Private establishments.
No, becuase you are motivated by self-interest only and refuse to compromise because it's all about your convenience.
This is patently false as I have stated several times. If you can't admit that then you are the dishonest one.
Then cite a defintion of making something "neutral" where one side of a polar dichotomy achieves everything it desires while the other gets nothing. I'll wait for it. Probably forever, because such a definition does not exist.
WordNet Search - 3.0
"inert: having only a limited ability to react chemically; chemically inactive; "inert matter"; "an indifferent chemical in a reaction"
I'm not going to start a debate over dictionary definitions. I have already attempted twice now to explain to you what I meant, but you keep overriding that with your defamation of my character. If you can't accept where I was coming from, then I can't help you.
It is of minimal danger, and of far less danger than the consumption fo sehllfish in public is for me. the danger argumetn has no merit whatseover in open air.
This comparison has already been debunked. Humans are not universally allergic to shellfish. If they were, then I would probably support a law banning the cooking of shellfish in parks too. A cost-benefit analysis would not favour banning shellfish just because a small minority are affected, versus the entire populous being susceptible to health hazards from smoking.
It's not out of line becuase your arguemtns have been fallacious as well as distortion of the facts to overbow the dangers presented in public from SHS. You claimed that my shellfish analogy was not apt, but the dangers of shellfish allergens inteh air is legitimate and not distorted for the affected population. It is far greater than teh trisk posed to you outdoors form simply smelling smoke. Your hyperbole is not a legitimate logical argument.
The problem with the shellfish argument, or the argument against allergies in general, is that not everyone has the same allergies. If we cumulatively banned things based on individual allergies, we would all be trapped indoors. That's why it doesn't happen. Smoking however carries universal risk in the form of cancer, and not just allergies.
Are you going to keep up this flawed analogy or can we please move on already?
Can't really prove a negative. No objective evidence exists which suggests that there is a significant risk posed form SHS in open public spaces.
Well, I'm sure now that you're making this argument, there are already scientists hard at work, both industry ones and independent ones. It's not unreasonable though to presume it is still harmful outdoors, given that it's harmful in all other venues.
those studies do not disprove what I'm saying. they talk about the risk from enclosed environments and prolonged exposures.
It's kind of like saying... cyanide hurts people. But does it hurt people outdoors? Or in bars? Or in swimming pools? Or in the bedroom? Well, if there's not a study to verify it, then I guess we can say that cyanide is safe in those areas!
Flawed reasoning.
Also, your argument rests upon the notion that there is an acceptable limit to tobacco smoke exposure. If you can find a peer reviewed, independent study to prove
that, then please put it forward for my consideration.
See here you are making a factual claim. SHS is dangerous. What you fail to do is mention the additional "In enclosed spaces for prolonged periods of time" aspect. It's a distortion becuase you are using a fact nugget without adding the existing qualifiers. You are trying to generalize information abotu a speciic set of data to anotehr situation when that is simply not founde in fact.
Please prove that there is a defined acceptable exposure limit to tobacco smoke, then we can talk. And don't bother with industry-sponsored studies, thanks.
It's a lot more than 10 times less, first of all, and second of all teh quantity of a poison involved does makea difference. Especially if you eat soemthing like, oh, I don't know... shellfish, which has a certain amount of acceptable toxinss in it.
Again, comparing this to the smoking debate is flawed. I can know there are toxins in shellfish and CHOOSE not to eat them. I can't CHOOSE to breathe air that happens to be contaminated with cigarette smoke. Is this sinking in yet?
Here it is simplified:
Food = eating, smoking = breathing. Two different functions.
Apples have cyanide. in them.
In amounts miniscule compared to what is contained in cigarettes, and only in the apple seeds, which most people don't eat when they eat apples.
Then you have an irrational fear of a negligable risk.
I accept that, for you, the risk is negligible and you are willing to take it; don't presume that what's negligible for you is the same for everyone.
Calling it irrational presumes I have no precedent for not wanting to be exposed to tobacco smoke. Please, get over yourself.
Except when the thing that is harmful is not harmful to you, but is harmful to otehrs, but it is also something you enjoy, like shellfish perhaps, right?
Debunked previously. See above.
And something that is harmful in one situation is not harmful in another. A doctor of TCM should ****ing know better than to say that.
Tobacco is never used in medicine. That's not to say it has no medicinal value, especially the raw, unprocessed forms; but for the benefits it provides, there are alternative plants/methods that do far less damage to the body. It is for this reason that no medical professional advocates smoking, whether they are a western doctor or a doctor of TCM. Cost outweighs benefit.
False.
False.
In certain situations.
Well now that you have brought up what I "should" know as a DTCM, I'll say that individuals vary. Just because there is no established data about SHS outdoors doesn't mean you can automatically draw the conclusion that it harms no one, especially when there are already plenty of anecdotal reports on people being affected. The bans wouldn't be going into the place if there weren't already health issues arising.
You can white wash it as selfishness all you want, but that is condensing the health argument to a very simplified point of view.
You just said one is not needed.
I'm only arguing it for the sake of arguing, because you keep pushing it; I don't think a study is needed. We don't need more studies to prove that tobacco smoke is toxic and a detriment to health. The fact that outdoor smoking dilutes it to a degree doesn't have much bearing on the inherent toxicity of the contents.
what about when your freedoms encroach on mine? I guess you are ok with that. Wait, I know you are OK with that. you spent a long time defending that position earlier. Only your freedoms matter, right?
No one is banning tobacco itself. You can still smoke, just not in shared spaces. You can't drink alcohol in vehicles, or in public spaces either. There are acceptable locations for where people can get intoxicated and not face legal penalties. This is no different.
Your "rational" argument is based on distortions and half truths. Dishonest argumetns are dishonest arguments. Just becuase you ddon't lik ethat it is pointed out doesn't make it an ad hom.
Look at who you are talking to here. I am not a dishonest person and I think you know that. I invite you to continue debunking my arguments, but taking the time to emphasize how dishonest
you think I am is only detracting from the debate and wasting both our energies. You are the first to come into this thread and basically call me a liar. I wonder why you feel so threatened?
The truth of your argument is that you really really really hate cigarretes and don't want to encounter them.
That matter is secondary. Banning smoking in parks is for the good of all who visit them. If smokers don't like that, then I say, sour grapes.
You have willfully distoted teh facts by claiming studies that test the affects of prolonged exposure to second hand smoke in enclosed environments are generalizabel to open environemtns and fleeting exposres. that's willfull deliberate distortion.
I haven't
willfully distorted anything. The fact that I didn't even know I was precluding an aspect that, for you, was importing criteria, doesn't make me a liar. It means I overlooked something. I think I already admitted to that when I later said that it's reasonable to presume risks; and by presume I mean, we don't have objective data that outdoor smoking is harmful, but based on precedent of other smoking studies, we could make an educated guess.
I'm not going to defend myself on this again. If you continue to continue the incivility by calling me a liar, I simply won't reply to you anymore. Your choice. :shrug:
Yet even when presented evidence of the danges shellfish pose to people with allergies, and the fairly common nature of those allergies,m you argue that no such ban should be affected.
Deaths from Food allergies - WrongDiagnosis.com
"Deaths information for Food allergies: Approximately 100 Americans, usually children, die annually from food-induced anaphylaxis. (Source: excerpt from Allergy Statistics: NIAID)"
Compare that to deaths related to SHS. Yeah, let's ban shellfish. :roll:
Sadly, there is evidecne of lifethreatening condistions from environmental contamination from shellfish and peanuts, yet you still don't aply the same logic to those issues.
Sorry but deaths related to smoking takes priority to those less than 100 deaths per year due to shellfish.
That's all the evidence necessary to make the accusation that this is not the real motivation. It's all about Orion's saftey. Tucker's safety ain't really important enough to enact a ban over.
I think I have successfully debunked your hysteria over shellfish above. Most people's allergy to shellfish is just GI discomfort. They get diarrhea, maybe some histamine reactions in the body, that's it. SHS has been linked to cancer, respiratory distress, and also allergies.
You can keep trying to make it about me all you want but nothing you say will change the reality of what smoking does to people and those around them.
Do you support banning everything that poisons the air?
Idealistically, yes... but the state of human development is at where it's at.
The bolded, underlined italicized statemtn is the most accurate thing you've said in this debate. If it doesn't pose a risk to you, you don't care.
Now that's just cherry picking. You know I've said way more than that, you're just conveniently honing in on the aspects that support your one-sided attack of my debate style. I care about others just as much as I care about myself when it comes to health. That's why I'm in the profession I'm in.
So give up the "public" safety BS. It's all about Orion's safety. That's an honest statement. I have resppect for that.
What would garner your respect is completely irrelevant to this debate, and I could frankly care less about impressing you.
No. Only the ones that have similar motivations.
Oh I see... so, because you've had some debates with selfish non-smokers in the past, you assume I am just like them. Now who's being irrational.