Jim Stillman
Nevar
Passive Smoking and the Efforts to Protect our Children.
October 12th 2007 21:07
Many people who sit at the extreme left or right of the political spectrum extend their beliefs to the point that accepted scientific opinion is disregarded because it conflicts with the political positions adopted by fellow extremists.
Moreover, whatever valid arguments that could be made are, often, weakened by the predilection of using disrespectful nicknames and slogans. For example, I feel that the present president is not acting appropriately, I am opposed to many of his political decisions and I did not and would not vote for him; yet he is due the respect of his office and I refer to him as “President Bush” or “Mr. Bush”, never “Bushie”. A fellow writer at Orble, who has a site far more popular than my own, on the other hand, refers US v to Senator Clinton as “Billary”, Mrs. John Edwards as “Queen Liz” and dem-libs as if we were an unwelcome and certainly inferior part of the American fabric.
One cannot argue against poor manners, inadequate vocabulary or poor taste. These may be beyond Ms Braddish’s control. However, misquoting scientific data to justify a political position is another story.
S.L., who does not subscribe to this site, posted a criticism of California Governor Schwarzenegger.
I responded in a comment,
True to form, S. L. responded,
According to Ms Braddish and her friends, moreover, we “lefties” make up are arguments out of the air! Let’s see how well her positions fare in the daylight of facts!
Passive smoke (or second hand smoke, involuntary smoking or, perhaps most common, environmental tobacco smoke [ETS]) is recognized by current scientific evidence to be harmful, especially to children. Don’t take my word for it; look at the position of the World Health Organization, cited by Ms Braddish. In a 1998 press release, WHO discussed its study on the effects of ETS,
Philip Morris, a hardly disinterested player in the non-controversy, acknowledged that for years, it and other cigarette manufacturers covered up their knowledge of the potential harm from passive smoking. In its web site, that company states,
For many years, the tobacco industry hid its own research that demonstrated the links between smoking and ETS and illness. See the decision of the United States District Court in United States v Philip Morris USA, Inc. I will be happy to direct anyone interested in the lengthy opinion.
A vast number of medical and scientific organizations affirm the link between exposure to second hand smoke and illness. Among these are the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the American Medical Association, the Australian National Health Council, the U.K. Committee on Tobacco and Health and many others. The governments of 151 nations have signed and ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.
(Rather than make this post even more boring, I invite anyone interested to send me a message and I will be happy to send a citation and description of my sources.)
Are there open questions regarding the effect of passive smoke? Yes, not the effect but merely as to the degree.
The actions of California and the other states passing anti-passive smoke laws are consistent with the concepts of the founders of the Constitution. States are the laboratories where social concepts are tried and evaluated.
One of the difficulties in discussing issues with Ms Braddish or those of her partisan persuasion is that she cannot conceive of there being any merit in the beliefs of those to her left. Thus, Al Gore is a Democrat, ergo, there cannot be global warming. John Edwards cannot empathize with the poor and uninsured. And so forth.
It’s a shame because her positions are worth debate but without misrepresentations.
Moreover, whatever valid arguments that could be made are, often, weakened by the predilection of using disrespectful nicknames and slogans. For example, I feel that the present president is not acting appropriately, I am opposed to many of his political decisions and I did not and would not vote for him; yet he is due the respect of his office and I refer to him as “President Bush” or “Mr. Bush”, never “Bushie”. A fellow writer at Orble, who has a site far more popular than my own, on the other hand, refers US v to Senator Clinton as “Billary”, Mrs. John Edwards as “Queen Liz” and dem-libs as if we were an unwelcome and certainly inferior part of the American fabric.
One cannot argue against poor manners, inadequate vocabulary or poor taste. These may be beyond Ms Braddish’s control. However, misquoting scientific data to justify a political position is another story.
S.L., who does not subscribe to this site, posted a criticism of California Governor Schwarzenegger.
“True to the left-wing agenda of controlling everything a person can do, he has made it illegal for an adult to smoke a legal cigarette in a car if children are present.”
I responded in a comment,
“There isn't, as you well know in your less combative moments, a left-wing agenda to control all activities; there is an acknowledgment that our world and the environment deserve care and that second hand smoke, the harm of which has been debunked only on Fox News, creates an unnecessary danger to our kids.
“In January, 2006, the California Environmental Protection Agency determined that second hand smoke was a toxic substance. This followed studies at the Harvard Medical School which found the same thing. Governor did not "make it illegal" to smoke in a car with children present; the California Legislature did that. The Governor merely signed the bill into law.
“A number of municipalities have similar ordinances, as do the states of Arkansas and Louisiana. Maine is set to have the same law next January.”
“In January, 2006, the California Environmental Protection Agency determined that second hand smoke was a toxic substance. This followed studies at the Harvard Medical School which found the same thing. Governor did not "make it illegal" to smoke in a car with children present; the California Legislature did that. The Governor merely signed the bill into law.
“A number of municipalities have similar ordinances, as do the states of Arkansas and Louisiana. Maine is set to have the same law next January.”
True to form, S. L. responded,
“The World Health Organization determined after lengthy studies that second hand smoke does not kill.”
According to Ms Braddish and her friends, moreover, we “lefties” make up are arguments out of the air! Let’s see how well her positions fare in the daylight of facts!
Passive smoke (or second hand smoke, involuntary smoking or, perhaps most common, environmental tobacco smoke [ETS]) is recognized by current scientific evidence to be harmful, especially to children. Don’t take my word for it; look at the position of the World Health Organization, cited by Ms Braddish. In a 1998 press release, WHO discussed its study on the effects of ETS,
“The results of this study, which have been completely misrepresented in recent news reports, are very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers.”
Philip Morris, a hardly disinterested player in the non-controversy, acknowledged that for years, it and other cigarette manufacturers covered up their knowledge of the potential harm from passive smoking. In its web site, that company states,
“Public health officials have determined that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease (including lung cancer and heart disease) in non-smoking adults. The public health community also has concluded that secondhand smoke, the combination of the smoke coming from the lit end of a cigarette plus the smoke exhaled by a smoker, can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
“In children, secondhand smoke can cause conditions such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, middle ear infections and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
“We also believe that: the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned. Adults should avoid smoking around them. The conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant certain measures that regulate smoking.”
“In children, secondhand smoke can cause conditions such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, middle ear infections and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
“We also believe that: the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned. Adults should avoid smoking around them. The conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant certain measures that regulate smoking.”
For many years, the tobacco industry hid its own research that demonstrated the links between smoking and ETS and illness. See the decision of the United States District Court in United States v Philip Morris USA, Inc. I will be happy to direct anyone interested in the lengthy opinion.
A vast number of medical and scientific organizations affirm the link between exposure to second hand smoke and illness. Among these are the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the American Medical Association, the Australian National Health Council, the U.K. Committee on Tobacco and Health and many others. The governments of 151 nations have signed and ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.
(Rather than make this post even more boring, I invite anyone interested to send me a message and I will be happy to send a citation and description of my sources.)
Are there open questions regarding the effect of passive smoke? Yes, not the effect but merely as to the degree.
The actions of California and the other states passing anti-passive smoke laws are consistent with the concepts of the founders of the Constitution. States are the laboratories where social concepts are tried and evaluated.
One of the difficulties in discussing issues with Ms Braddish or those of her partisan persuasion is that she cannot conceive of there being any merit in the beliefs of those to her left. Thus, Al Gore is a Democrat, ergo, there cannot be global warming. John Edwards cannot empathize with the poor and uninsured. And so forth.
It’s a shame because her positions are worth debate but without misrepresentations.
| 168 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
You want to be careful.
Last time anyone mentioned anything they were accused of being traitors/DemLibs/evil.
You are trying argue logic against sophism.
A post placed many months ago tried to claim that passive smoking was fake.
This claim was based upon a discredited study commissioned by Tobacco industry.
Despite showing the links and the varifiable evidence the person went on the attack.
Why waste time on the mindless obeydient servants of a warped ideology? If their masters said the world was flat, suddenly they would agree.
Present a case with good evidence and let the chips fall where they may.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Damo has a point, there are some winds you just have to let blow. The dark forces of ignorance are many, and are not easily overcome. The best we can do is to try to sway those who still have enough independent thought to not follow the right wing talking points without hesitation or thought process...
As for the president, he has disrespected the American people and people the world over..I have no problem calling him Bushie, the Idiot in Chief, Head Jackass, the dumb Bush, Alfred E. Neuman's dumber twin, His Royal Dumbass, The Texas Truth Twister, A boil on the ass of Lady Liberty, Jesus's Waterboy, The Bishop of Bumf*ck, the list goes on and on...
As for Bradish and that ilk, marginalize them, and then let 'em dig their own holes of abject stupidity...
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
Fox News really is frightening.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Republicans are not the only ones that smoke, Just about all the Democrats I know smoke.
Fox news is the only News I Trust, at least they are fair and balanced. But back to the Topic.
I am a conservative, and a Ex-smoker, (I could say that Democrats drove me to smoke, but that's not true so I won't say it.) I know first hand that smoking is bad for the one doing it, and as well as others that have to breathe the second hand smoke.
I am not proud of the fact that I smoked around my kids, and if I had a do over that is one thing I would change. It took my last child that was born with asthma, to open my eyes to what it does to the people around you.
I think smokers know, but don't want to admit it, because they are addicted, and pride won't let thim admit it. No doubt the cigarette makers have covered up the dangers, but people have to know that smoking is bad for them.
Now when I get around some one that smokes I have trouble breathing the smoke, But I started at the age of 13, really before I knew what it could do to me, and my dad was a smoker so I grew up around it. I wish there had been some educational material at school, or a class, or that my dad would have set me down and told me that smoking would kill me if I smoked.
It did kill him, he died of lung cancer and brain tummors, but he always said that it was black lung that caused his breathing to be so bad. He was a coal miner, and worked many years under ground. But I think it was the cigarettes that did it.
Smokers should have a right to smoke (or should they) if they want to, but in a way that does not harm others. Lets all use Respect to others.
But I do agree that it time to start a discussion about smoking and it's affects, Both on the smoker, and on the others that have to breathe that second hand smoke. Guys I feel kind a uncomfortable agreeing with you Liberals, But I have to remember this is not about politics, but about life choices.
So see Guys I am not so bad after all.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
If that ship sailed already it must have sank some where. Because I see people still lighting up.
You should have you mouth washed out with soap, for you words about President Bush.
I guess you would like to go back to the darkest time I can remember when Jimmy Carter was president. Now that was a sorry excuse for a President of the United States.
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
It is not only Fox News that says second hand smoke is not as dangerous as some make it out to be. I don't get Fox News here, but I have read many reports and articles from respected sources that also say the whole thing is overblown.
Perhaps more importantly is the way these laws are being shoved down our throats. As I'm sure you are aware, we here in Ontario are living under a tobacco ban. Our Minister of Health doesn't like smokers and with one pen stroke outlawed smoking in any public building. Maybe this is a good thing if you work in an office building or a government institution. I'll go so far as to say it is even a good thing in the workplace. I am allergic to the scent of cosmetics and don't want to smell them any more than a non-smoker wants to smell tobacco.
However, smoking was also banned in private clubs, bingo halls and Legion posts. There is a store here in town that sells Cuban cigars. The smoking police told the owner he would have to take down his sign advertising his business. How is he supposed to make any money now? He was also forced to remove a carpet with a tobacco companie's logo on it lest some kid be led into the evils of smoking by walking over it. That is past ridiculous.
Our bingo halls and casino contribute millions of dollars to various charities every year. Most bingo players and gamblers smoke. We have closed about 3/4's of the bingo halls and the casino is still reeling from decreased business. They have had a loss of over 30% of their clientele so far and there seems no end in sight. The charities are now asking the city to bail them out so they can provide the same services they did in the past. They seem surprised that the city will not back them, as that money comes directly from me and you, the taxpayer.
Bars and restaurants were forced to install designated smoking rooms, many of them at no small cost to the owners. Now they are useless and the government will not reimburse one red cent of the money spent to comply with a law nobody wanted. DSR's worked and no one who wanted to breathe tobacco smoke had to. It was a win-win situation that is now history.
Not content with dictating to us that we could legally buy tobacco products but wouldn't be able to use them, the government looked briefly at banning smoking in a car where small children were present. Cooler heads prevailed and realized that the cops have better things to do than look inot every automobile on the street to see if they were in compliance with the law. So they took another tack. Now they are looking at banning smoking in apartment buildings. I see nothing wrong with building a new apartment or condo complex and having it smoke free from day one. The market place will determine if the right decision was made. Right now we have a commercial on TV (for the past 7 months) where a condo developer is trying to flog his units. Along with being too expensive and on the wrong end of town, it is a smoke free building and it seems he can't give away what he's built.
Regardless, I am going on my 14th year in this building and the day they show up and tell me I can't smoke here, somebody's getting a size 9 up their ass. No one says that smoking is good for you, although I have been smoking for over 40 years and my lungs are still clear and my heart functions the way it should. It is a matter of choice whether or not you want to smoke or be around smokers. We were never given any choice in the matter and as I've said in the past, the government cracks the door by enacting a seemingly innocent piece of legislation and the next thing you know, they are telling you what to read and where to worship.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Were it to be reported that Pot or Opium or Toxic fumes were not AS BAD as some have said, would we then have to endorse exposing children to them?
Charles Manson was probably not AS BAD as some would declare. This doesn't mean I'd regard him as a sound baby sitter.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
This isn't about 'personal liberties', you're free to polute your lungs to hell but you have no right to do it to anyone else, wherever you are whatever the circumstances.
Youranter is just coming up with random and annoying points that are not relevent to the grand scheme of things, what has a casino donating money to a charity got to do with smoking?
None, though if pressed you might conclude that we should let them do as they please (because they are a private establishment, ignoring the fact people who don't smoke also gamble) but the reason for it would be absurd, that they do 'some good'. This isn't at all related, I don't see why I should be able to go and chop down the entire amazon rain forest because I give money to a charity to save the mountain gorillas.
Parents should be educated on how dangerous second hand smoking is, you can't stop them from smoking in their own homes but if kids are involved then the issue is far bigger than letting them do what they want to themselves. They need to know, understand and regret th efact they smoke. In a way everyone who smokes should feel bad about it. It isn't something that has any pros, it's literally all negative, all the way, from the health risks to the addiction to the money spent, there literally is not one good thing about smoking besides a percieved 'social' aspect which would just as well be done away with if no one smoked.
It's interesting how the few that live to be old smoking claim to be the shining example of how false the whole 'smoking is bad for your lungs' 'theory' is yet many millions actually die because of smoking (including because of passive smoking). Maybe they should come back from the grave any day now and tell us how bad it is? Using yourself as an example is also another absurd method of debating, we don't go off the personal experiences of any one person. We look at the matter in its entirity and tackle it from there while avoiding any false notions of 'liberty' driven by emotion.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
It's funny how often Bradish goes on with her 'drink al gores cool aid' when discussing such matters as Global Climate Change. I haven't even seen 'An Inconvenient Truth' and will not comment on it until I do, yet she has commented on it many times and I'm pretty sure she has never seen it.
It runs in the family, a certain someone else was ranting and raving about how Michael Moore claims publich healthcare is 'free' when it in fact isn't, yet had that person seen 'Sicko' he would have known Michael Moore makes it a point that 'they are drowning in taxes'. Best not be sounding silly when ranting and raving, watch the movie before making any decisions. BUt again, these comments aren't made for the objective mind, they are just emotionally driven bullshit from people who are convinced of their own superiority simply for being who they are.
Like I said, they don't see reason because they choose not to, you can't argue with that, they'll blame the tooth fairy (literally) before they blame themselves, or one of their own. Remain deluded, avoid seeing the others viewpoint, stick to Fox News and call everyone else biased, thats their rationality.
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
The casino contributes millions to charity each year. Because of the smoking law, they have lost over 30% of their income. I guess you didn't read that part. Now the charities can't provide the services they have in the past. I guess you couldn't figure that out.
I never said smoking was a good thing. I said we could all live together in harmony even if it meant being separated at times. That's what DSR's are all about. Again, perhaps if you learn how to read I wouldn't have to dumb it down for you so much.
As for Michael Moore and his film, the information came straight from the horse's mouth from an interview he did with Tavis Smiley. You're right about not going off ranting and raving before you have all the facts. This fact was given at the beginning of the article. Oh that would mean you'd have to know how to read. Too bad about your sorry education Ahmed. Maybe you should ask for a refund because you certainly didn't learn anything about reading comprehension.
Comment by Luke
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
I was about to be all reasonable but i seem to be in the wrong place..
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Brenton, you usually are reasonable. Let me take a page from your buddy Ahmed here. What does Charles Manson have to do with this? It makes no sense. I don't get it. Must be a left wing conspiracy thing.
Maybe if you guys educated yourselves on the facts, instead of letting the left lead you blindly, you'd be able to debate intelligently.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
We can't have opinions based on anything, all we can do is know how great and wonderful conservative thought is and how bad everything new and 'liberal' is.
remember kids, everyone is part of the conspiracy to topple the dominating white christian power structure if they are not christian and white. yessum.
But most importantly, having an opinion of your own is a clear sign the 'left' is somehow running you around like a leash. Lets not get into the fact the christian right has for quite sometime been pushing for, amongst other things, prayers in public schools, unequality (that is if you're gay you're apparently less of a human), amongst other things. Basically if the far right is to be taken for what it is they essentially want everyone to be like them, ergo, no one can think freely, i.e. the heretic is the greatest danger to the white christian power structure.
Interesetingly enough I vote for those who believe in equal rights for all, not any one demographic (be it muslim, christian, gay or whatever, even smokers) but that (irony of ironies) makes me a god damned lefty commy bastard. Yipee kaya mother f******. Oh wait, who said that? I dunno who, but he probably was a liberal. Guess I should clean my mouth out with right wing branded soap then eh?
Like I told bradish, if I'm driking Al Gores kool aid she's drinking George Bush's semen. Only thing is, I don't particularly like Al Gore and haven't watche dan inconvenient truth (much less care whats in it), on the other hand Bradish has mindlessly defended George Bush, has also mindlessly defended her smoking habits. Guess whose best friends with Bradish then?
The only other conservative person pretending to not be biased, namely youranter, who claims to believe in freedom yet can't put it past himself that there was a room opened up in a football stadium, (that seats what? 100,000 people?) for Muslims to pray in. Apparently thats bending over ones back to another dastardly minority trying to take over the friggin world. May I rightly assume that Lesters claim Christianity is under attack because (shock and horror) the ten commandements was not hung up in congress? Honestly I find freedom and democracy under attack if religous symbols penetrate any political office, prayers in congress is an attack on that same democracy but thats ok, so long as it's a christian prayer.
The hypocricy runs and runs, it can leak or pour but in the end the argument is the same: Anyone who thinks differently about xxx issue than what Christians do (or should) is being fooled by the left.
Twisting words, i.e. claiming that when Michael Moore says 'free healthcare' he means the literal term 'free' instead of what he actually said and elaborated upon in his movie, pay by your means, recieve according to your needs is another common thing, it all plays out in the grand scheme of things, that is, avoiding the topic at hand.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to try a little bit harder, unlike you I actually have common sense.
So tell me again, what freedoms are we protecting letting someone smoke?
The lives it will save and the lives it will make better is more than worth it. So a company loses 30% of its income it's such a big deal?
If the US government is oh so noble it would not defy the WTO and legalize online gambling, keep people at home where their smoke only hurts them where they can also play on those slot machines. I'm sure they would also provide heaps of funding to charities too (a point I object to, charities tying themselves down to the profits of a business defy their point of existence but thats another story entirely).
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
She is a woman, however, and should be treated decently and with respect. It's a shame she doesn't afford Senator Clinton or Elizabeth Edwards the same.
Comment by Damo
I love Orble.
It is multiplicity of simple questions that always entertains me.
Passive smoking was meant to be the question but the hidden message is Left verses Right.
Frustration verses commen sense.
This is all tactics of the mind with little or no discussion of the central question.
Instead the Elephant in the room is a big distraction.
The elephant in the room is the frustration with people resorting to tactics designed to stifle any reasoned debate about any subject.
So far Lester has put up a good response that stuck to the subject.
The question is one of passive smoking and its consequenses.
Talk about revenue, smokers rights, liberalism etc are all side issues.
Yet it is pointless talking about the elephant in the room if the elephant is too afraid to speak for itself.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I have no idea why but I laughed when I read that.
Comment by Luke
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior
I find Bush to be all three.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Damo - I'm afraid my non linear mind doesn't really stay on topic very well.
Lescter - Hello, btw
Comment by Damo
Non linea thinking is only good for creative pursuits like:
Theoretical science, the arts and book keeping.
Comment by Damo
Non linea thinking is only good for creative pursuits like:
Theoretical science, the arts and book keeping.
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Sadly people such as yourselves who insist on accusinganyone with differing opinions 'brainwashed by the left' just don't get it.
Like I said, if I'm drinking Al Gores kool aid, you and your 'friend' are drinking George Bush's semen. I really don't give a damna bout the whole left vs right thing but you folks alway sbring it up, I don't even know much about al gore (besides his kid getting thrown in the slammer) but apparently having an opinion that seems to resemble his means I'm being brainwashed.
It's the samething with you people, you just don't get it, I have opinions because I think for myself, I don't have opinions because I'm humping xxx personality. Which is why bringing up irrelevent points and other such bullshit (typical of youranter and the like) annoys me, the fact people who have views built up so superficially that it's all about (literally) 'left vs right' is difficult to comprehent yet I'm trying to communicate with such people which for a lack of a better word is impossible.
You can't discuss a topic with someone who will accuse you of being brainwashed or fooled or tricked simply because you have different opinions. It's like trying to argue with a wall only worse, the wall talks back!
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
I was back in America for a week this year and I was shocked at how sensationalist the news was. I'd forgotten what it was like, I guess. CNN was horrendous, and so were all the other stations.
What is a good news program? I don't know - I've stopped watching news on television. Thanks to the internet, we can filter the news a little better, though it's important to watch the quality of the sources.
Comment by Damo
Comment by Anonymous
Can't you see the precedent being set??
I for one am intelligent and courteous enough to:
-not smoke in a closed area with kids or nonsmokers;
-not smoke in stores, airports, theatres or any designated non-smoking areas;
-not blow smoke at or otherwise foist any of my personal habits on anyone else.
I know the risks involved. You'd have to live in a cave not to these days. The fact remains that I do smoke. I enjoy smoking. The exorbitant taxes I pay to indulge my choice to smoke almost exclusively supports schools and children's programs. That's a big chunk of money, and I don't even have kids. I don't think it's too much to ask for a designated area here and there. You can put up huge signs that can be seen for miles so non-smokers know to stay away.
What I object to is Big Brother breathing down my neck, peeping in my windows and checking up to make sure I don't light up in the wrong place. To pass such a picayune law is a very bad precedent...very bad.
D. Armenta
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Of course you can, I'm pretty sure it's being done already, if not it probably would be soon enough.
The reason for the blanket laws is simple, there are a lot of non smokers who will be affected by the smoke sometimes without choice. People who work at these pubs or clubs (who, besides the bouncers, tend to be uni students) would inhale a heck of a lot of smoke.
If a business banned smoking it could lose a lot in terms of competition even thoug it is doing something good for its employees. By blanket banning it no business suffers but if a business does want to open up a smoking area it may do so.