Smoking ban in effe...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Smoking ban in effect; enforcement is delayed  

Page 6 / 6
 

rotorhead
(@rotorhead)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2470
December 9, 2010 4:53 pm  

Maybe it is time to make tobacco illegal outside of one's personal residence.

(CNN) -- Even occasional smoking or secondhand smoke causes immediate damage to one's organs and poses risk of serious illness or death, the U.S. Surgeon General said in a new report released Thursday.

"There is no risk-free level of exposure to tobacco smoke," it said.

The report, "How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease" is Regina Benjamin's first as Surgeon General and describes tobacco smoke's assault on the body.

"The chemicals in tobacco smoke reach your lungs quickly every time you inhale causing damage immediately," Benjamin said in the report. "Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/09/tobacco.risk/index.html?hpt=T2


ReplyQuote
aussie
(@aussie)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 876
December 9, 2010 5:10 pm  

I'm with ya! Let's legislate the hell outa them! NO TOBACCO IN PUBLIC! NO PERFUME IN PUBLIC!

Cool...who should we go after next?

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/is-perfume-pollution-as-harmful-as-cigarette-smoke-462329

"Is Perfume Pollution as Harmful as Cigarette Smoke?"


ReplyQuote
rotorhead
(@rotorhead)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2470
December 9, 2010 5:38 pm  

Cool...who should we go after next?

I vote for going after the ones which kill the most people, especially the ones which kill people who don't even use the drug. Tobacco kills 440,000 people a year in the US. 50,000 non-smokers die a year because of tobacco. How many people died from second hand perfume last year in the US?


ReplyQuote
aussie
(@aussie)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 876
December 9, 2010 5:45 pm  

How many people died from second hand perfume last year in the US?

We won't know until studies are completed. Less? More? Who knows but dain bramage doesn't sound like a good thing.

"I vote for going after the ones which kill the most people..."

Ya mean like the governments and religions of the world?

Ah hell, count me in! Resistance is futile!


ReplyQuote
rotorhead
(@rotorhead)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2470
December 9, 2010 7:36 pm  

How many people died from second hand perfume last year in the US?

We won't know until studies are completed. Less? More? Who knows but dain bramage doesn't sound like a good thing.

"I vote for going after the ones which kill the most people..."

Ya mean like the governments and religions of the world?

Ah hell, count me in! Resistance is futile!

Well as soon as they do that study and it shows that hundreds of thousands of people a year are dieing from perfume I would agree that perfume should be banned in public. Same with tobacco, except in that case the studies have already been done.

Getting a smoker to look at this rationally is like asking a cocaine addict if he thinks that cocaine should be legal. Cocaine was legal until 1915 at which time it was regulated and taxed because of the number of deaths caused by it. The numbers were nowhere near the number of deaths caused by tobacco. Why should tobacco be treated as a special case? It is a deadly drug.

I am with you on governments and religions. Governments intrude into our lives too much, I am for less government regulation in most cases. In the case of tobacco, I think that the government has an obligation to protect non-smokers from being killed by smokers.

Religions are a useless relic from our past. Nothing but the latest form of mythology.


ReplyQuote
aussie
(@aussie)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 876
December 9, 2010 8:54 pm  

Damn...30 years of biased and conflicting studies before we can legislate against perfume? I was kinda hopin' we could stop the dain-bramaging stinkers right now. Oh well...

The article said that some business owners are prohibiting scents in many of their establishments. Maybe we could just go to the gyms that have an Anti-Stinker policy and not go to the ones that allow Stinkers? Hmmm...no that's not the way we do things, is it? We demand that we can go to all of the gyms and be perfume-free so we legislate. OK...I'm getting the hang of it now.

Sorry, Captain Rotor. The concept of legislating our way to freedom is a relatively new concept to me. You'll have to guide me through this at times.

BUT, I'm a quick study. Less government is good...uh...well...sometimes.


ReplyQuote
rotorhead
(@rotorhead)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2470
December 9, 2010 9:27 pm  

Sorry, Captain Rotor. The concept of legislating our way to freedom is a relatively new concept to me. You'll have to guide me through this at times.

BUT, I'm a quick study. Less government is good...uh...well...sometimes.

So you are in favor of Anarchy?
Or do you support government as long as they don't try to outlaw your deadly addiction?

Where do you draw the line? What should the government control? Cocaine? Marijuana? Alcohol? Coffee? Tobacco?

You keep mentioning smell as if that is the reason for outlawing tobacco. I keep pointing out the number of deaths attributed to tobacco. More than all other legal and illegal drugs combined.


ReplyQuote
aussie
(@aussie)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 876
December 9, 2010 9:49 pm  

Where do you draw the line? What should the government control? Cocaine? Marijuana? Alcohol? Coffee? Tobacco?

EXACTLY!

OK, if I accept all of your arguments, should we add tobacco to Schedule 1 of the Controlled substances Act? LOL...'cause putting pot there sure worked out well, didn't it? Damn...we're gonna need more and bigger prisons to hold all of those murderous smokers!


ReplyQuote
rotorhead
(@rotorhead)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2470
December 9, 2010 10:09 pm  

Where do you draw the line? What should the government control? Cocaine? Marijuana? Alcohol? Coffee? Tobacco?

EXACTLY!

OK, if I accept all of your arguments, should we add tobacco to Schedule 1 of the Controlled substances Act? LOL...'cause putting pot there sure worked out well, didn't it? Damn...we're gonna need more and bigger prisons to hold all of those murderous smokers!

Actually, my preference would be for all drugs to be legal to use in the privacy of your own home and not in public. I cannot justify treating tobacco as an exception. Why should it be treated differently?


ReplyQuote
aussie
(@aussie)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 876
December 9, 2010 10:19 pm  

That's actually a very interesting perspective. You'd add alcohol to that list, of course?

Only in your house? Or anywhere on your property?


ReplyQuote
aussie
(@aussie)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 876
December 9, 2010 10:40 pm  

You keep mentioning smell as if that is the reason for outlawing tobacco.

I just saw this edit. Nope, not smell - harmful chemicals.

http://www.intent.com/blog/2009/04/30/perfume-pollution-harmful-cigarette-smoke

"Some of the most common chemicals in perfumes are ethanol, benzaldehyde, benzyl acetate, a-pinene, acetone, benzyl alcohol, ethyl acetate, linalool, a-terpinene, methylene chloride, a-terpineol, camphor, and limonene. While some of these chemicals are harmless, most in this ingredient list can cause irritability, mental vagueness, muscle pain, asthma, bloating, joint aches, sinus pain, fatigue, sore throat, eye irritation, gastrointestinal problems, laryngitis, headaches, dizziness, swollen lymph nodes, spikes in blood pressure, coughing, and burning or itching skin irritations."


ReplyQuote
speee1dy
(@speee1dy)
Expert
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 8775
December 10, 2010 10:36 am  

i knew there was a reason i didnt like strong perfume.


ReplyQuote
loungestx
(@loungestx)
Advanced Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 191
December 10, 2010 9:48 pm  

There are organic companies that make perfumes without harmful chemicals, also many of these chemicals are vehicle solvents (as in for transferring the product, not for cars) and buying perfumes in a solid removes the need for them. So there are alternatives to unhealthy perfumes and perhaps they should be the only ones allowed for use, are there healthy tobacco alternatives? I guess chewing at least just kills the user but that is a pretty nasty act to watch, but legal I would think in bars.
Also the idea some of you have that your rights are getting stepped all over have got to be just enjoying the argument, right? The rights our forefathers put down and spoke of protecting, for instance the right to bear arms, means so we can as the little people protect ourselves from outside threats, not so we can be gangsters and kill. In this case the smoker is the outside threat not the person who's rights are being stepped on.


ReplyQuote
aussie
(@aussie)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 876
December 10, 2010 10:14 pm  

The rights our forefathers put down and spoke of protecting, for instance the right to bear arms, means so we can as the little people protect ourselves from outside threats, not so we can be gangsters and kill. In this case the smoker is the outside threat not the person who's rights are being stepped on.

LOL...lemme see if I've got this right.... We were given the right to bear arms so we can use them against outside threats and smokers are outside threats? Now we're gonna kill 'em? That seems a wee bit harsh to me. 😀


ReplyQuote
loungestx
(@loungestx)
Advanced Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 191
December 11, 2010 1:36 am  

yawn.


ReplyQuote
aussie
(@aussie)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 876
December 11, 2010 1:55 am  

yawn.

Back at ya, sport


ReplyQuote
stiphy
(@stiphy)
Trusted Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 956
December 11, 2010 5:31 pm  

I tend to agree more with the idea that smoking should be banned everyone EXCEPT for private places due to the health risks to bystanders. And to me a privately run restauraunt or bar is a private place. The safety of the activity that goes on in a private place is none of the government's business as long as the public is made aware of the dangers involved in doing business with the private establishment and are completely free to stay away from the danger.

I know we are going in circles so I'll just say it one more time, tell restaurants that serve the public that they must inform the public via signage that they allow smoking. Then people can choose whether you want to go in and potentially expose themselves to the smokey environment or not. It's just that simple. No one's rights are trampled on, no one's health is impacted, and while you may have to go somewhere else for that beer or burger, you should feel comfort knowing that someone else won't one day be able to come after you with the forceful arms of goverment to take away the right to do something you enjoy.

Sean


ReplyQuote
rotorhead
(@rotorhead)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2470
December 11, 2010 6:05 pm  

I agree with you Sean with a couple of modifications.

Non_Smoking should be the normal rule with smoking only permitted in designated areas. All drugs should be treated equal, tobacco should not be given exceptional treatment, remember all of these drugs were legal until the government started meddling.

Just think, we could have our own legal opium den right here in Christiansted. It would probably cause fewer deaths than the tobacco. And it meets all of your requirements for some people getting pleasure from it and being fully aware of the risks and willing to take them.

I could support this, I just have a hard time with the drug hypocrisy that we have now.


ReplyQuote
aussie
(@aussie)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 876
December 11, 2010 6:44 pm  

I could support this as well. Well stated, Sean.

The devil is in the details, as they say, but it's a great framework to start with. One area people seem to be clashing on this subject is the distinction between "public property" and a "public place." They are not one and the same.


ReplyQuote
glord
(@glord)
Advanced Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 31
December 12, 2010 10:45 am  

New study shows second hand smoke killed 600,000 world wide last year. It is worse than a swinging fist.


ReplyQuote
Jersey Boy
(@Jersey_Boy)
New Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 3
December 12, 2010 2:11 pm  

We (I mean me) smokers are the most rude, careless, and thoughtless creatures around. We shouldn't be allowed around non-smokers, indoors or out. BUT...the owners and operators of the establishments in question should outlaw it....not the Government. Keep passing laws and keep handing over your freedom and someday the Politicos will be knocking on your door...hmm.
What kind of place would let smokers annoy and sicken the non-smoker?. ...I'll tell you..A place that should NOT be patronized. They' ll get the message. But Please, don't hand over your freedom..or mine.


ReplyQuote
Jersey Boy
(@Jersey_Boy)
New Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 3
December 12, 2010 2:25 pm  

That is the most intelligent comment I've read so far. So many people want to out-law things that could kill us. If they could do that, they would. The problem is...anything could kill us. Some faster, some slower.


ReplyQuote
Page 6 / 6
Settlers Handbook

Thinking about moving to the Virgin Islands?

The Settler's Handbook is a Indispensable Guide

The current 19th Edition, will help you explore your dream of island living. A solid reference book, it was first published in 1975. That's 40+ years of helping people move to the Virgin Islands.

Order Today $19.95
Close Menu