You can say what you want, but many new ideas promoting some social restriction that we have in Canada originates somewhere in the States, especially California. Take MADD for example and their push for random pull over of vehicles without cause. So much for your special rights.
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. A person is certainly capable of infringing upon another person’s rights, regardless of whether or not we are talking about civil rights, the rights enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution, or in our laws. Are you trying to say that a person can only infringe upon another’s rights if that person grants them those rights in the first place? How does that make any sense? You don’t give me my rights!
Even if outdoor tobacco smoke was not the most harmful air pollutant (which I’m sure it’s not in certain circumstances), so what?
Does a substance have to be the most harmful pollutant present to put restrictions on it?
Should the government be prohibited from putting restrictions on asbestos in building insulation because radon is more harmful? Can we not restrict lead in paint because mercury is more toxic?
Or should we not put restrictions on all outdoor air pollutants, including emissions from cars, power plants, …and cigarettes?
Now that’s a very interesting statement you have made. One “can not prove it beyond doubt”?! It sounds like you’ve got your mind made up already! I guess we don’t need to worry about the bother and expense of conducting any more studies! The issue is apparently settled! :rolleyes:
And should public policy really be predicated on proving that something is harmful “beyond doubt”? If the thing in question provides great benefits to society (like energy production or transportation), that might make sense, but cigarettes?
On the one hand, you say that cigarette smoke is not harmful, then you turn around and say it is harmful. Why can’t you make up your mind? :rolleyes:
And a child who played in the soil overtopping the hazardous waste dumped in Love Canal will have various exposures that will continuously be different, so what? Varying exposures make pollutants safe? :dubious:
I have endeavored to not insist that anyone prove a negative. You’ll notice that I have not asked you or anyone else to “prove” that outdoor tobacco smoke is not harmful.
Until now–you have made a definite statement: that the exposure to tobacco smoke I would receive from walking through a “gauntlet of smokers” is, in most cases, “negligible.” In response, I ask you:
Cite?
I would think that the creationists would take exception to considering the epithet an insult. 
In any event, I certainly never called you one–I only compared this discussion to that of having a discussion with one.
OK, granted.
Maybe you should try reading my quoted statement in Post #184 again.
The cited article clearly states that “when no smokers were present, we consistently measured background air pollution levels that were practically zero. We found the air in typical urban locations in California, even near roadways, to be generally quite clean compared to air in the vicinity of smokers.”
They go on to state that: “To put things in perspective, we typically measured background air pollution (from all distant sources) to be less than 10 or 20 micrograms per cubic meter of air. In contrast, we sometimes measured air pollution near a cigarette to be over 1000 micrograms.”
You don’t have “breathing rights”. Stop inventing fictional rights.
I’m trying to use facts and reasonable debate. If you just want to use hysteric hyperbole, then there’s no discussion to be had.
Do you want a discussion, or a soapbox? If the latter, perhaps a blog would be more appropriate?
This is the third time I’ve said it, but I’ll repeat. You *do not have a right *to be immune to second-hand smoke. Your rights are not being violated. This is a fictional right you are inventing.
Fascinating. Now produce a study which shows how harmful this is; one which shows that it is more than an inconsequential amount.
As well as your fictional “rights” you keep going on about, you also keep saying that these studies you have produced prove non-inconsequential levels of harm. I’ve read them. They don’t.
You keep saying things that aren’t true,a nd then expecting people to sympathise with you. If you’d stuck at “I don’t like it and I wish the law said X” you might have gotten more sympathy; plenty of people can sympathise with that position. But you’re too busy bleating about rights you’ve invented and harm you’re imagining, which has utterly undermined your case.
So now people don’t have a right to breathe? I believe that should fall under the “life” portion along with “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness.” Jusy my interpretation. I suppose some smokers breathe mostly through closed oxygen assistance systems, so that may be a quibble there, dunno.
Maybe we should rephrase and assert the right “to avoid death by smoker’s chosen method?” :smack:
Gonna have try harder then, because you’ve shown none thus far.
Descriptive terminology hurts more when the words ring true, don’t it?
Oh, don’t be so daft. If that’s the level of discourse you want to be involved in, enjoy it. You knew EXACTLY what I meant, and pretending otherwise is disingenous. Pointless talking to you if that’s the tack you want to take.
I repeat: do you want a discussion, or are you just taking cheap shots in the school playground?
“I believe that your prattle is affecting my pursuit of happiness.” – see what I did there?
Luckily, what we “believe” has nothing to do with the rights we actually have. Fortunately for us all, law is not defined by people on messageboard who “believe” they have a right. The fact that you believe you have that right is irrelevant; you don’t.
The fact that you want that right is apparent; that’s something worth discussing.
Yawn. I actually think you think you’re being clever; like you think you’ve “scored a point” against me or something. Guess what? I’m not in competition with you. The point of this to me is not to come up with the wittiest soundbite like I’m in the school playground, it’s to hold a discussion. Debate or don’t debate. Right now you’re just being an ass - you clearly have no interest in actual debate.
You might convince me if you put a good reasoned case forward. Attempts at witty zingers? Not so much. Continual hysteric hyperbole? Pointless talking to you. Just rant away, if that’s all you want to do.
We’re here if you want an actual discussion about the issues.
Well, at least we got that clear.
Bill Hicks cones to mind for some reason…
But thank you for your non-obnoxious, kind concern that’s about other people’s welfare and not a way to feel superior without doing anything other than despising people and saying smarmy things to them.
So, I’m thinking Nat Shermans.
I don’t despise anyone. Really. I despise the fact that some people have become addicted to nicotine. That seems to be a bit of a multi-faceted problem for alot more people than just me.
Maybe your subconscious feelings of inferiority due to an uncotrollable addiction are projected on me in that way?
This is laughable.
You have had cites out the ass in here but like any True Believer you have ignored anything that contradicts you and relied on insanely weak cites for your proof.
So let’s use your own cite to debunk your notions. From post #184 (that you repeatedly reference):
So let’s start from the top:
“When no smokers were present, we consistently measured background air pollution levels that were practically zero. We found the air in typical urban locations in California, even near roadways, to be generally quite clean compared to air in the vicinity of smokers.”
Really? What the fuck are they measuring? We can measure pollution from China in the US:
15%! Not some minimal background noise. 15%! From China.
Yet your yokels can’t measure the pollution from the street in front of them. Hardly makes one confident in their results.
“It is important to remember that one’s proximity to a source of air pollution is most important. Unless you are standing near a smokestack or right at a tailpipe, the air pollution from cars and power plants mixes in the atmosphere and becomes very diluted before it reaches your lungs. In contrast, a cigarette, while it has much smaller emissions than a power plant or car, is more likely to be very close to people and, therefore, to expose them to concentrated levels.”
Define “proximity”. Are they measuring cigarette smoke from across the street like a car? I am betting they aren’t. Considering we can attribute 15% of our air pollution from China (see above) that they cannot measure pollution without standing next to a smokestack is absurd in the extreme.
Then add my (admittedly) back-of-the-napkin calculation from earlier:
99.92% of air pollution is from cars. Sure my numbers leave something to be desired but you cannot tweak them enough to get out of the clear conclusion that cigarettes are nowhere near a major pollutant outside.
Add to that my cite earlier:
I do not see cigarettes mentioned. Exhaust from cars…big time.
"To put things in perspective, we typically measured background air pollution (from all distant sources) to be less than 10 or 20 micrograms per cubic meter of air. In contrast, we sometimes measured air pollution near a cigarette to be over 1000 micrograms. "
“All distant sources”? Really? Didn’t I just show they measure pollution from freaking China? Again…WTF are these guys measuring?
Face it.
Robby and Nadir want nothing more than to lord it over others because they do not like what they do. Because it bugs them.
They have shown themselves to be completely incapable of understanding this fact despite evidence galore and none of their own (at least none that stands up to scrutiny and isn’t cited from some anti-smoking website with an agenda).
If they do not like whatever it is you do then they feel it is correct and proper that they stop you from it. They need no more reason than it bugs them. Your rights? Tough shit…it bugs Robby and Nadir you are SOL.
Ah, truly, your text is dripping with smarm for the sin, not the sinner. Naturally. If you were British, you could even get a sign that said “God hates fags.”
Ah yes, your argument is brimming with the very milk of human kindness, truly. You also seem to have, by accident naturally, missed the part where I informed you that I’v been quit for some time now. You must have overlooked that fact in your haste to shower me with kind concern. Such things happen.
Once an addict, always an addict.
And I know, becasue I am one too. The worst. I could tell you stories about my nicotine addiction and things I’ve done in the past that would turn your stomach. Really, no shyt.
…
Need more smilies!!!
The only thing that is laughable is your so-called analysis in your post.
As has been stated, “Pot, meet kettle.” Do you honestly think that your irrelevant cites contradict mine?
What are you are quoting is that pollution from China accounts for about 15% of local emissions of the U.S. and Canada. However, 15% of what? Some relatively small average amount of overall air pollution. As my cited article states, our background air is generally not all that dirty, relatively speaking, and particularly when compared to the air in close proximity to a person smoking.
Is this really so hard for you to understand?
No, of course not. Close proximity is a few feet, depending on wind conditions, the presence of solid walls or a fence (like in a bus shelter or outdoor cafe), etc. Say 18 inches to as much as 6 feet. Certainly not across the street, and I have conceded that someone is not likely to be harmed by a person smoking on the other side of a city street.
It’s not that they can’t measure pollution. It’s that pollution from vehicles, industrial and commercial sources, and even China, are so diluted, that although they can be linked to some chronic problems and respiratory illnesses, are, on average, orders of magnitude lower than the emissions from a cigarette in close proximity to a person.
If people were encountering the air pollution typically found from from whiff of cigarette smoke all the time, even with no cigarettes present, we’d have people dropping dead all over the place.
Yes, in the overall aggregate. But not right next to a cigarette smoker.
Because cigarette smoke is not a major component of all air pollution, that is, not in close proximity to any one source, is why I have not proposed banning smoking entirely, which would only be a reasonable proposition if cigarettes were a major component of all air pollution-- which it is not.
But not right next to a cigarette smoker. And face it, while people don’t typically stand in close proximity to automobile tailpipes or industrial smokestacks, they are often in close proximity to cigarette smokers outside.
And you have shown yourself completely incapable of understanding the difference between overall air pollution, and the effects of cigarette smoke on people in close proximity to a smoker.
And our rights to breathe in air on city streets uncontaminated by cigarette smoke? Tough shit, right?
That is a bunch of B.S. People certainly have a right to go about their business in public without being harmed, molested, or even annoyed by others. We have laws against “creating a public nuisance.”
The only reason that outdoor cigarette smoke is tolerated is because it has been socially acceptable for so long. This is changing, whether you choose to admit it or not.
If I were to burn something less socially acceptable, like walk down a city street or stand in a bus shelter with a church incense burner, I would surely be stopped by the police.
How is cigarette smoke fundamentally different?
You have surely observed that there are more and more restrictions on cigarette smoking, both indoors and out, so there is no legal reason that cigarette smoking in public cannot be restricted or banned–which it surely will be, sooner or later.