re: Smoking Tradition in the Dome??

quote:

---

If your data cannot show a link then you cannot link second hand smoke to cancer. You can't simply suggest that it does, perform a study that doesn't prove that it does and then continue to walk around saying it "could".

---

Just as you cannot walk around saying it doesn't. Now, we throw that position out the window because neither side in this discussion can use inconclusive studies to prove their point. You state that there is no link, 50% of the information I provided you in the Google link says there IS a link and the rest is inadmissible. OPR FTW.


The fact that you "rotfl" about possible connections between those who sell cigarettes and studies proving that they are harmful shows how naive you are.

quote:

---

No, the data is "conclusive" meaning it is proven. That's how it works.

---

Okay. So we both agree that smoking causes cancer. Is it so much of a stretch to believe that people who work in places full of smoke for 8 hours a day, breathing that same smoke, would have the same (or very close to it) chance of developing cancer? It's not rocket science, it's logic.

AND FTR: I don't believe that he OP was in danger of developing cancer from this exposure to SHS in the Dome. But long term and partial term exposure (parents who smoke, work places, travel, etc) is definitely possible and more than probable.

quote:

---

But why the obligatory swipe at LA saying that one day we will enter the '60's?

Don't like LA? Fine. Stay out.

---

You have to admit, Louisiana residents are generally behind the times when it comes to health issues. I think that was his point. Things won't change until the majority of the people who live here recognize that smoking is trash and make it taboo/socially unpopular.

quote:

---

Don't throw murder in there big boy. Not on the menu.

You can embellish and exaggerate all you want with the "capitol crime" garbage, but you're only proving how weak your stance is. Sorry.

---

I followed your lead.

quote:

---

quote:
Not my argument - it is against the dome rules.


Preciate it. I'll take that win.

---

You can claim a win only if you can show that I was arguing that smoking was permitted.

quote:

---

Wrong. Non-smokers win by making it a big enough deal that the Dome personnel have no choice but to get involved. The OP feared for his life, and therefore, tried meagerly to get the offenders behavior corrected. Myself and Jaydeaux would have raised all kinds of loud hell and FORCED the cops/security to handle their business. I would not back down from stupid, orally fixated frickwads. Therefore my suggestion is that he OP do the same.

---

Waste of time unless you move the entire section out or begin a campaign to change their attitudes towards smoking and/or the observance of dome smoking policies. Taking into account the general description of the folks in this section and the attitudes of the cops, I think you and Jaydeaux have a better chance of beating their asses into submission than changing attitudes up there.

You've got 3-4 hrs in a game, what are you gonna do?

quote:

---

I followed your lead.

---

Wrong. I used an applicable comparison, you jumped off the reality bridge. Well done.

quote:

---

You can claim a win only if you can show that I was arguing that smoking was permitted.

---

Your arguing that non-smokers should let it be. This is fail. I win.

quote:

---

Waste of time unless you move the entire section out or begin a campaign to change their attitudes towards smoking and/or the observance of dome smoking policies.

---

Waste of whose time? Mine? I'm perfectly capable of watching the game AND shaming mother frickers into stopping that shite. Either the Dome will stop them from smoking, or I will. But the situation WILL be resolved.

quote:

---

Paul_LSU_passion

---

Can't argue with anything you said.

quote:

---

Wrong. I used an applicable comparison, you jumped off the reality bridge. Well done.

---

As soon as you compared the crime of drug dealing...c'mon dude.

quote:

---

Your arguing that non-smokers should let it be.

---

Which isn't the same as saying smoking is permitted. Are you having some kind of fantasy argument where you get to make up what I said, refute it and claim "I win"? Because if we are I want to pretend that you said you could change the way those people in that section think and the attitude of Dome Security about this problem.

Oh, wait....

quote:

---

Waste of whose time? Mine? I'm perfectly capable of watching the game AND shaming mother frickers into stopping that shite. Either the Dome will stop them from smoking, or I will. But the situation WILL be resolved.

---

Talking about naive. I'm sure this problem in that section has just been waiting on the right man to step up and handle shite - you will be the first to get up there and get pissed. You're like the non-smoking Rambo. I think you should put this to the test and get some tickets up there and straighten this shite out so people like the OP never have to deal with the injustice again.

I think this argument may now end since you have proven to have disengaged with reality.

quote:

---

Just as you cannot walk around saying it doesn't. Now, we throw that position out the window because neither side in this discussion can use inconclusive studies to prove their point. You state that there is no link, 50% of the information I provided you in the Google link says there IS a link and the rest is inadmissible. OPR FTW.


The fact that you "rotfl" about possible connections between those who sell cigarettes and studies proving that they are harmful shows how naive you are.

---

The 50% of the studies you linked showing the conection all reference the 1993 EPA study that was thrown out by a federal judge because the study was fradulent. They handpicked their results to support a pre-dedetermined conclusion. They completely ignored the scientific process.

Kinda like the man-made global warming studies.

quote:

---

Okay. So we both agree that smoking causes cancer. Is it so much of a stretch to believe that people who work in places full of smoke for 8 hours a day, breathing that same smoke, would have the same (or very close to it) chance of developing cancer? It's not rocket science, it's logic.

AND FTR: I don't believe that he OP was in danger of developing cancer from this exposure to SHS in the Dome. But long term and partial term exposure (parents who smoke, work places, travel, etc) is definitely possible and more than probable.

---

No, its not a stretch to believe that SHS is possible. But we are tallking degrees of likelihood. How likely is it that a partial exposure, extremely diluted by atmosphere will harm you the same as it would someone who has to ingest it for years first-hand for it to develop into a cancer?

You're inferring that SHS could cause cancer, because someone who was around it developed cancer. You don't care what kind of cancer they developed, you just saw that they had to pass through a smoking section at some point in their life, and they developed it. Therefore, A+B=C. Are you seeing how the 1993 study was conducted now?

All you people who complain about the smokers are the lowest scum on earth IMO. Instead of just sucking it up, or taking yourself out of the situation, you decide to enforce your will on others, and you pass laws that do that. You infringe on other peoples rights so you won't have to smell it. True-blooded patriots right there.

quote:

---

Kinda like the man-made global warming studies.

---

We are in complete agreement on this. I believe that GW is a man made fabrication for the purposes of scaring the planet into buying their way out of a fictional crisis.

quote:

---

All you people who complain about the smokers are the lowest scum on earth IMO. Instead of just sucking it up, or taking yourself out of the situation, you decide to enforce your will on others, and you pass laws that do that. You infringe on other peoples rights so you won't have to smell it. True-blooded patriots right there.

---

Go back and read my posts. I am STRONGLY against governmental involvement in any social issue. It is not the gov'ts place to tell individuals what they can and cannot do. Smokers should be allowed to do so until their lungs shrivel and implode into a puff of carbon. HOWEVER, in this situation, the rules are clearly marked. NO SMOKING IN THE SUPERDOME!!! Therefore, people who smoke inside the Dome are the assholes and need to be removed/directed to the areas where smoking is allowed. It should be up to individual businesses to decide to allow or ban smoking. Let the people decide if they want to frequent an establishment that does or does not allow smoking, and let the chips fall where they may.

They bought tickets to this event with FULL KNOWLEDGE that smoking is not allowed. Don't break the rules.


ALSO FTR: I do not believe that people exposed to small amounts of SHS in short periods throughout their life are in greater danger of developing cancer. I DO believe that people who are around it all the time (work, homes, etc) DO have an increased risk. Just as people who actually smoke do.

quote:

---

Turning a blind eye to crime is not the same as turning a blind eye to crime...

---

One is a criminal offense, one is not.
When people speed on the highway do you call 911 and report them?
Have you ever done a citizens arrest on a jaywalker?
When your neighbors grass is too long do you raise hell with the HOA to get it corrected?

quote:

---

One is a criminal offense, one is not.

---

Are you sure? I'm too lazy to prove you wrong. Look it up and get back to me.

quote:

---

When people speed on the highway do you call 911 and report them?

---

When that speeder puts my family in danger, damn right.

quote:

---

Have you ever done a citizens arrest on a jaywalker?

---

No. Now what does that have to do with this?

quote:

---

When your neighbors grass is too long do you raise hell with the HOA to get it corrected?

---

Yes. He moved next door knowing full well about convenance and subdivision rules. If he's fricking up my property value because he hasn't cut his grass in 2 months, your damn right.