Music Banter - View Single Post

Wayfarer · 10-26-2007, 12:10 PM

Well, looks like I'm the only one debating with you two here, so I can skip the pre-argument dicksucking and get straight to the point:

jibber -

I didn't think Mookie was speaking solely of small, confined environments, as he said, "Ontario has a ban on smoking in public places now anyway, so I think that's a step in the right direction." If I was wrong, well, sorry, my mistake. But anyway, yes, skin cancer is really the only risk that appertains to UV rays, but last time I checked, skin cancer still qualifies as cancer, and at no point did I state that UV rays are more harmful than cigarette smoke - I merely stated that they can be harmful.

What irritates me moreso than anything is that you people make it sound like we're pinning you down to the ground, plugging your noses and exhaling directly into your mouths. We're not. I cannot, for the life of me, register what was so horribly wrong with smoking/non-smoking sections in restaurants. Me smoking a cigarette thirty feet away from you really isn't going to have much of an effect on you, if at all. But evidently, that system wasn't good enough for you. You had to get fucking glass boxes installed for us to sit in, which was insulting enough. Now we're not allowed to smoke in the damn places at all. Can you not grasp the ridiculousness of that? Ninety percent of the food you get in restaurants is more than likely going to do more damage to you than some guy smoking a cigarette thirty feet away anyway. What we need to do is come up with more creative solutions to these kinds of problems than outright banning. I mean, when you pin it right down to one side having to go out of their way to please the opposition, the non-smokers will surely always say, "Smoke if you want, just don't do it wherever I happen to go," whereas the smokers will say, "I'll smoke if I want to, and if you have that much of a problem with it, go somewhere else." Basically, non-smokers want everyone to move right out of their way - forge a clear path for them, and the smokers refuse to move, and think that if anyone has that big a problem with them, they can go around. Both points of view are completely understandable, so whatever happened to compromise? The whole smoking/non-smoking section thing seemed like an alright compromise to me. Maybe restaurants could install far better ventilation? I don't know, but this glass box/flat-out banning bullshit is just, like I said, insulting and wholly unreasonable.

Mookie -

If, thus far, epidemiologists have disregarded the fact that many, many people have smoked their entire lives and lived to be ninety, and that many, many people have tried to stay as healthy as they could and died at a young age, then, to me, epidemiological studies thus far are flawed, at least to some extent. When you say, "individual cases," it's almost as if you're suggesting that it's a highly extraordinary scenario, when in reality, it isn't. It's something that should absolutely be considered, as far as I'm concerned, and it's something that needs to be looked into much more than it apparently has been. How can you keep telling me that my thoughts are "unscientific" and go on to say that scientists have been disregarding particular facts? It's science - you can't pick and choose. All facts must be taken into consideration.

A Citizen's Guide to Radon | Publications | Radon | Indoor Air Quality | Air | US EPA
"Radon is estimated to cause about 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year, according to EPA's 2003 Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes (EPA 402-R-03-003)."

Apparently, radon gas kills more people each year than drunk driving. I'd say that's definitely something to acknowledge.

And sure, it's always real easy to tell people to "stop acting so oppressed" when the laws are in your favour, isn't it? If people were allowed to smoke wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, I'm sure you'd be acting rather "oppressed" yourself, don't you think?

10-26-2007, 12:10 PM	#8 (permalink)
Wayfarer Registered Abuser Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 573	Well, looks like I'm the only one debating with you two here, so I can skip the pre-argument dicksucking and get straight to the point: jibber - I didn't think Mookie was speaking solely of small, confined environments, as he said, "Ontario has a ban on smoking in public places now anyway, so I think that's a step in the right direction." If I was wrong, well, sorry, my mistake. But anyway, yes, skin cancer is really the only risk that appertains to UV rays, but last time I checked, skin cancer still qualifies as cancer, and at no point did I state that UV rays are more harmful than cigarette smoke - I merely stated that they can be harmful. What irritates me moreso than anything is that you people make it sound like we're pinning you down to the ground, plugging your noses and exhaling directly into your mouths. We're not. I cannot, for the life of me, register what was so horribly wrong with smoking/non-smoking sections in restaurants. Me smoking a cigarette thirty feet away from you really isn't going to have much of an effect on you, if at all. But evidently, that system wasn't good enough for you. You had to get fucking glass boxes installed for us to sit in, which was insulting enough. Now we're not allowed to smoke in the damn places at all. Can you not grasp the ridiculousness of that? Ninety percent of the food you get in restaurants is more than likely going to do more damage to you than some guy smoking a cigarette thirty feet away anyway. What we need to do is come up with more creative solutions to these kinds of problems than outright banning. I mean, when you pin it right down to one side having to go out of their way to please the opposition, the non-smokers will surely always say, "Smoke if you want, just don't do it wherever I happen to go," whereas the smokers will say, "I'll smoke if I want to, and if you have that much of a problem with it, go somewhere else." Basically, non-smokers want everyone to move right out of their way - forge a clear path for them, and the smokers refuse to move, and think that if anyone has that big a problem with them, they can go around. Both points of view are completely understandable, so whatever happened to compromise? The whole smoking/non-smoking section thing seemed like an alright compromise to me. Maybe restaurants could install far better ventilation? I don't know, but this glass box/flat-out banning bullshit is just, like I said, insulting and wholly unreasonable. Mookie - If, thus far, epidemiologists have disregarded the fact that many, many people have smoked their entire lives and lived to be ninety, and that many, many people have tried to stay as healthy as they could and died at a young age, then, to me, epidemiological studies thus far are flawed, at least to some extent. When you say, "individual cases," it's almost as if you're suggesting that it's a highly extraordinary scenario, when in reality, it isn't. It's something that should absolutely be considered, as far as I'm concerned, and it's something that needs to be looked into much more than it apparently has been. How can you keep telling me that my thoughts are "unscientific" and go on to say that scientists have been disregarding particular facts? It's science - you can't pick and choose. All facts must be taken into consideration. A Citizen's Guide to Radon \| Publications \| Radon \| Indoor Air Quality \| Air \| US EPA "Radon is estimated to cause about 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year, according to EPA's 2003 Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes (EPA 402-R-03-003)." Apparently, radon gas kills more people each year than drunk driving. I'd say that's definitely something to acknowledge. And sure, it's always real easy to tell people to "stop acting so oppressed" when the laws are in your favour, isn't it? If people were allowed to smoke wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, I'm sure you'd be acting rather "oppressed" yourself, don't you think? Last edited by Wayfarer; 10-29-2007 at 01:20 AM.