Metal Reviews

Who the fuck are you quoting? Important words with no source don't count. I quoted WHO, a trusted authority.

How about the fun fact that studies on SHS funded by the tobacco industry are 88 times more likely to say that SHS is harmless? There are few good scientists. They are corruptible and tend to bend to those who employ them.

I didn't think information about the scientific method of tests was necessary since it is common and well known fact.

Here's several links to why you shouldn't believe any organization that quotes other sources that are erroneous and unscientific:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

http://www.houseofdiabolique.com/archiv ... 12603.html

http://www.fumento.com/smoke2.html

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

Now i'm sure no one will believe any of these sources, but science doesn't change it's methods depending on what you personally believe. It is what it is and the fact that it has not shown sustainable proof should speak volumes. Anyone stating these people aren't credible abviously don't understand the way science works.

Circular logic is not going to get you anywhere, everyone that states as a fact that SHS causes cancer are getting their information from the same unreliable sources with no scientific veracity, so don't bother unless you have an independent test that is statistically relevant to the conversation. Don't bother if these same people can't come up with the same results more than once. That is not science. Funny how the rules and method of science only apply to everything but smoking and drug use in general. These guys don't think they need real proof at all as long as it is what people want to hear. That is what religion uses to sucker people in. Pretending that some kind of unscientific claim carries more weight because it is "the truth" or because "they say so" does not fly.

Some eople seem to think you are an idiot to believe these people and they are obviously funded by big tobacco. Yeah right, that's a nice try. If that were true then Catholics could easily pay scientists (real ones not ones they give fake degrees to) to side with them and it just doesn't happen.

You can't prove a negative, so i guess we'll have to settle for debunking false information and junk science.

here's a good quote from people with PHD's in this kind of thing



What this means is that there is very little effect from long term exposure (spouses) and if you read the rest of the reports the definition of "very little" equates to "statistically irrelevant" meaning there is absolutely no way to determine anything of this nature without much more expansive research being conducted.

This is not a science website, so I don't expect anyone to respect the way science is conducted, there will probably be more pictures of chewing tobacco users being shown as evidence smoking will cause every person it's smoke touches instant death.

Finally, if I quote something you can bet your ass it is accurate and i'm not pulling it from an unreliable and unjustified source. I'm a man that believes in truth and science, not deceptive behaviour to acheive a means to an end when it can hurt other people and take away their rights.

If you read one of the sites carefully, the second hand smoker consumes the equlivalent of five whole cigarettes a year, how many carcinogens are in the exhaust from your car again? that will kill you in 10 minutes without air circulating.

You fartlicker. Emulating people will ruin your voice! Find your voice and work with what you've got.

And for the record, Sasheron is the best poster on this damn forum.

Finally we agree on something, huh?

I was going to give that award to you, Afro.

it's very difficult to prove that anything causes cancer unless you conduct stupidly unorthodox medical studies, like kidnap babies and raise them in featureless rooms while exposing them constantly to whatever cancer-causing factors you wish to test.

the relationship that is suggested is enough reason for anyone to not smoke in public, or at least with a minimum of people around. ignoring the cancer and related diseases anyway, cigarette smoke is still disgusting and I wouldn't want to have to smell it in a public place. if someone started continually expelling mucus from their nose in your general direction, would you consider them to be considerate?

i might also note that my father grew up in a household where both the parents smoked copiously for years,. He's extremely subsceptible to bronchial infections at the age of 52, and has been since the age of 12.

I'm the worst.

Dave Hitt (unsourced claims with no qualifications on the site)? Libertarian organisations? The Diabolique? Michael Fumento (a journo and attorney?) Seriously, I can see that nobody can attack you with any kind of credible evidence because you are going to blandly repeat a bunch of pro-smoker slogans and post links to a couple of people bitching about statistics.

Instead I will approach this as an issue of human rights, something you raised several times. You seem to want to fight for the rights of smokers whilst completely ignoring the rights of non-smokers.





Hypocrisy much?

One of the basic human rights is a right to clean air. I seriously don't care if SHS is harmless or if it's going to give me cancer in 10 seconds. It makes me stink. It makes my throat sore. It makes my head hurt. I don't want that shit in my lungs. YOU are hurting me, and YOU are taking away my rights when you smoke. The thing is, my rights take precedence because you brought your state upon yourself by smoking. Whilst it is difficult to weigh up rights like this, I am going to go on the reputation of each right. The right to clean air is much more widely recognized than the right to smoke.

You have the right to make a choice to smoke. You have no right to make a choice for me to smoke. I can make a choice to drive a car and to tolerate car fumes. I did not make a choice to tolerate your secondhand smoke. If I made a choice not to inhale car fumes I would moved countries. I do not want my life limited by a choice you've made. You've made a choice to become addicted. I want a freedom, you want a license.

I heard plenty of utilitarian arguments from smokers bitching about how they suffer more than non-smokers forced to inhale their smoke. Considering that non-smokers make up 80% of the Australian population and 75% of the US population, I don't think the "suffering" thing evens out.

Hypothetical situation:
I get a high from sniffing butyric acid. I like it so much I before addicted and get the jitters when it's withheld from me for long periods of time. It smells like vomit and stinks everything up whilst being totally non-corrosive and harmless. I consume it in public and make everyone stinky and nauseous. Do I have the right to do so?

With your hypothetical situation:

He has something he wants to do, but it will bother other people.

If it bothering people means he can't do it, then what else do you prohibit. babies crying annoys the hell out of me, causes physical discomfort and probably irreversible ear damage.

You would have the right to do so. A person would have the right to tell you not to do it on their property. If your around it and the smell bothers you, leave. Around the outside of entrance ways suck, but thats only transient as you walk by. So just walking by its really no more damaging then some one farting right next to you. Inconsiderate but not really evil or depriving you of a right.
The owner of an establishment chooses to allow smoking it is his right to. no one forces you to go there.

That is the crux of things, freedom is based on the rights of the individual that does things people don't like. It has never been about banning anything that the public consensus deems unnecessary. You would have to prove it causes some serious health effects which simply can't be done at this stage. I hear you that you don't like it, that's fine, but there are a million things out there causing bad air quality that are not smoking cigarettes, so if you want to use that argument there are a lot worse things out there to be protested that are damaging to everyones health.

These people aren't bitching about statistics, as I suspected some people have no respect for the scientific process and do not realize how outrageous it is that your tax dollars are being used to set up a study that makes conclusions before the tests have been conducted and then changing the scientific method so they acheive their desired results.

That is half right. You don't need to find your own voice, just a voice. Anyone notice how many americans sing with british accents or europeans that sing with american accents? It's a long process for me because of my range to find a good way to sing

Bad analogy! You didn't take into account the difference between need and want. You did not take into account necessity or control.

Adults can control their urge to smoke, babies cannot control their urge to cry. Parents can't always control their babies. A baby is not a consenting adult making a choice to cry. Find a better analogy and come back when you reformulate your argument.




When a band I really like comes to a venue, nobody forces me to go there. But, not being allowed to enjoy a band in a smoke-free environment negatively impacts on my quality of life. Smokers can buy a patch, but I shouldn't have to bend over backwards for the comfort of a self-inflicted minority of addicts.

Smoking near entrances DOES deprive me of a right to clean air. I don't care how small that violation is. I could punch you just a little, you could bleed a tid bit. That would violate your right regardless of the scale. Come back when you get a better idea of how rights work.

Ownership of an establishment is not a sole factor in determining the rights to making rules on that ground. The government still owns the place. The government regulates the market so it's citizens are not obviously abused and as such sets standards for health and safety and reasonable comfort. It also sets standards to protect employees of organisations, because people need to work and sometimes settle for less than best.

There are noise limits in Australian venues. There is no smoking inside and no smoking rooms. The bar has to give every parton free water in a glass on request. This is so people don't get fucked. You have a couple extra rights on your property, but not that many.

I wasn't aware that private citizens in your country do not have property rights. I'm a libertarian and don't believe the government has the right to make any such policy. People can choose to go where they want. If there is a market for smoke free clubs and bars then they will crop up on their own. No one is forced to work, eat, drink or listen to music in a smoky environment, nor should they be. The government should worry about their own business and leave everyone else alone, it isn't any of their damn business.

Here in the US the minority always retains their rights regardless of what the majority have to say. They aren't following this basic foundation the founding fathers set up which is 100% wrong and undemocratic.

"Those who know what's best for us / must rise and save us from ourselves"

Don't quote Rush at us. You can't tell me a minority of smokers have the right to force people to accept their habit any more than crackheads or alcoholics do. If you must smoke, smoke somewhere where you won't do possible - possible - damage to others. It's common human decency. Of course, there will always be the crying child in public that you can point your nicotine-stained finger at and try and use for an excuse, but it's a seperate issue, and you know it.

I don't like government interference either, but if it's a choice between having smoking banned in public places or some grubby sod blowing smoke at me, then I know what I'd choose...

Edit: 3 cheers for Sash!

Private citizens in your country do not have property rights. Pretty much every country has a nasty piece of legislation somewhere in the back of the law-book that allows the government to confiscate all of your property and savings to pay off debt should need be.

When you do whatever you want you limit the things other people can do. That's why libertarianism and anarchism don't work. They can't. Freedoms and licenses are a distributive thing, there is a limited supply. If you give someone license to smoke, you take away someone's freedom not to smoke. There is always a relatively equal amount of freedom, but the freedoms are not equal in quality. My freedom to enjoy clean air, not stink like shit and have a sore throat is better than your license to smoke for several reasons I outlined prior.

Humans are not born smokers, they choose it. When they choose to smoke they choose the consequences of it too. They inevitably make choices for others by being inconsiderate douchebags. They choose to keep smoking and they choose the limitation to their rights.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I think you are wrong on that one. Almost everyone in my family smokes and as such I think there is a precondition that mentally the brain doesn't work right if it expects you to be using a chemical based on hundreds of years of family history.

Your example is not the same, nor would it even work in practice as saying you don't have the right to do want you want even if it is legal in your own home or business. More and more bars are opening up that are "private" to allow smoking in them when the extent of their privacy is that you will be allowed in with ID and then become a member of the private club. Open membership to a private club is the ultimate answer for us smokers. These places usually just a have a short list of rules at the door that you agree to if you enter.

I don't care what the law says, it does not replace the constitution that says to keep a gun around should anyone try to take away your property or rights.

Libertarism is based on the premise that freedom of choice is the best policy. Sorry if you think the governemtn knows what's best. They certainly don't know what's best or even what their citizens want. The government is meant to fear the people. The people are not meant to conform to government regulations that the majority do not want. The majority decide what they want as public policy and no law can be passed that takes away rights of the minority. That is the basis of the US constitution. I think it's a disatser that the US government doesn't respect it. It's a give and take. You want freedom you have to be willing to take the good with the bad. Until there is definitive proof that second hand smoke causes major illness, death or anything else there is no precident to pass laws banning people the right to do something that is legal in public. The people should decide what is best for themselves not a centralized governing body. Sad that freedom is slowly erroding over fear tactics and general disregard for people's basic rights to decide what laws and form of government they will use.

you keep skirting over the truth that smoking in public is disgusting.

do you support the rights of people to spray mucus in your face in public places? it's not harmful, it's just grotesque and rude, much like filling a place with your secondhand tobacco smoke is.

The parents don't have to stay in a crowded room and subject everyone else to the annoyance of a screaming child or ignore it. My point is there is annoying shit in the world. Unless a person is breaking a law with where they smoke, they have a right to do so. It doesn't matter how gross you think it is.



You don't have to bend over backwards, but neither do they. You looked at the situation, knew there would be smokers there and decided to go. If it bothers you that much you didn't have to go to those venues. so what I imagine is that you decided that having a good night seeing a band increased the quality of life more than smelling smoke.



A worse metaphor than my excessive baby analogy. It does not deprive you any more of the right to clean air than something that smells bad. I agree its unpleasent but so area lot of things in life that aren't

Without defending anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism, anarchism in its syndicalist sense is not about total freedom so much as anti-hierarchy. So an anarcho-syndicalist or a libertarian socialist would not be saying that everyone is "free" to do whatever they want, as they realise that would create the conflicts you describe. Instead they want rules (or accepted behavioural guidelines) to be determined by consensus, rather than devised by government. A smoke-free environment is entirely possible under this model.

IMO smoking should not be allowed in enclosed public spaces except for bars, where I think it should be, unless management chooses to do otherwise.