Hypothesis:
Exhaled air from Canadians has killed people.
I can’t prove it, but since you can’t prove it isn’t true, it will now be illegal for Canadians to breath near doorways. If nothing else, some may have bad breath or BO and who wants to smell that?
Carry on.
giggle
This thread is silly…
Man, I love that joke. Hee hee hee…
See, but I CAN prove that 2nd hand smoke is an allergen, causes bronchial irritation, induces asthma attacks and smells really, really shity.
I don’t think the same can be said for Canadian breath, even if the Canadian in question HAS been eating bacon all day…
First, your argument above was about cancer, not these other factors.
I was pointing out (rather poorly, I guess) the weakness of this by using the same ‘logic’ to conclude that Canadiens shouldn’t be allowed to breath. Implying you are right because you can’t be proved wrong is probably not a good way to argue. You can deduce anything that way. I wasn’t arguing in favor of second hand smoke, just against your justification for your argument. I had hoped that would be understood.
However, instead of that, it lead to the difference between breathing and smoking.
Okay, allergen reactions, et. al., might be legitimate arguments against smoking in doorways. Maybe. I can prove that peanuts are an allergen, cause bronchial irritation and induce asthma. Can’t say anything about the smell, though, so I guess you have me there. Should we make eating peanuts near a doorway against the law, too? Or does the smell part make it different? See, here again I’m not for second hand smoke, just pointing out deficiencies in your argument with another example. We can debate the merits of the metaphor, but personally I’d rather not.
I’m against forced second hand smoke inhalation. I may even be more against it than you are. Don’t get me wrong on that. But… (there is always one of those, isn’t there?), I can’t let comments that imply you are right simply because you can’t be proved wrong go by. I tried to point out the fallacy of that argument, but it looks like it is just going to lead to something else.
You made some good points in here. Stick with those and I’m right behind you. I certainly don’t want to start to look like I’m defending smoking near doorways. I just can’t stand to see fallacious arguments from either side. Particularly from the side I’m on! It debases the entire argument.
I’m not for second hand smoke, I just think we have to be reasonable. If keeping people from smoking in buildings means they are going to smoke near the doorways for the most part, then I’m all for it. In these kinds of situations, there is always going to have to be a compromise.
People are going to smoke no matter what. I would rather they go outdoors rather than sneek a smoke in the restroom or stink up a conference room. At the university setting, if they don’t smoke outdoors they will simply use the study lounge in the dorm, or smoke in someones room. The trick is to find a reasonable accomodation.
From brujo, with my changes (in parenthesis) :
People are going to smoke (have sex) no matter what. I would rather they go outdoors rather than sneek a smoke (tyst) in the restroom or stink up a conference room. At the university setting, if they don’t smoke(have sex) outdoors they will simply use the study lounge in the dorm, or smoke (have sex) in someones room. The trick is to find a reasonable accomodation.
Some things are allowed, but are objectionable when forced upon others. So what is a reasonable accomodation? Seriously. Smokers, and those with little disdain for smoke, think smokers near doorways are no big deal. People like me think it is a big deal. Is it reasonable to expect smokers to simply be outside? Maybe. But not on the basis they are going to smoke anyway.
cmosdes I didn’t start the “2nd hand smoke causes cancer” argument, brujo did when s/he said:
In my opinion, implying that no had died. This is a common argument I’ve heard from smokers, but more irksome, from Big Tobacco. “You can’t PROVE that 2nd hand smoke kills people, therefore it doesn’t!”
I’m merely pointing out that while I may not be able to PROVE that 2nd hand smoke kills people, I CAN prove that it causes bronchial spasms, allergic reactions, asthma attacks, decreased breathing capacity in some people, etc. etc. etc. That should be enough of an argument right there.
Again, let me reiterate - I never oppose people smoking in those places denoted as smoke friendly, however, I should not have to wade through a sea of smokers, holding my breath, in order to go to work, wait for my bus, enter a municipal building, or go and get cancer treatment with my oxygen tank.
If people smoke in front of the doors to public buildings, the public is forced to inhale the left over sludge. Not cool, as far as I’m concerned.
But you argued against this by saying that since he can’t prove it doesn’t, it does! That is what I called you on, not whether or not it causes cancer. I believe you can find far more credible sources to support your argument than that.
If it ends it right there, what about peanuts? Peanuts can KILL… in minutes.
Check out:
http://www.oma.org/phealth/peanuts.htm
and:
http://cgi.cadvision.com/~allergy/howmuch.html
In the second link, it states:
Which sounds just a tad worse than what you described in your reaction to second hand smoke. Sure, your reaction is bad, but not lethal (immediately, anyway.).
So how much do you need to injest for peanuts to be lethal? From the same site:
So I ask again. Do we ban peanut eating near doorways because, as far as I can tell, some people have reactions that are at least as bad as yours to second hand smoke?
My points are thus:
Your argument that second hand smoke kills because it can’t be shown it doesn’t is erroneous, and that was my ONLY point way back when. I don’t care who started it. Find better ways to back up claims. Cites would be nice. Credible ones.
For everything under the sun, I’m sure you can find people that have a reaction up to and including death. Hell, even the sun falls into that category. You can’t ban things based simply on that. There would be nothing left.
So what is reasonable?
I agree with this point of view. My original post said as much.
See, if you had just said, “yeah, what he said” up front you could have saved me all this typing!
(I’ll give a quarter to anyone who can guess what I do for a living.)
If that what they’re gonna do, then hey, more power to them.
I’m approaching this more on a accomodation of interests theory. As a society we have to accept the fact that some of the things that people do are going to irritate some other people. As such, cigarettes are legal, many people smoke them, some people don’t like them, therefore lets try to find a compromise.
Alice
FWIW, I really was asking a question, I accept that cigarettes can cause cancer, that was one of the many reasons I quit several years ago. I also recall that there was a case that was a suit in Florida(?) a few years ago where a stewardess filed suit against an airline saying that exposure to second hand smoke had given her cancer. I was merely asking if there were any figures or research that stated that it did or did not.
Listen, cmosdes, I’m actually allergic to peanuts too, so I can answer your question easily.
The difference between peanuts and smoking is that you can eat peanuts beside me, without me having to eat them too. You can’t smoke beside me without the smoke finding it’s way up my nose.
Now, I know that some people are so allergic to peanuts that a mere whiff will cause anaphylactic shock (thank God I’m not one of them) and I know of just such a case in the US where an elementary school went non-peanut because of a thus afflicted student.
Was this the right thing to do? Well, should a person’s right to eat peanuts override another person’s right to not die of anaphylactic shock? I don’t think so, just as I don’t think that a person’s right to smoke should override another person’s right to breath (relatively) clean air.
And let me guess - you’re a…
birthday clown? 
When you sit next to someone eating peanuts, you ARE consumming some of what they consume. But it is in such trace amounts you don’t notice. Someone else might not be so fortunate. Those trace amounts might be enough to send someone into shock. So I ask again, where do YOU draw the line. What do we ban? Where should it be banned?
I don’t know how to say this without making you defensive, but please understand that is not my goal. I really am looking for clarification from you on your argument.
You say that smoking should be moved to places where you can completely control whether or not you come in contact with it. In other words, away from doors, public doorways, etc. On the other hand, peanuts can cause equally severe reactions in people, if not worse. It seems that in your third paragraph you are saying peanut eating in public should be banned because a person’s right to not die from anaphylactic shock outweights another persons right to eat peanuts. That seems a tad over the line to me.
Smoking is a habit that people voluntarity take up. Cigarettes are notnaturally occurring nor does they really have any significant health benefits. When someone takes up the habit, they should take ownership of the fact others do not wish to share in it and be reasonable in trying to not share it. In other words, smoke in designated areas so others have a choice on whether or not to share the smoke.
Peanuts, on the other hand, are a naturally occurring, relatively healthy food source for many people. If someone has such severe reactions to peanuts such that they risk their very lives by coming in contact with it, I would suggest it is their duty to keep themselves from it, not society’s duty to keep all peanuts away from them. That just seems absurd to me. We just can’t protect everyone from everything.
Having said all that, this is a society and there MUST be give and take. Banning peanuts in an entire school for a single student seems a bit extreme to me. Banning peanut eating in doorways is outrageous. Banning smoking everywhere is equally outrageous. The habit is, afterall, still legal.
The EPA estimates 3000 per year.
Eh - you say tomato, I say tamato…
Regarding the peanut issue - a peanut allergy that is severe enough to send a person into anaphylactic shock from a mere whiff is a pretty rare thing. In cases where a person has such an allergy, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ban peanut consumption on school property, and apparently this school agrees with me, so I guess it’s really not that outrageous.
Regarding smoking - here in Calgary, by 2008 all restaurants will have to have a separate, vented smoking room, assuming they want to allow smoking on the premises. Smoking in any public space or location, including doorways, walkways, etc. will be banned. Currently, smoking where minors have access is banned. I guess Calgary city council doesn’t find that too outrageous either.
So - it seems that YOU find these things outrageous, but legislators and lawmakers do not.
Bully for me. (And you - your lungs will be happy. 
)
Be warned: my bml coding skills are nonexistent at the moment.
From cmosdes:
"When you sit next to someone eating peanuts, you ARE consumming some of what they consume. But it is in such trace amounts you don’t notice. "
My question:
How?
Oh and I’d also like to add in regards to the second-hand smoke debate that my father quit smoking around me and my sisters because I started getting severe ear infections because of the second-hand smoke from his cigarettes. SHSmoke doesn’t have to kill you to make your life a living hell.
We can go back and forth on this for a long time, and personally, I’d rather not. I would still like to know what you consider reasonable. All you’ve done is point out places where smoking has been banned, but have not stated where you think banning should end. I’d really like to think what YOU find reasonable. I’m not talking about just smoking, either. You quite well pointed out that peanuts are next. Where does peanut banning end? What happens when the kid goes to a park or rides the bus or goes to city hall or a movie or anywhere else? Where do YOU draw the line? Or don’t you? Should the world make way for this poor kid? Have everyone give up peanuts because someone is allergic?
Where I live, smoking is banned in all places of business, including restaurants and bars. There aren’t even special smokers’ rooms (that I know of, anyway). The world is quickly seeing things the way I stated earlier: you should never be forced to endure second hand smoke.
And DON’T get me started on how happy I am that the good fairy Alice is reaching her hand out to help me and knows what is best for me and my lungs. Fucking liberals think they know what is best for everyone.
Fact is, this is plain stupid. We both detest smoking and second hand smoke. We both want the choice on inhaling it or not inhaling it. We disagree on the lengths to which it should be controlled. You seem to believe the big, wonderful gov’t should protect everyone from everything. Wonderful. I’m done.
SpazCat If you can smell it, you are at least partially ingesting it. If nothing else, I would also imagine that trace particles are in the air as the food is nibbled and broken and, likely, expelled as the person talks. I have no references and that is merely a supposition. Certainly cracking peanut shells is sending peanut fragments into the air. I do realize most peanut consumption is not done in this way, however.
Whoa, cmosdes, relax.
Everyone is aloud to have an issue, mine happens to be smoking.
This is because:
I’m asthmatic. If you’re not, you will not understand, but not being able to breathe really, really sucks. It’s scary. You start to panic as you desperately try to get a breath of air. The more upset you get, the worse the attack becomes. Perhaps you become light headed (I do). Perhaps you pass out (I have). Perhaps you die. Yes folks - people can die from an uncontrolled asthma attack.
January, 2001, my grandmother, whom I was very close to - we talked 2 or 3 times a week and I visited her 3 or 4 times a year - started to get a pain in her side. She went to her Dr. and he gave her some antibiotics because it was an infection. It didn’t get better. He gave her some Advil because it was arthritis. It didn’t get better. He sent her to an orthopedic surgeon because it was osteoporosis. It didn’t get better.
In May, 2001, my grandmother was diagnosed with lung cancer. Further investigation revealed that it had metastasized to her bowel, her liver and her bones. Now, I don’t know if you know this, but bone cancer is probably one of the MOST painful ways a person can die. It hurts to walk. It hurts to move. It hurts to breathe. My grandmother was on a pain patch as well as shots of morphine every 4 hours and the pain was barely controlled. This is a woman who drove herself to the hospital, while in labour, to deliver my uncle. The bowel cancer caused blockages in her intestines. This caused food to get backed up – she spent a lot of time vomiting. And getting enemas. And having impacted feces removed from her – manually. The only fortunate thing is that the cancer had also metastasized to her liver and once cancer is in your liver, you don’t live very long - for granny, about 4 months. By the end, the cancer had gone to her brain, so she was agitated, angry and delirious.
In September, 2001, my grandmother died. From smoking. She was 73.
Now, I’m thrilled that you think we’re having a debate here, cmosdes. I’m also delighted that you think I’m a fucking liberal. However, I just need to point out that I might take the smoking issue a little more seriously than other folks. Once you’ve watched one of your best friends die a slow, hideous death from something, you’re a little bit less inclined to pontificate about it.
So, cmosdes, how far do I think banning should go? All the way, of course. I think smoking should be against the law. Cigarettes don’t even have any medicinally redeeming qualities like pot does. They just kill you. They make you stink. They make your kids sick. They make strangers sick. Apparently, they kill about 3000 people per year that don’t even smoke. In my perfect little world, no one would smoke. No one would be at risk of hospitalization for an asthma attack induced by cigarettes and no one would have to watch their loved ones die because of smoking induced cancer.
Now, what was the point you were trying to make?
Well, gee, alice, you didn’t tell me someone had actually DIED from cigarette smoke. I mean, that just changes my entire argument altogether. And, worse, I didn’t know it was someone close to you! You seem to think the you invalidated all arguments because you suffered. Fucking liberal.
If you can’t understand the point I was making, go re-read. Then read again. You are so blinded by your obsession you don’t see anything but what you want to see. You think you have suffered more than everyone else and that gives you some sort of right to demand this.
I really am very, truly sorry anyone has to go through what you went through. Not to be harsh, but did your grandmother chose to smoke or are we talking second hand smoke? If it was second hand smoke, was this something she was forced to endure because of where she worked, or was this due to another family member smoking around her? If she was a smoker, when did she quit? If it was another family member, then how about blaming the family member for exposing her, despite the warnings that are all over the place, instead of the big bad company. I won’t make guesses as to which way it happened, but try looking inward before blaming everyone else. Waitresses who had to work through smoke filled bars have my sympathy. Smokers who smoked in the last 30 years do not.
People who try to stop chainsaws with their mouth should not complain if they get hurt. Period.
It is not my place, nor the government’s, to protect you from everything and anything. Yes, I think you are a fucking liberal because you obviously feel that IS the role of the government. I personally want people to get a sense of individual responsibility. That is an ugly phrase for fucking liberals. For decades the perils of smoking have been known. Anyone that continues such a vile habit, knowing the risks, gets very little sympathy from me.
You seem to feel the government should tell us what we should and shouldn’t do, because, I suppose, they know better. The government must be sure companies are being upfront with information about their products. If the company lies, they should be squashed. Period. The government should further ensure that your dirty habits don’t infringe on me. Banning smoking in public places is okay. Banning them altogether is stupid. Treat people as adults, not little kids which need to be coddled by the big, wonderful government.
Now, let’s try a few things again. First, I’m against smoking in public places where people are forced to go. Places of business fall into that category as people have to work. Yes, that includes bars and restaurants. People work there, too. It includes airports, bus stations, entranceways to buildings, and a whole slew of other places.
Second, I asked you where you stop the banning of EVERYTHING. Peanuts, cigaretts and everything else you can think of that people have a reaction to.
Go read again. Where does that Iowa town draw the line for the child? Fine, the school banned peanuts. Should every restaurant also ban peanut use in case he comes in? Should they be banned at parks and school events, such as sports when teams from other schools might come and bring peanuts? What about the rest of the US? He might want to travel.
alice, people suffer every single day from all kinds of things. Because things affect you adversly doesn’t mean the rest of the world needs to accomdate you. It means that YOU (there is that individual responsibility thing again!) need to keep yourself from places and situations where adverse things are to be found. It is the government’s job to be sure those places exist and you have that choice. It is NOT the role of government to be sure alice can go anywhere and not have to worry about anything.
Do you really, honestly, believe that banning smoking would stop it? Really?? I guess that would explain why drugs don’t exist anymore.
Fucking liberal.
cmosdes, why don’t you go diddle yourself in a corner, ok?
In case you didn’t notice, I’m not having a debate with you. I don’t give a shit about what you think the government should or shouldn’t do. This isn’t great debates, ass hat, it’s the pit. People come here to vent.
I vented and now you’ve decided I want to have some sort of debate about Oppressive Government Legislation? No, idiot. I want to vent.
I don’t give a shit what you do. I don’t give a shit who you are. I don’t give a shit about your argument, 'cus guess what, shit-for-brains, I’m not arguing with you. I was minding my own business ranting about 2nd hand smoke and you decided to jump right in a question the cogency of my argument.
Fine, I haven’t provided a valid enough argument for your liking. Well, as I said, I’m not in Great Debates, so I don’t have to.
This is the pit. I can just come in here and say Fuck a lot if that’s what turns my crank.
I tried to accommodate you - point out that we were agreeing on the issue, even offer a little levity in the mix, but you’re bound and determined that we’re going to have a debate.
“How far should the banning go, Alice?” "I really am looking for clarification from you on your argument, Alice.
Fine, so I told you. I oppose smoking. I oppose all smoking. I even told you why, despite that being a very difficult post to write. She only died 6 months ago you obnoxious, pompous, fuck. Perhaps I’m still a tad upset about it. You were kind enough to suggest it was her own damn fault. Nice. You know, cmosdes, you really put the “ass” in “class”.
I hope you never have a loved one die like that. I hope you continue to live in your argumentative little world. And I hope they shrivel up and fall off, so you can never procreate, you arrogant, bowdlerizing, antagonizing, prick face.
Alice, the Fucking Liberal.