If I stand on a chair and pee on you, I’m not doing you any harm either.
If I drive by your house at 6:30 on a Sunday morning with my car stereo cranked up to 11, I’m not doing you any harm either.
If I gorge myself on beans, broccoli and crab cakes and then sit right behind you at a restaurant and release gigantic, eyeball-searing farts at regular intervals, I’m not doing you any harm either.
a) I live in California, where this isn’t a problem at all.
b) When we go to Vegas, I accept that there will be smoke. My choice.
c) Of course. Why would I not respect your request?
I have always and will continue to call BS on the “I HAVE to work at a bar” excuse. Sorry, I’m not buying that the only job you can find is at a bar.
There may not have been a ton, but around here there were plenty of non-smoking bars (and coffee shops). One of the arguments against making Wisconsin smoke free was that they were taking that niche away from them.
But surely they had control of how much perfume they bathed themselves in before they showed up, right? It’s not quite the same. If I smoke around you, it’s my fault you smell like smoke, but you smelling like perfume/cologne is because put it on. Also, people put perfume and cologne on specifically because the want others to smell it.
No harm done, but it’s still classified as assault, and possibly battery.
Not illegal. Inconsiderate though.
See above.
It should also be noted that the Ioannidis paper cited above is primarily about randomized controlled trials and epidemiological studies in medical/molecular biology. See Table 4 and his references. Its applicability to, say, particle physics, or taxonomy is doubtful.
This subject has come up here on other occasions (i.e. in the recent thread about peanut consumption on commercial flights).
I don’t know of any documented instance where a peanut allergy sufferer had an anaphylactic attack or died from being in an enclosed/indoor public space where someone nearby was eating peanuts. If such has ever occurred, it is an extremely rare phenomenon.
By contrast, it is far from uncommon for people with asthma and other chronic lung conditions to have exacerbation of their symptoms due to secondhand tobacco smoke. There is abundant case report/anecdotal evidence and epidemiologic evidence to document these and other deleterious effects of secondhand smoke.
So the peanut analogy is deeply flawed.
It’s battery, but probably not assault.
Which has happened to me more than once when recovering from a bout of pneumonia on assorted occasions. My rescue inhaler dealt with it, but I shouldn’t have to need to use it in an ideal society.
Many places are banning peanuts for exactly that reason. The elementary school in my town is a peanut free zone.
I remember that picture. But then again, you should see the kitty furballs I remove periodically :eek:
Because assault is the threat, not the whacking which is the battery part of assault and battery. Assault is both a criminal act and a tort [civil lawsuit] and you could consider it like this - say you have politely asked Fred to stop smoking his cigar because you have asthma and it may cause you to have an attack. Say he refuses but moves across the room and you have an attack because of the smoke, that is a tort version. If he draws a good one and deliberately blows it in your face [definitely trying to cause harm] it is the criminal version. [It is much easier to prove the criminal version if he has deliberately blown the smoke in your face than it is to prove that his smoke from across the room caused it. Just get him to punch you in the face, much easier to prosecute.]
And about the loud music being inconvenient and rude - not if the person doing so has an injunction against them from being within a certain distance of you, or if there is something going on like you are a witness in a criminal case against a fellow gang member - that could be interpreted as threatening. Think of it like an audio drive-by to threaten you by letting you know that they know where you live. Stuff can get complicated sometimes.
[am I the only one that will sprinkle salt and drop a AA cell battery on her husband and teas him about the asault and battery?]
You have the principle down, but not the application. Things do not become assaults merely because you don’t like them.
I wasn’t attacking you, so chill out. I was attacking the argument you put forth, which is stupid but often put forth by those who wish to outlaw things they don’t like.
Then replace peanuts with pollen.
Personally, I like that indoor smoking is no longer a “thing.” I’m an ex-smoker. But just because it’s more pleasant for me now doesn’t make it right. Frankly, I’m more concerned about the slippery bullshit slope that certain places are sliding down, like preventing smoking anywhere on university campuses or medical center premises. Or even banning their employees from being smokers, on pain of losing their jobs.
I don’t need to chill. Again, I wasn’t making any argument about legislation for you to jump on my post. You were very aggressive in your reply, especially or the forum we’re in. My argument wasn’t stupid, since I wasn’t making any argument, just stating an objective fact. The poster I was replying to concedes he didnt take it into account. I’m not trying to sweepingly legislate anything, for you to keep attributing motives to my one sentence reply.
I think if anywhere should have smoking banned it’s medical center campuses since the possibility of interacting with someone who has a respiratory condition, on oxygen etc is higher than other places.
I do smoke and honestly, even if this were true (:dubious:), I think that it is only courteous to simply smoke where it will not bother others. Why should I do something that I know offends others?
…and then, there are the violent anti smoking jerks.
Banning smoking on medical centers or not allowing employees to smoke is different because that’s a private business not allowing it’s employees or customers to do something. I don’t have an issue with that. That’s the same as a bar telling it’s customers they can’t smoke on their property. It’s different the the government saying that no one is allowed to smoke in any bar anywhere in the entire state.
Also, employees not being allowed to smoke is because that reduces your insurance premiums. If you take two identical employers with identical employees but at one place they smoke, you’ll pay more for insurance there even if you don’t smoke. That’s just how group rates work. You get punished for your co-workers bad habits. You’ll also pay more if they’re heavy drinkers or into street drugs.
That is so rare as to approach urban legend status.
If only more people were as considerate. I am an ex-smoker and still know lots of smokers. It seems like most of them see the world as their own private ashtray and their butts are little precious gifts to all.
This doesn’t make much sense either.
Unless there is a fad I’m unaware of where people are carrying heavily pollen-dispersing flowering plants into restaurants, bars and offices and causing potentially life-threatening health problems.* :dubious: (airborne allergenic pollen is typically due to outdoor grasses and trees in season, not the occasional indoor plant).
*“Do you mind if I bloom?”
Probably not a question of the unimportance of the facts so much as that, without further qualification, the readership would assume the “National” Cancer Institute was a British body, and they preferred to stress that it was an American one.
It’s flat-out not possible. I don’t know what the study’s authors are smoking, but logic dictates they are wrong. Whether it’s error or deceit remains to be determined. It’s as if they studied bullets and determined that bullets can only hurt the person who pulled the trigger.
Look, we know that smoking causes cancer among other illnesses. The mechanism by which this occurs is at least generally understood – cellular damage from chemical-laden particles has some statistical chance to alter a cell’s genetic code, mutating it, and sometimes that starts cancer. It’s a statistical game – sometimes massive exposure does not result in cancer, sometimes relatively minor exposure does. In theory, the exposure that “matters” is the one that triggers the fatal change, not the particles before and after it.
We also know that nonsmokers are exposed to these particles from “sidestream” smoke. To a lesser degree, perhaps, although that’s not necessarily true if they work in smoke-filled environments; but we already know that even low exposures will cause some cancers, statistically speaking.
Unless the study proposes these particles are sentient and care who lit the match, it’s nonsense to claim they interact differently with the cells of people who aren’t choosing to smoke. If the particles or the chemicals are affected by intention, these folks are going to win Nobel prizes out the wazoo.
I think the point of this study was that any differences between the active and passively smoking groups were for the most part not statistically significant.
Your argument also gets uncomfortably close to the “TOXIN!” illogic that gets sprayed about concerning vaccines and other claimed hazards (ignoring the fact that toxicity of any substance is related to dose). One could propose a scenario in which carcinogenic particles in secondhand smoke are present at too low a level to cause cancer.
Their conclusion is not impossible - it just goes against evidence from other epidemiologic studies establishing a link between secondhand smoke exposure and increased cancer risk.
If the Telegraph runs a story on the “American Football League” (because some readers might assume that the “National Football League” is a British institution), there’s going to be even more confusion.
What if the study says that all the chemicals that cause cancer (in whatever manner that they cause it) are filtered out by the smokers lungs and the smoke that exits the smokers lungs is free of those chemicals?
And you know your gun analogy doesn’t make even enough sense to discuss it, right?