- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: public ban on the use of tobacco
Posted on 7/9/14 at 1:50 pm to Navytiger74
Posted on 7/9/14 at 1:50 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
It doesn't, however, seem to have shaken the near-concensus in the medical community that exposure to second-hand smoke is detrimental to one's health over the long term.
Not a single entity you linked comes close to representing the majority of the medical community.
1
Posted on 7/9/14 at 1:50 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
You need government intervention to get things done sometimes
you mean most times. You think you need laws in place so that you can eat a good meal at a smoke free restaurant...are you fricking retarded? I ask because you seem woefully incapable of doing things for yourself.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 1:53 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
No, people who don't want smoke-filled environments should have primed the pump. They were the ones bitching to government about it.
yes, and gov't responded. And there have been almost no negative consequence to it.
quote:
You hate freedom, and I want to see you say you don't.
I love freedom. But there should be limits on what I can do, when it impacts you. I shouldn't be able to hurt you or take your property. Second hand smoke is linked to negative health impacts. So when you smoke, you hurt me. Its quite a reasonable restriction IMHO.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 1:57 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Not a single entity you linked comes close to representing the majority of the medical community.
Would a statement by the AMA suffice, or do I need to poll every physician and medical researcher in the country? I'm sure the podiatry community is dying to weigh in.
This post was edited on 7/9/14 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 7/9/14 at 2:05 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
Would a statement by the AMA suffice,
No, as less than 25% of all doctors are even members.
AMA is a lobbyist group.
ETA: meant 25%.
and that figure dropped immensely when they backed Obamacare.
This post was edited on 7/9/14 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 7/9/14 at 2:06 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
I'm sure the podiatry community is dying to weigh in.
Nah. They just want to get their foot in the door.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 2:07 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
rimshot 
This post was edited on 7/9/14 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 7/9/14 at 2:09 pm to magildachunks
quote:
AMA is a lobbyist group.
And they have a financial interest in ending tobacco use?
Do they work for tobacco's competition?
Posted on 7/9/14 at 2:14 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
. But there should be limits on what I can do
I'm not accusing you of being opposed to obvious freedoms like speech, etc. but if I may generalize (I prefaced this because I respect you so don't take it the wrong way) it sounds as if you don't like freedom.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 2:15 pm to Hawkeye95
I recall, well before Tennessee banned smoking in restaurants, that numerous restaurants were ending smoking on their premises entirely of their own volition. That's just like government, though. Wait until a movement gains traction then try and pass a law and act like it was all your idea anyway.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 2:16 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Second hand smoke is linked to negative health impacts.
Regardless of the deleterious effects of second hand smoke, this has always been a weak justification. Yes, if you are in a smoke filled room for extended periods of time there may be a risk of health effects. Catching a whiff of someone's cigarette smoke several tables over? Please.
This post was edited on 7/9/14 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 7/9/14 at 2:17 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
So when you smoke, you hurt me
I do think it is rude to smoke near other people who may or may not care, but you have to understand this is enforced to absurdity. For instance I'm in the park smoking by my lonesome no one around, and a cop happens along...busted
also, businesses that allow smoking aren't hurting you...you're hurting you by going to that business.
quote:
I love freedom
I'm not entirely sure of your opinion on businesses being forced to comply, but if you stand where I think you do, you don't love freedom
Posted on 7/9/14 at 2:20 pm to DelU249
quote:
I do think it is rude to smoke near other people who may or may not care, but you have to understand this is enforced to absurdity. For instance I'm in the park smoking by my lonesome no one around, and a cop happens along...busted
This is where the "health effects" garbage has a tendency to go out the window. What it really boils down to for a lot of people (not ALL people) is they simply don't LIKE it and they would prefer to tell others what to do.
Take smoking bans on college campuses: even given health concerns, would it really be that difficult for, say, LSU to put a few smoking areas on campus, away from major areas of traffic with the clear warning that if you choose to hang out around there you're going to be getting second-hand smoke? It wouldn't be much of a hassle and would be an acceptable compromise, but again, it's not really about health. It's about control.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 2:22 pm to GoBigOrange86
quote:
What it really boils down to for a lot of people (not ALL people) is they simply don't LIKE it and they would prefer to tell others what to do.
of course, but people supporting this kind of legislation really do trust the government to operate in a sensible manner...the nation was founded on not trusting our government, and yet we have a sizeable portion of the population who wants to trust them with everything.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 3:17 pm to DelU249
quote:
I do think it is rude to smoke near other people who may or may not care, but you have to understand this is enforced to absurdity. For instance I'm in the park smoking by my lonesome no one around, and a cop happens along...busted
true, this is why I started the topic.
quote:
I'm not entirely sure of your opinion on businesses being forced to comply, but if you stand where I think you do, you don't love freedom
I am very torn on the issue. I like the concept, but I also don't like the gov't telling people what to do/not to do.
But they are already telling businesses what they can do - when they can be open, what type of food they can serve, who they can sell products to - is controlling where people smoke that big of a deal?
I don't think we should outlaw smoking, just restrict where you can do it. And I am not even sure I want that.
As for the health impacts, there is definitely an impact. It boggles my mind that anyone would deny it at this point. Second hand smoke might not be as bad as once thought, but it unquestionably has negative health impacts. It can trigger asthma attacks, along with the cancer. its also an irritant to eyes and sinuses.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 3:21 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
It can trigger asthma attacks, . its also an irritant to eyes and sinuses.
So are flowers.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 3:23 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
it unquestionably has negative health impacts. It can trigger asthma attacks
Yes
quote:
also an irritant to eyes and sinuses.
Yes
quote:
along with the cancer
No
Posted on 7/9/14 at 3:36 pm to magildachunks
quote:
So are flowers.
so is sarin gas
Posted on 7/9/14 at 3:40 pm to Hawkeye95
I don't even smoke, but frick that. That's just another shaming tactic.
Posted on 7/9/14 at 3:45 pm to DelU249
quote:
it is anti freedom
it is unconstitutional in terms of forcing private enterprises to comply
This.
Statists and their bullshite legislated and forced morality.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News