Page 36 of 44 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 440

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

  1. #351
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Instead, I believe this is entirely about their own discomfort. They don't like being around it, so they wish to make it so that they never have to be. If it didn't cause that mild discomfort, they wouldn't be btohered by smoke.
    That pretty much sums it up. They think they ought to be entitled to go pretty much anywhere and not have to "endure" the smell of cigarette smoke. And bars. I mean banning smoking in bars. I don't get it. its a place to go where someone wants to unwind after a hard day/week and maybe smoking gives them a feeling of relaxation. But we can't have that, while we simultaneously pursue marijuana legalization and build safe houses for people to shoot up heroin.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  2. #352
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    That pretty much sums it up. They think they ought to be entitled to go pretty much anywhere and not have to "endure" the smell of cigarette smoke. And bars. I mean banning smoking in bars. I don't get it. its a place to go where someone wants to unwind after a hard day/week and maybe smoking gives them a feeling of relaxation. But we can't have that, while we simultaneously pursue marijuana legalization and build safe houses for people to shoot up heroin.
    not all non smokers feel that way. personally, i can't go to a bar where smoking is allowed, because it stinks. but that's my choice, and i'll take my business elsewhere. i don't want to force a business owner to go non smoking for me.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  3. #353
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    not all non smokers feel that way. personally, i can't go to a bar where smoking is allowed, because it stinks. but that's my choice, and i'll take my business elsewhere. i don't want to force a business owner to go non smoking for me.
    I'm a non-smoker myself. I don't prefer the smell of smoke, and I'll never encourage my kids to do so. But I personally believe its a bit presumptuous for me to assume that everybody has to adjust their habits for me when I walk in the door. it's easier for everybody if me, 1 person either adapts or leaves, than to change entire establishments and enact laws. My in-laws are smokers, and when I go to their house I don't demand they not smoke. And they know I don't allow smoking inside my house, so they smoke outside whenever they visit. That is the way it should be. Up to private establishments to make up their own minds as to what kind of environment they prefer.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  4. #354
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    That pretty much sums it up. They think they ought to be entitled to go pretty much anywhere and not have to "endure" the smell of cigarette smoke. And bars. I mean banning smoking in bars. I don't get it. its a place to go where someone wants to unwind after a hard day/week and maybe smoking gives them a feeling of relaxation. But we can't have that, while we simultaneously pursue marijuana legalization and build safe houses for people to shoot up heroin.
    They banned indoor smoking for businesses here, a few years ago but it's lightly (almost never) enforced.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #355
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    I have no idea about bananas or about the severity of your allegy, but shellfish particles will get into the air and my allergy is extremely severe.
    Do you have empirical evidence that it does that, and that the issue is nearly as serious an airborn issue as smoke?


    Again, though, your problem is rare, while smoke impacts everyone, given its an allergen to everyone. The majority of people should not be forced to cower at home and never leave for fear of disturbing smokers infiltrating everywhere and carelessly puffing their habit all over. Rational adults who don't smoke shouldn't need to cater to an irrational group of addicts who want the right to push people out of public, or force them to breath useless fumes.
    Last edited by Technocratic; 09-24-10 at 02:11 PM.

  6. #356
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    Do you have empirical evidence that it does that, and that the issue is nearly as serious an airborn issue as smoke?
    Uhmmm... My evidence is entirely empirical, since it was gained from direct observation and expereince, which is what empirical evidence is.

    But if you want some corroborating evidence, take a look here:

    Shellfish Allergies

    Read the headings marked "triggers" and "symptoms".

    From those sections

    ...For example, one can also react to shellfish by having his or her food cross contaminated with shellfish, or even by breathing in the airborne particles from the steam of cooked shellfish....

    ...Sometimes just the smell of the particular shellfish is enough to initiate an allergic reaction.
    ...Some shellfish allergy sufferers have gone into anaphylactic shock by merely breathing in shellfish particles, without ever having ingested the food itself....
    Now, unless I somehow managed to gain control of that website and let them know that I was making this argument related to smoking, we can probably look at that as solid evidence in favor of my arguments. There is little reason to assume that it is a biased website because it has nothing to do with smoking at all. It is only offered as outside evidence for my claims about particles being present in the air, which have caused me to have some of the reactions described.

    I have had the unfortunate experience of learning that what is contained on that website is entirely accurate.


    Again, though, your problem is rare, while smoke impacts everyone, given its an allergen to everyone. The majority of people should not be forced to cower at home and never leave for fear of disturbing smokers infiltrating everywhere and carelessly puffing their habit all over. Rational adults who don't smoke shouldn't need to cater to an irrational group of addicts who want the right to push people out of public, or force them to breath useless fumes.
    The rarity shouldn't be a factor when it's clear that my situation is far more dangerous. The much greater severity of the danger should more than offset the lowered instances of the risk, no? I mean, I shouldn't have to cower in my home simply becuase a bunch of ignorant shellfish consumers can't stay home to perform their dirty habit, right?

    And if I was cowering in my home, it would be because my life was legitimately in danger. Not becuase I have an irrational reaction to mild discomfort. And the claim that the "majority" of people would be forced to cower inm their homes is nice hyperbole, but it's also a load of horse pucky. It is the irrational minority of non-smokers who have that degree of fear. It's a phobia for them. A phobia is, by definition, an irrational fear.

    Well, to be honest, it isn't really a phobia becuse they often aren't really afraid of the danger, because they do realize that the risk is astronomically miunute form a diluted exposeure to SHS in most cases. It's just their own desire to avoid discomfort that they care about.

    I've shown that it ain't about danger, because the danger to me posed by shellfish is greater than the danger posed to non-smokers from second hand smoke (if we assume that a low risk for immediate death is a greater danger than an even lower risk of a disorder that happens decades in the future).

    And from what I've read on the matter, tobacco smoke allergies are rare and that the antibody production is not a good predictor of a self-described "sensitivity" to tobacco smoke.

    While there is evidence that allergic reactions to direct contact with the tobacco leaf itself is common, very little evidence exists to suggests that this is true of the smoke from tobacco and smilar resaults were found with multiple lplants in one study I have read. Do you have any scientific evidence supporting the universal allergen theory?
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-24-10 at 03:15 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #357
    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

    I have addressed that. I also mentioned that cross contamination can be an issue. BUt even considering the possible airborn particles in steam, this condition impacts less than 2% of the population, and it "may" trigger it.

    Rare conditions are valid distinguishers, because you can't practically create policy based on whether or not 2% of the population will have an allergy triggered. The damage it would do to the economy, itself, is enough to differentiate it from banning indoor smoking, given you can alway smoke elsewhere without the negative consequences to society of the loss of you smokiing there. IF we were to ban all shellfish, and really, anything someone could be allegic to according to your logic, regardless of the rareness or scope of harm, the system would collapse. We'd be able to do nothing for fear that a tiny minority may have an allergen to something, and that's always the case. That's clearly absurd.

    The problem of SHS isn't minute, and it's much more prevalent, impactinig many more people. And the solution to that will not destroy the service industry, because smoking is not critical to the function of the establishment. If ONE person has a allergy to anything, it makes it impossible to function economically if we apply the "lets ban it, no matter how prevalent it is" logic.

    According to your logic, we can't serve any food anywhere. In fact, it's not even limited to food. .03 percent of the population may be allergic to something, somewhere, and therefore, we need to ban that activity, regardless of the scope of the problem or the secondary consequences of doing so. A ban of Z does not require a ban of Y. Your allergy to shellfish may be significant, but it's too impractical to apply a universal rule to without leading to too much harm or ridiculous results.
    Last edited by Technocratic; 09-24-10 at 04:01 PM.

  8. #358
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    I have addressed that. I also mentioned that cross contamination can be an issue. BUt even considering the possible airborn particles in steam, this condition impacts less than 2% of the population, and it "may" trigger it.
    Yes, it may trigger an immediately life-threatening condition. Are you under the impression that SHS smoke does trigger health problems instead of may?

    You can't practically create policy based on whether or not 2% of the population will have an allergy triggered. The damage it would do to the economy, itself, is enough to distinguish it from banning indoor smoking, given you can alway smoke elsewhere. IF we were to ban all shellfish, and really, anything someone could be allegic to, the system would collapse.
    The discussion here is about outdoor smoking being banned, though.

    That's enough to differentiate.

    The problem of SHS isn't minute, and it's much more prevalent, impactinig many more people.
    Impacting many people in a minute fashion is a minute problem.

    It's more practical, and less socially harmful, to deal with that than to cater to every rare allergen conditon.
    It's not a rare allergen being discussed. It's one of the most common allergies among adults.

    And the risks from SHS are not very high, and they aren't immediate, especially if the exposure happens outdoors.

    Everyone is affected by smoke inhalation.
    If by "smoke inhalation" you mean minimal exposure to SHS, and by "affected" you mean there are negative health consequences, then this statement is false. If you mean smoke inhalation as in smoking cigarrettes or prolonged exposure to SHS, and by "affected" you mean it has some affect, even if the affect is very negligable then it is true.

    SHS is known to cause various infections, after prolonged exposure, as well as a variety of other conditions. See the CDC on this.
    And "Some shellfish allergy sufferers have gone into anaphylactic shock by merely breathing in shellfish particles".

    SHS may cause a variety of conditions, after prolonged exposure, for the individual. They are not assured by any stretch of the imagination. And outdoors (again, teh topic beign discussed), we're talking about fleeting exposure.

    Here's the thing though, fleeting exposure to shellfish allergens CAN kill someone. Fleeting exposure to SHS ain't going to do ****.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #359
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    According to your logic, we can't serve any food anywhere.
    It's not my logic. It's the logic used by non-smokers for outdoor smoking bans.

    I've explained why my condition causes me to reject that logic. Have you not read all of my posts in this thread? It's kind of odd to jump in trying to disprove my argumetns when you haven't even read them, don't you think?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #360
    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

    It's not a rare allergen being discussed. It's one of the most common allergies among adults.
    You're confusing rare with common. You can have a rare disease, that is the most common of the rare diseases among adults. According to your source, it impacts 2% or less of the population.
    Pretty rare. We cannot have a rule to ban X because a tiny minority may have an allergic reaction to it. IT would shut down all commerce.




    If by "smoke inhalation" you mean minimal exposure to SHS, and by "affected" you mean there are negative health consequences, then this statement is false. If you mean smoke inhalation as in smoking cigarrettes or prolonged exposure to SHS, and by "affected" you mean it has some affect, even if the affect is very negligable then it is true.
    I mean that smoke SHS inhalation causes eye, nasal, throat infections, as well as basic irritation. It's also known, by the CDC to cause other more serious problems over prolongued exposure, which happens if everyone's doing it everywhere.


    I don't really care about smokers outdoors, so long as there is enough ventillation. But, you earlier were talking about shellfish being cooked in restaurants. Not outdoors.


    If we applied the logic of "If the scope of people affected doesn't matter, and if someone can claim an allergy we should ban the practice,' we'd be able to do nothing.

Page 36 of 44 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... 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
  •