UnDeaD77

I won't in my next place, only smoke in the room, no where else in the house.

__________________

CingularDuality

So have a cardio test every year, don't fire cops for perfectly legal habits.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

UnDeaD77

Agreed.

__________________

SmokingTarpan

My position is that the effect of secondhand smoke has been blown out of proportion by health junkies and the likes of the Truth organization.

Yes, secondhand smoke is bad for you. But so is the sun, vehicle exhaust, alcohol, and countless other things. People are going to get old and die, it's a fact of life. Well, maybe leejo won't die, but that's only because he'll have his head preserved a la Futurama. Regardless, there's no ethical way to prove that (edit: the typical amount of exposure to) secondhand smoke is the sole cause of a person's lung cancer/heart disease/whathaveyou. An accelerant? Certainly. But considering the world we live in today, the chances that secondhand smoke is going to be the sole reason for your issues later in life (or even the thing that gets you, for that matter) are pretty slim. Especially since you can get away from it if you choose.

I still see no reason why a law needs to regulate the type of clientelle a business caters to. Don't like it, don't go. There are plenty of smoke-free alternatives available to you, most likely within a 5min walk.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

TheFeniX

Thank you. I'll need to dig through the articles more in-depth. What I'm really interested in seeing is the levels of carcinogens that are taken in by non-smokers. "High levels" is too subjective. I've got a list of acceptable levels for most of these carcinogens, and I need to find something to compare them too.

If I actually WAS arguing that, it wouldn't be a strawman. Further, the effects of second-hand smoke were only a part of my arguement, so you'd be the one strawmanning me.

Second-hand smoke is hazardous to your health. But, what I've always been interested to know is HOW hazardous. Compare it to pumping gas, sitting in rush hour traffic, eating a carcoal grilled burger, being out in the sun all day. Just saying it's "hazardous" doesn't do it for me, considering I work around chemicals that could cause debilitating health conditions immediately after being exposed to "high levels" of them (the most noteworthy being "death").

Oh, and I'm a firm proponent of kids being kept away from smoke. Mainly because it would have more an effect on a developing body, and also because I hate it when chain-smoking parents bring their kids into the smoking section.

__________________

Rick_the_new_guy

Fair enough. If you smoke a lot and you do not train much your cardio would suck hard. If you have the occasional cig every few days or at weekend outings harm is still done, but give the person the option to train to counter act smoking. But i still feel o.k. about this.

However, if is was a sports owner or coach i would not allow smoking for my players at all.

Compition in the sports world is tough. Any retardation to one's O2 consumption would hurt the team.

__________________
(PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member
(CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader
(LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander

Squad Member pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ad-leader.html
Squad Leader pledge to their team:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...r-platoon.html
Commander pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...d-leaders.html

TheFeniX

Why? If they can make the cut, they made the cut. It makes no sense to penalize someone who can perform under a "debilitating" addiction. If the smoking was causing an issue, their performance would be the kicker.

Same as above: if they can make the cut, what business of yours is it to what they do after hours?

Also, there are many sports that don't require large amounts of physical exertion: Bowling, golf, shooting, and high diving to name a few.

I see the point you are trying to make, but you can't lump "sports" into one large group and make judgements for it as a whole.

__________________

Buck Fush

Maybe I wasn't being clear. I apologize. I was merely trying to determine if your argument was that second hand smoke did not have an effect on non smokers before I argued that it did because I did not want to present a straw man as your argument. I was not accusing you of being, or presenting, a straw man.

So if I understand you correctly, your argument is that second hand smoke does have SOME effect on a non smoker, but that it should not be as concerning as some of the other carcinogens we're faced with every day. Namely the sun and car emissions. If you'd like, I can list the benefits that both of these carcinogen-producers provide to every American. Can you name even one benefit your smoking offers me? We can't very well legislate away the sun, and we can only do so much(much more than we're doing now, I believe) to control the emissions from cars, but there is absolutely no reason I can think of why we can't tell smokers to keep their carcinogens to themselves. I believe it's your right to kill yourself if you want to, but your rights do not extend to my lungs.

I think one of the big problems is that some smokers think that non-smokers are being wimps and just are turned off by the smell of the smoke. Heck, they smoke 20 cigs a day and they're still alive, how is a little smoke going to hurt anyone? The fact of the matter is that even small amounts of nicotine restricts blood flow in the lungs. Even if it's only a minor reduction, what makes you think you have the right to have ANY effect whatsoever on MY lungs?

I don't have the right to go out and shoot people on the street with my bb gun do I? It wouldn't hurt them THAT much. There's no proof that anyone has ever died from a bb wound that I'm aware of. And if you don't want to be shot with my bb gun, you can choose to walk on a different street.

Rick_the_new_guy

Sadly the sports industry is to win and make money. Imagine that. For me to keep my high paying job, i will recruit the best. Guess what, smokers retard their abilities. No dice for them. So no smoking on my team, period. I wonder how many awsome pro atheltes even smoke now a days. It is my business cause i make the policies. having knowlege about exercise physiology, i know that smoking retards the player, thus the team.

Something i did not mintion up top is that the City does not want to pay for a retired cops hospital bills after suffering complications from smoking. They do not want to fool with smokers cause of such matters. This is one reason we are seeing such agressive policies. It is driving up the cost of health care!!!!

__________________
(PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member
(CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader
(LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander

Squad Member pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ad-leader.html
Squad Leader pledge to their team:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...r-platoon.html
Commander pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...d-leaders.html

TwilightOfDeath

*click* (Lights one up)

My mother has always been a very health concious person. She eats a balanced diet, she excercises, she doesn't drink to excess, she dosn't smoke cigarettes or marijuana. She dosn't drink coffee, or eat bacon sandwiches or doughnuts.

So, by what I've put together by reading this forum, my mom should be the poster-woman of gleaming vibrance and health.

WRONG.

She's been diagnosed with breast cancer and has an estimated 5 years to live.
God bless her soul she has a very positive mindset and will most likely last longer than that.

My point is........Smoking may be bad for your (and the people around you) health, but not smoking dosn't garuntee good health. There are a million things that can kill you in modern society today, and personally, I worry about the everyday things more than the long term problems.

Say I was born with a twin brother. Say that my brother is a preacher and lives every second of his life in the servitude of god, and treated his body like the temple he thought it should be...I.E. no smoking, drinking etc....
Now say I spend my life on an eternal binge of controlled substances, constantly womanizing and being an overall beligerant.
Then one day we are both riding in the car, a dumptruck runs a light and smears us both clear across an entire intersection.
Did his habits contribute to a longer life? Did mine contribute to a shorter one??
Hell no.......

Life is short and then you die, it dosn't make a damn bit of differance what you do while you're here.


E

TwilightOfDeath

P.S.

I'm no math whiz, but I think a good deal of our "rising healthcare" costs could be due to healthy people living longer and accruing more and more costs as their body and mind eventually begin to rot away. Perhaps in the future, when people are living to be 120-30, our healthcare systems will implode under their own weight.


E

Steeler

My sympathies to your family, but your mother doesn't have LUNG cancer, does she? That would be the fulcrum of this debate. If second hand smoke contributes to your chances of getting lung cancer and emphysema(sp?), then that is a dangerous substance and I would appreciate it if non-smokers had every protection from it. I really don't care if you personally want to take that risk, but if you smoke around me or in public it becomes my business. Whether or not I get hit by a truck tomorrow is immaterial - that smoke is threatening my health whether I get up tomorrow or not.

I've lived with smokers most of my life, most frequently as a child, and as a result my lungs look about 20 years older than they should. They don't function as well as they could and even with regular cardio excercise I'm at a greater risk of complications from respiratory infection and always will be. So as far as I'm concerned a public ban is a good thing.

__________________

Buck Fush

The reason I asked whether smokers smoke in their own house was to point out the fact that most do not. Which begs the question, if you won't smoke in your own house, why do you think it's OK to smoke inside a public building? You don't even want to smell your own stench, what makes you think I do?

TwilightOfDeath

That's like saying that people shouldn't be able to drive freely wherever they want because it increases the risk of inadvertantly hitting someone. By your logic people should be mandated by law to only drive to work and home.


What I'm saying is that 9 times out of 10 people have no say so in how or when they will die. They just do. Smoking bans and seat belt laws might make you feel better at night, but that's about all they do. If you want to be protected from smoke I suggest you buy an air mask and never leave your filtered living room.

I wish it was still the 40s and we were all smoking ourselves to hell and had no knowledge of it whatsoever.

E



P.S. Oh yeah, when Mt. St. Helens erupted, it produced more harmful gas and carcinogens than America has in it's entire existance.

Steeler

You're reading an absurd level of social control into my argument that simply isn't there. We currently limit drivers to the road in urban areas and the police keep them off the medians. Why? Because there is an obvious societal interest in having people following the rules of the road and not drive every which way.
We're just going to have to disagree on this. But I believe that if you have the ability to limit an activity that endangers lives and health (an activity that they have no control over), you should consider doing it.

__________________