- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Smoke group pledges to fight on
News Article Comments : Smoke group pledges to fight on
- Thread is open
- View Article
15 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 2 of 2
|
||
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
Robert Feal-Martinez 26/12/2006 09:29:12 |
RE: Smoke group pledges to fight on There you go again, 'the tuth is made up'. The truth is not made up and the case of ETS/Passive Smoking it should not be a matter of opinion about health risk. This is something you singularly fail to grasp. The facts are simple. There are 69 carcinogenic chemicals identified in a cigarette, apparently, there may be more depending on who you believe. Not one of those chemicals either singularly or collectively comes close to reaching the levels of poison necessary, in one cigarette. In most cases to reach the levels 10's of thousands of cigarettes need to be smoked simultaniously to affect a non smoker and the smoker needs to chain smoke similar amounts. The latest advert showing an undertaker and talking about formadahyde, neglects as always to point out it is in furniture, in the air, in certain airfresheners in similar doses. The adverts that were withdrawn about Polonium 210 were a clear lie by ommission. 750'000 cigarettes would need to be smoked in a sealed room to kill a smoker and the non smoker would need to be in that same room for 3 trillion years. I have just come across this article which seems to me to be one of the most logical assessment from a non scientist/expert. End of Parts 1 This post replies to Jon Singleton > RE: Smoke group pledges to fight on |
|
| Robert Feal-Martinez 26/12/2006 09:32:01 |
RE: Smoke group pledges to fight on Part 2; ....... This is especially true if there is a minimum age (18 or 21) being enforced, because then everyone in the building would have made their own decision to be there. In Vincennes, Indiana, restaurants must either go smoke-free, or not allow anyone under 18 inside. This is a good way to handle the question, given the negative effects of smoke on children. On the other hand, when the ban is not affecting economic gain, or when the area in question must be used by non-smokers—in contrast to restaurants or bars that are patronized by choice—it is justifiable to have smoking bans because they help public health so much. Places where they would be appropriate, therefore, would be government buildings, public streets, and so on. Essentially, as long as the ban does not force someone to be hurt economically, there should be no problem with it, since everything else being equal, less smoke is better. The argument that the bans unfairly decrease smokers’ ability to enjoy themselves in public places has a serious flaw. There is a societal principle that the rights of one person cannot go so far that they infringe on the rights of others, and this argument totally ignores it because it assumes that public smoking does no harm. The simple fact is that when someone smokes in public, people who do not want to do so must breathe in their smoke, which is at best unpleasant and at worst a serious health risk. Either way, those people are having their right to not breathe smoke jeopardized. The various smoking bans throughout America come in many different forms, and debate is heated over how far they reach. While it would be unfair to prevent people from smoking if they were not affecting others against their will, it can only be good to do away with it as much as possible. Applegate, a junior religion major, can be reached at japplega@hc. This post replies to Robert Feal-Martinez > RE: Smoke group pledges to fight on |
|
| Jon Singleton 26/12/2006 18:32:56 |
RE: Smoke group pledges to fight on All very nice, Robert, but you mis quote me ... I said people's opinion is made up, not the truth. People have opinions drawn from their own life and experiences. I have not had 'facts' shoved down my throat reagrding this debate. I have spent many a year in pubs and always left smelling of smoke. I know that smoking is bad for one's health so am not that impressed when I have to breathe on other people's smoke. I know ETS can not be good for me and I believe it is bad for me. That is my opnion and no matter what anyone cares to say that will not change. As I say, I believe peoples' opnions are made up already. That is why there are no newspaper articles or programmes on the tv discusssing it as there are no merits in any discussion. If this was a close call then there would be no end of debate, if it was such a restriction on people's liberty then there would be no end of outcry, especially in the political arena today. What a coup for 'a caring politican willing to stand up for the normal bloke on the street' I honestly think that this eternal nonsense with 'facts and figures' is a smokescreen in order to forget about the true reality. It is a bravado thing that might impress some and give them false hope and expectations. Truth is this debate was settled years ago. This post replies to Robert Feal-Martinez > RE: Smoke group pledges to fight on |
|
| Robert Feal-Martinez 27/12/2006 09:15:29 |
RE: Smoke group pledges to fight on Only a fool would take the stance that something that is not proven must be harmful based on the facts of a connected situation. It would be like saying that driving at 80 miles an hour is more dangerous than driving at 70 miles an hour because speed kills, so the faster you go the more likely it is that you will die. A vital element is missing from the equation. The incident resulting in an accident which may well cause a death. Speed alone does not. Likewise with Passive Smoking, the chemicals no doubt exist from the sidestream smoke, but incident, ie the dose levels, will not cause the 'accident', so death cannot result. You dismiss facts and figures because they are not convenient to your stated view. Your contention that because you have left pubs smelling of tobacco smoke and that smoking kills means so does passive smoking, is not only illogical it dismisses TRUTH as not important. We have an open wood burning fire, which gives off statistically far more carcinogens than ETS, and the smell is far more punjent, but is anyone clamouring to ban open fires. Ironically a local MP visiting to talk to me about the smoking ban commented what a lovely fire. When I pointed out the levels of toxins were 30,000 times that of ETS, he was visibly shocked, but still voted to ban smoking. End of Part 1. This post replies to Jon Singleton > RE: Smoke group pledges to fight on |
|
| Robert Feal-Martinez 27/12/2006 09:16:19 |
RE: Smoke group pledges to fight on Part 2. OPEN MIND The value of the concept of an 'open' mind is that we can look at things objectively, I watched a programe last night about David Icke, he of son of god fame. I like millions of others dismissed him as a 'nutter' did not really read what he had to say, and thought how can someone in a well paid job suddenly go do-lally. Having listened to some of the things he wrote in his many books over the last 15 years predicting in graphic detail world events etc, it is hard not to doubt my original closed mind view. The world said David Icke was a nutter because that is the way the media and government wanted him perceived. Esteemed public figures like Terry Wogan helped the process and the ridicule, was Icke a nutter or a modern day Prophet.. I still don't know but he has sold millions of books in 8 different countries and does lecture tours which are sell outs. Open thought allows me to question, not accept. This post replies to Robert Feal-Martinez > RE: Smoke group pledges to fight on |
|
|
||
