Smoking Ban

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
It is close-minded for me to say that I think it's wrong for you to wish to enforce your personal ideal of morals on everyone? That's amusing.

Nice strawman. Unfortunately for you, that's not what you said in the post that I quoted.

Do you know what comes out of a car? 500 cubic feet per minute of some really deadly stuff. You think LA and all those major cities get that smog from the smokers?

This statement is patently false and demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. You're confusing pollutants that affect global warming and visibility with carcinogens. You're not acknowledging that the concentration of this 'deadly stuff' in exhaust is almost zero in a car's exhaust, and it's not really 'deadly' at all unless a car's exhaust and engine are completely shot. You're not acknowledging that 500 cubic feet per minute is a number you just pulled out of your rearmost orifice without knowing what it even means. If you want me to, I can tell you about all these things. I can tell you how a car works and why what comes out of it is much less dangerous than what comes out of a cigarette. I can calculate how much exhaust really comes out of a car, and how much of what comes out is 'deadly stuff.' In short, I'm calling your bluff. I know what I'm talking about here, and I'll bet bottom dollar that you do not. If you want to keep playing, ante up and I'll show you my cards.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Cigarettes are the only product on the market that if used in the manner intended, will kill you. I smoke and would support the ban, let the tobaccco companies grow something a little more usefull.......

Out of all the BS in this thread, I find this argument the most interesting. Just curious, do you believe that, if you didn't smoke, you would live forever? Because cigaretes are not "the only product on the market that if used in the manner intended, will kill you". Drink a 12-pack of Coca-Cola or Pepsi a day for decades and you'll probably die 5 years sooner too.

One thing I like about AT and find so amusing but so sad at the same time... you people do not not live in reality. Instead, you live in this fantasy world where you think your ideal can be created simply by legislation, and all will quickly fall into line with your whims. And those who break the laws created by your superior morals? Nuts to them, you will crush them under your thumb and imprison them for life. It's lovely... little petty tyrants in your mind. 99% of the internet represents the worst of humanity thinking they're the best.

About the smoking issue:
- Don't bring up the cost. Smokers pay higher tax, the cost is less than what you have been made to believe, almost everyone will rack up huge medical costs before they die, and the cost of enforcing any type of tobacco prohibition would be 100 times more than any smoking cost now.
- Don't bring up the pollution. That's hypocritical beyond words. Your car spews more and deadlier pollutants in one minute of operation than any smoker will in a week of smoking. There have actually been very few documented cases of people actually dying of 2nd-hand smoke. If smoking is letting someone shoot a gun into a city, then smog is a tank.

I certainly do not think I will live forever, I was just making an accurate point. Cigarettes are the only product on the market that if used in the manner intended will kill you. They avoided any oversight by the FDA by claiming to be a "natural" product, nevermind the 100s of chemicals added and the fact the nicotine levels are kept at a level to ensure addiction. If they were rightfully under the scope of the FDA they would have been banned.

 

[daveshel]

Regulatory parity for tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. Do what you want within the confines of your home, but do not force me to filter your carcinogens out of my air.

 

[Alistar7]

I like the bans in "public places" that forces smokers to go outside to fire up. Sorry, if you want FRESH AIR you go outside where the air is fresh, let me stay indoors and smoke where it can be contained and filtered.....

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
I like the bans in "public places" that forces smokers to go outside to fire up. Sorry, if you want FRESH AIR you go outside where the air is fresh, let me stay indoors and smoke where it can be contained and filtered.....

The problem there is the smokers are pissed because they have to go outside so they block the door and I have an asthma attack trying to get into or out of the building.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon
I see this issue the same as many see abortion. Don't tell me what to do with my body.

The two aren't equivalent at all. Smoking around other people is analogous to aborting your neighbor's baby, not your own.

They are the same when it comes to this thread topic. Besides, the second hand smoke argument is old and not factual.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon
I see this issue the same as many see abortion. Don't tell me what to do with my body.

The two aren't equivalent at all. Smoking around other people is analogous to aborting your neighbor's baby, not your own.

They are the same when it comes to this thread topic. Besides, the second hand smoke argument is old and not factual.

But my very own wife can abort MY baby and I have no say in that matter.....

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon
I see this issue the same as many see abortion. Don't tell me what to do with my body.

The two aren't equivalent at all. Smoking around other people is analogous to aborting your neighbor's baby, not your own.

They are the same when it comes to this thread topic. Besides, the second hand smoke argument is old and not factual.

No, they're completely different. While I haven't seen any counterproof against the second hand smoke causing cancer, that's not a requirement for smoking being banned from public places. After all, punching someone in the face doesn't cause cancer; nonetheless, your right to swing your fist ends before you strike someone. Similarly, you're right to cause people to choke on nonbreathable gasses and particulates ends with yourself. You have no right to inflict that pain on other people around you any more than you have the right to punch them in the face.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon
I see this issue the same as many see abortion. Don't tell me what to do with my body.

The two aren't equivalent at all. Smoking around other people is analogous to aborting your neighbor's baby, not your own.

They are the same when it comes to this thread topic. Besides, the second hand smoke argument is old and not factual.

No, they're completely different. While I haven't seen any counterproof against the second hand smoke causing cancer, that's not a requirement for smoking being banned from public places. After all, punching someone in the face doesn't cause cancer; nonetheless, your right to swing your fist ends before you strike someone. Similarly, you're right to cause people to choke on nonbreathable gasses and particulates ends with yourself. You have no right to inflict that pain on other people around you any more than you have the right to punch them in the face.

And I don't need to wait for cancer - I experience an immediate and debilitating asthma attack when exposed to cigarette smoke.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon
I see this issue the same as many see abortion. Don't tell me what to do with my body.

The two aren't equivalent at all. Smoking around other people is analogous to aborting your neighbor's baby, not your own.

They are the same when it comes to this thread topic. Besides, the second hand smoke argument is old and not factual.

No, they're completely different. While I haven't seen any counterproof against the second hand smoke causing cancer, that's not a requirement for smoking being banned from public places. After all, punching someone in the face doesn't cause cancer; nonetheless, your right to swing your fist ends before you strike someone. Similarly, you're right to cause people to choke on nonbreathable gasses and particulates ends with yourself. You have no right to inflict that pain on other people around you any more than you have the right to punch them in the face.

Someone smoking outside is not going to cause you to choke anymore than a fart. It's not going to hurt you to walk by someone smoking. As Vic said, your car puts out more nonbreathable gasses than a cigarette. If a restaurant wants to have no smoking, that's fine. But there should not be a law banning it. There are plenty of places who do this. So if you don't like smoking, go to those places.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon
I see this issue the same as many see abortion. Don't tell me what to do with my body.

The two aren't equivalent at all. Smoking around other people is analogous to aborting your neighbor's baby, not your own.

They are the same when it comes to this thread topic. Besides, the second hand smoke argument is old and not factual.

No, they're completely different. While I haven't seen any counterproof against the second hand smoke causing cancer, that's not a requirement for smoking being banned from public places. After all, punching someone in the face doesn't cause cancer; nonetheless, your right to swing your fist ends before you strike someone. Similarly, you're right to cause people to choke on nonbreathable gasses and particulates ends with yourself. You have no right to inflict that pain on other people around you any more than you have the right to punch them in the face.

Someone smoking outside is not going to cause you to choke anymore than a fart. It's not going to hurt you to walk by someone smoking. As Vic said, your car puts out more nonbreathable gasses than a cigarette. If a restaurant wants to have no smoking, that's fine. But there should not be a law banning it. There are plenty of places who do this. So if you don't like smoking, go to those places.

Wrong. It may be true for you but not for some people who suffer from asthma or other respitory ailments.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Wrong. It may be true for you but not for some people who suffer from asthma or other respitory ailments.

Wear a mask if it's that bad. Walk the other way. Avoid it. Hold your breath. If it's that bad smoke won't be the only thing irritating your asthma.

 

[Alistar7]

Using your logic we need to ban cars, factories, cows, etc as well daveshel, not a great arguement.....

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon
I see this issue the same as many see abortion. Don't tell me what to do with my body.

The two aren't equivalent at all. Smoking around other people is analogous to aborting your neighbor's baby, not your own.

They are the same when it comes to this thread topic. Besides, the second hand smoke argument is old and not factual.

No, they're completely different. While I haven't seen any counterproof against the second hand smoke causing cancer, that's not a requirement for smoking being banned from public places. After all, punching someone in the face doesn't cause cancer; nonetheless, your right to swing your fist ends before you strike someone. Similarly, you're right to cause people to choke on nonbreathable gasses and particulates ends with yourself. You have no right to inflict that pain on other people around you any more than you have the right to punch them in the face.

Someone smoking outside is not going to cause you to choke anymore than a fart. It's not going to hurt you to walk by someone smoking.

It hurts me and makes me choke, and I don't have asthma. It's especially bad this week, as I've got a cold.

As Vic said, your car puts out more nonbreathable gasses than a cigarette.

When people run their cars inside offices and restaurants, you've got a point, but until then, no.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon
I see this issue the same as many see abortion. Don't tell me what to do with my body.

The two aren't equivalent at all. Smoking around other people is analogous to aborting your neighbor's baby, not your own.

They are the same when it comes to this thread topic. Besides, the second hand smoke argument is old and not factual.

No, they're completely different. While I haven't seen any counterproof against the second hand smoke causing cancer, that's not a requirement for smoking being banned from public places. After all, punching someone in the face doesn't cause cancer; nonetheless, your right to swing your fist ends before you strike someone. Similarly, you're right to cause people to choke on nonbreathable gasses and particulates ends with yourself. You have no right to inflict that pain on other people around you any more than you have the right to punch them in the face.

Someone smoking outside is not going to cause you to choke anymore than a fart. It's not going to hurt you to walk by someone smoking.

It hurts me and makes me choke, and I don't have asthma. It's especially bad this week, as I've got a cold.

As Vic said, your car puts out more nonbreathable gasses than a cigarette.

When people run their cars inside offices and restaurants, you've got a point, but until then, no.

So how do you manage never to go outside or near traffic?

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Using your logic we need to ban cars, factories, cows, etc as well daveshel, not a great arguement.....

Why? Those things don't cause me problems like cigarettes do.

 

[Moonbeam]

I wouldn't ban smoking, just the sale of cigarettes. Cigarettes can be dispensed at a government generating station where, in order to smoke, you have to work a treadmill and generate enough electricity to pay for the smoke.

Seriously, I would push for a massive research effort into truly effective drugs that would eliminate addiction. People do not smoke and people don't want to smoke. It is the addict that must have that cigarette and tells you that he is you. The addict unfed will die a slow painful vindictive death, day by day until he is a distant memory. Do not feed your Fred.

Every smoker longs for a loved one to put him in jail till the addict is dead. The government should run such a prison for those who would sigh a contract to surrender their liberties for a stated period.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: broon

Someone smoking outside is not going to cause you to choke anymore than a fart. It's not going to hurt you to walk by someone smoking.

It hurts me and makes me choke, and I don't have asthma. It's especially bad this week, as I've got a cold.

As Vic said, your car puts out more nonbreathable gasses than a cigarette.

When people run their cars inside offices and restaurants, you've got a point, but until then, no.

Sometimes perfume makes me choke. Should we ban that too?

I said restaurants can have a no smoking policy but the government shouldn't be involved.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Using your logic we need to ban cars, factories, cows, etc as well daveshel, not a great arguement.....

Why? Those things don't cause me problems like cigarettes do.

Sure they do... in fact, cars alone probably "hurt" you more than cigarettes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Nice strawman.

Whether you realize it or not, your every argument is illogical, and you consistently resist every attempt at a logical argument. If it is strawman for me to point that out to you, so be it.

This statement is patently false and demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. You're confusing pollutants that affect global warming and visibility with carcinogens. You're not acknowledging that the concentration of this 'deadly stuff' in exhaust is almost zero in a car's exhaust, and it's not really 'deadly' at all unless a car's exhaust and engine are completely shot. You're not acknowledging that 500 cubic feet per minute is a number you just pulled out of your rearmost orifice without knowing what it even means. If you want me to, I can tell you about all these things. I can tell you how a car works and why what comes out of it is much less dangerous than what comes out of a cigarette. I can calculate how much exhaust really comes out of a car, and how much of what comes out is 'deadly stuff.' In short, I'm calling your bluff. I know what I'm talking about here, and I'll bet bottom dollar that you do not. If you want to keep playing, ante up and I'll show you my cards.

Go for it, pal. I worked my way through school as an ASE-certified mechanic. You could, of course, argue that cigarette smoke contains more carcinogens per volume than vehicle exhaust, but the pure volume of vehicle exhaust is so far in excess of the cigarette smoke spewed into the air as to be laughable, and it is this volume level that makes is so much more dangerous. The 500cfm figure I pulled out of my ass would be about right for a 3.0L engine at WOT spinning 5k rpm, but dependent on numerous factors, like volumetric efficiency for example (supercharging can lead to greater than 100% volumetric efficiency). Sure, it could be considered an extreme figure, but an engine is little more than an air pump, and its ability to perform work is a direct product of its airflow capacity (it is possible to calculate hp and torque at the exhaust but the numbers would not take into account various inefficiencies, like bolt-on accessories for example). The formula to calculate theoretical air capacity is (rpm*displacement)/2. Bear in mind this formula does not take into account volumetric efficiency. To help you out should you decide to do your own calculations, there are 1728 cubic inches in a cubic foot. Average NA volumetric efficiency is about 90%.
You were saying?


Anyway, one thing I do find terribly amusing (more strawman if your prefer) is that you took so much offense to my statement, but not to dguy6789's absolutely ridiculous and inaccurrate statement that "Letting people smoke is like letting you get a gun, stand in the middle of a city, and spin around shooting it on auto fire."
Do please try to more consistent before standing on the mighty pedestal you have erected for yourself.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Using your logic we need to ban cars, factories, cows, etc as well daveshel, not a great arguement.....

Why? Those things don't cause me problems like cigarettes do.

Maybe those are the reason your are asthmatic.....

 

[Kibbo]

Legislation banning smoking in Restaurants and Bars is not there for the sake of the customers, it is there for the employees. Customers have the choice of whether or not to patronize an establishment that allows smoking. Granted, it is because of all the non-smoking customers that these bans gain thier political support. But the reason that they pass constitutional challenges (btw, the first generation of these laws didn't pass this test in my region and were struck down) is that they protect the health of the employees. The health effects on customers would be negligible. For those who complain of athsma, I see those complaints about as valid as those of someone with an allergy to shellfish complaining about not being able to go to Red Lobster. It sucks that you have that condition, but at a certain point you have to accept that it constrains your lifestyle.

Thing, is, there are numerous studies that show an increased chance of lung cancer in restaurant employees. These employees should be protected. Do deny that is to deny that asbestos miners deserve compensation. Or that construction companies shouldn't be required to supply afety equipment. Employers have a responsibility to maximise the safety of their employees. That being said, there is an ongoing court case regarding a small tavern which was entirely owner-operated. The owner is arguing that he has a right to permit smoking, since he is the only staff member affected by it. I would agree with that. In those cases, I think there should be exceptions.

Note that I am a smoker and a waiter, so I say this while the new laws are crimping my lifestyle, and my income.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Legislation banning smoking in Restaurants and Bars is not there for the sake of the customers, it is there for the employees. Customers have the choice of whether or not to patronize an establishment that allows smoking. Granted, it is because of all the non-smoking customers that these bans gain thier political support. But the reason that they pass constitutional challenges (btw, the first generation of these laws didn't pass this test in my region and were struck down) is that they protect the health of the employees. The health effects on customers would be negligible. For those who complain of athsma, I see those complaints about as valid as those of someone with an allergy to shellfish complaining about not being able to go to Red Lobster. It sucks that you have that condition, but at a certain point you have to accept that it constrains your lifestyle.

Thing, is, there are numerous studies that show an increased chance of lung cancer in restaurant employees. These employees should be protected. Do deny that is to deny that asbestos miners deserve compensation. Or that construction companies shouldn't be required to supply afety equipment. Employers have a responsibility to maximise the safety of their employees. That being said, there is an ongoing court case regarding a small tavern which was entirely owner-operated. The owner is arguing that he has a right to permit smoking, since he is the only staff member affected by it. I would agree with that. In those cases, I think there should be exceptions.

Note that I am a smoker and a waiter, so I say this while the new laws are crimping my lifestyle, and my income.

The employee thing is bunk too. No offense to you but wait staff is easy to find and an easy job to get. You took the job knowing smoking is allowed. If you (wait staff generality) don't want to work in the environment, get a different job.

These numerous studies, do they mention if the employees are smokers? Does it report the percentage of smokers vs. non smokers? That would be good info to know.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
Go for it, pal. I worked my way through school as an ASE-certified mechanic. You could, of course, argue that cigarette smoke contains more carcinogens per volume than vehicle exhaust, but the pure volume of vehicle exhaust is so far in excess of the cigarette smoke spewed into the air as to be laughable, and it is this volume level that makes is so much more dangerous. The 500cfm figure I pulled out of my ass would be about right for a 3.0L engine at WOT spinning 5k rpm, but dependent on numerous factors, like volumetric efficiency for example (supercharging can lead to greater than 100% volumetric efficiency). Sure, it could be considered an extreme figure, but an engine is little more than an air pump, and its ability to perform work is a direct product of its airflow capacity (it is possible to calculate hp and torque at the exhaust but the numbers would not take into account various inefficiencies, like bolt-on accessories for example). The formula to calculate theoretical air capacity is (rpm*displacement)/2. Bear in mind this formula does not take into account volumetric efficiency. To help you out should you decide to do your own calculations, there are 1728 cubic inches in a cubic foot. Average NA volumetric efficiency is about 90%.
You were saying?

Anyway, one thing I do find terribly amusing (more strawman if your prefer) is that you took so much offense to my statement, but not to dguy6789's absolutely ridiculous and inaccurrate statement that "Letting people smoke is like letting you get a gun, stand in the middle of a city, and spin around shooting it on auto fire."
Do please try to more consistent before standing on the mighty pedestal you have erected for yourself.

I fail to see how you being an ASE certified mechanic qualifies you to tell me about the health effects of a car's exhaust. I've likely done just about everything to a car that you have, and with absolutely no training - nothing but a Chiltons, but it didn't impart any understanding of the chemistry or dynamics of the exhaust. My engineering background has, however. It has taught me that chemicals can be endured at certain concentrations without risk. The safe concentration varies per chemical. The chemicals in cigarettes, such as cyanide, require a ridiculously low concentration to have effects on you. Some of the effects of chemicals are also chronic rather than acute, but that doesn't mean there isn't an effect.

In reality, the volumetric efficiency has very little to do with this conversation. In reality, the conversion of fuel to carbon dioxide and gas has everything to do with it as far as this discussion goes. The two are related, but as far as this discussion goes, you're missing the point, as it isn't the volume of gas that leaves the exhaust that is the problem. The problem is the makeup of that stream. If we had 100% consumption of fuel, then the exit stream would ideally be carbon dioxide and water. Instead, it comes out with various COx and NOx species, since the engine is hardly an ideal reactor. So, if you want to make an argument of the form you're weaving, you need to consider the net output of these harmful species. You would also need to consider their health effects (which are very, very low relative to chemicals in smoke). You would also need to consider dilution effects.

As for the calculation itself, the volume output matters not at all. What matters is the molar/mass output rate of these 'harmful' chemicals. So, you'd need to look at the engine as a reactor instead of a simple airflow unit. You'd need to consider catalytic conversion effects. You'd need to consider chemistry of fuel additives. All of these things you ignore because you don't have the background I do, which is fine. However, I do understand them and am trying to tell you what I know. If you're going to reject it out of hand, then you're closed minded, as I previously stated.

I take no issue with whatdguy said because it's obviously ridiculous. You, on the other hand, are trying to pass yourself off as an authority on the subject when you are not. Since I am (at least relatively speaking), I feel obligated to call you on it. If you're going to try to persuade someone, you should be aware of the relevant considerations before you try to make an argument. I can't fault you for not knowing everything I do, as 99.999% of society does not. However, that doesn't mean I'll sit idly by and watch you spout out things that I know are false. It's what I do, whether you or I like it or not.

 

[Alistar7]

Willing to bet there are far more engineers, even in your field, than people who hold my qualifications. As a matter of fact there are currently less than 45,000 worldwide that hold my level of certification (expertise) and have the legal ability to make the decisions I can. You don't want to know what it is either, you might be too afraid to leave your house, lol.