?

Of course not. But the US government has gone berserk.
Click to expand...

But this isn't from the US government, these initiatives in the US are all from state and local governments

So you are ignoring the bulk of the data I posted, and saying you are smart enough to evaluate the evidence but judges are not?
Click to expand...

I am saying that I trust medical scientists more than you, myself, or judges to evaulate it. I have a good friend at a local research hospital who is a cancer researcher. The stuff he tells me....

Screw you hippy! ;)
Click to expand...

Wow. First time I have ever been called a hippy. :mrgreen:

Yes there is reason for concern, but not restricting it by law.
Click to expand...

Sorry, we disagree here. There is compelling reason to restrict tobacco short of banning it.

Typical government over reaction much like guns.
Click to expand...

Guns and tobacco smoke are not the same. Guns have a legitimate, useful purpose. Cigarettes are poison.

Oh you mean like Radon?
Click to expand...

Aren't there restrictions regarding that now that we know how much harm it can cause? Like leaded gasoline?
 
ludahai said:
Blackdog said:
SPECTULATION from MORE THAN TEN YEARS AGO??? :rofl



And just who the heck is Ty Magnum? :rofl



An EDITORIAL from nearly TEN YEARS ago? :rofl

Is that the best you can do? :rofl
Click to expand...


You do realize it takes years to do these studies right? As far as I know not any of them are recent.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
SO, people don't have the right to be free from poisonous tobacco smoke?
Click to expand...

Yes, thats what your feet are for.

ludahai said:
But this isn't from the US government, these initiatives in the US are all from state and local governments
Click to expand...

I meant all government in the US.

ludahai said:
I am saying that I trust medical scientists more than you, myself, or judges to evaulate it. I have a good friend at a local research hospital who is a cancer researcher. The stuff he tells me....
Click to expand...

And plenty of scientists and doctors will disagree.

ludahai said:
Wow. First time I have ever been called a hippy. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Thought you would enjoy that.

ludahai said:
Sorry, we disagree here. There is compelling reason to restrict tobacco short of banning it.
Click to expand...

Then we will agree to disagree.

ludahai said:
Guns and tobacco smoke are not the same. Guns have a legitimate, useful purpose. Cigarettes are poison.
Click to expand...

Guns need to have a legitimate or useful purpose? (Don't answer that. Going to bed.)

Cigarettes are poison in your opinion. Many disagree.

ludahai said:
Aren't there restrictions regarding that now that we know how much harm it can cause? Like leaded gasoline?
Click to expand...

Ugh. That is a whole debate in itself.

I am going to bed.

We can just agree to disagree.

Have a good night and God bless.
 
I completely agree to take my smoking ways underground like all the KGBers here want me to.

Just one thing: NO MORE TAXES ON CIGARETTES!

Goddamn I hate anti-smoking legislators. After blaming Gays for all the problems in the world, it's the best way to get noticed doing nothing.

How about we force all the obese to run 5 miles a day? If our health is the governments concern, I'll tell you right now that forcing all the chubby people to lose weight would be much more effective at lowering the number of heart attacks.

How about forcing every restaurant to serve only low-fat varieties? I could choose to go somewhere else, but that's not how we do things anymore. I demand the govt force business owners to stop acting so immoral!

Finally, no person shall be allowed to eat fast-food in the presence of children, or in public. It is a disgusting, unhealthy habit and I'm not about to let their selfishness give the next generation a bad example.

Also, a new $2 tax on every hamburger sold. If you don't like it, quit.
 
I hate these frigging Nazi Health Police. Next thing ya know? They control what you can eat:(
 
ludahai said:
There is a stark difference between an allergy and a POISON!
Click to expand...

To some with Asthma? Strong perfume is or can be a Poison:(
 
ludahai said:
Personally, I think tobacco should be banned. The behavior of cigarette smokers is abmoninable.
Click to expand...

How dare you lump all cigarette smokers into one group? There are courteous smokers:roll:
 
In a place like the U.S. where public health care is non-existent, private property owners should be able to decide if smoking is ok in their establishments or not. In Canada, I am against public smoking because tax payers pay for the health care.

If you don't like to smoke, then don't go to a place where there is smoke. I'm against smoking and I don't support it because my line of work has shown me how dysfunctional it makes the body over time, but I am against policing people's choices in this regard.

The market will determine what places are successful based on their options offered to smokers and non-smokers. A place that can accommodate both will make more money.
 
I can see your point with government provided healthcare, and if this was the case here I wouldn't mind raising the taxes on cigarettes to cover smokers health problems.
 
Joby said:
I can see your point with government provided healthcare, and if this was the case here I wouldn't mind raising the taxes on cigarettes to cover smokers health problems.
Click to expand...

This is somewhat of the case. My friend works for a HMO. Apparently 15% of private premiums are going towards the deficits that Medicare/medicaid have. Holders of private plans are paying for government healthcare.

I have to agree with P/N here with the exception that public smoking shouldn't be legal. People should be free to smoke up in private businesses and residences though all they want.

I'd love to see increasing taxes on cigarettes.
 
obvious Child said:
I have to agree with P/N here with the exception that public smoking shouldn't be legal. People should be free to smoke up in private businesses and residences though all they want.
Click to expand...

I don't get the objection to smoking in public or on public property.

If you're talking about the DMV on Friday afternoon I understand and agree. But most public property is outside were things a lot bigger than smokers are polluting the air. For example, this evening I took a stroll down to a park which was completely devoid of any other people and had a smoke there. Yet somehow I'm a bigger threat to public health than someone driving a diesel truck through a crowded city. What gives?

As for our healthcare, well, I don't even understand how my plan really works.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes, thats what your feet are for.
Click to expand...

Why can't I enjoy a nice afternoon in the park with my family without having to seem like a refugee because dumb smokers have no respect for the rights of others? The tyranny of smokers.

I am going to bed.

We can just agree to disagree.

Have a good night and God bless.
Click to expand...

Good night, though it was mid-day here. Gotta love time zone differences.
 
Orius said:
In a place like the U.S. where public health care is non-existent, private property owners should be able to decide if smoking is ok in their establishments or not. In Canada, I am against public smoking because tax payers pay for the health care.
Click to expand...

Public health care is FAR from non-existant in the United States.

If you don't like to smoke, then don't go to a place where there is smoke. I'm against smoking and I don't support it because my line of work has shown me how dysfunctional it makes the body over time, but I am against policing people's choices in this regard.
Click to expand...

If people want to smoke in the privacy of their own homes, so long as they aren't affecting any one elses rights (including minor children) have at it. However, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the health and rights of those who do not in public and public access spaces.
 
Joby said:
I can see your point with government provided healthcare, and if this was the case here I wouldn't mind raising the taxes on cigarettes to cover smokers health problems.
Click to expand...

What about the health problems caused to NON smokers due to the poison spewed by smokers?
 
Joby said:
I don't get the objection to smoking in public or on public property.
Click to expand...

A family enjoying a nice morning in a local park should NOT have to be subjected to a smoker poisoning the air.

If you're talking about the DMV on Friday afternoon I understand and agree. But most public property is outside were things a lot bigger than smokers are polluting the air. For example, this evening I took a stroll down to a park which was completely devoid of any other people and had a smoke there. Yet somehow I'm a bigger threat to public health than someone driving a diesel truck through a crowded city. What gives?
Click to expand...

Again, as I said earlier, I am a strong proponent of much stricter emissions standards and enforcement (especially here in Taiwan where they are not as strong as Japan or the US).

As for our healthcare, well, I don't even understand how my plan really works.
Click to expand...

There is a myth that there is no public health care in the United States. How do you think poor people without health insurance or elderly get health care?
 
MrVicchio said:
It's okay to deny others their liberty if it's for a good cause. Obviously this study proves out everything and we should take it as holy writ!

Let's all celebrate the day Liberty was denied!
Click to expand...


Gee, I wonder how you reacted to hearing about the fact that our goverment was conducting surveillance without a warrant. Did you think liberty had been denied in that circumstance?
 
Allusionation said:
Isn't Obama a closet smoker? I can't see him taking up the issue if he's lighting up too.
Click to expand...

LOL So the president will base his decisions on an issue like this on the fact that he smoked or is a closet smoker? Somehow I doubt it.
 
Joby said:
I completely agree to take my smoking ways underground like all the KGBers here want me to.

Just one thing: NO MORE TAXES ON CIGARETTES!

Goddamn I hate anti-smoking legislators. After blaming Gays for all the problems in the world, it's the best way to get noticed doing nothing.

How about we force all the obese to run 5 miles a day? If our health is the governments concern, I'll tell you right now that forcing all the chubby people to lose weight would be much more effective at lowering the number of heart attacks.

How about forcing every restaurant to serve only low-fat varieties? I could choose to go somewhere else, but that's not how we do things anymore. I demand the govt force business owners to stop acting so immoral!

Finally, no person shall be allowed to eat fast-food in the presence of children, or in public. It is a disgusting, unhealthy habit and I'm not about to let their selfishness give the next generation a bad example.

Also, a new $2 tax on every hamburger sold. If you don't like it, quit.
Click to expand...

I love it when people compare smoking to poor eating habits. It's just so rational and on point. NOT. My eating a hamburger does not impact the health of those sitting near me.

Supposedly, only 20% of people smoke. So we're supposed to bow down to 20% of people and let them smoke wherever they want? No thank you.
 
Kali said:
How dare you lump all cigarette smokers into one group? There are courteous smokers:roll:
Click to expand...

Are you one of them, Kali? What constitutes a courteous smoker?

99% of the time I am driving, I see at least one smoker throw his/her cigarette butt out the window.

When I do a clean-up of my neighborhood, 90% of what I pick up are cigarette butts.

When I cross in a crosswalk at a stop light, I see at least 20 cigarette butts on the ground.

When I enter and leave the subway system (which doesn't allow smoking), I see 30 to 40 cigarette butts right outside the entrance/exit.

Smokers sure are courteous, aren't they? :roll:
 
ludahai said:
Why can't I enjoy a nice afternoon in the park with my family without having to seem like a refugee because dumb smokers have no respect for the rights of others? The tyranny of smokers.
Click to expand...

So now smoking a cigarette outside is tyranny? :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom