See, Ohio politicians and yuppies for some reason love to skip over issues like declining industry and increasing Foreclosure and job losses, and concentrate their full attention on banning smoking in public, and private places, simply because they're inconvenienced by going to a bar, where people drink and SMOKE, and sitting next to smoking men who just lost their jobs; in the one place where they can catch a small break. Ban breaks too, it pisses high-strung yuppies off.
If second hand smoke is banned, then also ban amonia based cleaners like Windex and Fabric softners because those are unnatural chemicals too.
We should also ban McDonalds because, regardless of how much I like to eat it in my own car, it's unhealthy and the odor can linger, causing a craving in other people and making them eat a big mac, thereby killing them somewhere down the road possibly.
I'm an ex smoker(which makes me a non smoker) but I still think anti-smoking campaigns are out of hand
Lose weight- pointless due to advertising/food manipulation.
To paraphrase 'Question' from Justice League it's no conspiracies, it's all 1 big conspiracy. Social pressure to follow trends, elimination of 'freedoms', interbreeding, obesity, huge national income disparity. The government likes having mixed, dumbed down, fat people who are fearful they are easy to control.
I am a smoker and proud of it. I don't really like South Park, but judging by what they said (since I can't see the video/blind) I really respect them for this. They're so right. People are always discriminating against us. I don't mean the rude smokers, but the ones who wanna be left in peace.
The problem with smoking bans is that it's a slippery slope. First they banned cigarettes from planes in the late 80s. "Fine, its only on planes." Then more recently they ban smoking in bars in resturaunts. "Fine, I don't smoke and I smell when there's smoking and bla". Then some places have banned smoking in all open areas. Then some have banned smoking completely, even in your own home. Now some businesses won't hire you because you smoke because its a burden on insurance.
So what's next? A ban on overweight people in the workplace? Mandatory exercise? A ban on diabetics? Where does it end? When you give intrest groups an inch, they continually take an endless series of inches.
oh come on. if you really do feel the need to smoke its fine as long as you don't expose people to second hand smoke who don't want to be, but to claim this is a human rights issue is a bit rich. there are MUCH bigger issues in the world these days. get some perspective
There are bigger issues, but if you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke you can move away, they have just as much right to a public property as you do.
no they don't. they make a choice to harm themselves but that doesn't give them a right to harm others. just as assault is illegal so is smoking in the workplace every day and infecting your co-workers.
The owner of the building or establishment should be allowed too make his own choice. You keep harping on about SHS, it has never been proven, and it never will be.
The government in England came out with some bullshit statistics that heart attack rates had decreased by 2% since the smoking ban. They failed too mention that rates have been falling for years. You could manipulate these statistics for anything you wished.
Even if Second Hand Smoke is proven to be unhealthy, it still should be up to the owner of the building to decide if he/she wants there to be smoking occuring in his/her building. If you don't want to be exposed to seecond hand smoke, 1 idea is to have to government ban smoking everywhere besides your home. The other idea is GET THE HELL AWAY FROM THE SMOKE YOU IDIOT AND QUIT ERODING OUR FREEDOMS. They will not disappear in one quick swoop, they will and are being slowly eaten away, 1 at a time.
Coronary heart disease, a so called "smoking related disease" has increased by nearly 4% in the second year of the smoking ban in Scotland. Dont buy into the lies.
A world health organisation report in 1978 said "in order to reduce the prevailence of smoking amongst the population we must manufacture the idea that smoking harms not just the smoker but others around them". Do you enjoy being the butt of someones spiteful and petty propaganda?
I am Australian, so I don't really understand US laws/politics that well, but surely smoking is being restricted because it is a potentially damaging behavior to those around us? I mean if a particular religion/other minority was acting in a way that was negatively impacting on society then I am sure that the government would step in
That's why it is being restricted, however you must wonder if it SHOULD be restricted, is it the government's responsibility to protect us from ourselves? I don't think so.
And another thing, this is no ethnic or religious group we're talking about. And it's moderately political. Smoking, although addictive, is something that society is starting to shun. They're listening to health advisers and believe that by eliminating smoking, they are making society one bit better.
So unless a valid argument to counter anti-smoking is presented, America is going to do what it has ALWAYS done: listen to the majority.
And honestly, why do you think that smoking is banned in public areas, Verruckt? Because people smarter than you (you know: doctors, politicians, medical journalists) KNOW that smoking literally kills people.
Smoking is banned for the same reason that shooting guns in public is banned. Sure, you may know what you're doing, but it can harm others and the majority thinks it's stupid and disgusting.
This isn't some human rights issue. It's smokers trying to justify being too lazy to quit.
"the majority thinks it's stupid and disgusting" - That is exactly the point. There is an unprotected minority that is being shunned and regulated by the majority. The bottom line is, whether you agree with it or not, SMOKING IS LEGAL. You can buy tobacco products at any grocery store, gas station, pharmacy, and almost anywhere else you can think of.
However, these various statewide bans are making criminals out of everyday people who choose to smoke in open air environments and their homes.
No studies of second hand smoke have ever been conducted in open-air environments, and the home SHOULD be protected by the US Constitution - considering the act itself is legal.
I may not like bans preventing smoking in enclosed public environments, but I'm willing to accept it: and have for the better part of a year as an Ohio resident.
That said, this IS very much a human rights issue. Your belief that this is a demonstration of "being to lazy to quit" only serves to highlight your bigotted view of a smoking sterotype.
IF we as a people are so against smoking, why not make it illegal outright? Because, the tax on tobacco products delivers multi-BILLIONS of dollars to the federal economy.
The majority view of sell but don't use - and overtax serves as another example of the many exploiting the few.
I have no problem with open air policies. Even I would think it's ridiculous to adamantly attack someone smoking outside. Thus far my argument against Verruckt has been loud because he has refused to accept the facts, at least you're sensible.
However, don't act like taxing tobacco is a mortal wound on society. It's an industry that kills around 400,000 a year, and the high prices are the non-smokers sending a message that it's time the industry was eliminated, or they are done tolerating it
I wouldn't call it a mortal wound. However, there is a harsh reality. The sin tax (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) is used to pay for the building and upkeep of facilities that everyone can enjoy (parks, stadiums, etc.) If tobacco was made illegal, the government would have to find new ways to finance them: and EVERYONE would pay. On a federal level, this would be billions. If the people speak, the government will listen: but the PEOPLE won't want to pay.
For this reason, the majority is allowing the buy and sell of tobacco, but shunning the act.
Arguably, the question is "Is tobacco legal or not?" As an individual, I've maintained the position that if tobacco were to become an illegal substance, I would quit. However, while it continues to be my choice, I'll continue to choose it. And I challenge the majority to make it illegal outright.
Verruckt21: You're serious? You're that desperate to find ANYTHING to back your argument that you're trying to shift people's blame to aging? It's called "Bettering Society" you stupid bigot. Do you think that if we could ban aging, it would have been banned THOUSANDS of years ago? And sugar? Unlike cigarettes, SUGAR is a required part of our body. Ever hear of a thing called Glucose? Dumb shit.
You know what else kills? Aging. You're dying from the day you're born. Let's ban aging!
If someone wants to smoke then let them. They have a right to smoke. It's their decision. You know what else is addicting and bad for you? Sugar. But I don't see anyone going on about how bad that is. <_<
P.S. There has NEVER been any proof that second-hand smoke kills or causes any major disease. If i'm wrong them someone link me.
P.P.S. *smokes a cig* Oh noes... I is gonna die, just like I would anyway.
Research has generated scientific evidence that secondhand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including heart disease, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and lung ailments such as COPD, bronchitis and asthma. Specifically, meta-analyses have shown lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20--30% greater risk of lung cancer, and those exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased risk of 16--19%.
Aging doesn't hurt other people, and there's nothing you can do about it. Smoking on the other hand, although addictive, can be quit.
Your argument is that since drinking beer and eating sugar are allowed, we might as well not even try improving public health at all.
Nobody cares about smoking unless you're a bar owner or a smoker yourself. It annoys the shit out of everyone else. And because of that, nobody cares about people who smoke unless they're sitting on a gourney, dying from it.
@ The medical journal thing: I said link not quote.
No that's NOT my argument. My grandma's a nurse. Sugar's worse than a few cigs every now and then. Try quiting sugar.
If nobody cares about ppl who smoke then why not leave them alone? And who cares if it annoys ppl? According to political correctness (which I despise) we're supposed to tolerate other ppl's decisions... But apparently not smoking. Fucking hypocrites. I wish ppl would just stay out of other ppl's lives.
Aging is the #1 cause of death, dumbass. It effects every single person on the planet. And although you can't do anything about it one could say that aging is the worse health risk ever.
Btw, forgot to mention this. One of my ancestors smoked all her life. She lived to be 114 or 115. She didn't die of old age, but because she accidentally lit herself on fire whilst lighting her pipe. The locals of that town said she was very active for her age.
Yeah, I also heard that swallowing your own saliva can kill you when taken in really small doses over a period of about 80-100 years. lol. Dude, keep the faith and smoke up!! Great application of the clip!
You seem to have completely missed the point. There are laws in place to protect...
I'm sorry. I was about to start an argument, but then I realized that you're just salty that you can't find lead paint anywhere.
If you don't understand the message by itself, then feel free to read the various supporting comments below. Perhaps they will help to clarify that this isn't discussing the inarguable risk to children, but the right to choose by consenting adults.
Lead paint: First off, lead paint is prone to chipping. More so than acrylic or latex. Lead, in small doses, has been proven to cause retardation in the early development of the brain. That said, there is a risk to children, as the brain is still developing, and children typically have an oral fixation. Similarly, there is no apparent distinction between a paint with lead and one without, so the public can't recognize lead paint "at a glance", increasing the risk.
Smoking, on the other hand, can cause damage in the long run. It is fair to argue that there is a risk to children of second hand smoke. However, the responsibility falls on the parents: I smoke, but to keep my daughter unexposed, I don't smoke in my home or car. Similarly, smoking has a distinct smell, and can be detected easily.
The issue being explored here is that smoking is a choice: similar to alcohol consumption or drinking coffee. When our gov't allows a ban on smoking that has the potential to make consenting adults (approx. 20% of the population) criminals within their own homes by taking away a right they had since the country's creation, it should be questioned.
If it isn't, it leaves the door open for other liberties to be banned: alcohol kills through liver damage, esophagus damage, and DUIs...so lets ban it...and then what next?
The issue is choice. Lead paint is banned b/c it is universally regarded as a poison. Smoking, on the other hand, though it has long term negative side effects, is a choice that adults make for themselves. Hope it helps...
Unfortunately, that is the law in the state of Ohio as per the newly adopted smoking ban.
The truth of the matter with this sort of issue is when is it fair and when is it not. And who should decide? In Maine, apartment residents are suing their landlord for prohibiting smoking in the residents' homes. Does the landlord have the right to tell them what they can do in their homes? It is his property, after all...
Most studies on second-hand smoke seem to come up with an approximately 15-20% risk increase of lung cancer for a non-smoker with a smoking spouse or coworkers. This seems high, but what is the risk of lung cancer in someone who hasn't been exposed? Very small. 16% of a very small risk is very very small indeed, and these are for people with relatively high exposure. A *meaningful* result would be a 200% risk increase or more.
As with death caused be any Toxin its simply a metter of exposure. Long term exposure my kill. Sitting next to smoker in a bar might yield a great conversation...thats about it. Kill somebofy...I don't think so.
These are individual living spaces and private property, but the state government and private commissions have allowed themselves a way to regulate them, cutting off the individual's right to make their own decision on an issue that our federal goverment views as perfectly legal. We can, in essence, buy but not use. That said, this is an issue of discrimination, but a discrimination of choice, similar to religion, language, or diet.
I'm all for clean air in restaurants (although it is a little irritating to have to go outside when I'm at the bar). I see the benefit of certain regulations. However, these regulations should be checked before they are enforced. Several people close to me have received court orders preventing them from smoking in their own homes (apartments), and machine shops (even though they don't work with the general public).
The market is also very good at making these decisions. If people don't like being around smokers, restaurants will create designated smoking sections, or not allow smoking at all. We don't need the government to tell us these things.
Although I agree that smoking inside various buildings can cause adverse effects and health issues to non-smokers, the idea of cattling off smokers in open air environments proves to be an example of the many sanctioning the few. Or, in laymen's terms, discrimination.
actually, the problem with your argument, in my mind, is that being homosexual, or being black does not infringe on anyone else, whereas smoking does. i'm sure everyone knows that second hand smoke causes more damage than firsthand. while i believe if you want to smoke, its your right, i don't believe others should have to suffer due to that decision
Ultimately, it is the right of the individual to decide whether they smoke or not. However, the legislation against smoking has gotten extemely out of hand in certain states. For example, in Ohio, it is now illegal to smoke less then 30 yards from any public building.
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
SherryM614 2 years ago
I love smoking : )
horta85 2 years ago
lol
Jesscookie1 3 years ago
See, Ohio politicians and yuppies for some reason love to skip over issues like declining industry and increasing Foreclosure and job losses, and concentrate their full attention on banning smoking in public, and private places, simply because they're inconvenienced by going to a bar, where people drink and SMOKE, and sitting next to smoking men who just lost their jobs; in the one place where they can catch a small break. Ban breaks too, it pisses high-strung yuppies off.
HerrDoktorel 3 years ago
If second hand smoke is banned, then also ban amonia based cleaners like Windex and Fabric softners because those are unnatural chemicals too.
We should also ban McDonalds because, regardless of how much I like to eat it in my own car, it's unhealthy and the odor can linger, causing a craving in other people and making them eat a big mac, thereby killing them somewhere down the road possibly.
I'm an ex smoker(which makes me a non smoker) but I still think anti-smoking campaigns are out of hand
smokeyb42 3 years ago
Reasons we smoke:
Life sucks- slaves to consumerism
Chicks- are out of control
Lose weight- pointless due to advertising/food manipulation.
To paraphrase 'Question' from Justice League it's no conspiracies, it's all 1 big conspiracy. Social pressure to follow trends, elimination of 'freedoms', interbreeding, obesity, huge national income disparity. The government likes having mixed, dumbed down, fat people who are fearful they are easy to control.
Lets fix the real problem.
incessantmace 3 years ago
i feel like that sometimes :(
grif04 3 years ago
I am a smoker and proud of it. I don't really like South Park, but judging by what they said (since I can't see the video/blind) I really respect them for this. They're so right. People are always discriminating against us. I don't mean the rude smokers, but the ones who wanna be left in peace.
Magkisa83 3 years ago
The problem with smoking bans is that it's a slippery slope. First they banned cigarettes from planes in the late 80s. "Fine, its only on planes." Then more recently they ban smoking in bars in resturaunts. "Fine, I don't smoke and I smell when there's smoking and bla". Then some places have banned smoking in all open areas. Then some have banned smoking completely, even in your own home. Now some businesses won't hire you because you smoke because its a burden on insurance.
FusilliJerry82 3 years ago 4
So what's next? A ban on overweight people in the workplace? Mandatory exercise? A ban on diabetics? Where does it end? When you give intrest groups an inch, they continually take an endless series of inches.
FusilliJerry82 3 years ago
oh come on. if you really do feel the need to smoke its fine as long as you don't expose people to second hand smoke who don't want to be, but to claim this is a human rights issue is a bit rich. there are MUCH bigger issues in the world these days. get some perspective
alexdook 3 years ago
There are bigger issues, but if you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke you can move away, they have just as much right to a public property as you do.
digger316 3 years ago
no they don't. they make a choice to harm themselves but that doesn't give them a right to harm others. just as assault is illegal so is smoking in the workplace every day and infecting your co-workers.
diefortacos 3 years ago
The owner of the building or establishment should be allowed too make his own choice. You keep harping on about SHS, it has never been proven, and it never will be.
The government in England came out with some bullshit statistics that heart attack rates had decreased by 2% since the smoking ban. They failed too mention that rates have been falling for years. You could manipulate these statistics for anything you wished.
You are buying into the lies and manipulation.
spire1997 3 years ago 3
Even if Second Hand Smoke is proven to be unhealthy, it still should be up to the owner of the building to decide if he/she wants there to be smoking occuring in his/her building. If you don't want to be exposed to seecond hand smoke, 1 idea is to have to government ban smoking everywhere besides your home. The other idea is GET THE HELL AWAY FROM THE SMOKE YOU IDIOT AND QUIT ERODING OUR FREEDOMS. They will not disappear in one quick swoop, they will and are being slowly eaten away, 1 at a time.
digger316 3 years ago 2
Coronary heart disease, a so called "smoking related disease" has increased by nearly 4% in the second year of the smoking ban in Scotland. Dont buy into the lies.
A world health organisation report in 1978 said "in order to reduce the prevailence of smoking amongst the population we must manufacture the idea that smoking harms not just the smoker but others around them". Do you enjoy being the butt of someones spiteful and petty propaganda?
spire1997 3 years ago
I am Australian, so I don't really understand US laws/politics that well, but surely smoking is being restricted because it is a potentially damaging behavior to those around us? I mean if a particular religion/other minority was acting in a way that was negatively impacting on society then I am sure that the government would step in
marshall31415 3 years ago
I'm sure our fascist government would..
ChiefEamonn 3 years ago 3
That's why it is being restricted, however you must wonder if it SHOULD be restricted, is it the government's responsibility to protect us from ourselves? I don't think so.
VOTE LIBERTARIAN
digger316 3 years ago
The government has allot to do with our protection, and infrastructure.. its created by people for people and it is made OF people.
you are free to be as ignorant, fat or unhealthy as you want. "SHOULD"? the hell do u mean by that?
besides, nothing without some cycle or moderation is a good thing.. be it regulations or liberties.
jerkazoid 3 years ago
And another thing, this is no ethnic or religious group we're talking about. And it's moderately political. Smoking, although addictive, is something that society is starting to shun. They're listening to health advisers and believe that by eliminating smoking, they are making society one bit better.
So unless a valid argument to counter anti-smoking is presented, America is going to do what it has ALWAYS done: listen to the majority.
Blahgahbleh 4 years ago
Agreed.
Then why not make it illegal outright? (see below)
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
Because people are addicted. Not everyone can help that, and we don't need another illegal drug.
Blahgahbleh 4 years ago
And honestly, why do you think that smoking is banned in public areas, Verruckt? Because people smarter than you (you know: doctors, politicians, medical journalists) KNOW that smoking literally kills people.
Smoking is banned for the same reason that shooting guns in public is banned. Sure, you may know what you're doing, but it can harm others and the majority thinks it's stupid and disgusting.
This isn't some human rights issue. It's smokers trying to justify being too lazy to quit.
Blahgahbleh 4 years ago
Allow me to interject.
"the majority thinks it's stupid and disgusting" - That is exactly the point. There is an unprotected minority that is being shunned and regulated by the majority. The bottom line is, whether you agree with it or not, SMOKING IS LEGAL. You can buy tobacco products at any grocery store, gas station, pharmacy, and almost anywhere else you can think of.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
However, these various statewide bans are making criminals out of everyday people who choose to smoke in open air environments and their homes.
No studies of second hand smoke have ever been conducted in open-air environments, and the home SHOULD be protected by the US Constitution - considering the act itself is legal.
I may not like bans preventing smoking in enclosed public environments, but I'm willing to accept it: and have for the better part of a year as an Ohio resident.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
That said, this IS very much a human rights issue. Your belief that this is a demonstration of "being to lazy to quit" only serves to highlight your bigotted view of a smoking sterotype.
IF we as a people are so against smoking, why not make it illegal outright? Because, the tax on tobacco products delivers multi-BILLIONS of dollars to the federal economy.
The majority view of sell but don't use - and overtax serves as another example of the many exploiting the few.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
I have no problem with open air policies. Even I would think it's ridiculous to adamantly attack someone smoking outside. Thus far my argument against Verruckt has been loud because he has refused to accept the facts, at least you're sensible.
However, don't act like taxing tobacco is a mortal wound on society. It's an industry that kills around 400,000 a year, and the high prices are the non-smokers sending a message that it's time the industry was eliminated, or they are done tolerating it
Blahgahbleh 4 years ago
I wouldn't call it a mortal wound. However, there is a harsh reality. The sin tax (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) is used to pay for the building and upkeep of facilities that everyone can enjoy (parks, stadiums, etc.) If tobacco was made illegal, the government would have to find new ways to finance them: and EVERYONE would pay. On a federal level, this would be billions. If the people speak, the government will listen: but the PEOPLE won't want to pay.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
For this reason, the majority is allowing the buy and sell of tobacco, but shunning the act.
Arguably, the question is "Is tobacco legal or not?" As an individual, I've maintained the position that if tobacco were to become an illegal substance, I would quit. However, while it continues to be my choice, I'll continue to choose it. And I challenge the majority to make it illegal outright.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
Verruckt21: You're serious? You're that desperate to find ANYTHING to back your argument that you're trying to shift people's blame to aging? It's called "Bettering Society" you stupid bigot. Do you think that if we could ban aging, it would have been banned THOUSANDS of years ago? And sugar? Unlike cigarettes, SUGAR is a required part of our body. Ever hear of a thing called Glucose? Dumb shit.
Blahgahbleh 4 years ago
You know what else kills? Aging. You're dying from the day you're born. Let's ban aging!
If someone wants to smoke then let them. They have a right to smoke. It's their decision. You know what else is addicting and bad for you? Sugar. But I don't see anyone going on about how bad that is. <_<
P.S. There has NEVER been any proof that second-hand smoke kills or causes any major disease. If i'm wrong them someone link me.
P.P.S. *smokes a cig* Oh noes... I is gonna die, just like I would anyway.
Verruckt21 4 years ago
Research has generated scientific evidence that secondhand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including heart disease, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and lung ailments such as COPD, bronchitis and asthma. Specifically, meta-analyses have shown lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20--30% greater risk of lung cancer, and those exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased risk of 16--19%.
That's from the American Medical Journal.
Blahgahbleh 4 years ago
Aging doesn't hurt other people, and there's nothing you can do about it. Smoking on the other hand, although addictive, can be quit.
Your argument is that since drinking beer and eating sugar are allowed, we might as well not even try improving public health at all.
Nobody cares about smoking unless you're a bar owner or a smoker yourself. It annoys the shit out of everyone else. And because of that, nobody cares about people who smoke unless they're sitting on a gourney, dying from it.
Blahgahbleh 4 years ago
@ The medical journal thing: I said link not quote.
No that's NOT my argument. My grandma's a nurse. Sugar's worse than a few cigs every now and then. Try quiting sugar.
If nobody cares about ppl who smoke then why not leave them alone? And who cares if it annoys ppl? According to political correctness (which I despise) we're supposed to tolerate other ppl's decisions... But apparently not smoking. Fucking hypocrites. I wish ppl would just stay out of other ppl's lives.
Verruckt21 4 years ago
Because it wouldn't fit in my other post...
Aging is the #1 cause of death, dumbass. It effects every single person on the planet. And although you can't do anything about it one could say that aging is the worse health risk ever.
Btw, forgot to mention this. One of my ancestors smoked all her life. She lived to be 114 or 115. She didn't die of old age, but because she accidentally lit herself on fire whilst lighting her pipe. The locals of that town said she was very active for her age.
Verruckt21 4 years ago
Yeah, I also heard that swallowing your own saliva can kill you when taken in really small doses over a period of about 80-100 years. lol. Dude, keep the faith and smoke up!! Great application of the clip!
BlueGnoll 4 years ago
Lead Paint is completely banned and noone bats an eye.
Smoking has killed thousands more then lead paint.
So what exactly is the difference between these 2 situations?
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
You seem to have completely missed the point. There are laws in place to protect...
I'm sorry. I was about to start an argument, but then I realized that you're just salty that you can't find lead paint anywhere.
If you don't understand the message by itself, then feel free to read the various supporting comments below. Perhaps they will help to clarify that this isn't discussing the inarguable risk to children, but the right to choose by consenting adults.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
I am not debating.. I am asking someone to describe why smoking is not banned when lead paint is.
Its not like lead paint is only banned when children are involved, it is universally banned.
Also children are effected by 2nd hand smoke.
Can someone define what the principle difference between the 2 products.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Lead paint: First off, lead paint is prone to chipping. More so than acrylic or latex. Lead, in small doses, has been proven to cause retardation in the early development of the brain. That said, there is a risk to children, as the brain is still developing, and children typically have an oral fixation. Similarly, there is no apparent distinction between a paint with lead and one without, so the public can't recognize lead paint "at a glance", increasing the risk.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
Smoking, on the other hand, can cause damage in the long run. It is fair to argue that there is a risk to children of second hand smoke. However, the responsibility falls on the parents: I smoke, but to keep my daughter unexposed, I don't smoke in my home or car. Similarly, smoking has a distinct smell, and can be detected easily.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
The issue being explored here is that smoking is a choice: similar to alcohol consumption or drinking coffee. When our gov't allows a ban on smoking that has the potential to make consenting adults (approx. 20% of the population) criminals within their own homes by taking away a right they had since the country's creation, it should be questioned.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
If it isn't, it leaves the door open for other liberties to be banned: alcohol kills through liver damage, esophagus damage, and DUIs...so lets ban it...and then what next?
The issue is choice. Lead paint is banned b/c it is universally regarded as a poison. Smoking, on the other hand, though it has long term negative side effects, is a choice that adults make for themselves. Hope it helps...
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
Cigarette smoke is poison aswel.
It seems the only difference between the 2 products that you infer is that cigs take alot longer to kill.
Leaving the responsibility to the parents, without legal ramifications will cost alot of lives.
Booze can not hurt the poeple around you, smoked and LP paint can. DUIs is illegal.
When your actions effects the health of others the law should step in.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Im not for completely banning cigs just in places where the health of others can be effected.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
For example; in an open air environment closer than 30 feet from any public door.
That's the law stepping in. Vive Freedom!
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
I agree outlawing it in a outside enviroment is stepping over the line.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Unfortunately, that is the law in the state of Ohio as per the newly adopted smoking ban.
The truth of the matter with this sort of issue is when is it fair and when is it not. And who should decide? In Maine, apartment residents are suing their landlord for prohibiting smoking in the residents' homes. Does the landlord have the right to tell them what they can do in their homes? It is his property, after all...
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
Any landlord does have the right to ban smoke, pets etc...
The landlord owns the property.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Thanks for saying this. I love you ComoShepherd.
Sarah2012AD 4 years ago
Most studies on second-hand smoke seem to come up with an approximately 15-20% risk increase of lung cancer for a non-smoker with a smoking spouse or coworkers. This seems high, but what is the risk of lung cancer in someone who hasn't been exposed? Very small. 16% of a very small risk is very very small indeed, and these are for people with relatively high exposure. A *meaningful* result would be a 200% risk increase or more.
slawmasta 4 years ago
As with death caused be any Toxin its simply a metter of exposure. Long term exposure my kill. Sitting next to smoker in a bar might yield a great conversation...thats about it. Kill somebofy...I don't think so.
Drivermatic 4 years ago
These are individual living spaces and private property, but the state government and private commissions have allowed themselves a way to regulate them, cutting off the individual's right to make their own decision on an issue that our federal goverment views as perfectly legal. We can, in essence, buy but not use. That said, this is an issue of discrimination, but a discrimination of choice, similar to religion, language, or diet.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
No one on this planet ever got cancer, solely from second-hand smoke
snowboard987 4 years ago
I'm all for clean air in restaurants (although it is a little irritating to have to go outside when I'm at the bar). I see the benefit of certain regulations. However, these regulations should be checked before they are enforced. Several people close to me have received court orders preventing them from smoking in their own homes (apartments), and machine shops (even though they don't work with the general public).
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
The market is also very good at making these decisions. If people don't like being around smokers, restaurants will create designated smoking sections, or not allow smoking at all. We don't need the government to tell us these things.
frankenc 4 years ago
Agreed.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
Although I agree that smoking inside various buildings can cause adverse effects and health issues to non-smokers, the idea of cattling off smokers in open air environments proves to be an example of the many sanctioning the few. Or, in laymen's terms, discrimination.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
actually, the problem with your argument, in my mind, is that being homosexual, or being black does not infringe on anyone else, whereas smoking does. i'm sure everyone knows that second hand smoke causes more damage than firsthand. while i believe if you want to smoke, its your right, i don't believe others should have to suffer due to that decision
belldavi 4 years ago 2
Ultimately, it is the right of the individual to decide whether they smoke or not. However, the legislation against smoking has gotten extemely out of hand in certain states. For example, in Ohio, it is now illegal to smoke less then 30 yards from any public building.
ComoShepherd 4 years ago
I'm not a smoker and I agree with it.
raspberrymuffin 4 years ago
Yep i agree w/ u
JMullay16 4 years ago
So true
ikbenstijn 4 years ago