Why can't they just leave us alone?

[mediocre toker]

Isn't it funny that the worse narcotics out there(i.e the ones that do irreparable damage) are the one's that are legal to buy. Caffeine, nicotine, alcohol (o.k. so that one's not a narcotic). Everybody's doing these damaging products and it is considered normal behavior.
Easily controlled substances that keep the people in their place and make revenue for the government to boot.
The one's that are not so hard to refine like opium and certain mushrooms and mj are automatically illegal to use and possess.Funny that!
I'm not condoning the use of illegal substances. Just keeping abreast of government policies all over the world
The governments of our nations are certainly guilty of keeping us in our places by "giving" us our little vices (at a cost of course) and our hospitals are full of patients that have been abusing themselves with these legal vices for years but all the governments do to help them is raise taxes to pay for their medical needs.
The kicker is that as soon as the vaping crowd out number the smoking crowd (or sooner) the tobacco companies will readily hop onto that bandwagon, put something in their own brand of juice that we can't do without, Slag off the original vaping recipes by means of scare tactics then the government will regulate and tax e juice till they get as much money as they can. Tiz the future people. You know it makes sense. Makes you want to puke

 

[generic mutant]

(Edited: I spoke with Carl and my numbers were off, so disregard.)

Here is some more reading: Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98

We'll ignore their funding, but what do you think of the criticism of their methodology?

Responding to the Enstrom and Kabat Study on Secondhand Smoke - no-smoke.org

BMJ received approximately 150 "rapid response" letters to the article, most of which sharply criticized Enstrom's findings. [7] One of the respondents was Michael J. Thun, Vice President and head of epidemiology and surveillance research at the American Cancer Society, who pronounced Enstrom and Kabat's study "fatally flawed" because "no information was obtained on sources of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke [in the dataset] other then smoking status of the spouse," and "tobacco smoke was so pervasive in the United states in the 1950s and 1960s that virtually everyone was exposed at home, at work or in other settings." Enstrom responded by saying Thun had been unable to "identify a single error" in the study and that his "attack should be seen for what it is--an attempt to discredit work that is at variance with the position he's committed to."

James E. Enstrom - SourceWatch

And this was from one of your own links: Environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart... [Inhal Toxicol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
"When all relevant studies are included in the meta-analysis and results are appropriately combined, current or ever exposure to ETS, as approximated by spousal smoking, is associated with roughly a 5% increased risk of death from coronary heart disease (CHD) in never smokers. Furthermore, there is no dose-response relationship and no elevated risk associated with the highest level of ETS exposure in males or females. An objective assessment of the available epidemiologic evidence indicates that the association of ETS with CHD death in U.S. never smokers is very weak. Previous assessments appear to have overestimated the strength of the association."

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/EKMeta.pdf
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/116/16/1845.full - More Glantz, I'm afraid...

 

[kristin]

You have to ignore the funding if you're going to ignore the funding on the anti-tobacco studies that comes from the drug companies.

 

[kristin]

You also have to remember that anyone who criticizes the anti-tobacco studies gets black listed, so there is a menacing environment in tobacco control - toll the line or get out. Anything from Glantz is pure junk. Seriously. Ask anyone in tobacco harm reduction. This guy was one of the first to try to get e-cigs banned. He is such an anti tobacco and nicotine zealot that it is impossible to consider his work unbiased. Most of the anti-tobacco research is funded by Big Pharma through shills. Think those studies will favor banning smoking so people buy gum or not?

Regarding the criticism: https://www.biomedcentral.com/1742-5573/4/13
and more importantly:
http://archive.biomedcentral.com/1742-5573/content/4/1/11 (Note Glantz's heavy-handed involvement in the attack.)

 

[DC2]

Stanton Glantz is one of the biggest ANTZ in the history of the world.

If you don't believe that, just search this for his name...
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

I'd trust the devil before I would trust that freaking expletive.

 

[kristin]

DC, you have to read that second link I posted in my last post. It's just a shocking testament to what the ANTZ will do to further their agenda to demonize and demoralize tobacco and nicotine users! It's disgusting. Both links are a very enlightening read.

 

[DC2]

DC, you have to read that second link I posted in my last post. It's just a shocking testament to what the ANTZ will do to further their agenda to demonize and demoralize tobacco and nicotine users! It's disgusting. Both links are a very enlightening read.

I don't think I can read them Kristin.
Maybe when the wife and dog are away for a day or two.

I don't try to, but the fact is that I scare people when I get angry.
I have a very deep and loud voice, I'm 6'5" and I have a tendency to wear my emotions on my sleeve.

I can find a reason to cry in almost ANY movie.


I have never, and will never touch any being in anger unless they touch me first.
But my dog still runs away when I get mad.


My wife has learned that I am mostly harmless though.
God bless her.

 

[generic mutant]

Not many dispassionate parties to rely on, are there... Up to you, we can talk about the people, or the methodology.

Carl V Phillips - TobaccoTactics
Carl V Phillips Countering Critics - TobaccoTactics

 

[Butters78]

I don't think I can read them Kristin.
Maybe when the wife and dog are away for a day or two.

I don't try to, but the fact is that I scare people when I get angry.
I have a very deep and loud voice, I'm 6'5" and I have a tendency to wear my emotions on my sleeve.

I can find a reason to cry in almost ANY movie.


I have never, and will never touch any being in anger unless they touch me first.
But my dog still runs away when I get mad.


My wife has learned that I am mostly harmless though.
God bless her.

 

[EddardinWinter]

We can probably agree that I have the right to buy hazardous chemicals of some kinds. And then I can handle them in as safe or unsafe (to me at any rate) way as I feel like.

Do you agree that industries that handle these chemicals require legally enforced minimum safety standards, to protect their workers from risks that are not *inherent* to handling them?

We are not talking about hazardous chemicals being used unsafely. We are talking about using a legal product for its intended use. The product is made to smoke. It is a legal product.

In any event, your question is a non-sequitur. The industry handling the chemicals is in the business of using the chemical. They make their money by processing, mixing, purifying or whatever to the chemical.

It is not relevant to the discussion of using cigarettes for their intended purpose. We are not talking about dangerous stacks of cigarettes being piled up too high and creating a crush hazard. The bar is not in business to sell cigarettes, the bar is open to sell booze. Many patrons like to smoke while they drink, the bar does not profit from the smoking. Why should the bar be prohibited by law from permitting its customers the use of a legal product on its private property?

BTW, Any engineer worth their salt can design an HVAC system that will eliminate the cigarette smoke "hazard" in a bar by creating an air change every minute with positive updraft (the smoke always travels from the floor up due to a multiple high inlet/low outlet system that creates a flow from floor to ceiling). It can be done with an energy recovery ventilator that will do it with minimum energy cost. The air in this space will be as "clean" as the air outside the bar. It will have a higher IAQ than any other conventionally ventilated building even with smoking going on. Does that matter to the zealots? No. There is a zero tolerance policy for smoking indoors. I call it a zero tolerance policy for property rights.

Libertarian-2, Statist-0

 

[generic mutant]

The question is entirely relevant.

Premiss one: If a chemical (or mixture of chemicals) is sufficiently harmful, an industry exposing its workers to it has a moral and legal obligation to protect them from it to the greatest practical extent.
Premiss two: Second hand cigarette smoke is sufficiently harmful.

Conclusion: We should ban smoking in bars.

---

That is the formal structure of the argument I'm making. I'm debating premiss two with Kristin.

I'm now asking you directly if you support premiss one.

 

[EddardinWinter]

You are ignoring the differences between industrial chemical handling and private use of a legal product by individuals. Conveniently ignoring them, in fact. The bar is not exposing them to anything. The other patrons are exposing them to whatever risk exposure there is. Nice try, but not quite good enough.

Should you succeed in proving premise two (and you have a very, very long way to go), the hazard can be neutralized by other means, which should be available to the property owner, should he choose to invest in same. You also choose to ignore that relevant fact.

Fact is, the government has no business banning legal activity of citizens on private property.

 

[generic mutant]

OK, fine, back to the gun range example if you prefer.

Does the gun range have a legal and moral responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect its patrons and employees or not?

 

[Robino1]

I love you Edd

 

[EddardinWinter]

I love you Edd

I love me, too.

 

[EddardinWinter]

OK, fine, back to the gun range example if you prefer.

Does the gun range have a legal and moral responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect its patrons and employees or not?

The government cannot ban gun use at indoor ranges even if the use of them in these indoor ranges is incrementally more dangerous than gun use at outside ranges.

 

[generic mutant]

That isn't an answer to the question. If you need me to clarify;

Does the gun range have a legal and moral responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect its patrons and employees, consistent with its continued operation for its purpose, or not?

 

[Iffy]

That isn't an answer to the question. If you need me to clarify;

Does the gun range have a legal and moral responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect its patrons and employees, consistent with its continued operation for its purpose, or not?

The patrons and employees have a mortal interest/investment in following da rules!

OK, I'm back to watchin' da azz whoopin'...

 

[EddardinWinter]

A gun range has a business responsibility to protect its clients. If the range is not safe, prudent gun owners will not use the facility. Thus, the business will not be in business for long, since there are many gun ranges that operate in a safe manner.

Need a place to shoot? Colonial gun range in Richmond is first rate! Even the ammo is reasonably priced, and you are welcome to bring your own. Not like some places that make you pay through the nose for it...

Legal responsibility? I suspect if the range is negligent, and someone is killed due to this negligence (the negligence is material to the death) they will have a legal issue if the family of the dead patron speaks with a lawyer. Your term "reasonable steps" is so poorly defined it can mean virtually anything.

Moral responsibility? Who determines moral right and wrong, the Pope? Certainly not my government, who spends money it doesn't have to buy stuff we don't need... I cannot possibly answer this question. My moral sense of right and wrong is irrelevant to governmental authority or business practices if I am not an owner of the business. I do not currently own a gun range (indoor or outdoor).

EDIT: Added "if" to the sentence "business practices IF I am not the owner..."

 

[EddardinWinter]

Generic, you are indeed a likeable Statist. Misguided soul that you are.

I will have to rejoin this in the morning, but even then only briefly. I have to be up very early tomorrow to make ridiculous profits for my evil corporation while victimizing the poor, elderly, children, disabled, blind, sick, and other unfortunate marks people. And that sort of crass commercial exploitation requires rest!