Eksvplot wrote:

Mayfair wrote:And just so you know, the stress a baby's cry has on its parents is far bigger than it does on a bystander. I know...I have been both.

is that because of an innate parental fear that something may be wrong with your child, or because it's your duty to get the kid to stop (not an easy task, i'm sure)?

Babies do not communicate with words. They have not learned words yet. They communicate with crying. Their lives are filled with eating, crapping, pissing, and being tired, growing, and learning...a lot of these things are communicated through cries... not to mention any real pain or sickness.

Raising children and being solely responsible for a human being can be very stressful as many other things that are more than worthy of doing in spite of this.

i see.

as you can tell, i obviously don't own kids.

Eksvplot wrote:i guess the question then, for steve, would be: IF a study came out that made a conclusive link between second hand smoke and cancer, would you be opposed to smokign bans, as you are at present?

Guys? Hello? You are not living in caves.... use your internets (sic). Use your google. There is no IF in the case. Does anyone here really think that is in question?

...

steve was arguing that there was no conclusive evidence about second-hand smoke being a health risk. i haven't done the google search yet, but even so, maybe you two could spend all day debating the merits of this study.

to me the more interesting point of contention is: IF second-hand smoke WAS systematically proven to be a serious public health risk, do you STILL think people should be allowed to do it in bars?

hope i'm not just spinnning my wheels here...

If cigarette smoke has been shown to be a carcinogen then what makes anyone think second-hand cigarette smoke is not? Does the act of inhaling actually keep all of the carcinogenic elements confined to the smoker's lungs alone? What about the smoke that's not inhaled? The smoke that's just wafting from the ciggie?

Has anyone on this board actually been a witness to a "death rattle"? The sound of drowning in one's own lung-secretions? Disgustingly horrifying.

The days preceding the rattle are even worse as the patient is very aware of everything that's happening and still makes attempts at clearing the throat......I'm getting off the subject.

To use logic that says, "well, automobile exhaust, greenhouse gasses, and flouride in the water will kill these nonsmokers anyway......" seems ridiculous and irresponsible.

I still have yet to read a logical argument against the smoking ban.

BadComrade wrote:
I'll assume that you've read all of the reports that contradict the ones you just referenced which can also be found with "your google".
...

I just looked again to see your 'credible' sources that refute such things.. a editorial from Fox news was the first I found after 30 or so posts that speak of secondhand smokes dangers like from the EPA, Cancer.org, the Center for Heath and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Heart Association among others.

But, yeah, you get to believe what you wish. It makes it harder to argue the point with you (as I do enjoy such discourse here) but luckily it is a free country. Enjoy!

BadComrade wrote:Mayfair:

CLICK THIS

Fantastic.
The first link on this page is from a hilarious pro-smoking lobby called FORCES INTERNATIONAL.
The second link is from Fark.
The third is from something called houseofdiabolique.com.
The fourth is from an anti-smoking lobby, and brings up the study only to debunk it.
The next two are from smokersnews.com.
The next is from another pro-smoking lobby, NYC CLASH (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harrassment).
The next is from a letter to the editor by Some Guy. Do a google on "james williamson" + victorville, he's written a few good letters!
The next is from smokinglobby.com.
The last on the first page is from the Michael Crichton message board.

The entire first page of results does not include one credible unbiased source. The other 7 pages of results aren't much better.

I'm not giving my opinion on this issue, mostly because I haven't made up my mind, but if you were hoping to help your case by putting up that link, I say you haven't.

BadComrade wrote:Mayfair:

CLICK THIS

Yes, I see there are matches... just as there are matches for "donkey dick nose ring" if you really want to look. You should look past the fact that you got matches and see what is actually being said and WHO is actually saying it. I do not see too many credible sources, nothing like the EPA, Cancer.org, the Center for Heath and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Heart Association. Sorry.

BadComrade wrote:Anyone here know someone that without a doubt died from second hand smoke exposure? Anyone?


2650 or so users on this board... anyone?

Much like the "no one's ever died from marijuana use" statement that worthless hippies use to make sure this "harmless" drug never enters the mainstream.........

What kind of an idiot doctor and/or coroner is gonna write: "cause of death: second-hand smoke"? Or, better yet, "cause of death: high as the balls on a giraffe?" That shit doesn't really happen.

It's usually like this: "Cause of death: pneumonia brought on by lung cancer" or "heart attack at the phish concert". (I kid about the latter but it could happen).

The scientific method runs into some obstacles when testing 2nd hand smoke. The reasons why should be obvious.

(NOTE: Marijuana has definitely been proven to raise the blood pressure. If you've got a weak valve.......BLAMMO.....that high blood pressure's gonna kill ya!)





....and I smoke it!