Page 22 of 44 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 440

Thread: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

  1. #211
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,477
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    I've commented on this before, but can now reduce it to one word.

    R E T A R D E D.

    .
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  2. #212
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    So it's arrogant to state the truth? Hmmm.....Anyways....
    There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. Statistics don't determine health or medicine, and they don't override the truth of what I know about my own body. So take your pompous attitude and shove it. If you want to poison yourself do it at home.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    So can alot of other things. There are many more things that are in higher concentrations and is more likely to give you cancer. But you don't see them being persecuted like you do smokers. And THAT is the point of what I am saying. I am not saying that smoking can't give a person cancer. Or even SHS. I am saying that the likelyhood of SHS giving you cancer is unlikely when compared to all the other toxins that you are exposed to on a daily basis. The effects of SHS has been blown all out of porportion. So much so that I would call much of it lies.
    Ideally I would not be exposed to other toxins either, like industrial pollution... but my government does not give us a choice, no matter how much we lobby them to force industry to become cleaner. Besides, I live in the pacific northwest which has significantly cleaner air quality than, say, central Canada. It's one of the reasons why I moved here. So pardon me if I don't want to get a dose of crap from some mouth breathing smoker that lights up near me.

    You are basically trying to argue that because we are already exposed to other carcinogens, that one more won't make a difference. That's a really weak point. I think removing ANY health hazards we can from our surroundings is a benefit.

  3. #213
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Soviet Technate
    Last Seen
    10-25-10 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    359

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    The same can be said of the many other toxins that you are exposed to on a daily basis. And yet smokers get persecuted far more. Why is that do you think?
    Because smoking, unlike many other environmental poisons, is a practical issue to deal with. Not everything else is as easy to remedy or has the same cost-benefit ratio. Moreover, some other environmental toxins are unfortunate consequences of necessary features of civilization. If you were to "ban" what causes them, society would collapse. Banning them is not of the same practicality. Not everything can be banned with the same consequences.

    Restricting smokers from blowing smoke all over is okay, because smoking is already stupid and unnecessary. Completely avoidable problem without huge costs if you stop doing it.
    Last edited by Technocratic; 09-19-10 at 07:03 PM.

  4. #214
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,863
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. Statistics don't determine health or medicine, and they don't override the truth of what I know about my own body. So take your pompous attitude and shove it. If you want to poison yourself do it at home.
    Statistics does determine alot of things. Including what should be worked on. Otherwise why have statistics in the first place? But hey, if you want to ignore the actual truth and the facts...well...they do say that ignorance is bliss. And if knowing the truth and the facts makes me arrogant...well, I can live with that. Out of curiosity though...do you consider yourself arrogant also for knowing what facts you do know?

    Now, part of that WAS being arrogant and pompous..need more of an education on what being pompous and arrogant really is? I won't mind if you do....

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Ideally I would not be exposed to other toxins either, like industrial pollution... but my government does not give us a choice, no matter how much we lobby them to force industry to become cleaner. Besides, I live in the pacific northwest which has significantly cleaner air quality than, say, central Canada. It's one of the reasons why I moved here. So pardon me if I don't want to get a dose of crap from some mouth breathing smoker that lights up near me.
    Hmm..imagine that, I live in the pacific NW also. Idaho to be exact. But guess what...we still have our share of pollutants. If I recall correctly the Puget Sound ranked 5th in the heaviest polluted areas in the US....

    and I do.

    Anyways, I don't want to smell chemicals in the air either...how about we ban you from using house cleaning supplies? Those chemicals can cause diseases also. After all, water would clean just as good as any chemical you use...you just need a little bit more elbow grease.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    You are basically trying to argue that because we are already exposed to other carcinogens, that one more won't make a difference. That's a really weak point. I think removing ANY health hazards we can from our surroundings is a benefit.
    Good for you! Now, get rid of all your cleaning supplies...those are toxins also.

    And no I am not arguing that at all. I've already stated what I am argueing. But I will state it more clearly for ya.

    If you are going to argue against and try to ban smoking then you need to argue against and try to ban all the other toxin producing chemicals with equal venehmence. Otherwise you are just being hypocritical and selfish. Because there are far worse things in the air than cigarette smoke. If you want I'll even make a list of things that are not needed in society but are just creature comforts...and is the cause of lots of the pollutants that you say you are against.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  5. #215
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,863
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    Because smoking, unlike many other environmental poisons, is a practical issue to deal with. Not everything else is as easy to remedy or has the same cost-benefit ratio. Moreover, some other environmental toxins are unfortunate consequences of necessary features of civilization. If you were to "ban" what causes them, society would collapse. Banning them is not of the same practicality. Not everything can be banned with the same consequences.
    I would agree that there are toxins that are produced because the items that is produced are needed. However there are lots of other items which are not needed. I'll give you the same offer as I did Orion, should I make a list of items which are just creature comforts and not needed by society?

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    Restricting smokers from blowing smoke all over is okay, because smoking is already stupid and unnecessary. Completely avoidable problem without huge costs if you stop doing it.
    Stupid and unnecessary huh? Hmm...how many items are in your home which can be considered "stupid and unnecessary" and was the cause of toxins being put into the air?

    Just because you think that it is stupid does not give you the right to take other peoples rights to smoke away.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #216
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    It isn't only cancer. There are many health effects from ciggy smoke...

    While more studies are needed, this just published study from Scotland should be paid attention to by all policymakers and advocates...

    link


    BOSTON (Reuters) A 2006 public smoking ban in Scotland reduced the number of serious childhood asthma attacks by 18 percent per year, researchers reported on Wednesday.

    Before the ban imposed in March 2006, the number of hospital admissions for asthma was rising by 5 percent a year among children under 15. The after-ban benefits were seen in both pre-school and school-age children.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #217
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,472

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Did the doctors give Robyn a test that explicitly said that it was from SHS? Or did he just tell you that it was more than likely caused by SHS? I've noticed that lately a lot of doctors have just been assuming that any lung cancer they have come across was caused by smoking/SHS from anyone that says they smoke or were around smokers.
    Well now lets see, no history of cancer in her family, in fact longevity ran her family. She was a non smoker, didn't do drugs, but worked for several years in a windowless bar in LA that was constantly filled with SHS and she lived in an apartment in Long Beach for several years with SHS constantly filtering up through the hallways and air vents. It was bad. But I wasn't there when the doctors gave her diagnosis, but she was pretty convinced it was the SHS and so am I. She wasn't bitter about it though, because that was the life she chose and she knew that life is full of risks. She just died too young that's all...and I miss her. Sad thing is, I also think my own SHS killed my cat, so I don't even smoke in my own house anymore and now I smoke on the patio or out in the garage.

  8. #218
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Statistics does determine alot of things. Including what should be worked on. Otherwise why have statistics in the first place? But hey, if you want to ignore the actual truth and the facts...well...they do say that ignorance is bliss. And if knowing the truth and the facts makes me arrogant...well, I can live with that. Out of curiosity though...do you consider yourself arrogant also for knowing what facts you do know?

    Now, part of that WAS being arrogant and pompous..need more of an education on what being pompous and arrogant really is? I won't mind if you do....
    It's pompous and arrogant to say SHS can't cause cancer when clearly it does, and the law agrees.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Hmm..imagine that, I live in the pacific NW also. Idaho to be exact. But guess what...we still have our share of pollutants. If I recall correctly the Puget Sound ranked 5th in the heaviest polluted areas in the US....

    and I do.

    Anyways, I don't want to smell chemicals in the air either...how about we ban you from using house cleaning supplies? Those chemicals can cause diseases also. After all, water would clean just as good as any chemical you use...you just need a little bit more elbow grease.



    Good for you! Now, get rid of all your cleaning supplies...those are toxins also.

    And no I am not arguing that at all. I've already stated what I am argueing. But I will state it more clearly for ya.

    If you are going to argue against and try to ban smoking then you need to argue against and try to ban all the other toxin producing chemicals with equal venehmence. Otherwise you are just being hypocritical and selfish. Because there are far worse things in the air than cigarette smoke. If you want I'll even make a list of things that are not needed in society but are just creature comforts...and is the cause of lots of the pollutants that you say you are against.
    I don't use cleaning products. I use vinegar, baking soda, and water. Nothing else is needed.

    You can't think of examples of things I do in parks that harm others sitting near me. Smokers do just that.

  9. #219
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    As i am sure, smokers are well known for disposing their cigarette butts properly. Face it smokers, the majority of you do not act in a responsible, respectful manner.

    Quick question: Does anyone know how much NYC spends annually on cleaning up cigarette butts from the streets, drains, and sidewalks?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #220
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    As i am sure, smokers are well known for disposing their cigarette butts properly. Face it smokers, the majority of you do not act in a responsible, respectful manner.

    Quick question: Does anyone know how much NYC spends annually on cleaning up cigarette butts from the streets, drains, and sidewalks?
    Probably as much as they spend cleaning up garbage along the roadways.

Page 22 of 44 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •