Pictures of dead babies

[Calantha Josephine]

Right, and even if it did, there are plenty of people who WANT to quit smoking but its sorta called an ADDICTION for a reason. It be like trying to quite drinking caffeine (/shudder; headaches...) except, more difficult.

And as far as the allergy to peanuts analogy goes, theres a bit of a difference there which makes comparing the two... just not work, considering one with allergies to peanuts does not have to eat any peanuts in the area, not like people are shoving them down their throats. Where its much harder to help breathing smoke in an enclosed space like that of a restaurant.  

[Loki Iago]

I was afraid when I saw this subject title.

Yeah I may do pot but it'd be in tea form. No smoking for me.  

[XXX Zombie Porn]

Pot can still do damage such as shizophrenia and paranoia.  

[Satan on Speed]

TheNutcrackerPrince

I was afraid when I saw this subject title.

Yeah I may do pot but it'd be in tea form. No smoking for me.

I've never thought of that...pot in tea form...hm...

As for the smoking argument, i'm staying out of this one. I personally find smoking to be a disgusting and irritating habit (unhealthy in general, also turning white to yellow, smelling like it...ect.) but my boyfriend smokes so I just shut up and deal. I get plenty of smoke and I am asthmastic, but I do just fine most of the time. There was one point however when he was living with me where I began having frequent asthma attacks and we weren't sure why, but his constant smoking around me was kind of suspected.  

[zz1000zz]

Calantha Josephine

And as far as the allergy to peanuts analogy goes, theres a bit of a difference there which makes comparing the two... just not work, considering one with allergies to peanuts does not have to eat any peanuts in the area, not like people are shoving them down their throats. Where its much harder to help breathing smoke in an enclosed space like that of a restaurant.

There are people with peanut allergies so severe that being inside the same room as a peanut can cause them to go into anaphylatic shock. I was in a school when a student went into shock because another student opened a candy bar with peanuts in it.

The kid with the allergy will never be able to go into most restaurants, sporting areas or any of a dozen other places people normally can go. However, his individual needs would not justify banning peanuts and peanut products from every public place.  

[-Resurrected Writer-]

I think one reason is that McDonalds tends to say something along the lines of "the hazards of eating our food are well-known to the public"

... Even though millions of people continue to eat there (including my family; grah, I need to learn how to cook gonk ).

As such, in their mind, that seems to be their only way of having a disclaimer, short of having an image on their products - like the OP said - which would supposedly cause them to lose their global business.  

[ringwraith10]

XXX Zombie Porn

Yeah but shouldn't smokers have the same rights as non smokers? I don't mean smoking in pubs, I understand that.
But I mean when non smokers complain you smoke around them when the smoker is outside and they can easily move away?

Well, when people are smoking RIGHT outside the door and I have no choice but to walk through it, yeah, I find that annoying. Where's MY right NOT to have to inhale smoke?  

[ringwraith10]

zz1000zz

Calantha Josephine

And as far as the allergy to peanuts analogy goes, theres a bit of a difference there which makes comparing the two... just not work, considering one with allergies to peanuts does not have to eat any peanuts in the area, not like people are shoving them down their throats. Where its much harder to help breathing smoke in an enclosed space like that of a restaurant.

There are people with peanut allergies so severe that being inside the same room as a peanut can cause them to go into anaphylatic shock. I was in a school when a student went into shock because another student opened a candy bar with peanuts in it.

The kid with the allergy will never be able to go into most restaurants, sporting areas or any of a dozen other places people normally can go. However, his individual needs would not justify banning peanuts and peanut products from every public place.

But that's a very small number of people who have that problem. Yeah, life sucks for them, but they realize that they have to take special precautions because of their condition. Smoke affects EVERYONE who doesn't smoke. That's over 50% of the population. Just as that peanut-allergic kid shouldn't determine how the majority of the population live their lives, neither should the smokers determine how the majority live.

I'm just saying -- your comparison doesn't make much sense...  

[zz1000zz]

ringwraith10

zz1000zz

Calantha Josephine

And as far as the allergy to peanuts analogy goes, theres a bit of a difference there which makes comparing the two... just not work, considering one with allergies to peanuts does not have to eat any peanuts in the area, not like people are shoving them down their throats. Where its much harder to help breathing smoke in an enclosed space like that of a restaurant.

There are people with peanut allergies so severe that being inside the same room as a peanut can cause them to go into anaphylatic shock. I was in a school when a student went into shock because another student opened a candy bar with peanuts in it.

The kid with the allergy will never be able to go into most restaurants, sporting areas or any of a dozen other places people normally can go. However, his individual needs would not justify banning peanuts and peanut products from every public place.

But that's a very small number of people who have that problem. Yeah, life sucks for them, but they realize that they have to take special precautions because of their condition. Smoke affects EVERYONE who doesn't smoke. That's over 50% of the population. Just as that peanut-allergic kid shouldn't determine how the majority of the population live their lives, neither should the smokers determine how the majority live.

I'm just saying -- your comparison doesn't make much sense...

The reason that example came up was someone made reference to respiratory problems. She explained how smoke could cause her serious problems. When viewed in context, my example makes perfect sense.

Also, as i have already stated, second-hand smoke is *not* dangerous. There is no medical or scientific fact to show otherwise, as the so-called evidence is routinely debunked. As there is no reason to believe second hand smoke is dangerous to the average person, and we can agree the illness of an individual is not sufficient justification to ban an act, clearly there is no reason for smoking bans in public places.  

[jaenus]

I just want to say what the heck's with all the hoopla over 2nd hand smoke? Isn't car exhaust more dangerous? Plus it's more universal. Doesn't anyone with asthma rant against smoke from cars?  

[Rellik San]

The smoking ban - Heres the ban from the side of a non-smoker.

The ban is stupid, it should be optional, or venues should be able to appeal to be a 'smoking establishment' so uppity non-smokers can have their bottle. The key arguments I heard for the ban were this:

To encourage family environments = When I go to a pub for a beer, I don't want screaming kids running around thank you very much.

A number of bar staff complain about smoke = If your working in the hospitality business and didn't expect a smoky atmosphere... you're a complete and utter idiot.

To help keep the air in the venue clean = Great, so you want me to be able to smell the BO and sweat from a thousand hairy a** builders that just got off shift... Give me the smoke any day thanks.

If more places had open outdoor areas, I wouldn't see a problem with the ban, but as it goes, now you risk coughing up a lung just walking past a place out in the open, because smokers congregate outside.

The smoking ban... noble idea, flawed execution, it should be optional for venues to take the ban or not, so that way, they don't risk losing clientel and can cater even more to their audience.

And all that is from a non-smoker. smile  

[XXX Zombie Porn]

ringwraith10

XXX Zombie Porn

Yeah but shouldn't smokers have the same rights as non smokers? I don't mean smoking in pubs, I understand that.
But I mean when non smokers complain you smoke around them when the smoker is outside and they can easily move away?

Well, when people are smoking RIGHT outside the door and I have no choice but to walk through it, yeah, I find that annoying. Where's MY right NOT to have to inhale smoke?

Actually you have the choice to not go in.
Oh no you have to walk past smoke for all of a few seconds...  

[mechanical kitsy]

zz1000zz

GilAskan

A large amount of the anti-smoker stigma comes from reports (and in come cases, rumors) about second hand smoke.

No matter how much food from McDonalds you eat around me, I'll never get fat. If you smoke enough cigarettes around me, there's a decent chance I'll get respiratory problems.

Actually, there is no legitimate statistical evidence showing any harm in second hand smoke. The few actual studies done on the subject were either inconclusive, or so obviously butchered bias does not begin to describe it.

The most important study on the topic, the 93 EPA Report (actually released in 92), was highly criticized by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for both its methods and conclusions. Just a couple facts:

Quote:

Instead of using the 95% confidence interval, the statistical standard that has been used for decades, the EPA doubled their margin of error to achieve their pre-announced results.

The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. They analyzed 31. The EPA excluded two thirds of the data.

And from Joel Osteen, a federal judge who vacated the report:

Joel Osteen

In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen.

There exists no language strong enough to criticize the myth of dangerous second hand smoke.

i give not a damn to that. my mom and i are pretty much living proof that secondhand smoke gives you respiratory problems. both her husbands (both ex, my father and stepfather) smoked, and she has developed asthma. i have developed chronic bronchitis. which, is usually something smokers have. so, no, it's not a myth. i take it you are a smoker?

 

[bloodyandrea]

BOTTOM LINE IS THAT SMOKING IS BAD EVEN IF FAT PEOPLE DONT LIKE IT. IF YOU'RE FAT AND SMOKE... JOO DYE!!!! KUZ ICE KEEL YA ninja