Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!
Citing posts from a blog is certainly more authoritative than studies by the Mayo Clinic or Centers for Disease Control. Obviously the blog has no agenda.
Sort of like the conspiracy theories that have aliens causing 9/11 and the like.
__________________
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!”
Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!
Originally Posted by WrestlingTerp
Citing posts from a blog is certainly more authoritative than studies by the Mayo Clinic or Centers for Disease Control. Obviously the blog has no agenda.
Sort of like the conspiracy theories that have aliens causing 9/11 and the like.
That is a laughable comment/opinion.
Why bother to read the information given in the blog? Why bother to check the studies listed? Just discount anything that doesn't match your opinion.
You are just to lazy to read.
If you had bothered to read, the blog writer cites many studies from very reputable universities and government agencies as well as other research groups.
__________________
If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.
Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!
Okay, let's assume that second hand smoke is perfectly safe. If I am in a restaurand and an adult at the next table is yelling as loud as he can, should everyone just ignore him because yelling isn't illegal, or should he be escorted out because he's preventing everyone who doesn't like yelling from enjoying their dinner? Same with smoking.
Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!
Originally Posted by Spider
Okay, let's assume that second hand smoke is perfectly safe. If I am in a restaurand and an adult at the next table is yelling as loud as he can, should everyone just ignore him because yelling isn't illegal, or should he be escorted out because he's preventing everyone who doesn't like yelling from enjoying their dinner? Same with smoking.
A irrational comparison and has nothing to do with the statements argued in this thread.
__________________
If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.
Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!
Originally Posted by ccbig
A irrational comparison and has nothing to do with the statements argued in this thread.
Agreed that it isn't relevant to this thread (don't agree that it's an irrational comparison), but I didn't want to resurrect the other one. My point, and then I'll leave you to your scientific debate, is that smoking is intrusive to those in its vicinity on many levels, not just health.
Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!
Originally Posted by ccbig
Why bother to read the information given in the blog? Why bother to check the studies listed? Just discount anything that doesn't match your opinion.
You are just to lazy to read.
If you had bothered to read, the blog writer cites many studies from very reputable universities and government agencies as well as other research groups.
Its difficult to take a blog seriously that provides few direct links to the studies cited but rather cherry picks snippets to support an obvious bias. Most of the references are back to other articles in the blog, or to obviously biased libertarian links.
For example, it cites a Johns Hopkins study to support the hypothesis that second hand smoke is harmless, yet clicking on the link in the blog to the study shows the actual conclusion of the study:
Conclusions: In Baltimore City, most bar employees are continuously exposed to secondhand smoke in their workplace. Sufficient evidence has shown that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Moreover, continuous exposure at the concentrations found in this study poses serious health risks, including cancer and cardiovascular disease. To achieve complete protection for all workers and patrons in Baltimore, MD, smoke-free initiatives in all occupational settings are required.
Did you bother reading any of the citations I provided by recognized research organizations, even one overseas? Or do you prefer to rely on vodoo science? The preponderance of research evidence supports the premise that second hand smoke is a danger to health.
__________________
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!”
Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!
Originally Posted by ccbig
Yeah right.
Ask a mod. I give my permission for them to tell you if they think Big and I am the same person. They should easily be able to tell by location that I'm not.
A brief posting history and language use, writing styles should be obvious to those who don't have mod privileges to know I am not Big.
He's already asked, and I've already answered.
You obviously aren't Big, as you say the writing style at minimum would give it away.
Related Tags:
Related Videos:
Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham! 
Linear Mode
