Italy is a nation known as much for its food as for the ubiquitous plastic bag, given out freely with every purchase around the country and often left to litter streets or landfills. A new ban coming into effect January 1, however, may change that.
Mexico City last year banned shops from giving out plastic bags that are not bio-degradable. France also imposed a similar law.
China has adopted a strict limit on them, reducing litter and eliminating the use of 40 billion bags, the World Watch Institute said, citing government estimates. Although compliance has been spotty, violation of the law carries a possible fine of 10,000 yuan ($1,463), World Watch said.
In Tanzania, selling the bags carries a maximum six-month jail sentence and a fine of 1.5 million shilling ($1,137).
Mumbai, India, outlawed the bags in 2000 and cities in Australia, South Africa and Taiwan have imposed bans or surcharges. Ireland reported cutting use of the bags by 90 percent after imposing a fee on each one.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/31/italy.plastic.bags/index.html?hpt=Sbin
I had no idea.......
We still have bags in Mexico.
Its one of those stupid unenforced laws.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 01, 2011, 05:25:40 PM
In Tanzania, selling the bags carries a maximum six-month jail sentence and a fine of 1.5 million shilling ($1,137).
The rest of it all makes sense as environmental initiatives of one sort or another. This just stuck out as rather odd and amusing. Makes the selling of plastic bags sound like selling drugs.
Althought for a week or two, every supermarket was panicking and looking at paper bags as an alternative.
Now that everything is as it always was, the paper bag factories arent content at all.
The entire concept just surprised me I guess. I am still not sure how I feel about it. Why not styrofoam as well?
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 01, 2011, 06:01:55 PM
The entire concept just surprised me I guess. I am still not sure how I feel about it. Why not styrofoam as well?
I wouldn't be surprised if styrofoam gets it pretty soon. plastic bags are easier to replace than styrofoam (paper bags) and have also been the darling of a lot of the cute environmental types. apparently when floating in the water they look just like jellyfish and then sea turtles try to eat them and die, that sort of thing.
I don't know if they banned plastic sixpack rings or if they just sort of vanished, but I know those were another thing that was known for killing cute marine animals that I haven't seen in any stores in quite a while.
Well they are not good environmentally speaking. Neither of them are biodegradable and bot probably contribute to the 'floating plastic islands' in the ocean.
In many southern states they have mastered the art of tree harvesting and replanting for paper and cardboard. In fact it's a big business.
I never throw plastic bags away by themselves, I recycle them once, by using them as trash bags. You can't do that with paper bags as well as you can with plastic, try throwing away something wet or icky... Ugh.
Course, that probably reveals me as a horrible person, but, whatever, killing=wrong too, and I'm not about to give up my greasy double bacon cheeseburgers.
Yeah, same here, but that still isn't eliminating them from landfills and from blowing down my street everywhere. There are just too many people on the earth.
He considerado mudarse a México. Joh'nyx ¿tiene usted alguna idea sobre esto?
Landfills are an ugly complicated mess that I know next to nothing about, and what little I understand is enough to make me sick, of course, with the way things are set up, what can you do?
Doesn't Massachusets or some such place have an island made completely of trash, where they need to poke pipes into it for it to off-gas, and burn the gas?... YUCK... And underground fires, issuing forth toxic smoke in other landfills, it's just a big freaking problem.
I wish I knew who or what to blame for things getting this way. Consumer culture is one thing that comes to mind, but when I start thinking about that, I start wondering where we'd be without it, and I can't help but think that would be much worse. Still, the payment for all this madness is going to come due sometime, and it's not going to be pretty.
The bags blowing down the street are the result of trashy people who can't bother themselves to keep track of their responsibility for their own garbage... Like they couldn't think of another use for that plastic bag once it served its purpose.
I know, I should write a children's book about a lonely plastic bag, cast away into a cold, cruel world, who finally finds a cozy home as a drunk bum's thunderbird coozy... That'll condition the children of tomorrow to think more about their trash... Assign it human feelings, and introduce the concept at a young and impressionable age. Sadly, that does nothing now.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Well in ireland it certainly ism't just a fad. All countries that rely on tourism and scenic villages and countryside should have the same we do. It was a HUGE improvement over seeing them sticking out of every hedge and gutter.
Quote from: Faust on January 01, 2011, 06:43:35 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Well in ireland it certainly ism't just a fad. All countries that rely on tourism and scenic villages and countryside should have the same we do. It was a HUGE improvement over seeing them sticking out of every hedge and gutter.
Isn't that ugly as hell? Pisses me off.
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 01, 2011, 06:42:09 PM
Landfills are an ugly complicated mess that I know next to nothing about, and what little I understand is enough to make me sick, of course, with the way things are set up, what can you do?
Doesn't Massachusets or some such place have an island made completely of trash, where they need to poke pipes into it for it to off-gas, and burn the gas?... YUCK... And underground fires, issuing forth toxic smoke in other landfills, it's just a big freaking problem.
I wish I knew who or what to blame for things getting this way. Consumer culture is one thing that comes to mind, but when I start thinking about that, I start wondering where we'd be without it, and I can't help but think that would be much worse. Still, the payment for all this madness is going to come due sometime, and it's not going to be pretty.
The bags blowing down the street are the result of trashy people who can't bother themselves to keep track of their responsibility for their own garbage... Like they couldn't think of another use for that plastic bag once it served its purpose.
I know, I should write a children's book about a lonely plastic bag, cast away into a cold, cruel world, who finally finds a cozy home as a drunk bum's thunderbird coozy... That'll condition the children of tomorrow to think more about their trash... Assign it human feelings, and introduce the concept at a young and impressionable age. Sadly, that does nothing now.
Its too late Fuji...
Ever since those assholes in American Beauty decided that a plastic bag floating in the wind is "the most beautiful thing in the world" that you could watch it for hours and wank to it and love it and hope that you never never never lose the videotape of it - its too late.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 01, 2011, 06:37:27 PM
He considerado mudarse a México. Joh'nyx ¿tiene usted alguna idea sobre esto?
San Miguel de Allende esta lleno de compatriotas tuyos, familias enteras, el razonamiento de muchos de ellos es que el dinero de sus retiros les rinde mucho más aquí que en su propio país. Entonces en cierta forma esta bien, digo, hay una comunidad de americanos, aunque no se que tan cercanos sean entre ellos.
Pero todo el país vive bajo una constante violencia, practicamente el unico lugar con "gobernabilidad" y sin inseguridad es Querétaro. Entonces depende mucho de los criterios personales de necesidades básicas.
Gracias. Entiendo que la violencia y no quieren quedar atrapados en ella. Parece sin embargo que los mexicanos tienen más libertad personal que nosotros.
Quote from: Faust on January 01, 2011, 06:43:35 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Well in ireland it certainly ism't just a fad. All countries that rely on tourism and scenic villages and countryside should have the same we do. It was a HUGE improvement over seeing them sticking out of every hedge and gutter.
THIS.
Turkey is sooo fucking ugly with all the plastic discarded bits everywhere.
Anyone know if they're also outlawed in Spain, btw? When I was in Valencia last year, we were wondering about how clean the streets were.
In NL we haven't outlawed plastic bags (yet?), but it's not plastic bags that litter our streets. I'd say we have a medium amount of litter on the streets, but a lot of it is food packaging/wrappers and cigarette butts. I dunno, maybe because most people indeed tend to re-use their plastic bags for many purposes?
And why not styrofoam? Indeed, why not :) But they have to start somewhere, I guess. Also I haven't really seen styrofoam littering the streets.
Well, after kicking this around in my head I came down on the side of being in favor of it. More and more I see people using those canvas like bags that you pay a dollar for and then reuse them over and over. Besides, at least paper is biodegradable.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 01, 2011, 08:09:58 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 01, 2011, 06:43:35 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Well in ireland it certainly ism't just a fad. All countries that rely on tourism and scenic villages and countryside should have the same we do. It was a HUGE improvement over seeing them sticking out of every hedge and gutter.
THIS.
Turkey is sooo fucking ugly with all the plastic discarded bits everywhere.
Anyone know if they're also outlawed in Spain, btw? When I was in Valencia last year, we were wondering about how clean the streets were.
In NL we haven't outlawed plastic bags (yet?), but it's not plastic bags that litter our streets. I'd say we have a medium amount of litter on the streets, but a lot of it is food packaging/wrappers and cigarette butts. I dunno, maybe because most people indeed tend to re-use their plastic bags for many purposes?
And why not styrofoam? Indeed, why not :) But they have to start somewhere, I guess. Also I haven't really seen styrofoam littering the streets.
This is exactly why. It's entirely possible that styrofoam is having a worse effect on the environment than plastic bags, but out of sight, out of mind.
"it's entirely possible" ?? What does that even mean, either it is, or it isn't, but if you actually don't know, then it just clouds the discussion.
BTW it's also entirely possible that every three out of five salmons have a much, much worse effect on the environment than styrofoam, plastic bags and mayonaise, combined.
Another thing...PLASTIC DISPOSABLE WATER BOTTLES ALL OVER THE SIDE OF THE FUCKING ROAD! :argh!:
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 01, 2011, 08:50:05 PM
"it's entirely possible" ?? What does that even mean, either it is, or it isn't, but if you actually don't know, then it just clouds the discussion.
BTW it's also entirely possible that every three out of five salmons have a much, much worse effect on the environment than styrofoam, plastic bags and mayonaise, combined.
I just meant to point out that there are bigger problems due to pollution than plastic bags. Banning plastic bags seems more an aesthetic decision, rather than actual concern over the environment.
I think it has very much to do with the environment.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 01, 2011, 10:08:03 PM
I think it has very much to do with the environment.
I'm just having a cynical moment.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 01, 2011, 06:57:36 PM
Gracias. Entiendo que la violencia y no quieren quedar atrapados en ella. Parece sin embargo que los mexicanos tienen más libertad personal que nosotros.
Well, we can get into a discussion in terms of specific examples, because even do in a general sense theres more liberties, theres other kinds of limitations that screw over those same liberties.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 01, 2011, 06:01:55 PM
The entire concept just surprised me I guess. I am still not sure how I feel about it. Why not styrofoam as well?
Oakland, California has banned it. Which I totally support and wish my city would as well, because they're ugly and bad for the environment. Our streets are pretty much litter free (because the city cleans all that shit up weekly), but what litter we do have tends to be styrofoam cups.
I love those reusable canvas bags.
Some of the ones I got from Publix fold up and have a snap on them so they're like the size of a .. cd case (remember those?) or something.
I can use those things everywhere
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 01, 2011, 10:57:25 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 01, 2011, 06:01:55 PM
The entire concept just surprised me I guess. I am still not sure how I feel about it. Why not styrofoam as well?
Oakland, California has banned it. Which I totally support and wish my city would as well, because they're ugly and bad for the environment. Our streets are pretty much litter free (because the city cleans all that shit up weekly), but what litter we do have tends to be styrofoam cups.
That's one thing btw, styrofoam cups are really rare over here. Most disposable cups are either cardboard/paper or non-foam polystyrene. Still people tend to throw them in waste-baskets.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 02, 2011, 11:43:28 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 01, 2011, 10:57:25 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 01, 2011, 06:01:55 PM
The entire concept just surprised me I guess. I am still not sure how I feel about it. Why not styrofoam as well?
Oakland, California has banned it. Which I totally support and wish my city would as well, because they're ugly and bad for the environment. Our streets are pretty much litter free (because the city cleans all that shit up weekly), but what litter we do have tends to be styrofoam cups.
That's one thing btw, styrofoam cups are really rare over here. Most disposable cups are either cardboard/paper or non-foam polystyrene. Still people tend to throw them in waste-baskets.
Same here, I think they may be banned too. We don't have styrofoam problem any more either thankfully.
I had coffee in a styrofoam cup once, while they are probably excellent at keeping warmth inside the cup, and not burning your fingers, I dunno it's something, the texture of styrofoam, or maybe a tiny bit of the smell, gimme smooth plastic any time.
Actually I don't really like paper cups because of that reason either, although less so.
What's worst are those thin wooden stirring sticks, made from the same kind of wood as ice pop sticks and pencils ... horrible flavour. stir the sugar quickly, and then dispose as quick as possible.
We have some of those lidded permanent cups that are made from corn. Very plastic like in texture, but biodegradable.
I for one am glad that steps are being taken to stop the use of these products and cleaning up the view at the same time.
yeah those types of containers are getting very popular over here in teh Silicon Valley too. My new HP laptop was packed in with those paper mulch inserts instead of Styrofoam as well. It sorta looks like those plant pots that you bury with the plant so they decompose and feed the plant.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 02, 2011, 02:03:31 PM
I had coffee in a styrofoam cup once, while they are probably excellent at keeping warmth inside the cup, and not burning your fingers, I dunno it's something, the texture of styrofoam, or maybe a tiny bit of the smell, gimme smooth plastic any time.
Actually I don't really like paper cups because of that reason either, although less so.
What's worst are those thin wooden stirring sticks, made from the same kind of wood as ice pop sticks and pencils ... horrible flavour. stir the sugar quickly, and then dispose as quick as possible.
I used to eat pencils... Those metal eraser bits do a number on fillings... YECH.
I normally use the paper cups or plastic bottles, which I don't mind. Styrofoam is only used when I'm eating at some cheap mom and pop place, and have never noticed the taste you described, Trip. But I tend to drink very strongly flavored things, so that might be why.
At 550ft, RI's Central Landfill in Johnston is the highest man-made hill, only 300 ft smaller than the highest natural point in the state AND taller than the highest building in Providence.
...You can see it from most points in the northern half of the state. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 01, 2011, 06:01:55 PM
The entire concept just surprised me I guess. I am still not sure how I feel about it. Why not styrofoam as well?
Most types of styrofoam food packaging were banned in Oregon nearly 30 years ago.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 01, 2011, 08:50:05 PM
"it's entirely possible" ?? What does that even mean, either it is, or it isn't, but if you actually don't know, then it just clouds the discussion.
BTW it's also entirely possible that every three out of five salmons have a much, much worse effect on the environment than styrofoam, plastic bags and mayonaise, combined.
:lulz:
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 01, 2011, 09:06:59 PM
Another thing...PLASTIC DISPOSABLE WATER BOTTLES ALL OVER THE SIDE OF THE FUCKING ROAD! :argh!:
Disposable water bottles drive me crazy. They're hideous, and on top of that the water here is some of the best in the world, AND AND AND some oldspag named Benson set up an enormous trust to pay for free drinking fountains all over the city.
There's just no fucking excuse for that plastic disposable shit. A fucking stainless steel water bottle can be had for $12 in any grocery store around here.
OH OH OH btw, HAVENT YOU SEEN the new kinds of water bottles that are scrunchable and biodegradable?????
Or is that just a crazy local idea someone came up in my country?????
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 03, 2011, 03:42:38 AM
OH OH OH btw, HAVENT YOU SEEN the new kinds of water bottles that are scrunchable and biodegradable?????
Or is that just a crazy local idea someone came up in my country?????
We have "biodegradable" ones here now, but it's still a small percentage and they're still stupid.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 02, 2011, 11:43:28 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 01, 2011, 10:57:25 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 01, 2011, 06:01:55 PM
The entire concept just surprised me I guess. I am still not sure how I feel about it. Why not styrofoam as well?
Oakland, California has banned it. Which I totally support and wish my city would as well, because they're ugly and bad for the environment. Our streets are pretty much litter free (because the city cleans all that shit up weekly), but what litter we do have tends to be styrofoam cups.
That's one thing btw, styrofoam cups are really rare over here. Most disposable cups are either cardboard/paper or non-foam polystyrene. Still people tend to throw them in waste-baskets.
If those paper cups have a layer of wax on them then they belong in the waste basket because they're not recyclable.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Dont you think its a bit tripe compared to other more important things, like idk, reducing carbon emissions with a "no-driving" day calendar?
I mean, all in relation to health.
Considering the impact of second hand smoke on health, no, I don't think it's "a bit tripe". In fact, I think the impact of constant exposure to second hand smoke is going to have more acute impacts on a person's health compared to the impact of carbon emissions.
But of course, it would be completely asinine to suggest we can't address both.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 03, 2011, 03:11:02 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Dont you think its a bit tripe compared to other more important things, like idk, reducing carbon emissions with a "no-driving" day calendar?
I mean, all in relation to health.
Not really. I mean, for one, a mandatory "no driving" day would really fuck over someone like me if it fell on any day except Sunday. Unless that's not what you mean, but in that case you'll have to clarify.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 03:15:43 PM
Considering the impact of second hand smoke on health, no, I don't think it's "a bit tripe". In fact, I think the impact of constant exposure to second hand smoke is going to have more acute impacts on a person's health compared to the impact of carbon emissions.
But of course, it would be completely asinine to suggest we can't address both.
As a smoker I just stopped eating out or drinking in bars when no smoking laws passed. If I am to be treated as a second class citizen then they will get none of my disposable income. Not that I have any these days.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 03:15:43 PM
Considering the impact of second hand smoke on health, no, I don't think it's "a bit tripe". In fact, I think the impact of constant exposure to second hand smoke is going to have more acute impacts on a person's health compared to the impact of carbon emissions.
But of course, it would be completely asinine to suggest we can't address both.
Can you refer me to a study or literature?
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 03, 2011, 03:18:46 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 03, 2011, 03:11:02 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Dont you think its a bit tripe compared to other more important things, like idk, reducing carbon emissions with a "no-driving" day calendar?
I mean, all in relation to health.
Not really. I mean, for one, a mandatory "no driving" day would really fuck over someone like me if it fell on any day except Sunday. Unless that's not what you mean, but in that case you'll have to clarify.
Yeah that, where 10% of cars arent allowed to drive once a week.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 03, 2011, 03:27:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 03, 2011, 03:18:46 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 03, 2011, 03:11:02 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Dont you think its a bit tripe compared to other more important things, like idk, reducing carbon emissions with a "no-driving" day calendar?
I mean, all in relation to health.
Not really. I mean, for one, a mandatory "no driving" day would really fuck over someone like me if it fell on any day except Sunday. Unless that's not what you mean, but in that case you'll have to clarify.
Yeah that, where 10% of cars arent allowed to drive once a week.
Yeah, I'd be pretty screwed. I'm a good 25 miles from where I work/go to school, with no public transportation and no way to carpool. And there are shit ton of people like that here. Drawback of living in rural Middle America.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 03, 2011, 03:38:22 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 03, 2011, 03:27:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 03, 2011, 03:18:46 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 03, 2011, 03:11:02 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Dont you think its a bit tripe compared to other more important things, like idk, reducing carbon emissions with a "no-driving" day calendar?
I mean, all in relation to health.
Not really. I mean, for one, a mandatory "no driving" day would really fuck over someone like me if it fell on any day except Sunday. Unless that's not what you mean, but in that case you'll have to clarify.
Yeah that, where 10% of cars arent allowed to drive once a week.
Yeah, I'd be pretty screwed. I'm a good 25 miles from where I work/go to school, with no public transportation and no way to carpool. And there are shit ton of people like that here. Drawback of living in rural Middle America.
Just about everywhere I've lived I've had a similar problem, but usually it's anywhere from 5-30 miles from where I work. 5 I'll usually walk, unless the weather is bad, but that wouldn't work for everyone.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 03, 2011, 03:26:05 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 03:15:43 PM
Considering the impact of second hand smoke on health, no, I don't think it's "a bit tripe". In fact, I think the impact of constant exposure to second hand smoke is going to have more acute impacts on a person's health compared to the impact of carbon emissions.
But of course, it would be completely asinine to suggest we can't address both.
Can you refer me to a study or literature?
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2010/second-hand-smoke-damages.html
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2010/passive-smoking-kills.html
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2002/researchers-secondhand-smoke.html
If people don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, I can understand. I go out of my way to accommodate others, I don't even bother to ask first, I find a nice, isolate spot outside to smoke, and take the wind direction into account. If they're smokers too, fuck it, already inhaling the stuff anyway, that doesn't bother me... But I will not stand for anyone telling me I cannot smoke, or advocating an all-out ban on smoking.
Hearing loss... The most talented musicians I know smoke. Is it possible hearing damage is caused by either going to live shows, or playing at live shows? Perhaps the entertainment preferences of smokers are different, and hearing loss is unrelated to smoking. Ever go to a bar? A good proportion of the people who go to bars are smokers. When the bars no longer allow smoking, you start to see a huge drop in business. Is it possible that the entertainment preferences of some non-smokers involves sitting in a sound-proof cave, eating tofu and broccoli, and sipping tea? A number of them are already averse to damaging themselves by smoking, so I don't think it's such a great leap to think that their other habits, such as music listening and the like, may be toned down a bit. Me, I like greasy burgers and bloody steaks. I like scotch, straight, and I like to smoke my brains out while listening to deafening roars of sound.
When I was young, I remember the sickly greenish yellow furniture in my parents house. It was once white... All my relatives smoked, shoot, everyone in town smoked. The children weren't dropping like flies. While I wouldn't expose my own children to second hand smoke (were I ever to have them), I think that the number of child deaths attributed to smoking in one of the articles may be a little high. I find myself wondering about the validity of the studies, but, I'm not really going to look into it, so my opinion ain't worth crap on the matter, I guess.
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 04:13:56 PM
If people don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, I can understand. I go out of my way to accommodate others, I don't even bother to ask first, I find a nice, isolate spot outside to smoke, and take the wind direction into account. If they're smokers too, fuck it, already inhaling the stuff anyway, that doesn't bother me... But I will not stand for anyone telling me I cannot smoke, or advocating an all-out ban on smoking.
Hearing loss... The most talented musicians I know smoke. Is it possible hearing damage is caused by either going to live shows, or playing at live shows? Perhaps the entertainment preferences of smokers are different, and hearing loss is unrelated to smoking. Ever go to a bar? A good proportion of the people who go to bars are smokers. When the bars no longer allow smoking, you start to see a huge drop in business. Is it possible that the entertainment preferences of some non-smokers involves sitting in a sound-proof cave, eating tofu and broccoli, and sipping tea? A number of them are already averse to damaging themselves by smoking, so I don't think it's such a great leap to think that their other habits, such as music listening and the like, may be toned down a bit. Me, I like greasy burgers and bloody steaks. I like scotch, straight, and I like to smoke my brains out while listening to deafening roars of sound.
When I was young, I remember the sickly greenish yellow furniture in my parents house. It was once white... All my relatives smoked, shoot, everyone in town smoked. The children weren't dropping like flies. While I wouldn't expose my own children to second hand smoke (were I ever to have them), I think that the number of child deaths attributed to smoking in one of the articles may be a little high. I find myself wondering about the validity of the studies, but, I'm not really going to look into it, so my opinion ain't worth crap on the matter, I guess.
:retard:
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 04:13:56 PM
If people don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, I can understand. I go out of my way to accommodate others, I don't even bother to ask first, I find a nice, isolate spot outside to smoke, and take the wind direction into account. If they're smokers too, fuck it, already inhaling the stuff anyway, that doesn't bother me... But I will not stand for anyone telling me I cannot smoke, or advocating an all-out ban on smoking.
I'm not for telling someone they can't smoke, and I don't advocate an all-out ban on smoking everywhere. However, I do support designating no-smoking areas, I support banning smoking in public places, I do support the ban on smoking in bars and pubs. For the health of the employees if no one else.
QuoteHearing loss... The most talented musicians I know smoke. Is it possible hearing damage is caused by either going to live shows, or playing at live shows? Perhaps the entertainment preferences of smokers are different, and hearing loss is unrelated to smoking. Ever go to a bar? A good proportion of the people who go to bars are smokers. When the bars no longer allow smoking, you start to see a huge drop in business.
[citation needed] They banned smoking in bars in Portland (Maine). Business in the Old Port is just as good as it was before the ban. People go outside to have their smoke, then they go back in to resume drinking, watching the band, etc.
QuoteIs it possible that the entertainment preferences of some non-smokers involves sitting in a sound-proof cave, eating tofu and broccoli, and sipping tea? A number of them are already averse to damaging themselves by smoking, so I don't think it's such a great leap to think that their other habits, such as music listening and the like, may be toned down a bit. Me, I like greasy burgers and bloody steaks. I like scotch, straight, and I like to smoke my brains out while listening to deafening roars of sound.
From what portion of your ass did you pull that? I'm a non-smoker. When I lived in Portland I spent my weekends at one of two bars listening, and occasionally performing. I like a loud, dirty, rock club as much as the next guy. But, as someone who works in the field of public health, I also understand the impact second hand smoke can have, namely on the employees of these places. I don't think it is a big deal to ask patrons to have their butts outside.
QuoteWhen I was young, I remember the sickly greenish yellow furniture in my parents house. It was once white... All my relatives smoked, shoot, everyone in town smoked. The children weren't dropping like flies. While I wouldn't expose my own children to second hand smoke (were I ever to have them), I think that the number of child deaths attributed to smoking in one of the articles may be a little high. I find myself wondering about the validity of the studies, but, I'm not really going to look into it, so my opinion ain't worth crap on the matter, I guess.
Well, if you're going to throw shit out and not back it up, then yeah, you're right.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 03, 2011, 04:24:20 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 04:13:56 PM
If people don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, I can understand. I go out of my way to accommodate others, I don't even bother to ask first, I find a nice, isolate spot outside to smoke, and take the wind direction into account. If they're smokers too, fuck it, already inhaling the stuff anyway, that doesn't bother me... But I will not stand for anyone telling me I cannot smoke, or advocating an all-out ban on smoking.
Hearing loss... The most talented musicians I know smoke. Is it possible hearing damage is caused by either going to live shows, or playing at live shows? Perhaps the entertainment preferences of smokers are different, and hearing loss is unrelated to smoking. Ever go to a bar? A good proportion of the people who go to bars are smokers. When the bars no longer allow smoking, you start to see a huge drop in business. Is it possible that the entertainment preferences of some non-smokers involves sitting in a sound-proof cave, eating tofu and broccoli, and sipping tea? A number of them are already averse to damaging themselves by smoking, so I don't think it's such a great leap to think that their other habits, such as music listening and the like, may be toned down a bit. Me, I like greasy burgers and bloody steaks. I like scotch, straight, and I like to smoke my brains out while listening to deafening roars of sound.
When I was young, I remember the sickly greenish yellow furniture in my parents house. It was once white... All my relatives smoked, shoot, everyone in town smoked. The children weren't dropping like flies. While I wouldn't expose my own children to second hand smoke (were I ever to have them), I think that the number of child deaths attributed to smoking in one of the articles may be a little high. I find myself wondering about the validity of the studies, but, I'm not really going to look into it, so my opinion ain't worth crap on the matter, I guess.
:retard:
Most of those 'studies' are so biased it's like listening to Rush.
RWHN:
I'm glad you're only for banning it in public places, I can accept that, as I can go outside. It's not a big deal to me, but now you hear talk in some places (California, I think) about them banning smoking wherever people are gathered, what doesn't seem to get discussed on the radio (mostly NPR, which was supportive of this sort of thing) is how appropriate that is if the entire group is smoking... Yeah, you wander into a crowd of non-smokers with a cigarette, that's wrong. A concern of mine is how they will interpret and enforce such laws.
What you said about Portland, yeah, it was kind of the same in downtown Austin. Austin has a LOT of live music, and not being able to smoke in the bars doesn't keep people away, lots of tourism and the like, and you just can't find that sort of thing at a whole lot of other places... Where it hits hard are the smaller bars, who don't have a bunch of live music, on the outskirts of the city. Ok, ok, here's a link:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smoking_ban
Scroll down to where it talks about the effects on business... Notice who paid for what study. Academic and government studies say there is no effect, the bars say there is... Of course, government studies are going to support government policy (and the studies payed for by the bars are typically going to support the point of view of the bars). Academic I don't know anything about, so I'm not saying anything about that. Bars, pubs, resteraunts, they're going to talk about what is hitting their pocketbooks. Now, it's entirely possible that some of them are overstating their drop in business. It's also entirely possible that what I've observed with my own eyes is prone to bias (which is probably why I can't get away with just asspulling shit anywhere).
That's great if you're not one of those sound proof cave dwellers, my stepdad is, though. He doesn't agree with a smoking ban, but he doesn't smoke and doesn't want to be around it, he also doesn't drink. This does not prove my point, however, I'm just saying, they're out there, not a figment of my imagination. I didn't say "you", or "all", I said some. If you want me to give an exact number, or a statistic, I'm sorry, I can't do that (nor would I trust the statistic even if I found it). "Some" does not even mean "most" or "just less than half". It means some... It was also speculation as to where the mysterious non-smoker majority spends its time (which was inappropriate of me, and I apologize), as it seems (if you believe the people talking about their own drop in business) they're not frequenting the smaller bars even after the air has been cleared for them.
At most of the smoking bars and pool halls I've been to, the staff smokes. If they don't, I don't think it's too much to ask for them to take their butts somewhere else for a job. Just sayin'. Other than that, I don't see that much of a disagreement here, other than over the rights of a business owner to run their businesses as they see fit, within reason. You know, you could always make a statement with where you take your business, which is pretty much the message some smokers get from these non-smoking laws. It doesn't bother me to go outside, but it does worry me that it's part of a creeping agenda.
Yes, it is part of the creeping agenda of improving and protecting public health. It isn't some nefarious plot to stick it to smokers. The policies and laws are not being put in place to punish smokers. The laws and policies are about limiting exposure to second hand smoke.
I'd rather not expose an unwilling person to second hand smoke, honestly... And as far as public health is concerned, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
QuotePrüss-Üstün hoped the findings would serve as a catalyst for countries to enforce the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a global initiative aimed at reducing the burden of tobacco-related disease by increasing taxes on tobacco products, banning tobacco advertising, eliminating smoking in public places, and making packs less commercially attractive.
"Policy-makers should bear in mind that enforcing complete smoke-free laws will probably substantially reduce the number of deaths attributable to exposure to second-hand smoke within the first year of its implementation, with accompanying reduction in costs of illness in social and health systems," she said.
From:
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2002/researchers-secondhand-smoke.html
How is this
not sticking it to smokers? And what does the part in bold mean? I'm probably reading too much into this, but can you see my cause for concern here?
EDIT:
Concern for public health brought us such monstrosities as prohibition and the war on drugs.
EDIT EDIT: Charley beat me to it...
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 06:28:30 PM
I'd rather not expose an unwilling person to second hand smoke, honestly... And as far as public health is concerned, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
QuotePrüss-Üstün hoped the findings would serve as a catalyst for countries to enforce the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a global initiative aimed at reducing the burden of tobacco-related disease by increasing taxes on tobacco products, banning tobacco advertising, eliminating smoking in public places, and making packs less commercially attractive.
"Policy-makers should bear in mind that enforcing complete smoke-free laws will probably substantially reduce the number of deaths attributable to exposure to second-hand smoke within the first year of its implementation, with accompanying reduction in costs of illness in social and health systems," she said.
From:
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2002/researchers-secondhand-smoke.html
How is this not sticking it to smokers? And what does the part in bold mean? I'm probably reading too much into this, but can you see my cause for concern here?
Because prohibition and the war on drugs worked so well, right?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health. :lulz:
No, but the employees might be.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 06:43:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health. :lulz:
No, but the employees might be.
*shrug*
I work around welding fumes all day. Life's tough, wear a filter mask.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:45:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 06:43:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health. :lulz:
No, but the employees might be.
*shrug*
I work around welding fumes all day. Life's tough, wear a filter mask.
No, you're doing it wrong. Send the social outcast smokers outside to smoke in the winter. This way they can all spread the flu instead. See? We win either way.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 03, 2011, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:45:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 06:43:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health. :lulz:
No, but the employees might be.
*shrug*
I work around welding fumes all day. Life's tough, wear a filter mask.
No, you're doing it wrong. Send the social outcast smokers outside to smoke in the winter. This way they can all spread the flu instead. See? We win either way.
That's how it works at the house. :lol:
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 06:28:30 PM
I'd rather not expose an unwilling person to second hand smoke, honestly... And as far as public health is concerned, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
QuotePrüss-Üstün hoped the findings would serve as a catalyst for countries to enforce the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a global initiative aimed at reducing the burden of tobacco-related disease by increasing taxes on tobacco products, banning tobacco advertising, eliminating smoking in public places, and making packs less commercially attractive.
"Policy-makers should bear in mind that enforcing complete smoke-free laws will probably substantially reduce the number of deaths attributable to exposure to second-hand smoke within the first year of its implementation, with accompanying reduction in costs of illness in social and health systems," she said.
From:
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2002/researchers-secondhand-smoke.html
How is this not sticking it to smokers? And what does the part in bold mean? I'm probably reading too much into this, but can you see my cause for concern here?
First, just so you know, you linked to the wrong article. But anyway, I can't tell you exactly what that means from the perspective of the person who said it as the article doesn't make it particularly clear. I would wager it is in reference to having smoke-free policies in public areas. It is impossible to have an outright ban on smoking in private homes. You couldn't enforce it for starters. Secondly, again, from my perspective this is about public health.
QuoteEDIT: Concern for public health brought us such monstrosities as prohibition and the war on drugs.
EDIT EDIT: Charley beat me to it...
Oh boy, this is where the thread spirals out of control. Except I have a meeting I need to go to soon so perhaps not. I shall pass on that can of worms for now.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 06:51:08 PM
I would wager it is in reference to having smoke-free policies in public areas.
Even outdoors?
Okay. In that case, I want a driving-while-stupid ban. I also want a ban on letting stupid people talk to me about their religion in public. It's bad for my mental health, and bad for them in general.
If it were really about health, they would ban cigarettes outright.
They would rather make it as difficult as they can for smokers to smoke while still allowing it to be technically legal to do so, while at the same time providing subsidies to tobacco farmers. Makes perfect sense if its actually all about money.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 03, 2011, 06:58:57 PM
If it were really about health, they would ban cigarettes outright.
They would rather make it as difficult as they can for smokers to smoke while still allowing it to be technically legal to do so, while at the same time providing subsidies to tobacco farmers. Makes perfect sense if its actually all about money.
It's about self-righteous people trying to force their values on others. SSDD
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:53:52 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 06:51:08 PM
I would wager it is in reference to having smoke-free policies in public areas.
Even outdoors?
Okay. In that case, I want a driving-while-stupid ban. I also want a ban on letting stupid people talk to me about their religion in public. It's bad for my mental health, and bad for them in general.
Personally, for outdoors, I don't think it is necessary to ban smoking outright. There are these two amusement parks we go to in New Hampshire every year. Both have designated spots for smoking and I think that works pretty well. They are usually gazebos or have pretty good tree shade so they aren't getting stuck somewhere they are going to get rained on or scorched. Indoors is different because the air circulates everywhere and the only way a non-smoker can completely escape exposure is to leave the facility.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 03, 2011, 07:00:31 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 03, 2011, 06:58:57 PM
If it were really about health, they would ban cigarettes outright.
They would rather make it as difficult as they can for smokers to smoke while still allowing it to be technically legal to do so, while at the same time providing subsidies to tobacco farmers. Makes perfect sense if its actually all about money.
It's about self-righteous people trying to force their values on others. SSDD
Eh, while I won't say there aren't those types out there, I can also say that there are plenty who are honestly doing the work in the overall interest of public health. I don't do any thing in the realm of tobacco prevention but I have 3 co-workers who do and trust me, they are very far from the self-righteous type.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 07:39:21 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 03, 2011, 07:00:31 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 03, 2011, 06:58:57 PM
If it were really about health, they would ban cigarettes outright.
They would rather make it as difficult as they can for smokers to smoke while still allowing it to be technically legal to do so, while at the same time providing subsidies to tobacco farmers. Makes perfect sense if its actually all about money.
It's about self-righteous people trying to force their values on others. SSDD
Eh, while I won't say there aren't those types out there, I can also say that there are plenty who are honestly doing the work in the overall interest of public health. I don't do any thing in the realm of tobacco prevention but I have 3 co-workers who do and trust me, they are very far from the self-righteous type.
May 31, 2010
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he's convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
Translated by Iro Cyr from the French original interview found HERE.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic ... compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don't base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2224
Doh! I did link to the wrong article.
All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese, booze, anything you enjoy in life that's not exactly good for you, they've set the precedent, they've drilled it into the public's skull, they do it once, they can do it again. Where does it stop? :tinfoilhat:
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
Doh! I did link to the wrong article.
All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese, booze, anything you enjoy in life that's not exactly good for you, they've set the precedent, they've drilled it into the public's skull, they do it once, they can do it again. Where does it stop? :tinfoilhat:
Fuck where it STOPS. Kill it where it STARTS.
If you do that, then the slippery slope never becomes an issue.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 07:56:42 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
Doh! I did link to the wrong article.
All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese, booze, anything you enjoy in life that's not exactly good for you, they've set the precedent, they've drilled it into the public's skull, they do it once, they can do it again. Where does it stop? :tinfoilhat:
Fuck where it STOPS. Kill it where it STARTS.
If you do that, then the slippery slope never becomes an issue.
Take California, please.
AB 97 bans the use of trans-fats in food facilities.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:45:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 06:43:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health. :lulz:
No, but the employees might be.
*shrug*
I work around welding fumes all day. Life's tough, wear a filter mask.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. Bartending is the best-paying job a lot of people can get around here; a LOT of single parents rely on it to raise their kids. A lot of working-class moms without (and many with) college degrees bartend at night so their husbands can work during the day, so they don't have to pay for childcare they can't afford. They don't deserve to get cancer just for being poor. And, sometimes women who work in bars get pregnant. What should they do? Quit their job and go on welfare? Lose their health insurance and income?
Around here, bars aren't just places to get drunk. They're places to gather with your friends and play games and eat dinner. I'm pretty happy there's no smoking in bars anymore, and if anything it's made bars busier because people really use them as community hangouts now.
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
Doh! I did link to the wrong article.
All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese,
Well no, because you can't get sick from second-hand sugar. You can't sit next to someone eating a big juicy steak and have the grease from that steak go into YOUR veins. Those examples are ridiculous and not remotely in the same spirit as the policies for tobacco.
Quotebooze
Well, as long as you don't drink and drive or give booze to kids, you're fine to enjoy your booze any way you please.
Quoteanything you enjoy in life that's not exactly good for you, they've set the precedent, they've drilled it into the public's skull, they do it once, they can do it again. Where does it stop? :tinfoilhat:
What the hell does this even mean? "they've drilled it into the public's skull". They've drilled what into their skull?
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2011, 08:06:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:45:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 06:43:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health. :lulz:
No, but the employees might be.
*shrug*
I work around welding fumes all day. Life's tough, wear a filter mask.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. Bartending is the best-paying job a lot of people can get around here; a LOT of single parents rely on it to raise their kids. A lot of working-class moms without (and many with) college degrees bartend at night so their husbands can work during the day, so they don't have to pay for childcare they can't afford. They don't deserve to get cancer just for being poor. And, sometimes women who work in bars get pregnant. What should they do? Quit their job and go on welfare? Lose their health insurance and income?
Around here, bars aren't just places to get drunk. They're places to gather with your friends and play games and eat dinner. I'm pretty happy there's no smoking in bars anymore, and if anything it's made bars busier because people really use them as community hangouts now.
The simple solution seems to me to be to take away the legislation. There will be some employers who want to their bar toward the smoke-free crowd, and those people can work there if they want to.
There are lots of people who worked in smoke filled bars for decades and never contracted lung cancer, so obviously there is more to that than simply exposure.
Also, Fujikoma, there is NO FUCKING SUCH THING as "Passive meat eating" so shut the fuck up with stupid comparisons. I know TWO women who got lung cancer from passive smoking. Sure, patrons in smoky bars aren't at much increased risk unless they spend way too much time there, but employees are.
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2011, 08:06:09 PM
Around here, bars aren't just places to get drunk. They're places to gather with your friends and play games and eat dinner. I'm pretty happy there's no smoking in bars anymore, and if anything it's made bars busier because people really use them as community hangouts now.
We call those "Grills", and smoking is and should be banned in them.
I'm in the camp that believes that restaurants should be 100% non-smoking, but bars that are 100% bars should be smoking or non-smoking, based on the owner's preference (and marked that way on the outside door).
Quote from: Hoopla on January 03, 2011, 08:09:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2011, 08:06:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:45:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 06:43:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health. :lulz:
No, but the employees might be.
*shrug*
I work around welding fumes all day. Life's tough, wear a filter mask.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. Bartending is the best-paying job a lot of people can get around here; a LOT of single parents rely on it to raise their kids. A lot of working-class moms without (and many with) college degrees bartend at night so their husbands can work during the day, so they don't have to pay for childcare they can't afford. They don't deserve to get cancer just for being poor. And, sometimes women who work in bars get pregnant. What should they do? Quit their job and go on welfare? Lose their health insurance and income?
Around here, bars aren't just places to get drunk. They're places to gather with your friends and play games and eat dinner. I'm pretty happy there's no smoking in bars anymore, and if anything it's made bars busier because people really use them as community hangouts now.
The simple solution seems to me to be to take away the legislation. There will be some employers who want to their bar toward the smoke-free crowd, and those people can work there if they want to.
There are lots of people who worked in smoke filled bars for decades and never contracted lung cancer, so obviously there is more to that than simply exposure.
There are lots of people who smoke and never contracted lung cancer. Your logic is nonexistent. "Increased risk" does not mean "100% morbidity".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 08:10:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2011, 08:06:09 PM
Around here, bars aren't just places to get drunk. They're places to gather with your friends and play games and eat dinner. I'm pretty happy there's no smoking in bars anymore, and if anything it's made bars busier because people really use them as community hangouts now.
We call those "Grills", and smoking is and should be banned in them.
I'm in the camp that believes that restaurants should be 100% non-smoking, but bars that are 100% bars should be smoking or non-smoking, based on the owner's preference (and marked that way on the outside door).
All bars here must serve food.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 03, 2011, 08:09:36 PM
There are lots of people who worked in smoke filled bars for decades and never contracted lung cancer, so obviously there is more to that than simply exposure.
Probably not. I know a guy who got cancer at 18, 6 months after he took up smoking. Conversely, my great-grandmother smoked for 70 years and never did get it. It's a lottery that is influenced by the amount of exposure you have.
I think it makes sense to allow "smoking bars". It would be a special permit.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 08:09:09 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
Doh! I did link to the wrong article.
All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese,
Well no, because you can't get sick from second-hand sugar. You can't sit next to someone eating a big juicy steak and have the grease from that steak go into YOUR veins. Those examples are ridiculous and not remotely in the same spirit as the policies for tobacco.
No, but you DO get what is overheard a LOT in places with socialized healthcare (like Canada), which goes a little something like this: No, he shouldn't be able to just eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, because it will be ME paying for it when he has a heart attack.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 03, 2011, 08:12:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 08:09:09 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
Doh! I did link to the wrong article.
All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese,
Well no, because you can't get sick from second-hand sugar. You can't sit next to someone eating a big juicy steak and have the grease from that steak go into YOUR veins. Those examples are ridiculous and not remotely in the same spirit as the policies for tobacco.
No, but you DO get what is overheard a LOT in places with socialized healthcare (like Canada), which goes a little something like this: No, he shouldn't be able to just eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, because it will be ME paying for it when he has a heart attack.
Idiots talking out of their asses are everywhere. And?
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2011, 08:11:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 08:10:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2011, 08:06:09 PM
Around here, bars aren't just places to get drunk. They're places to gather with your friends and play games and eat dinner. I'm pretty happy there's no smoking in bars anymore, and if anything it's made bars busier because people really use them as community hangouts now.
We call those "Grills", and smoking is and should be banned in them.
I'm in the camp that believes that restaurants should be 100% non-smoking, but bars that are 100% bars should be smoking or non-smoking, based on the owner's preference (and marked that way on the outside door).
All bars here must serve food.
That's because you live behind the Patchouli Curtain, where there isn't even a word for freedom.
"As I understand it, the Russian language doesn't even have a word for 'freedom'."
- Ronald Reagan, who apparently missed the word "Svoboda".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 08:10:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2011, 08:06:09 PM
Around here, bars aren't just places to get drunk. They're places to gather with your friends and play games and eat dinner. I'm pretty happy there's no smoking in bars anymore, and if anything it's made bars busier because people really use them as community hangouts now.
We call those "Grills", and smoking is and should be banned in them.
I'm in the camp that believes that restaurants should be 100% non-smoking, but bars that are 100% bars should be smoking or non-smoking, based on the owner's preference (and marked that way on the outside door).
What? Give people a CHOICE? Why do you hate America? Non-smokers aren't forced to go into a smoke friendly establishment. But smokers are forced to go into a non-smoker friendly establishment. If we choose to go out, which I stopped doing when the law passed here, as did many others.
Oddly, it hurt business so badly owners are fighting the law in court. But what do I know?
Quote from: Hoopla on January 03, 2011, 08:12:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 08:09:09 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
Doh! I did link to the wrong article.
All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese,
Well no, because you can't get sick from second-hand sugar. You can't sit next to someone eating a big juicy steak and have the grease from that steak go into YOUR veins. Those examples are ridiculous and not remotely in the same spirit as the policies for tobacco.
No, but you DO get what is overheard a LOT in places with socialized healthcare (like Canada), which goes a little something like this: No, he shouldn't be able to just eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, because it will be ME paying for it when he has a heart attack.
Not the same thing. By that logic, private ownership of automobiles should be illegal.
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2011, 08:12:30 PM
I think it makes sense to allow "smoking bars". It would be a special permit.
Yes, I agree with this. In fact, in Portland we have one or two of them including a hookah bar.
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2011, 08:14:06 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 03, 2011, 08:12:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 08:09:09 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
Doh! I did link to the wrong article.
All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese,
Well no, because you can't get sick from second-hand sugar. You can't sit next to someone eating a big juicy steak and have the grease from that steak go into YOUR veins. Those examples are ridiculous and not remotely in the same spirit as the policies for tobacco.
No, but you DO get what is overheard a LOT in places with socialized healthcare (like Canada), which goes a little something like this: No, he shouldn't be able to just eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, because it will be ME paying for it when he has a heart attack.
Idiots talking out of their asses are everywhere. And?
Tip toe back up through the quotes and you will find what my comment is in regard to. Hint: it rhymes with "hairy toad".
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2011, 08:12:30 PM
I think it makes sense to allow "smoking bars". It would be a special permit.
When I was in Providence, I learned that you can't smoke a cigarette in a hookah bar. :lulz:
Quote from: Hoopla on January 03, 2011, 08:12:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 08:09:09 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
Doh! I did link to the wrong article.
All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese,
Well no, because you can't get sick from second-hand sugar. You can't sit next to someone eating a big juicy steak and have the grease from that steak go into YOUR veins. Those examples are ridiculous and not remotely in the same spirit as the policies for tobacco.
No, but you DO get what is overheard a LOT in places with socialized healthcare (like Canada), which goes a little something like this: No, he shouldn't be able to just eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, because it will be ME paying for it when he has a heart attack.
Well, it certainly is true that more people leading unhealthy lifestyles contributes to health costs. However, I don't think it is the place of government to correct that through legislation. It is the role of agencies like mine who educate and raise awareness of the health consequences to the public in hopes that you can affect
some behavior change.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 08:20:52 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 03, 2011, 08:12:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 08:09:09 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
Doh! I did link to the wrong article.
All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese,
Well no, because you can't get sick from second-hand sugar. You can't sit next to someone eating a big juicy steak and have the grease from that steak go into YOUR veins. Those examples are ridiculous and not remotely in the same spirit as the policies for tobacco.
No, but you DO get what is overheard a LOT in places with socialized healthcare (like Canada), which goes a little something like this: No, he shouldn't be able to just eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, because it will be ME paying for it when he has a heart attack.
Well, it certainly is true that more people leading unhealthy lifestyles contributes to health costs. However, I don't think it is the place of government to correct that through legislation. It is the role of agencies like mine who educate and raise awareness of the health consequences to the public in hopes that you can affect some behavior change.
Hooplah explains what I said earlier quite nicely.
This is only a phase.
Why, oh wise one, do they tax tobacco so heavily?
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 08:26:05 PM
Why, oh wise one, do they tax tobacco so heavily?
Because:
1. It's a luxury (beats taxing food), and
2. People are going to buy cigarettes anyway, thus ensuring a revenue stream.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 08:26:05 PM
Why, oh wise one, do they tax tobacco so heavily?
Because:
1. It's a luxury (beats taxing food), and
2. People are going to buy cigarettes anyway, thus ensuring a revenue stream.
And do you think they will stop with tobacco?
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 08:28:51 PM
And do you think they will stop with tobacco?
Yes. Nothing else is taxed in America right now, right?
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 08:26:05 PM
This is only a phase.
So we shouldn't allow smart legislation because idiots may later try to make bad legislation that is vaguely related.
:lol:
Lots of things have 'sin' taxes.
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 08:26:05 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 08:20:52 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 03, 2011, 08:12:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 08:09:09 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
Doh! I did link to the wrong article.
All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese,
Well no, because you can't get sick from second-hand sugar. You can't sit next to someone eating a big juicy steak and have the grease from that steak go into YOUR veins. Those examples are ridiculous and not remotely in the same spirit as the policies for tobacco.
No, but you DO get what is overheard a LOT in places with socialized healthcare (like Canada), which goes a little something like this: No, he shouldn't be able to just eat whatever he wants whenever he wants, because it will be ME paying for it when he has a heart attack.
Well, it certainly is true that more people leading unhealthy lifestyles contributes to health costs. However, I don't think it is the place of government to correct that through legislation. It is the role of agencies like mine who educate and raise awareness of the health consequences to the public in hopes that you can affect some behavior change.
Hooplah explains what I said earlier quite nicely.
This is only a phase.
Hooplah talked about private citizens complaining that they have to pay the costs of other's unhealthy decisions. That is markedly different than a policy being enacted by a city council or State legislature. I assume when you talked about "they" you were referring to governments. Hooplah was referring to a citizen, not a government.
QuoteWhy, oh wise one, do they tax tobacco so heavily?
Certainly, there is an element to tobacco tax increases that is aimed at curbing smoking amongst the population. But that is really a secondary benefit. The primary goal is to raise funds for prevention, smoking cessation, and other programs to help offset the costs of smoking. It's a "charge for harm" if you will.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 03, 2011, 08:30:42 PM
Lots of things have 'sin' taxes.
The bastards will be taxing my Goddamn heroin next! :crankey:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 03, 2011, 03:38:22 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 03, 2011, 03:27:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 03, 2011, 03:18:46 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 03, 2011, 03:11:02 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 03, 2011, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on January 01, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.
Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue.
Dont you think its a bit tripe compared to other more important things, like idk, reducing carbon emissions with a "no-driving" day calendar?
I mean, all in relation to health.
Not really. I mean, for one, a mandatory "no driving" day would really fuck over someone like me if it fell on any day except Sunday. Unless that's not what you mean, but in that case you'll have to clarify.
Yeah that, where 10% of cars arent allowed to drive once a week.
Yeah, I'd be pretty screwed. I'm a good 25 miles from where I work/go to school, with no public transportation and no way to carpool. And there are shit ton of people like that here. Drawback of living in rural Middle America.
ITT, Phox inadvertently explains why all other environmentally-minded trends and causes in America are doomed.
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 08:28:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2011, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 03, 2011, 08:26:05 PM
Why, oh wise one, do they tax tobacco so heavily?
Because:
1. It's a luxury (beats taxing food), and
2. People are going to buy cigarettes anyway, thus ensuring a revenue stream.
And do you think they will stop with tobacco?
They. They. They. Who are "they"? What do you think "they" are ultimately up to? Trust me, what goes into these policies is a lot less interesting and conspiratory than you think.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 03, 2011, 08:15:03 PM
What? Give people a CHOICE? Why do you hate America? Non-smokers aren't forced to go into a smoke friendly establishment. But smokers are forced to go into a non-smoker friendly establishment. If we choose to go out, which I stopped doing when the law passed here, as did many others.
Oddly, it hurt business so badly owners are fighting the law in court. But what do I know?
The two bolded parts put your statement at odds with itself. You can't be forced to choose to go out.
Hell, I still enjoy the occasional smoke, but lets not characterize the divide between smokers and non-smokers as something it's not. You CHOOSE to smoke, or to not smoke. It's not as though policies against public smoking are akin to Jim Crow laws.
Anecdotally, most of the bars I hang out in in WA have seen an increase in business since the smoking ban was implemented. YMMV.
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 03, 2011, 08:50:28 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 03, 2011, 08:15:03 PM
What? Give people a CHOICE? Why do you hate America? Non-smokers aren't forced to go into a smoke friendly establishment. But smokers are forced to go into a non-smoker friendly establishment. If we choose to go out, which I stopped doing when the law passed here, as did many others.
Oddly, it hurt business so badly owners are fighting the law in court. But what do I know?
The two bolded parts put your statement at odds with itself. You can't be forced to choose to go out.
Hell, I still enjoy the occasional smoke, but lets not characterize the divide between smokers and non-smokers as something it's not. You CHOOSE to smoke, or to not smoke. It's not as though policies against public smoking are akin to Jim Crow laws.
Anecdotally, most of the bars I hang out in in WA have seen an increase in business since the smoking ban was implemented. YMMV.
Are you married? :lulz:
*long rant deleted*
I'll come back to this when I'm not so emotional.
It's Hoopla, dammit! NOT HOOPLAH!
Right, sorry.
Smoking changes the environment of non-smokers, in a way that not-smoking does not change the environment of smokers.
I smoke occasionally... hell, I had four or five cigarettes on New Year's Eve. But that doesn't mean that I think everyone who chooses to go to a place where the public gathers socially should have my activity of choice imposed upon them. And the person who is so fortunate as to have a job there certainly shouldn't have it imposed upon them 8 hours out of the day.
Yeah, true... we both agree there should be bars where it is allowed, that's as good as people can reasonably expect I suppose.
For the record, I don't smoke. Cigarettes.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on January 03, 2011, 01:37:14 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 02, 2011, 11:43:28 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 01, 2011, 10:57:25 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 01, 2011, 06:01:55 PM
The entire concept just surprised me I guess. I am still not sure how I feel about it. Why not styrofoam as well?
Oakland, California has banned it. Which I totally support and wish my city would as well, because they're ugly and bad for the environment. Our streets are pretty much litter free (because the city cleans all that shit up weekly), but what litter we do have tends to be styrofoam cups.
That's one thing btw, styrofoam cups are really rare over here. Most disposable cups are either cardboard/paper or non-foam polystyrene. Still people tend to throw them in waste-baskets.
If those paper cups have a layer of wax on them then they belong in the waste basket because they're not recyclable.
I don't follow, of course they belong in the waste baskets, where else would you put them? Even if they were recyclable or biodegradable doesn't mean they belong on the street, right?
Additionally, I don't think they have a layer of wax. At least, not in the sense an OJ or milk carton has. I *could* put them in my paper box instead of the trash, I suppose. Except that I prefer to put flat things in it, so it doesn't fill as quickly. They pick up boxes of paper in my street every 2-3 weeks, it's pretty cool.
We used to even have a "green" garbage container, for coffee filters, potato peelings and other compost-able stuff. But my city no longer has it since 10 years, cause they worked out that the energy/pollution/cost of having a second garbage transport line does not weigh up against pulling some industrial magic to separate it out at the garbage disposal plant thing. Which is apparently pretty good at that. Better than humans, that tend to throw the wrong things in the "green" containers, too. At least, that's what I was told.
Other cities still have a "green" garbage collection system, though.
In Germany, they even separate into "green", "packaging" and "other". Also the wax-coated milk cartons, so, apparently they
are recyclable in some manner. Oh, and an additional thing for regular paper and cardboard. In fact, they even separate for public wastebaskets on the streets and near gas stations and such, seriously, it's not uncommon to see a line of four different coloured wastebaskets standing next to eachother, for different kinds of waste. I might be wrong I think even saw some for metal cans and such.
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 03, 2011, 08:36:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 03, 2011, 03:38:22 PM
Yeah, I'd be pretty screwed. I'm a good 25 miles from where I work/go to school, with no public transportation and no way to carpool. And there are shit ton of people like that here. Drawback of living in rural Middle America.
ITT, Phox inadvertently explains why all other environmentally-minded trends and causes in America are doomed.
Now I'm wondering (not disagreeing that she'd be screwed btw), just curious, how can you have "no way to carpool"? Nobody going the same way, too much effort to coordinate, or does rural America have laws against it?
Oh and one thing about smoking bans, we got them since a few years in NL as well. I can tell a lot about my experiences, but it doesn't really matter. One thing though, I really do enjoy blowing smoke rings. It wasn't until I was happily smoking a cigarette on the couch at a friend's place that didn't mind smoking inside (big common room in student's flat) that I noticed how long I had actually been missing that ... smoking in a non-ventilated area with still air :lol: :cry:
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 03, 2011, 10:23:00 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 03, 2011, 08:36:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 03, 2011, 03:38:22 PM
Yeah, I'd be pretty screwed. I'm a good 25 miles from where I work/go to school, with no public transportation and no way to carpool. And there are shit ton of people like that here. Drawback of living in rural Middle America.
ITT, Phox inadvertently explains why all other environmentally-minded trends and causes in America are doomed.
Now I'm wondering (not disagreeing that she'd be screwed btw), just curious, how can you have "no way to carpool"? Nobody going the same way, too much effort to coordinate, or does rural America have laws against it?
No laws against it. It can just be very hard to find someone going in the same direction, especially if school is involved since schedules can vary significantly.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 03, 2011, 08:57:05 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 03, 2011, 08:50:28 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 03, 2011, 08:15:03 PM
What? Give people a CHOICE? Why do you hate America? Non-smokers aren't forced to go into a smoke friendly establishment. But smokers are forced to go into a non-smoker friendly establishment. If we choose to go out, which I stopped doing when the law passed here, as did many others.
Oddly, it hurt business so badly owners are fighting the law in court. But what do I know?
The two bolded parts put your statement at odds with itself. You can't be forced to choose to go out.
Hell, I still enjoy the occasional smoke, but lets not characterize the divide between smokers and non-smokers as something it's not. You CHOOSE to smoke, or to not smoke. It's not as though policies against public smoking are akin to Jim Crow laws.
Anecdotally, most of the bars I hang out in in WA have seen an increase in business since the smoking ban was implemented. YMMV.
Are you married? :lulz:
:lulz:
I will concede the point, good sir.
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2011, 09:48:14 PM
Smoking changes the environment of non-smokers, in a way that not-smoking does not change the environment of smokers.
I smoke occasionally... hell, I had four or five cigarettes on New Year's Eve. But that doesn't mean that I think everyone who chooses to go to a place where the public gathers socially should have my activity of choice imposed upon them. And the person who is so fortunate as to have a job there certainly shouldn't have it imposed upon them 8 hours out of the day.
They can hold their fucking breath until I am through.
I've started contributing more greenhouse gasses in public to make up for it.
Poo gasses, that is.
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 03, 2011, 10:34:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 03, 2011, 10:23:00 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 03, 2011, 08:36:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 03, 2011, 03:38:22 PM
Yeah, I'd be pretty screwed. I'm a good 25 miles from where I work/go to school, with no public transportation and no way to carpool. And there are shit ton of people like that here. Drawback of living in rural Middle America.
ITT, Phox inadvertently explains why all other environmentally-minded trends and causes in America are doomed.
Now I'm wondering (not disagreeing that she'd be screwed btw), just curious, how can you have "no way to carpool"? Nobody going the same way, too much effort to coordinate, or does rural America have laws against it?
No laws against it. It can just be very hard to find someone going in the same direction, especially if school is involved since schedules can vary significantly.
Yeah, this. Since I have to be there varying amounts of time based on the day of the week, and I don't always have a concrete leaving time, it's almost impossible to coordinate a ride ahead of time.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on January 03, 2011, 11:06:59 PM
I've started contributing more greenhouse gasses in public to make up for it.
Poo gasses, that is.
:golfclap:
I apologize, RWHN, for the way I worded some of my replies, and my lack of explanation. I can't expect my perspective to be taken seriously without having solid proof, or at least, a historical record pointing to the possibility and pattern of abuse of the concept of public health. While there are many good things to be said of concern for the public health, there are also nasty closet monsters hiding in there, and it is for this reason that I am highly skeptical of anything advocated by anyone claiming to support "public health". Thankfully, there exists a good deal of evidence which should serve to at least partially prove my point.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smoking
QuoteReligious leaders have often been prominent among those who considered smoking immoral or outright blasphemous. In 1634 the Patriarch of Moscow forbade the sale of tobacco and sentenced men and women who flouted the ban to have their nostrils slit and their backs whipped until skin came off their backs. The Western church leader Urban VII likewise condemned smoking in a papal bull of 1590. Despite many concerted efforts, restrictions and bans were almost universally ignored. When James I of England, a staunch anti-smoker and the author of a A Counterblaste to Tobacco, tried to curb the new trend by enforcing a whopping 4000% tax increase on tobacco in 1604, it proved a failure, as London had some 7,000 tobacco sellers by the early 17th century. Later, scrupulous rulers would realise the futility of smoking bans and instead turned tobacco trade and cultivation into lucrative government monopolies.
QuoteWith the modernization of cigarette production compounded with the increased life expectancies during the 1920s, adverse health effects began to become more prevalent. In Germany, anti-smoking groups, often associated with anti-liquor groups, first published advocacy against the consumption of tobacco in the journal Der Tabakgegner (The Tobacco Opponent) in 1912 and 1932. In 1929, Fritz Lickint of Dresden, Germany, published a paper containing formal statistical evidence of a lung cancer–tobacco link. During the Great depression Adolf Hitler condemned his earlier smoking habit as a waste of money, and later with stronger assertions. This movement was further strengthened with Nazi reproductive policy as women who smoked were viewed as unsuitable to be wives and mothers in a German family.
(sorry, not trying to compare non-smokers to Nazis, just pointing out historical abuses and the precedent being set)
QuoteRichard Doll in 1950 published research in the British Medical Journal showing a close link between smoking and lung cancer. Four years later, in 1954 the British Doctors Study, a study of some 40 thousand doctors over 20 years, confirmed the suggestion, based on which the government issued advice that smoking and lung cancer rates were related. In 1964 the United States Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health likewise began suggesting the relationship between smoking and cancer, which confirmed its suggestions 20 years later in the 1980s.
Old news is OLD. They TRIED educating the public, the people who don't want to stop, or feel that they cannot stop, will not stop.
QuoteFrom 1965 to 2006, rates of smoking in the United States have declined from 42% to 20.8%. A significant majority of those who quit were professional, affluent men. Despite this decrease in the prevalence of consumption, the average number of cigarettes consumed per person per day increased from 22 in 1954 to 30 in 1978. This paradoxical event suggests that those who quit smoked less, while those who continued to smoke moved to smoke more light cigarettes. This trend has been paralleled by many industrialized nations as rates have either leveled-off or declined. In the developing world, however, tobacco consumption continues to rise at 3.4% in 2002. In Africa, smoking is in most areas considered to be modern, and many of the strong adverse opinions that prevail in the West receive much less attention. Today Russia leads as the top consumer of tobacco followed by Indonesia, Laos, Ukraine, Belarus, Greece, Jordan, and China. The World Health Organization has begun a program known as the Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI) in order to reduce rates of consumption in the developing world.
Yes, world health, at who's (pun not intended) expense, really? The majority of people who quit from 1965 to 2006 were wealthy, affluent men, or so the article leads me to believe. It's hard for me to see that and not wonder if it's a global initiative to further divide the rich and the poor, because obviously, the poor aren't quitting. There comes a time to back off, this is usually when there is a tactic that does not work. Only a fool or a madman keeps doing the same thing while expecting a different result, I should know, I do that myself sometimes.
And, on to another article.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_smoking
QuoteBesides biological effects, smoking has a profound social impact on schizophrenics. One major impact is financial, as schizophrenics have been found to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on cigarettes. A study of schizophrenics on public assistance found that schizophrenics spent a median amount of $142 per month on cigarettes out of a median monthly public assistance income of $596, or about 27.36%. Some argue that this results in further social impacts as schizophrenics are then unable to spend money on entertainment and social events that would promote well-being, or may even be unable to afford housing or nutrition.
Yes, who, indeed, is being targeted? Perhaps I'm paranoid, but it seems to me that raising the price of cigarettes on a proportion of the population which will not likely stop and already experiences financial troubles is kind of fucked up. Having been diagnosed bipolar myself, and experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations, even when I've quit smoking for 6 months, I can understand treating one's symptoms with nicotine. I do this, and I've been off meds for 6 years now. I'd hate to think of how bad a shape I'd be in without my smokes.
QuoteBesides smoking cessation, the prevalence of smoking among schizophrenics also calls for additional measures in evaluation by mental health providers. Researchers argue that providers should incorporate tobacco use assessment into everyday clinical practice, as well as continuing assessments of cardiovascular health through measures such as blood pressure and diagnostics such as electrocardiography. Additionally there are ethical and practical concerns if healthcare facilities prohibit smoking without providing alternatives, particularly since withdrawal can alter the presentation of symptoms and response to treatment and may confuse or even exacerbate symptoms. Clinicians should also be aware of the consequences that can result from a lack of cigarettes, such as aggression, prostitution, trafficking, and general disruption. These consequences indicate that providers may need to help patients obtain cigarettes and/or monitor usage, although this may result in ethical concerns as well.
'Nuff said.
And, as if you didn't already have enough to read:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1690861/why_nicotine_calms_the_brain_in_schizophrenia.html?cat=70
http://www.enotalone.com/article/3110.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Nicotine+may+benefit+some+with+mental+illnesses.%28Brief+article%29-a0145473400
http://www.gpdsc.com/omha-article-nicotine.htm (dirty drug? Are there really any clean drugs?)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26516.php
It doesn't prove my point, but it's something to be considered.
And, perhaps one of the nastiest things concern for the public health has given us, the specter of which remains today, and is likely more widespread than anyone would like to admit:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
You can expand to eugenics in the rest of the world, if you want to... But it's even nastier.
I'm focusing on the united states here, just so we all recognize that this sort of thing is right in our own backyard... But it's also everywhere else, so...
And here's another public health concern:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Water_fluoridation_conspiracy_theory#Conspiracy_theories
(Seriously, how many more times do we need to enact sweeping legislation which encroaches on liberty, which later turns out to be wrong, before we come to understand that it should be tested long term on a smaller scale? Make sure there's water in the pool before you dive in.)
And finally, the reason I neither fully believe nor disbelieve hardly anything I read:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Funding_bias
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Media_bias
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Confirmation_bias
And, that's all I'll say on the matter. Sorry for the huge, spammy post. I would have tried to cut it down, but considering what I say seems to be difficult to understand (my fault, really, I always have trouble explaining myself), I thought I'd use the words of others, and spell it out, neglecting fewer details, so you can see where I'm coming from. Regardless, it can all be dismissed as crazy talk, so, refute what you feel the need to, I'll speak of it no more.
Well, it certainly sounds like someone is incredibly sensitive about their crippling addiction...
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 04, 2011, 01:03:27 PM
I apologize, RWHN, for the way I worded some of my replies, and my lack of explanation. I can't expect my perspective to be taken seriously without having solid proof, or at least, a historical record pointing to the possibility and pattern of abuse of the concept of public health. While there are many good things to be said of concern for the public health, there are also nasty closet monsters hiding in there, and it is for this reason that I am highly skeptical of anything advocated by anyone claiming to support "public health". Thankfully, there exists a good deal of evidence which should serve to at least partially prove my point.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smoking
QuoteReligious leaders have often been prominent among those who considered smoking immoral or outright blasphemous. In 1634 the Patriarch of Moscow forbade the sale of tobacco and sentenced men and women who flouted the ban to have their nostrils slit and their backs whipped until skin came off their backs. The Western church leader Urban VII likewise condemned smoking in a papal bull of 1590. Despite many concerted efforts, restrictions and bans were almost universally ignored. When James I of England, a staunch anti-smoker and the author of a A Counterblaste to Tobacco, tried to curb the new trend by enforcing a whopping 4000% tax increase on tobacco in 1604, it proved a failure, as London had some 7,000 tobacco sellers by the early 17th century. Later, scrupulous rulers would realise the futility of smoking bans and instead turned tobacco trade and cultivation into lucrative government monopolies.
QuoteWith the modernization of cigarette production compounded with the increased life expectancies during the 1920s, adverse health effects began to become more prevalent. In Germany, anti-smoking groups, often associated with anti-liquor groups, first published advocacy against the consumption of tobacco in the journal Der Tabakgegner (The Tobacco Opponent) in 1912 and 1932. In 1929, Fritz Lickint of Dresden, Germany, published a paper containing formal statistical evidence of a lung cancer–tobacco link. During the Great depression Adolf Hitler condemned his earlier smoking habit as a waste of money, and later with stronger assertions. This movement was further strengthened with Nazi reproductive policy as women who smoked were viewed as unsuitable to be wives and mothers in a German family.
(sorry, not trying to compare non-smokers to Nazis, just pointing out historical abuses and the precedent being set)
QuoteRichard Doll in 1950 published research in the British Medical Journal showing a close link between smoking and lung cancer. Four years later, in 1954 the British Doctors Study, a study of some 40 thousand doctors over 20 years, confirmed the suggestion, based on which the government issued advice that smoking and lung cancer rates were related. In 1964 the United States Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health likewise began suggesting the relationship between smoking and cancer, which confirmed its suggestions 20 years later in the 1980s.
Old news is OLD. They TRIED educating the public, the people who don't want to stop, or feel that they cannot stop, will not stop.
QuoteFrom 1965 to 2006, rates of smoking in the United States have declined from 42% to 20.8%. A significant majority of those who quit were professional, affluent men. Despite this decrease in the prevalence of consumption, the average number of cigarettes consumed per person per day increased from 22 in 1954 to 30 in 1978. This paradoxical event suggests that those who quit smoked less, while those who continued to smoke moved to smoke more light cigarettes. This trend has been paralleled by many industrialized nations as rates have either leveled-off or declined. In the developing world, however, tobacco consumption continues to rise at 3.4% in 2002. In Africa, smoking is in most areas considered to be modern, and many of the strong adverse opinions that prevail in the West receive much less attention. Today Russia leads as the top consumer of tobacco followed by Indonesia, Laos, Ukraine, Belarus, Greece, Jordan, and China. The World Health Organization has begun a program known as the Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI) in order to reduce rates of consumption in the developing world.
Yes, world health, at who's (pun not intended) expense, really? The majority of people who quit from 1965 to 2006 were wealthy, affluent men, or so the article leads me to believe. It's hard for me to see that and not wonder if it's a global initiative to further divide the rich and the poor, because obviously, the poor aren't quitting. There comes a time to back off, this is usually when there is a tactic that does not work. Only a fool or a madman keeps doing the same thing while expecting a different result, I should know, I do that myself sometimes.
And, on to another article.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_smoking
QuoteBesides biological effects, smoking has a profound social impact on schizophrenics. One major impact is financial, as schizophrenics have been found to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on cigarettes. A study of schizophrenics on public assistance found that schizophrenics spent a median amount of $142 per month on cigarettes out of a median monthly public assistance income of $596, or about 27.36%. Some argue that this results in further social impacts as schizophrenics are then unable to spend money on entertainment and social events that would promote well-being, or may even be unable to afford housing or nutrition.
Yes, who, indeed, is being targeted? Perhaps I'm paranoid, but it seems to me that raising the price of cigarettes on a proportion of the population which will not likely stop and already experiences financial troubles is kind of fucked up. Having been diagnosed bipolar myself, and experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations, even when I've quit smoking for 6 months, I can understand treating one's symptoms with nicotine. I do this, and I've been off meds for 6 years now. I'd hate to think of how bad a shape I'd be in without my smokes.
QuoteBesides smoking cessation, the prevalence of smoking among schizophrenics also calls for additional measures in evaluation by mental health providers. Researchers argue that providers should incorporate tobacco use assessment into everyday clinical practice, as well as continuing assessments of cardiovascular health through measures such as blood pressure and diagnostics such as electrocardiography. Additionally there are ethical and practical concerns if healthcare facilities prohibit smoking without providing alternatives, particularly since withdrawal can alter the presentation of symptoms and response to treatment and may confuse or even exacerbate symptoms. Clinicians should also be aware of the consequences that can result from a lack of cigarettes, such as aggression, prostitution, trafficking, and general disruption. These consequences indicate that providers may need to help patients obtain cigarettes and/or monitor usage, although this may result in ethical concerns as well.
'Nuff said.
And, as if you didn't already have enough to read:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1690861/why_nicotine_calms_the_brain_in_schizophrenia.html?cat=70
http://www.enotalone.com/article/3110.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Nicotine+may+benefit+some+with+mental+illnesses.%28Brief+article%29-a0145473400
http://www.gpdsc.com/omha-article-nicotine.htm (dirty drug? Are there really any clean drugs?)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26516.php
It doesn't prove my point, but it's something to be considered.
And, perhaps one of the nastiest things concern for the public health has given us, the specter of which remains today, and is likely more widespread than anyone would like to admit:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
You can expand to eugenics in the rest of the world, if you want to... But it's even nastier.
I'm focusing on the united states here, just so we all recognize that this sort of thing is right in our own backyard... But it's also everywhere else, so...
And here's another public health concern:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Water_fluoridation_conspiracy_theory#Conspiracy_theories
(Seriously, how many more times do we need to enact sweeping legislation which encroaches on liberty, which later turns out to be wrong, before we come to understand that it should be tested long term on a smaller scale? Make sure there's water in the pool before you dive in.)
And finally, the reason I neither fully believe nor disbelieve hardly anything I read:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Funding_bias
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Media_bias
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Confirmation_bias
And, that's all I'll say on the matter. Sorry for the huge, spammy post. I would have tried to cut it down, but considering what I say seems to be difficult to understand (my fault, really, I always have trouble explaining myself), I thought I'd use the words of others, and spell it out, neglecting fewer details, so you can see where I'm coming from. Regardless, it can all be dismissed as crazy talk, so, refute what you feel the need to, I'll speak of it no more.
vb m b bnjh
Without some kind of smoking ban, it would be highly unlikely I would ever be in a bar. Along with every other asthmatic who has severe allergic reactions to cigarette smoke (breathing becoming difficult, wheezing etc).
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 04, 2011, 01:03:27 PM
QuoteReligious leaders have often been prominent among those who considered smoking immoral or outright blasphemous. In 1634 the Patriarch of Moscow forbade the sale of tobacco and sentenced men and women who flouted the ban to have their nostrils slit and their backs whipped until skin came off their backs. The Western church leader Urban VII likewise condemned smoking in a papal bull of 1590. Despite many concerted efforts, restrictions and bans were almost universally ignored. When James I of England, a staunch anti-smoker and the author of a A Counterblaste to Tobacco, tried to curb the new trend by enforcing a whopping 4000% tax increase on tobacco in 1604, it proved a failure, as London had some 7,000 tobacco sellers by the early 17th century. Later, scrupulous rulers would realise the futility of smoking bans and instead turned tobacco trade and cultivation into lucrative government monopolies.
See, right here your argument goes off the rails. If the slow march of public health was as insidious as you believe, don't you think we'd have the anti-smoking gestapo marching the streets by now? This shit that started back in the 1600s went nowhere. People are still smoking. It has been glamorized at the holy altars of Hollywood and in the bibles of soccer Moms everywhere (aka magazines).
QuoteQuoteWith the modernization of cigarette production compounded with the increased life expectancies during the 1920s, adverse health effects began to become more prevalent. In Germany, anti-smoking groups, often associated with anti-liquor groups, first published advocacy against the consumption of tobacco in the journal Der Tabakgegner (The Tobacco Opponent) in 1912 and 1932. In 1929, Fritz Lickint of Dresden, Germany, published a paper containing formal statistical evidence of a lung cancer–tobacco link. During the Great depression Adolf Hitler condemned his earlier smoking habit as a waste of money, and later with stronger assertions. This movement was further strengthened with Nazi reproductive policy as women who smoked were viewed as unsuitable to be wives and mothers in a German family.
(sorry, not trying to compare non-smokers to Nazis, just pointing out historical abuses and the precedent being set)
QuoteRichard Doll in 1950 published research in the British Medical Journal showing a close link between smoking and lung cancer. Four years later, in 1954 the British Doctors Study, a study of some 40 thousand doctors over 20 years, confirmed the suggestion, based on which the government issued advice that smoking and lung cancer rates were related. In 1964 the United States Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health likewise began suggesting the relationship between smoking and cancer, which confirmed its suggestions 20 years later in the 1980s.
Old news is OLD. They TRIED educating the public, the people who don't want to stop, or feel that they cannot stop, will not stop.
UNNNGGGG! Yeah, obviously. The point isn't to get EVERYONE to stop smoking. It isn't about stamping out cigarettes forever. It's about helping those who are willing to quit and improve their health which contributes to overall public health. Trust me, we don't have the funds necessary to stamp out tobacco, alcohol, and drugs even if we wanted to. Our work is all about dealing with the margins. It's about maybe seeing the numbers tick down one or two percentage points.
QuoteQuoteFrom 1965 to 2006, rates of smoking in the United States have declined from 42% to 20.8%. A significant majority of those who quit were professional, affluent men. Despite this decrease in the prevalence of consumption, the average number of cigarettes consumed per person per day increased from 22 in 1954 to 30 in 1978. This paradoxical event suggests that those who quit smoked less, while those who continued to smoke moved to smoke more light cigarettes. This trend has been paralleled by many industrialized nations as rates have either leveled-off or declined. In the developing world, however, tobacco consumption continues to rise at 3.4% in 2002. In Africa, smoking is in most areas considered to be modern, and many of the strong adverse opinions that prevail in the West receive much less attention. Today Russia leads as the top consumer of tobacco followed by Indonesia, Laos, Ukraine, Belarus, Greece, Jordan, and China. The World Health Organization has begun a program known as the Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI) in order to reduce rates of consumption in the developing world.
Yes, world health, at who's (pun not intended) expense, really? The majority of people who quit from 1965 to 2006 were wealthy, affluent men, or so the article leads me to believe. It's hard for me to see that and not wonder if it's a global initiative to further divide the rich and the poor, because obviously, the poor aren't quitting. There comes a time to back off, this is usually when there is a tactic that does not work. Only a fool or a madman keeps doing the same thing while expecting a different result, I should know, I do that myself sometimes.
Well of course affluent men are more successful. Affluent tend to be more successful at a lot of things compared to the poor. But, put your paranoia away, this isn't about those of us in public health trying to keep the poor man down. It's about Mazlow. Someone who has the basics well taken care of, and then some, are in a better position to contemplate and attempt improving themselves by quitting vices like smoking. A poor person has a hard time even contemplating it when the rest of his life is shit.
QuoteAnd, on to another article.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_smoking
QuoteBesides biological effects, smoking has a profound social impact on schizophrenics. One major impact is financial, as schizophrenics have been found to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on cigarettes. A study of schizophrenics on public assistance found that schizophrenics spent a median amount of $142 per month on cigarettes out of a median monthly public assistance income of $596, or about 27.36%. Some argue that this results in further social impacts as schizophrenics are then unable to spend money on entertainment and social events that would promote well-being, or may even be unable to afford housing or nutrition.
Yes, who, indeed, is being targeted? Perhaps I'm paranoid, but it seems to me that raising the price of cigarettes on a proportion of the population which will not likely stop and already experiences financial troubles is kind of fucked up. Having been diagnosed bipolar myself, and experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations, even when I've quit smoking for 6 months, I can understand treating one's symptoms with nicotine. I do this, and I've been off meds for 6 years now. I'd hate to think of how bad a shape I'd be in without my smokes.
And my new boss did some great work at his old place on helping those with mental health issues quit smoking. There's all kinds of new programs and studies out there right now specifically looking at the population of people with mental illness and tobacco. So yes, they are being targeted....to get help.
QuoteBesides smoking cessation, the prevalence of smoking among schizophrenics also calls for additional measures in evaluation by mental health providers. Researchers argue that providers should incorporate tobacco use assessment into everyday clinical practice, as well as continuing assessments of cardiovascular health through measures such as blood pressure and diagnostics such as electrocardiography. Additionally there are ethical and practical concerns if healthcare facilities prohibit smoking without providing alternatives, particularly since withdrawal can alter the presentation of symptoms and response to treatment and may confuse or even exacerbate symptoms. Clinicians should also be aware of the consequences that can result from a lack of cigarettes, such as aggression, prostitution, trafficking, and general disruption. These consequences indicate that providers may need to help patients obtain cigarettes and/or monitor usage, although this may result in ethical concerns as well.
'Nuff said.[/quote]
And the point is?
QuoteAnd, perhaps one of the nastiest things concern for the public health has given us, the specter of which remains today, and is likely more widespread than anyone would like to admit:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
You can expand to eugenics in the rest of the world, if you want to... But it's even nastier.
I'm focusing on the united states here, just so we all recognize that this sort of thing is right in our own backyard... But it's also everywhere else, so...
Eugenics? Seriously? You really think telling someone they can't smoke in a bar is the slippery slope to eugenics? I dunno man, you really lost me here.
QuoteAnd here's another public health concern:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Water_fluoridation_conspiracy_theory#Conspiracy_theories
(Seriously, how many more times do we need to enact sweeping legislation which encroaches on liberty, which later turns out to be wrong, before we come to understand that it should be tested long term on a smaller scale? Make sure there's water in the pool before you dive in.)
Yeah, you have to prove that adding fluoride to public water supplies was "wrong". I've not heard of people dying in the streets, or dying or getting ill in any considerable number, because of adding fluoride.
QuoteAnd finally, the reason I neither fully believe nor disbelieve hardly anything I read:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Funding_bias
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Media_bias
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Confirmation_bias
And, that's all I'll say on the matter. Sorry for the huge, spammy post. I would have tried to cut it down, but considering what I say seems to be difficult to understand (my fault, really, I always have trouble explaining myself), I thought I'd use the words of others, and spell it out, neglecting fewer details, so you can see where I'm coming from. Regardless, it can all be dismissed as crazy talk, so, refute what you feel the need to, I'll speak of it no more.
I'm all for healthy skepticism, I just don't think this is that. Perhaps if you could hang around my office for a day or a week, see how we operate, what we do, what we talk about, you'd get it. We aren't sitting around plotting how to stick it to smokers. We aren't sitting around plotting how to genetically scrub unhealthy people from the population. It's simply about helping people and helping those people who want help. And the policies that ban smoking in buildings are simply about making sure that people who don't smoke are allowed to have smoke-free environments in the public sphere. It isn't about making smokers "second class citizens" You have a right to smoke and to enjoy your smokes, but non-smokers have the right to not be negatively impacted, in public, by your chosen behavior. That's what those policies are all about.
Thanks for your explanation, RWHN. It's a little reassuring, to me, anyway. Like I said, I'm dropping it here, sorry for dragging it out so long. I'll think what I think, and you'll think what you think.
It was never my intent to imply that you or your coworkers are eugenicists... If I somehow did that, I'm sorry.
Well, I didn't think you actually thought we were eugenicists. My point is that I think it is very far-fetched, and honestly irrational, to suppose that any efforts to reduce tobacco use and efforts to reduce exposure to second hand smoke somehow could be a first domino towards eugenics. I mean, there just isn't any rational evidence to make that leap.
If anything, stem cells and genetic therapy would be a much more convenient starting point for that sort of paranoia.
All pigs are created equal, just non-smoking pigs are more equal. When smokers drink, they smoke more. This is why the law hurt the bars around here and why the bars are against it. Like was mentioned earlier, if an owner doesn't want smoke in their place make it no smoking. Is that too easy?
Next you're gonna tell me that the free market behaves rationally.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 02:49:14 PM
Next you're gonna tell me that the free market behaves rationally.
When the rapture happens only the gays will be saved. Convert now.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 02:51:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 02:49:14 PM
Next you're gonna tell me that the free market behaves rationally.
When the rapture happens only the gays will be saved. Convert now.
Phox wins. :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 02:08:10 PM
If anything, stem cells and genetic therapy would be a much more convenient starting point for that sort of paranoia.
You know, I laughed, but I'm not going to explain why, lest I get dragged back into ranting.
You know, hours of fun can be had by replacing the word "smoke" with the word "piss" in these arguments.
Piss is only good with tequila.
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 01:29:27 PM
Without some kind of smoking ban, it would be highly unlikely I would ever be in a bar. Along with every other asthmatic who has severe allergic reactions to cigarette smoke (breathing becoming difficult, wheezing etc).
I also note no-one is touching this with a barge pole.
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 02:56:00 PM
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 01:29:27 PM
Without some kind of smoking ban, it would be highly unlikely I would ever be in a bar. Along with every other asthmatic who has severe allergic reactions to cigarette smoke (breathing becoming difficult, wheezing etc).
I also note no-one is touching this with a barge pole.
I read it. I kinda hinted at it with why can't there be both smoking and non-smoking places? It is well known smoking affects people with asthma badly.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 02:57:12 PM
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 02:56:00 PM
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 01:29:27 PM
Without some kind of smoking ban, it would be highly unlikely I would ever be in a bar. Along with every other asthmatic who has severe allergic reactions to cigarette smoke (breathing becoming difficult, wheezing etc).
I also note no-one is touching this with a barge pole.
I read it. I kinda hinted at it with why can't there be both smoking and non-smoking places? It is well known smoking affects people with asthma badly.
Yeah, kind of my take on the matter too... I don't really want to get into it, my cousin is asthmatic... I often go places that don't allow smoking, I'm just saying, making it a matter of law takes the policy out of the hands of the business owner, who likely knows what kinds of customers frequent their place of business. Maybe they could hang a big, nasty lung banner outside their place of business if they allow smoking inside?
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Or if your town has only one pub, like many of the villages around here.
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 03:10:21 PM
Or if your town has only one pub, like many of the villages around here.
This is one of the few legitimate points made so far.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
You really want to continue the strawman argument? Club Air will book the event at a later date if they have any brains once they see how popular it is.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:17:46 PM
You really want to continue the strawman argument? Club Air will book the event at a later date if they have any brains once they see how popular it is.
Wait, what? You're saying that all clubs are interchangable?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:19:21 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:17:46 PM
You really want to continue the strawman argument? Club Air will book the event at a later date if they have any brains once they see how popular it is.
Wait, what? You're saying that all clubs are interchangable?
You made the point. If you are a club owner and you refuse to book an act just because they don't fit your preconceived notion, regardless of how popular the act is then you may want to consider another line of work.
It basically comes down to this:
Both a smoker and a non-smoker can go out and have a good time without in any way interferring with each other's ability to have a good time. However, as soon as a smoker lights up, it becomes necessary for me to leave. If they don't have a smoke, it is not going to kill them, though if they haven't smoked in a while, it will become deeply unpleasant after a while. On the other hand, people can die from asthma attacks (I probably wouldn't, in fact I am almost entirely recovered from asthma, but cigarette smoke is one of my allergens, which provokes the attack). A smoker, in doing that, is asserting their right to smoke overrules my right to go out.
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 03:21:08 PM
It basically comes down to this:
Both a smoker and a non-smoker can go out and have a good time without in any way interferring with each other's ability to have a good time. However, as soon as a smoker lights up, it becomes necessary for me to leave. If they don't have a smoke, it is not going to kill them, though if they haven't smoked in a while, it will become deeply unpleasant after a while. On the other hand, people can die from asthma attacks (I probably wouldn't, in fact I am almost entirely recovered from asthma, but cigarette smoke is one of my allergens, which provokes the attack). A smoker, in doing that, is asserting their right to smoke overrules my right to go out.
If we were out having drinks I would respect your condition and go away from you to smoke. Maybe I am just weird.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:22:23 PM
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 03:21:08 PM
It basically comes down to this:
Both a smoker and a non-smoker can go out and have a good time without in any way interferring with each other's ability to have a good time. However, as soon as a smoker lights up, it becomes necessary for me to leave. If they don't have a smoke, it is not going to kill them, though if they haven't smoked in a while, it will become deeply unpleasant after a while. On the other hand, people can die from asthma attacks (I probably wouldn't, in fact I am almost entirely recovered from asthma, but cigarette smoke is one of my allergens, which provokes the attack). A smoker, in doing that, is asserting their right to smoke overrules my right to go out.
If we were out having drinks I would respect your condition and go away from you to smoke. Maybe I am just weird.
Lots of people do not. Lots of people do not give a shit. Or act outraged if you ask them to put their cigarette out. Or actually attack you.
LMNO, sorry if I came across assholish, not my intention.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:44:03 PM
LMNO, sorry if I came across assholish, not my intention.
That's ok. I'm not firm on my position. If I thought that having a dedicated smoking bar would work, or a completely voluntary compliance would satisfy everyone, I'd get behind it. I just don't see that as feasible in the current climate.
It occurs to me that the only way to make it work without regulation is for everyone to suddenly start acting nice to each other, including strangers.
And we know how well
that works.
I think most people are remarkably nice to each other, even strangers. It's part of the human mind, I guess, that we remember the assholes more than all the other people who were nice.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:50:01 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:44:03 PM
LMNO, sorry if I came across assholish, not my intention.
That's ok. I'm not firm on my position. If I thought that having a dedicated smoking bar would work, or a completely voluntary compliance would satisfy everyone, I'd get behind it. I just don't see that as feasible in the current climate.
It occurs to me that the only way to make it work without regulation is for everyone to suddenly start acting nice to each other, including strangers.
And we know how well that works.
When I owned the bar in Ellis I looked around at the demographic. I thought rednecks and country music. I hired a decent country band and 10 people showed up. Same thing next time.
I hired a rock band and 300 showed up. Then I went out on a limb and hired a head banger band. 200 people showed up.
Never hired a country band again.
Fuck demographics and preconceived notions. :)
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:56:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:50:01 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:44:03 PM
LMNO, sorry if I came across assholish, not my intention.
That's ok. I'm not firm on my position. If I thought that having a dedicated smoking bar would work, or a completely voluntary compliance would satisfy everyone, I'd get behind it. I just don't see that as feasible in the current climate.
It occurs to me that the only way to make it work without regulation is for everyone to suddenly start acting nice to each other, including strangers.
And we know how well that works.
When I owned the bar in Ellis I looked around at the demographic. I thought rednecks and country music. I hired a decent country band and 10 people showed up. Same thing next time.
I hired a rock band and 300 showed up. Then I went out on a limb and hired a head banger band. 200 people showed up.
Never hired a country band again.
Fuck demographics and preconceived notions. :)
Not even one night a week? :cry:
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 03:58:20 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:56:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:50:01 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:44:03 PM
LMNO, sorry if I came across assholish, not my intention.
That's ok. I'm not firm on my position. If I thought that having a dedicated smoking bar would work, or a completely voluntary compliance would satisfy everyone, I'd get behind it. I just don't see that as feasible in the current climate.
It occurs to me that the only way to make it work without regulation is for everyone to suddenly start acting nice to each other, including strangers.
And we know how well that works.
When I owned the bar in Ellis I looked around at the demographic. I thought rednecks and country music. I hired a decent country band and 10 people showed up. Same thing next time.
I hired a rock band and 300 showed up. Then I went out on a limb and hired a head banger band. 200 people showed up.
Never hired a country band again.
Fuck demographics and preconceived notions. :)
Not even one night a week? :cry:
I had a business to run.
These guys played my bar several times.
http://www.reverbnation.com/audiospaghetti
I see your point, Cain. I wouldn't smoke around an asthmatic person myself, but I can see how it would get irritating with people being disrespectful because you asked them to put it out. Honestly, if I'm in a smoking bar, even, and somebody says "Hey buddy, yeah, could you put that out?" I'll just put out my smoke, not because I'm a sissy or anything, but because I figure they have a good reason for that. It's only happened to me once, though.
In a non-smoking bar, lighting up without thinking is actually quite emberassing... I've done it once or twice, I'm not proud of it.
I'm thinking, they're going to modify the cigarette packs soon with pictures of cancerous lungs on them, which is really gross. No one is going to have a smoking dining establishment if they have to hang a huge, unappetizing banner outside, it's going to be bad for business, but the option is there. I would think it would also be discouraging for the bar, especially since they'll have to keep track of it in high winds and whatnot, and it would serve as a warning for any nonsmokers that there is smoking inside. I think this would be good for the problem.
Yeah, smokers could go into nonsmoking bars, this is true. Nothing is stopping the nonsmokers from going into smoking bars, other than their concern for their well being. They have a choice, just like you have a choice whether you work around poisonous welding fumes or not. If they're severely asthmatic, then, no, they don't have a choice, stay away from the big banner with the blackened lungs on it, but I think a lot of places, now that they've been nonsmoking for a while, would not revert back. Few things feel as grody as sitting in a dark bar in a thick cloud of smoke, sometimes, even smokers will go outside for fresh air. It damages the atmosphere of the place.
It would be seriously frowned upon were I to enter the women's restroom, I don't see a problem with keeping my ass out of there, unless it's an emergency and there's a long line, at which point, I'd say fuck convention and piss all over the seat for good measure (:p).
And yeah, expecting everyone to be nice to everyone else is unrealistic, but one can dream, and work towards it... You might be surprised with the results. Most people I've gotten to know really weren't as bad as they at first seemed, with a few exceptions.
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:22:23 PM
If we were out having drinks I would respect your condition and go away from you to smoke. Maybe I am just weird.
Lots of people do not. Lots of people do not give a shit. Or act outraged if you ask them to put their cigarette out. Or actually attack you.
I actually found that this attitude changed a lot (for the better) since we got smoking bans in public places. Odd thing is, even at people's private homes where they didn't mind smoking inside, it's now a lot more common to not do so (or be asked not to) when there are non-smokers around (whether they have asthma, or they just don't like the smell).
I think it's an interesting development, I don't think it's bad
per se.
Also, while technically we have an outright smoking ban in all public places, there are some bars that don't care, allow smoking (in the beginning a couple of bars in my city banded together, to split the fee for the first that would get caught--they were persistent, and after a lot of haggling back and forth, it seems to be somewhat tolerated right now, even though it's still illegal).
Now the interesting thing about this, coming back to the Club Air vs Club Cancer example, we usually go out with a group of friends, and usually the smokers are in the minority, and this usually means the rest argues they don't want their hair or clothes to smell, which means we generally end up in Club Air (or more likely, Pub Air). And of course if one of the group has asthma, there's no question about where we'd go.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
It's one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Yeah, it's a choice, just like abstaining from sex is a choice for people who are wired for homosexuality.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:50:01 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:44:03 PM
LMNO, sorry if I came across assholish, not my intention.
That's ok. I'm not firm on my position. If I thought that having a dedicated smoking bar would work, or a completely voluntary compliance would satisfy everyone, I'd get behind it. I just don't see that as feasible in the current climate.
It occurs to me that the only way to make it work without regulation is for everyone to suddenly start acting nice to each other, including strangers.
And we know how well that works.
In cities in which smoking in public places is still permitted non-smoking clubs have tended to do fairly well, so long as they weren't also Christian establishments that prohibited drinking, or otherwise boring stick in the mud sort of places.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
It's one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Yeah, it's a choice, just like abstaining from sex is a choice for people who are wired for homosexuality.
Wait, what? I'm not getting your analogy...
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 06:07:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
It's one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Yeah, it's a choice, just like abstaining from sex is a choice for people who are wired for homosexuality.
Wait, what? I'm not getting your analogy...
lost me as well
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 06:07:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
It's one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Yeah, it's a choice, just like abstaining from sex is a choice for people who are wired for homosexuality.
Wait, what? I'm not getting your analogy...
That yes it's a choice, but it's not an easy choice like paper or plastic. It's a difficult choice with your brain wiring heavily leaning toward you making the choice in one direction, and not the other.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 06:10:12 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 06:07:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
It's one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Yeah, it's a choice, just like abstaining from sex is a choice for people who are wired for homosexuality.
Wait, what? I'm not getting your analogy...
That yes it's a choice, but it's not an easy choice like paper or plastic. It's a difficult choice with your brain wiring heavily leaning toward you making the choice in one direction, and not the other.
fags fuck more than non-fags?
see the fail?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 06:10:12 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 06:07:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
It's one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Yeah, it's a choice, just like abstaining from sex is a choice for people who are wired for homosexuality.
Wait, what? I'm not getting your analogy...
That yes it's a choice, but it's not an easy choice like paper or plastic. It's a difficult choice with your brain wiring heavily leaning toward you making the choice in one direction, and not the other.
Homosexuals naturally abstain from sex?
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 06:07:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
It's one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Yeah, it's a choice, just like abstaining from sex is a choice for people who are wired for homosexuality.
Wait, what? I'm not getting your analogy...
He's saying that NOT smoking for addicted people is like the choice for a homosexual to choose to be abstinent rather than have sex with members of the same sex. So it's basically a non-choice.
To which my reply is: you're fucking full of shit, BH. That analogy is so fucking flawed it's beyond belief. Had this conversation on TCC a few months ago. Don't make me bring the bad feelings over here.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 06:12:10 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 06:10:12 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 06:07:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
It's one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Yeah, it's a choice, just like abstaining from sex is a choice for people who are wired for homosexuality.
Wait, what? I'm not getting your analogy...
That yes it's a choice, but it's not an easy choice like paper or plastic. It's a difficult choice with your brain wiring heavily leaning toward you making the choice in one direction, and not the other.
Homosexuals naturally abstain from sex?
No more so than anyone else.
They get more socially unpleasant consequences for not abstaining than heterosexuals do though.
And now that Phox points it out I realize I do kinda sound like Blue, so I'm gonna shut up now.
I don't think smoking bans are a green issue though so much as a health one.
Interesting thread! I just got caught up...
My mind is still not made up about this business, but let me share a few of my thoughts...
Some people are treating the group "smoker" as if it's some kind of inborn property, like being black. I think this leads to the notion that smokers are a protected group who have the right to smoke anywhere. But if we look at this problem through the lens of other legal albeit dangerous substances, it starts to fall apart. Like drinking, for example. It seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like (notably in public places) - unless the place has a permit for it. So how is tobacco different from alcohol?
Second hand smoking is dangerous. I know that idea is controversial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Controversy_over_harm), but the bulk of independent scientific data research backs it up. Some people are cool with breathing second hand smoke, others are not. Which is more unfair:
-people being forced to refrain from smoking?
-people being forced to breathe smoke?
keep in mind we're not just talking about people who choose to hang out in bars, we're also talking about employees who might be pregnant or have lung conditions. So who should make the sacrifice - smokers or nonsmokers? If you're the one creating the potential harm, I think you should be the one who has to make the sacrifice.
I am always hesitant to advocate government regulation of recreational activities. But if the activity is actually harming others, the government does need to build in some protection for people who will be exposed to harm but did not choose to participate.
If I had to vote on a resolution, I guess I'd vote for the option where smoking is banned but establishments can apply for a smoking permit. Most jobs have risks associated with them,(working in an editorial department puts me slightly at risk for carpal's tunnel syndrome) this is one of those things you'd have to be cool with before you started working there, just like how wielders and insulation installers are at a high risk for lung cancer. But I think that jobs that have those sorts of risks should give their employees benefits like health insurance and pregnancy leave.
my two cents
And you people thought plastic bags was going to be a boring thread.........
(yes, YOU PEOPLE)
:lol:
WHO ARE YOU CALLING "YOU PEOPLE"??
/
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/baghead.jpg)
I'm cool with permits... I think the banners would be a nice touch, too.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 04, 2011, 03:02:59 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 02:57:12 PM
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 02:56:00 PM
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 01:29:27 PM
Without some kind of smoking ban, it would be highly unlikely I would ever be in a bar. Along with every other asthmatic who has severe allergic reactions to cigarette smoke (breathing becoming difficult, wheezing etc).
I also note no-one is touching this with a barge pole.
I read it. I kinda hinted at it with why can't there be both smoking and non-smoking places? It is well known smoking affects people with asthma badly.
Yeah, kind of my take on the matter too... I don't really want to get into it, my cousin is asthmatic... I often go places that don't allow smoking, I'm just saying, making it a matter of law takes the policy out of the hands of the business owner, who likely knows what kinds of customers frequent their place of business. Maybe they could hang a big, nasty lung banner outside their place of business if they allow smoking inside?
When you're talking about an activity that infringes on another person's body, I think that making a law against it is reasonable. I also think that there should be a provision for smoking establishments. Perhaps in order to get a permit that allows smoking inside, they should have to be also a tobacco seller; there is such a provision in Oregon, but no one seems to be jumping on that bandwagon.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
It's not like anyone who smokes always h as to stand 50 feet from the door outside. They only have to do that when they decide they want to have a smoke.
I mean, what's next? You'll complain that you're not allowed to masturbate in public? Or pee anywhere you want?
Nobody is being forced to go outside BECAUSE they smoke. Only WHILE they smoke.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Yeah. Some examples of what I'd consider to be good no booze zones would be schools and day cares. But I support drinking in public places, personally. I don't see how it's a bad thing, and it just gives cops one more thing to bother homeless people about.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:22:23 PM
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 03:21:08 PM
It basically comes down to this:
Both a smoker and a non-smoker can go out and have a good time without in any way interferring with each other's ability to have a good time. However, as soon as a smoker lights up, it becomes necessary for me to leave. If they don't have a smoke, it is not going to kill them, though if they haven't smoked in a while, it will become deeply unpleasant after a while. On the other hand, people can die from asthma attacks (I probably wouldn't, in fact I am almost entirely recovered from asthma, but cigarette smoke is one of my allergens, which provokes the attack). A smoker, in doing that, is asserting their right to smoke overrules my right to go out.
If we were out having drinks I would respect your condition and go away from you to smoke. Maybe I am just weird.
Maybe he should wear a banner and have a bell-ringing boy make announcements at the bar so that everyone has the chance to be so considerate.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:08:31 PM
That only works if both smoking and non-smoking clubs are equivalent.
Smoker can go to Club Air or Club Cancer. They have a choice. If they go to Club Air, they can go outside to smoke.
Asthmatic can only go to Club Air. They do not have the choice not to breathe in Club Cancer.
Therefore, if something cool is going on in Club Cancer, asthmatics cannot attend.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Make smokers stand outside 50 feet away from the entrance in the winter freezing.
Think about that when you start talking about fairness.
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
It's one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Yeah, it's a choice, just like abstaining from sex is a choice for people who are wired for homosexuality.
Oh, bullshit. Sex is a human need. Tobacco is not.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Yeah. Some examples of what I'd consider to be good no booze zones would be schools and day cares. But I support drinking in public places, personally. I don't see how it's a bad thing, and it just gives cops one more thing to bother homeless people about.
Well, here's the thing. There are plenty of people that get even more stupid than they normally are when drinking. Shocking, I know, but bear with me. Would you want these people out and about making big scenes at say, a park where kids are playing? Considering how the majority of people I know act when they go out for drinks, I certainly wouldn't.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 04, 2011, 08:20:25 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Yeah. Some examples of what I'd consider to be good no booze zones would be schools and day cares. But I support drinking in public places, personally. I don't see how it's a bad thing, and it just gives cops one more thing to bother homeless people about.
Well, here's the thing. There are plenty of people that get even more stupid than they normally are when drinking. Shocking, I know, but bear with me. Would you want these people out and about making big scenes at say, a park where kids are playing? Considering how the majority of people I know act when they go out for drinks, I certainly wouldn't.
Then there's the school of thought that people should handle their shit or face the consequences. If I want a beer at a park picnic, I see no reason why I can't because some people drink for the sole purpose of getting hammered and acting a fool.
Here's the thing, dipshits:
You can just not smoke.
Yes, you CAN. It's not a natural process or a way of life, it's just an activity. Grow a fucking pair and quit whining like a bunch of sissies having their binky taken away. You can smoke and suck your wee little thumb at home if you want it that bad.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 04, 2011, 08:20:25 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Yeah. Some examples of what I'd consider to be good no booze zones would be schools and day cares. But I support drinking in public places, personally. I don't see how it's a bad thing, and it just gives cops one more thing to bother homeless people about.
Well, here's the thing. There are plenty of people that get even more stupid than they normally are when drinking. Shocking, I know, but bear with me. Would you want these people out and about making big scenes at say, a park where kids are playing? Considering how the majority of people I know act when they go out for drinks, I certainly wouldn't.
Now, hold on. There are already laws about public intoxication and disorderly conduct. Are you saying that drinking in public should be banned for
everyone because of the actions of a
few?
LMNO
-What Sig said.
I would be okay with smoking being illegal in public except in permit-holding locations specifically for smokers.
They could sell bubble head helmets that let smokers keep the smoke to themselves in polite company.
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:23:06 PM
Here's the thing, dipshits:
You can just not smoke.
Yes, you CAN. It's not a natural process or a way of life, it's just an activity. Grow a fucking pair and quit whining like a bunch of sissies having their binky taken away. You can smoke and suck your wee little thumb at home if you want it that bad.
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
while we're at it, ban being intoxicated at all. It's obvious that people who drink also drive (I never see a line of cabs long enough to take home everyone in any bar, ever)
and since they're putting people's lives at risk, there should be a one drink per hour limit and mandatory breathalizers at bars.
those people don't HAVE to drink and put me at risk by driving after. They can just stay home and drink themselves silly.
</end being a dick>
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 06:07:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
It's one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Yeah, it's a choice, just like abstaining from sex is a choice for people who are wired for homosexuality.
Wait, what? I'm not getting your analogy...
I think he means that homosexuals risk becoming sex-craved junkies if they suck on a few too many fags when they're young.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 08:24:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 04, 2011, 08:20:25 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Yeah. Some examples of what I'd consider to be good no booze zones would be schools and day cares. But I support drinking in public places, personally. I don't see how it's a bad thing, and it just gives cops one more thing to bother homeless people about.
Well, here's the thing. There are plenty of people that get even more stupid than they normally are when drinking. Shocking, I know, but bear with me. Would you want these people out and about making big scenes at say, a park where kids are playing? Considering how the majority of people I know act when they go out for drinks, I certainly wouldn't.
Now, hold on. There are already laws about public intoxication and disorderly conduct. Are you saying that drinking in public should be banned for everyone because of the actions of a few?
LMNO
-What Sig said.
Yeah, I have to agree with LMNO and Sig on this. I think the public intoxication laws are sufficient to take care of the people in public who don't know when to say when. Obviously it's a different ball of wax if we're talking about a minor drinking in public. Though I think there are varying laws state to state, such as open container laws.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:23:06 PM
Here's the thing, dipshits:
You can just not smoke.
Yes, you CAN. It's not a natural process or a way of life, it's just an activity. Grow a fucking pair and quit whining like a bunch of sissies having their binky taken away. You can smoke and suck your wee little thumb at home if you want it that bad.
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
That's already illegal in many states, including Oregon.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 04, 2011, 08:33:30 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 06:07:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
It's one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Yeah, it's a choice, just like abstaining from sex is a choice for people who are wired for homosexuality.
Wait, what? I'm not getting your analogy...
I think he means that homosexuals risk becoming sex-craved junkies if they suck on a few too many fags when they're young.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:23:06 PM
Here's the thing, dipshits:
You can just not smoke.
Yes, you CAN. It's not a natural process or a way of life, it's just an activity. Grow a fucking pair and quit whining like a bunch of sissies having their binky taken away. You can smoke and suck your wee little thumb at home if you want it that bad.
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
while we're at it, ban being intoxicated at all. It's obvious that people who drink also drive (I never see a line of cabs long enough to take home everyone in any bar, ever)
and since they're putting people's lives at risk, there should be a one drink per hour limit and mandatory breathalizers at bars.
those people don't HAVE to drink and put me at risk by driving after. They can just stay home and drink themselves silly.
</end being a dick>
NON SEQUITUR
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:23:06 PM
Here's the thing, dipshits:
You can just not smoke.
Yes, you CAN. It's not a natural process or a way of life, it's just an activity. Grow a fucking pair and quit whining like a bunch of sissies having their binky taken away. You can smoke and suck your wee little thumb at home if you want it that bad.
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
That actually is happening already in some states. Most other states regulate it under distracted driving laws. And I actually think that's a pretty good idea. That shit can kill people just as dead as driving under the influence.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 04, 2011, 08:33:30 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 06:07:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 03:12:24 PM
Oh, so smoking is no longer a choice?
It's one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. Yeah, it's a choice, just like abstaining from sex is a choice for people who are wired for homosexuality.
Wait, what? I'm not getting your analogy...
I think he means that homosexuals risk becoming sex-craved junkies if they suck on a few too many fags when they're young.
:mittens: 000 wins the thread.
Here, have a cigar!
on the driving/phone note: have you guys seen the research on talking on the cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety) / texting while driving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texting_while_driving#Virginia_Tech_Transportation_Institute_Study)? ho ho ho holy shit it's comparably as dangerous as drunk driving! and Texting while driving gives you the reaction time of a 70 year old man. On AVERAGE you'll drive the length of a football field without having your eyes on the road.
QuoteText messaging had the greatest relative risk, with drivers of heavy vehicles or trucks being more than 23 times more likely to experience a safety-critical event when texting. The study also found that drivers typically take their eyes off the forward roadway for an average of four out of six seconds when texting, and an average of 4.6 out of the six seconds surrounding safety-critical events. The study revealed that when traveling at 55 mph, a driver texting for 6 seconds is looking at the phone for 4.6 seconds of that time and travels the distance of a football field without their eyes on the road.
Yeah, Dancing Pickle's analogy was ineffective because cell phone drivers are actually a severe risk.
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:13:02 PM
It's not like anyone who smokes always h as to stand 50 feet from the door outside. They only have to do that when they decide they want to have a smoke.
Wait, you have to stand 50 feet away from the entrance of a pub if you want to go outside and smoke in the USA?
That's retarded.
I mean, second hand smoke hazard when you're in a pub with lots of smokers, fine, but accidentally catching a whiff of smoke when you leave the bar is not going to harm anyone. That's really just needless fuckery. Probably thought up by people that merely dislike the smell. Which I think is only a valid argument in a restaurant, but you aren't allowed to smoke there anyway. Sure, they shouldn't clog up the entrance, but that's common sense, and if that happens, you make rules against
that (a very simple rule like: Don't Clog Up The Entrance).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 04, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
That actually is happening already in some states. Most other states regulate it under distracted driving laws. And I actually think that's a pretty good idea. That shit can kill people just as dead as driving under the influence.
Already illegal over here. Except the problem is, they're doing it wrong. Turns out driving is not more dangerous cause you hold a cell in one hand, but because you're being distracted by the conversation, and unlike somebody talking to you from a passenger's seat, the person on the other end of the phone can't tell if you need to pay attention to a busy intersection. Meaning that, yes, calling hands-free is almost just as dangerous.
... though texting while driving is worse ;-) oh Cram already said this. Except it's crazy they needed research for that. I mean it stands to reason you're being stupidly dangerous if you have to take your eyes off the road. Fuck, I even bump into things and people if I text while walking.
I answer the phone to briefly yell at people when they call me while I'm driving, but that's only if they keep calling me when I don't pick up.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 08:24:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 04, 2011, 08:20:25 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Yeah. Some examples of what I'd consider to be good no booze zones would be schools and day cares. But I support drinking in public places, personally. I don't see how it's a bad thing, and it just gives cops one more thing to bother homeless people about.
Well, here's the thing. There are plenty of people that get even more stupid than they normally are when drinking. Shocking, I know, but bear with me. Would you want these people out and about making big scenes at say, a park where kids are playing? Considering how the majority of people I know act when they go out for drinks, I certainly wouldn't.
Now, hold on. There are already laws about public intoxication and disorderly conduct. Are you saying that drinking in public should be banned for everyone because of the actions of a few?
LMNO
-What Sig said.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 04, 2011, 08:35:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 04, 2011, 08:24:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 04, 2011, 08:20:25 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Yeah. Some examples of what I'd consider to be good no booze zones would be schools and day cares. But I support drinking in public places, personally. I don't see how it's a bad thing, and it just gives cops one more thing to bother homeless people about.
Well, here's the thing. There are plenty of people that get even more stupid than they normally are when drinking. Shocking, I know, but bear with me. Would you want these people out and about making big scenes at say, a park where kids are playing? Considering how the majority of people I know act when they go out for drinks, I certainly wouldn't.
Now, hold on. There are already laws about public intoxication and disorderly conduct. Are you saying that drinking in public should be banned for everyone because of the actions of a few?
LMNO
-What Sig said.
Yeah, I have to agree with LMNO and Sig on this. I think the public intoxication laws are sufficient to take care of the people in public who don't know when to say when. Obviously it's a different ball of wax if we're talking about a minor drinking in public. Though I think there are varying laws state to state, such as open container laws.
I wasn't advocating more laws than already exist, but I was positing my defense of why they are as they stand. I am reading Sig's comments as being against such laws, but I could be wrong on that.
Well, we can just have the adopt-a-highway program allow for some companies to allow texting/cell phone usage while driving and others not to.
That way, driving texters don't have to pull over in the cold, cold winter and those who don't do it can just refuse to use those roads.
You know, just like smoking/non-smoking bars. So what if anybody's health is at risk - there's convenience at risk, people.
so if doing <insert activity> in public has any potential WHAT SO EVER of causing harm to anyone other than yourself..
make it illegal.
sounds reasonable to me.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:56:28 PM
so if doing <insert activity> in public has any potential WHAT SO EVER of causing harm to anyone other than yourself..
make it illegal.
sounds reasonable to me.
Conversely, things that are proven to cause harm to anyone other than yourself should be legalized.
If you're going to spout bullshit, DP, can you at least think of something where the logical alternative isn't significantly more retarded?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:56:28 PM
so if doing < unnecessary thing that can wait> in public has <a probability factor of 20 or more> of <getting a stranger killed>
make it illegal.
sounds reasonable to me.
Yep.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:56:28 PM
so if doing <insert activity> in public has any potential WHAT SO EVER of causing harm to anyone other than yourself..
make it illegal.
sounds reasonable to me.
Hey, let's just ban being out in public at all. That will save us the trouble of thinking up all those potentially harmful things.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 04, 2011, 08:58:43 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:56:28 PM
so if doing <insert activity> in public has any potential WHAT SO EVER of causing harm to anyone other than yourself..
make it illegal.
sounds reasonable to me.
Conversely, things that are proven to cause harm to anyone other than yourself should be legalized.
If you're going to spout bullshit, DP, can you at least think of something where the logical alternative isn't significantly more retarded?
eh, I'm in a bit of a mood today. Shit stirring and watching the clock seem to be all I want to do at the moment.
I'm for reasonable restriction but outright bans with no room for alternatives irk me.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 04, 2011, 09:01:42 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:56:28 PM
so if doing <insert activity> in public has any potential WHAT SO EVER of causing harm to anyone other than yourself..
make it illegal.
sounds reasonable to me.
Hey, let's just ban being out in public at all. That will save us the trouble of thinking up all those potentially harmful things.
Right, and since murder hurts other people but not yourself there shouldn't be any protections in place to stop you from doing it.
Well, nice discussion you all had there at one point, before it had to get derailed with hyberbole and dishonesty.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 09:02:20 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 04, 2011, 08:58:43 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:56:28 PM
so if doing <insert activity> in public has any potential WHAT SO EVER of causing harm to anyone other than yourself..
make it illegal.
sounds reasonable to me.
Conversely, things that are proven to cause harm to anyone other than yourself should be legalized.
If you're going to spout bullshit, DP, can you at least think of something where the logical alternative isn't significantly more retarded?
eh, I'm in a bit of a mood today. Shit stirring and watching the clock seem to be all I want to do at the moment.
I'm for reasonable restriction but outright bans with no room for alternatives irk me.
Nobody is calling for smoking to be banned. Why does that even keep being brought into the argument. The other side is very clearly arguing that it should regulated in places where it could negatively affect the health of others.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:56:28 PM
so if doing <insert activity> in public has any potential WHAT SO EVER of causing harm to anyone other than yourself..
make it illegal.
sounds reasonable to me.
Yep, and we're going to start with inane posts. TO THE WALL WITH YOU SIR!!!
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 04, 2011, 08:48:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:13:02 PM
It's not like anyone who smokes always h as to stand 50 feet from the door outside. They only have to do that when they decide they want to have a smoke.
Wait, you have to stand 50 feet away from the entrance of a pub if you want to go outside and smoke in the USA?
That's retarded.
I mean, second hand smoke hazard when you're in a pub with lots of smokers, fine, but accidentally catching a whiff of smoke when you leave the bar is not going to harm anyone. That's really just needless fuckery. Probably thought up by people that merely dislike the smell. Which I think is only a valid argument in a restaurant, but you aren't allowed to smoke there anyway. Sure, they shouldn't clog up the entrance, but that's common sense, and if that happens, you make rules against that (a very simple rule like: Don't Clog Up The Entrance).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 04, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
That actually is happening already in some states. Most other states regulate it under distracted driving laws. And I actually think that's a pretty good idea. That shit can kill people just as dead as driving under the influence.
Already illegal over here. Except the problem is, they're doing it wrong. Turns out driving is not more dangerous cause you hold a cell in one hand, but because you're being distracted by the conversation, and unlike somebody talking to you from a passenger's seat, the person on the other end of the phone can't tell if you need to pay attention to a busy intersection. Meaning that, yes, calling hands-free is almost just as dangerous.
... though texting while driving is worse ;-) oh Cram already said this. Except it's crazy they needed research for that. I mean it stands to reason you're being stupidly dangerous if you have to take your eyes off the road. Fuck, I even bump into things and people if I text while walking.
Ten feet in Portland. 50 feet is clearly hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cell phone use while driving is illegal in Oregon. Rightfully so.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 04, 2011, 08:52:18 PM
Well, we can just have the adopt-a-highway program allow for some companies to allow texting/cell phone usage while driving and others not to.
That way, driving texters don't have to pull over in the cold, cold winter and those who don't do it can just refuse to use those roads.
You know, just like smoking/non-smoking bars. So what if anybody's health is at risk - there's convenience at risk, people.
:lulz: THIS IS AMERICA!!!
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 04, 2011, 08:48:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:13:02 PM
It's not like anyone who smokes always h as to stand 50 feet from the door outside. They only have to do that when they decide they want to have a smoke.
Wait, you have to stand 50 feet away from the entrance of a pub if you want to go outside and smoke in the USA?
That's retarded.
I mean, second hand smoke hazard when you're in a pub with lots of smokers, fine, but accidentally catching a whiff of smoke when you leave the bar is not going to harm anyone. That's really just needless fuckery. Probably thought up by people that merely dislike the smell. Which I think is only a valid argument in a restaurant, but you aren't allowed to smoke there anyway. Sure, they shouldn't clog up the entrance, but that's common sense, and if that happens, you make rules against that (a very simple rule like: Don't Clog Up The Entrance).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 04, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
That actually is happening already in some states. Most other states regulate it under distracted driving laws. And I actually think that's a pretty good idea. That shit can kill people just as dead as driving under the influence.
Already illegal over here. Except the problem is, they're doing it wrong. Turns out driving is not more dangerous cause you hold a cell in one hand, but because you're being distracted by the conversation, and unlike somebody talking to you from a passenger's seat, the person on the other end of the phone can't tell if you need to pay attention to a busy intersection. Meaning that, yes, calling hands-free is almost just as dangerous.
... though texting while driving is worse ;-) oh Cram already said this. Except it's crazy they needed research for that. I mean it stands to reason you're being stupidly dangerous if you have to take your eyes off the road. Fuck, I even bump into things and people if I text while walking.
Ten feet in Portland. 50 feet is clearly hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cell phone use while driving is illegal in Oregon. Rightfully so.
I believe it's 15 feet here. Still not 50, but....
What about farting in public? I'm not a big fan of inhaling microscopic shit particles.
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 04, 2011, 08:52:18 PM
Well, we can just have the adopt-a-highway program allow for some companies to allow texting/cell phone usage while driving and others not to.
That way, driving texters don't have to pull over in the cold, cold winter and those who don't do it can just refuse to use those roads.
You know, just like smoking/non-smoking bars. So what if anybody's health is at risk - there's convenience at risk, people.
:lulz: THIS IS AMERICA!!!
HEY! No smoking in here!
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 04, 2011, 09:05:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 04, 2011, 09:01:42 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:56:28 PM
so if doing <insert activity> in public has any potential WHAT SO EVER of causing harm to anyone other than yourself..
make it illegal.
sounds reasonable to me.
Hey, let's just ban being out in public at all. That will save us the trouble of thinking up all those potentially harmful things.
Right, and since murder hurts other people but not yourself there shouldn't be any protections in place to stop you from doing it.
Well, nice discussion you all had there at one point, before it had to get derailed with hyberbole and dishonesty.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 09:02:20 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 04, 2011, 08:58:43 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:56:28 PM
so if doing <insert activity> in public has any potential WHAT SO EVER of causing harm to anyone other than yourself..
make it illegal.
sounds reasonable to me.
Conversely, things that are proven to cause harm to anyone other than yourself should be legalized.
If you're going to spout bullshit, DP, can you at least think of something where the logical alternative isn't significantly more retarded?
eh, I'm in a bit of a mood today. Shit stirring and watching the clock seem to be all I want to do at the moment.
I'm for reasonable restriction but outright bans with no room for alternatives irk me.
Nobody is calling for smoking to be banned. Why does that even keep being brought into the argument. The other side is very clearly arguing that it should regulated in places where it could negatively affect the health of others.
apologies for mucking up the thread. I'm going to go smoke a cigarette.
:lulz: The funny thing is that I smoke and I think the rest of you smokers are wah-wah babypants.
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 04, 2011, 09:10:40 PM
What about farting in public? I'm not a big fan of inhaling microscopic shit particles.Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 04, 2011, 08:52:18 PM
Well, we can just have the adopt-a-highway program allow for some companies to allow texting/cell phone usage while driving and others not to.
That way, driving texters don't have to pull over in the cold, cold winter and those who don't do it can just refuse to use those roads.
You know, just like smoking/non-smoking bars. So what if anybody's health is at risk - there's convenience at risk, people.
:lulz: THIS IS AMERICA!!!
HEY! No smoking in here!
:tgrr: WHAT
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:11:49 PM
:lulz: The funny thing is that I smoke and I think the rest of you smokers are wah-wah babypants.
yeah, it doesn't bother me to go outside.
I don't even smoke in my home out of consideration for the cat.
Other than looking cool and addiction, why smoke tobacco?
I want answers since I don't smoke (much, and when I have there was nothing special about it).
I've been told it's calming/relaxing, but it seems to me that would be an effect of being addicted, yeah?
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 09:20:48 PM
Other than looking cool and addiction, why smoke tobacco?
I want answers since I don't smoke (much, and when I have there was nothing special about it).
I've been told it's calming/relaxing, but it seems to me that would be an effect of being addicted, yeah?
addiction is my primary reason. It damn sure isn't the taste.
also, I have an excuse to get up from in front of this monitor every hour and a half and give my eyes a break. I suppose I could do something else with that time, like walk around the building, and when I do finally say fuck it and quit, that's probably what I'll do.
It's a muthafucker of a drug to kick and a plague on my wallet. Wont stop me from having one on the way home though. :x
For some, it provides much needed dopamine. It can slightly enhance alertness and focus, but that might only be if you're scatterbrained all the time like I am. My personal reason for smoking? It keeps the weird, pulsating, noisy acid blobs out of my mind.
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 04, 2011, 03:02:59 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 02:57:12 PM
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 02:56:00 PM
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 01:29:27 PM
Without some kind of smoking ban, it would be highly unlikely I would ever be in a bar. Along with every other asthmatic who has severe allergic reactions to cigarette smoke (breathing becoming difficult, wheezing etc).
I also note no-one is touching this with a barge pole.
I read it. I kinda hinted at it with why can't there be both smoking and non-smoking places? It is well known smoking affects people with asthma badly.
Yeah, kind of my take on the matter too... I don't really want to get into it, my cousin is asthmatic... I often go places that don't allow smoking, I'm just saying, making it a matter of law takes the policy out of the hands of the business owner, who likely knows what kinds of customers frequent their place of business. Maybe they could hang a big, nasty lung banner outside their place of business if they allow smoking inside?
When you're talking about an activity that infringes on another person's body, I think that making a law against it is reasonable. I also think that there should be a provision for smoking establishments. Perhaps in order to get a permit that allows smoking inside, they should have to be also a tobacco seller; there is such a provision in Oregon, but no one seems to be jumping on that bandwagon.
We have that in Ohio. It's mostly been taken advantage of by hookah bars.
A business has to derive the majority of it's income from tobacco sales to allow indoor smoking though.
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 04, 2011, 08:48:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:13:02 PM
It's not like anyone who smokes always h as to stand 50 feet from the door outside. They only have to do that when they decide they want to have a smoke.
Wait, you have to stand 50 feet away from the entrance of a pub if you want to go outside and smoke in the USA?
That's retarded.
I mean, second hand smoke hazard when you're in a pub with lots of smokers, fine, but accidentally catching a whiff of smoke when you leave the bar is not going to harm anyone. That's really just needless fuckery. Probably thought up by people that merely dislike the smell. Which I think is only a valid argument in a restaurant, but you aren't allowed to smoke there anyway. Sure, they shouldn't clog up the entrance, but that's common sense, and if that happens, you make rules against that (a very simple rule like: Don't Clog Up The Entrance).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 04, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
That actually is happening already in some states. Most other states regulate it under distracted driving laws. And I actually think that's a pretty good idea. That shit can kill people just as dead as driving under the influence.
Already illegal over here. Except the problem is, they're doing it wrong. Turns out driving is not more dangerous cause you hold a cell in one hand, but because you're being distracted by the conversation, and unlike somebody talking to you from a passenger's seat, the person on the other end of the phone can't tell if you need to pay attention to a busy intersection. Meaning that, yes, calling hands-free is almost just as dangerous.
... though texting while driving is worse ;-) oh Cram already said this. Except it's crazy they needed research for that. I mean it stands to reason you're being stupidly dangerous if you have to take your eyes off the road. Fuck, I even bump into things and people if I text while walking.
Ten feet in Portland. 50 feet is clearly hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cell phone use while driving is illegal in Oregon. Rightfully so.
I think it is 50 feet in Washington. I know it is far enough that it is actually illegal to smoke outdoors in the city of Seattle without standing in the middle of the street (since it is also prohibited in the parks there)
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 09:20:48 PM
Other than looking cool and addiction, why smoke tobacco?
I want answers since I don't smoke (much, and when I have there was nothing special about it).
I've been told it's calming/relaxing, but it seems to me that would be an effect of being addicted, yeah?
I smoke about once a day or slightly less. If I combine a cigarette with a coffee I get a really nice euphoric feeling and I also get a burst of creative inspiration. Without the coffee I just get nauseous.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 09:58:59 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 04, 2011, 08:48:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:13:02 PM
It's not like anyone who smokes always h as to stand 50 feet from the door outside. They only have to do that when they decide they want to have a smoke.
Wait, you have to stand 50 feet away from the entrance of a pub if you want to go outside and smoke in the USA?
That's retarded.
I mean, second hand smoke hazard when you're in a pub with lots of smokers, fine, but accidentally catching a whiff of smoke when you leave the bar is not going to harm anyone. That's really just needless fuckery. Probably thought up by people that merely dislike the smell. Which I think is only a valid argument in a restaurant, but you aren't allowed to smoke there anyway. Sure, they shouldn't clog up the entrance, but that's common sense, and if that happens, you make rules against that (a very simple rule like: Don't Clog Up The Entrance).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 04, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
That actually is happening already in some states. Most other states regulate it under distracted driving laws. And I actually think that's a pretty good idea. That shit can kill people just as dead as driving under the influence.
Already illegal over here. Except the problem is, they're doing it wrong. Turns out driving is not more dangerous cause you hold a cell in one hand, but because you're being distracted by the conversation, and unlike somebody talking to you from a passenger's seat, the person on the other end of the phone can't tell if you need to pay attention to a busy intersection. Meaning that, yes, calling hands-free is almost just as dangerous.
... though texting while driving is worse ;-) oh Cram already said this. Except it's crazy they needed research for that. I mean it stands to reason you're being stupidly dangerous if you have to take your eyes off the road. Fuck, I even bump into things and people if I text while walking.
Ten feet in Portland. 50 feet is clearly hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cell phone use while driving is illegal in Oregon. Rightfully so.
I think it is 50 feet in Washington. I know it is far enough that it is actually illegal to smoke outdoors in the city of Seattle without standing in the middle of the street (since it is also prohibited in the parks there)
It's 25 feet in WA.
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:16:35 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:22:23 PM
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 03:21:08 PM
It basically comes down to this:
Both a smoker and a non-smoker can go out and have a good time without in any way interferring with each other's ability to have a good time. However, as soon as a smoker lights up, it becomes necessary for me to leave. If they don't have a smoke, it is not going to kill them, though if they haven't smoked in a while, it will become deeply unpleasant after a while. On the other hand, people can die from asthma attacks (I probably wouldn't, in fact I am almost entirely recovered from asthma, but cigarette smoke is one of my allergens, which provokes the attack). A smoker, in doing that, is asserting their right to smoke overrules my right to go out.
If we were out having drinks I would respect your condition and go away from you to smoke. Maybe I am just weird.
Maybe he should wear a banner and have a bell-ringing boy make announcements at the bar so that everyone has the chance to be so considerate.
Not to be reasonable or anything, but he could just tell me as well. WTF?
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 10:20:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:16:35 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 03:22:23 PM
Quote from: The Poster With No Name on January 04, 2011, 03:21:08 PM
It basically comes down to this:
Both a smoker and a non-smoker can go out and have a good time without in any way interferring with each other's ability to have a good time. However, as soon as a smoker lights up, it becomes necessary for me to leave. If they don't have a smoke, it is not going to kill them, though if they haven't smoked in a while, it will become deeply unpleasant after a while. On the other hand, people can die from asthma attacks (I probably wouldn't, in fact I am almost entirely recovered from asthma, but cigarette smoke is one of my allergens, which provokes the attack). A smoker, in doing that, is asserting their right to smoke overrules my right to go out.
If we were out having drinks I would respect your condition and go away from you to smoke. Maybe I am just weird.
Maybe he should wear a banner and have a bell-ringing boy make announcements at the bar so that everyone has the chance to be so considerate.
Not to be reasonable or anything, but he could just tell me as well. WTF?
Oh, I get it... and then you'll make the announcement to all the other patrons, so they won't smoke in the bar while he's there.
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 04, 2011, 08:48:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:13:02 PM
It's not like anyone who smokes always h as to stand 50 feet from the door outside. They only have to do that when they decide they want to have a smoke.
Wait, you have to stand 50 feet away from the entrance of a pub if you want to go outside and smoke in the USA?
That's retarded.
I mean, second hand smoke hazard when you're in a pub with lots of smokers, fine, but accidentally catching a whiff of smoke when you leave the bar is not going to harm anyone. That's really just needless fuckery. Probably thought up by people that merely dislike the smell. Which I think is only a valid argument in a restaurant, but you aren't allowed to smoke there anyway. Sure, they shouldn't clog up the entrance, but that's common sense, and if that happens, you make rules against that (a very simple rule like: Don't Clog Up The Entrance).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 04, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
That actually is happening already in some states. Most other states regulate it under distracted driving laws. And I actually think that's a pretty good idea. That shit can kill people just as dead as driving under the influence.
Already illegal over here. Except the problem is, they're doing it wrong. Turns out driving is not more dangerous cause you hold a cell in one hand, but because you're being distracted by the conversation, and unlike somebody talking to you from a passenger's seat, the person on the other end of the phone can't tell if you need to pay attention to a busy intersection. Meaning that, yes, calling hands-free is almost just as dangerous.
... though texting while driving is worse ;-) oh Cram already said this. Except it's crazy they needed research for that. I mean it stands to reason you're being stupidly dangerous if you have to take your eyes off the road. Fuck, I even bump into things and people if I text while walking.
Ten feet in Portland. 50 feet is clearly hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cell phone use while driving is illegal in Oregon. Rightfully so.
I have no idea why you are being so rude, but go fuck yourself.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 10:26:01 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 04, 2011, 08:48:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:13:02 PM
It's not like anyone who smokes always h as to stand 50 feet from the door outside. They only have to do that when they decide they want to have a smoke.
Wait, you have to stand 50 feet away from the entrance of a pub if you want to go outside and smoke in the USA?
That's retarded.
I mean, second hand smoke hazard when you're in a pub with lots of smokers, fine, but accidentally catching a whiff of smoke when you leave the bar is not going to harm anyone. That's really just needless fuckery. Probably thought up by people that merely dislike the smell. Which I think is only a valid argument in a restaurant, but you aren't allowed to smoke there anyway. Sure, they shouldn't clog up the entrance, but that's common sense, and if that happens, you make rules against that (a very simple rule like: Don't Clog Up The Entrance).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 04, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
That actually is happening already in some states. Most other states regulate it under distracted driving laws. And I actually think that's a pretty good idea. That shit can kill people just as dead as driving under the influence.
Already illegal over here. Except the problem is, they're doing it wrong. Turns out driving is not more dangerous cause you hold a cell in one hand, but because you're being distracted by the conversation, and unlike somebody talking to you from a passenger's seat, the person on the other end of the phone can't tell if you need to pay attention to a busy intersection. Meaning that, yes, calling hands-free is almost just as dangerous.
... though texting while driving is worse ;-) oh Cram already said this. Except it's crazy they needed research for that. I mean it stands to reason you're being stupidly dangerous if you have to take your eyes off the road. Fuck, I even bump into things and people if I text while walking.
Ten feet in Portland. 50 feet is clearly hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cell phone use while driving is illegal in Oregon. Rightfully so.
I have no idea why you are being so rude, but go fuck yourself.
Rude about what? Maybe it's 'cause I'm on her side but I see no rudeness...
I'm not, in fact, being any ruder than people who think that not being allowed to smoke in bars makes them an oppressed minority.
Read your own posts. Are you the only person allowed to be an abrasive old fuck? I think not. :lulz:
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 04, 2011, 10:28:34 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 04, 2011, 10:26:01 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 04, 2011, 08:48:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:13:02 PM
It's not like anyone who smokes always h as to stand 50 feet from the door outside. They only have to do that when they decide they want to have a smoke.
Wait, you have to stand 50 feet away from the entrance of a pub if you want to go outside and smoke in the USA?
That's retarded.
I mean, second hand smoke hazard when you're in a pub with lots of smokers, fine, but accidentally catching a whiff of smoke when you leave the bar is not going to harm anyone. That's really just needless fuckery. Probably thought up by people that merely dislike the smell. Which I think is only a valid argument in a restaurant, but you aren't allowed to smoke there anyway. Sure, they shouldn't clog up the entrance, but that's common sense, and if that happens, you make rules against that (a very simple rule like: Don't Clog Up The Entrance).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 04, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
That actually is happening already in some states. Most other states regulate it under distracted driving laws. And I actually think that's a pretty good idea. That shit can kill people just as dead as driving under the influence.
Already illegal over here. Except the problem is, they're doing it wrong. Turns out driving is not more dangerous cause you hold a cell in one hand, but because you're being distracted by the conversation, and unlike somebody talking to you from a passenger's seat, the person on the other end of the phone can't tell if you need to pay attention to a busy intersection. Meaning that, yes, calling hands-free is almost just as dangerous.
... though texting while driving is worse ;-) oh Cram already said this. Except it's crazy they needed research for that. I mean it stands to reason you're being stupidly dangerous if you have to take your eyes off the road. Fuck, I even bump into things and people if I text while walking.
Ten feet in Portland. 50 feet is clearly hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cell phone use while driving is illegal in Oregon. Rightfully so.
I have no idea why you are being so rude, but go fuck yourself.
Rude about what? Maybe it's 'cause I'm on her side but I see no rudeness...
Oh, I get it... and then you'll make the announcement to all the other patrons, so they won't smoke in the bar while he's there.
50 feet is clearly hyperbole and exaggeration.
There are a couple of others as well, one about waah, etc,.
I just don't understand why she has to resort to that bullshit with me.
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 10:30:15 PM
I'm not, in fact, being any ruder than people who think that not being allowed to smoke in bars makes them an oppressed minority.
Read your own posts. Are you the only person allowed to be an abrasive old fuck? I think not. :lulz:
We're done here. I don't need your abrasive shit today.
:roll: This is not Nigel vs. Charley. You are no more exempt from being taunted when you say ridiculous things than anyone else here is. I'm sure that you could make a case for yourself that you're super special and I'm picking on you if you go through every post I make with the assumption that it's specifically, personally, directed at you and you alone, but you'd be wrong.
Charley, all except one of those weren't even addressed at you.
Are we back to this already?
My thoughts, too.
I've been thinking about it and I think that there is a stronger case for legalizing shitting in public places than smoking in public places.
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Yeah. Some examples of what I'd consider to be good no booze zones would be schools and day cares. But I support drinking in public places, personally. I don't see how it's a bad thing, and it just gives cops one more thing to bother homeless people about.
Y'know schools and daycares never even entered my mind. Good point. I'm a fucking fool sometimes.
But yeah, public...
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 04, 2011, 08:20:25 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Yeah. Some examples of what I'd consider to be good no booze zones would be schools and day cares. But I support drinking in public places, personally. I don't see how it's a bad thing, and it just gives cops one more thing to bother homeless people about.
Well, here's the thing. There are plenty of people that get even more stupid than they normally are when drinking. Shocking, I know, but bear with me. Would you want these people out and about making big scenes at say, a park where kids are playing? Considering how the majority of people I know act when they go out for drinks, I certainly wouldn't.
I'll give the schools and daycares, but not parks. Kids don't run the world.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:23:06 PM
Here's the thing, dipshits:
You can just not smoke.
Yes, you CAN. It's not a natural process or a way of life, it's just an activity. Grow a fucking pair and quit whining like a bunch of sissies having their binky taken away. You can smoke and suck your wee little thumb at home if you want it that bad.
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too.
What about dice dangling from rearview mirrors? Those are damn distracting.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 03:48:18 AM
I've been thinking about it and I think that there is a stronger case for legalizing shitting in public places than smoking in public places.
Clearly.
Christ, that's a lot of posts from me in a row. Sorry.
Here's one more... just for kicks.
Sorry, we're banning those. Too distracting while I'm trying to work.
OPPRESSION!
Can't have you go around tearing apart the fabric of society all willy nilly-like.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 02:32:02 PM
Can't have you go around tearing apart the fabric of society all willy nilly-like.
Why do yuo hate FREEDOM?
\
:mullet:
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 05, 2011, 01:56:25 AM
Charley, all except one of those weren't even addressed at you.
I get drugs today. Titration in 3 days. Must. Hang. On.
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:22:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 04, 2011, 08:20:25 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Yeah. Some examples of what I'd consider to be good no booze zones would be schools and day cares. But I support drinking in public places, personally. I don't see how it's a bad thing, and it just gives cops one more thing to bother homeless people about.
Well, here's the thing. There are plenty of people that get even more stupid than they normally are when drinking. Shocking, I know, but bear with me. Would you want these people out and about making big scenes at say, a park where kids are playing? Considering how the majority of people I know act when they go out for drinks, I certainly wouldn't.
Then there's the school of thought that people should handle their shit or face the consequences. If I want a beer at a park picnic, I see no reason why I can't because some people drink for the sole purpose of getting hammered and acting a fool.
THIS. x1,000,000.
Make the "being a drunken jackass" part illegal rather than making public consumption illegal across the board.
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 05, 2011, 04:48:39 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:22:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 04, 2011, 08:20:25 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Yeah. Some examples of what I'd consider to be good no booze zones would be schools and day cares. But I support drinking in public places, personally. I don't see how it's a bad thing, and it just gives cops one more thing to bother homeless people about.
Well, here's the thing. There are plenty of people that get even more stupid than they normally are when drinking. Shocking, I know, but bear with me. Would you want these people out and about making big scenes at say, a park where kids are playing? Considering how the majority of people I know act when they go out for drinks, I certainly wouldn't.
Then there's the school of thought that people should handle their shit or face the consequences. If I want a beer at a park picnic, I see no reason why I can't because some people drink for the sole purpose of getting hammered and acting a fool.
THIS. x1,000,000.
Make the "being a drunken jackass" part illegal rather than making public consumption illegal across the board.
Yep. Drink in public all you like, but you're still accountable for your behavior, because who got you drunk, after all?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 04:49:55 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 05, 2011, 04:48:39 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:22:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 04, 2011, 08:20:25 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 04, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 04, 2011, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 04, 2011, 06:43:01 PMIt seems logical that there are laws preventing you from drinking anywhere you'd like
It does?
Yeah. Some examples of what I'd consider to be good no booze zones would be schools and day cares. But I support drinking in public places, personally. I don't see how it's a bad thing, and it just gives cops one more thing to bother homeless people about.
Well, here's the thing. There are plenty of people that get even more stupid than they normally are when drinking. Shocking, I know, but bear with me. Would you want these people out and about making big scenes at say, a park where kids are playing? Considering how the majority of people I know act when they go out for drinks, I certainly wouldn't.
Then there's the school of thought that people should handle their shit or face the consequences. If I want a beer at a park picnic, I see no reason why I can't because some people drink for the sole purpose of getting hammered and acting a fool.
THIS. x1,000,000.
Make the "being a drunken jackass" part illegal rather than making public consumption illegal across the board.
Yep. Drink in public all you like, but you're still accountable for your behavior, because who got you drunk, after all?
Jim Beam.
What? Am I supposed to take responsibility for my actions?
THIS IS FUKIN AMERICA!
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:11:49 PM
:lulz: The funny thing is that I smoke and I think the rest of you smokers are wah-wah babypants.
ALSO THIS x1,000,000. WE SHOULD MAKE A LAW THAT YO UHAVE TO SHOW YOUR BIG BOY PANTS TO THE CLERK BEFORE YOU CAN BUY A PACK.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 04:52:20 PM
Jim Beam.
What? Am I supposed to take responsibility for my actions?
THIS IS FUKIN AMERICA!
Can't argue with that logic. :lulz:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Totally! It's a biological need that everyone has. I don't see why we should be forced to go into private rooms to do it.
Civil disobedience can be fun.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 04, 2011, 09:58:59 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 04, 2011, 08:48:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 08:13:02 PM
It's not like anyone who smokes always h as to stand 50 feet from the door outside. They only have to do that when they decide they want to have a smoke.
Wait, you have to stand 50 feet away from the entrance of a pub if you want to go outside and smoke in the USA?
That's retarded.
I mean, second hand smoke hazard when you're in a pub with lots of smokers, fine, but accidentally catching a whiff of smoke when you leave the bar is not going to harm anyone. That's really just needless fuckery. Probably thought up by people that merely dislike the smell. Which I think is only a valid argument in a restaurant, but you aren't allowed to smoke there anyway. Sure, they shouldn't clog up the entrance, but that's common sense, and if that happens, you make rules against that (a very simple rule like: Don't Clog Up The Entrance).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 04, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 04, 2011, 08:30:29 PM
we should ban using your cellphone in your car while driving too. That shit's dangerous to the rest of us who don't do it.
That actually is happening already in some states. Most other states regulate it under distracted driving laws. And I actually think that's a pretty good idea. That shit can kill people just as dead as driving under the influence.
Already illegal over here. Except the problem is, they're doing it wrong. Turns out driving is not more dangerous cause you hold a cell in one hand, but because you're being distracted by the conversation, and unlike somebody talking to you from a passenger's seat, the person on the other end of the phone can't tell if you need to pay attention to a busy intersection. Meaning that, yes, calling hands-free is almost just as dangerous.
... though texting while driving is worse ;-) oh Cram already said this. Except it's crazy they needed research for that. I mean it stands to reason you're being stupidly dangerous if you have to take your eyes off the road. Fuck, I even bump into things and people if I text while walking.
Ten feet in Portland. 50 feet is clearly hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cell phone use while driving is illegal in Oregon. Rightfully so.
I think it is 50 feet in Washington. I know it is far enough that it is actually illegal to smoke outdoors in the city of Seattle without standing in the middle of the street (since it is also prohibited in the parks there)
Still making things up I see.
IIRC, it's 25 feet in WA. And completely unenforced in the city of Seattle, at least as of last weekend.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 03:38:29 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 05, 2011, 01:56:25 AM
Charley, all except one of those weren't even addressed at you.
I get drugs today. Titration in 3 days. Must. Hang. On.
Meh I didn't know you were out of yer drugs. I'll go easy on ya with my sarcasm until you're set right.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 04:56:10 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Totally! It's a biological need that everyone has. I don't see why we should be forced to go into private rooms to do it.
I disagree entirely. I do NOT wish to see ANY portion of the bodies of 95% of America, and putting up with their jowled, quivering faces is bad enough. In fact, I think they should all be fitted for colostomy bags and be forbidden from removing their clothing except to go to sleep at night, if that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 04:58:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 04:56:10 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Totally! It's a biological need that everyone has. I don't see why we should be forced to go into private rooms to do it.
I disagree entirely. I do NOT wish to see ANY portion of the bodies of 95% of America, and putting up with their jowled, quivering faces is bad enough. In fact, I think they should all be fitted for colostomy bags and be forbidden from removing their clothing except to go to sleep at night, if that.
HAZMAT SUITS FOR THE UGLY!
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 05, 2011, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:11:49 PM
:lulz: The funny thing is that I smoke and I think the rest of you smokers are wah-wah babypants.
ALSO THIS x1,000,000. WE SHOULD MAKE A LAW THAT YO UHAVE TO SHOW YOUR BIG BOY PANTS TO THE CLERK BEFORE YOU CAN BUY A PACK.
Seriously. This thread cannot begin to contain my contempt for people who whine about being oppressed because they aren't allowed to publicly impose their unhealthy, addictive, expensive luxury pastime on others.
Also, "WAAAAAHHHHH but it's so addictive I have no chooooiiiiiiiice!" Fucking strap on a pair, of course you have a choice, and nobody else deserves to be inconvenienced because you made a bad decision and got addicted. Just because you do something stupid doesn't mean it's "fair" for everyone else to be imposed on. The way some people BAWWWW you'd think having to go stand on the patio to smoke was comparable to the horrors of Auschwitz.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 04:57:40 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 03:38:29 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 05, 2011, 01:56:25 AM
Charley, all except one of those weren't even addressed at you.
I get drugs today. Titration in 3 days. Must. Hang. On.
Meh I didn't know you were out of yer drugs. I'll go easy on ya with my sarcasm until you're set right.
Nah. Carry on.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 04:58:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 04:56:10 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Totally! It's a biological need that everyone has. I don't see why we should be forced to go into private rooms to do it.
I disagree entirely. I do NOT wish to see ANY portion of the bodies of 95% of America, and putting up with their jowled, quivering faces is bad enough. In fact, I think they should all be fitted for colostomy bags and be forbidden from removing their clothing except to go to sleep at night, if that.
Burkas for everyone?
As far as public drinking, I think the laws are stupid, and designed almost entirely to harass homeless drunks.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 05, 2011, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:11:49 PM
:lulz: The funny thing is that I smoke and I think the rest of you smokers are wah-wah babypants.
ALSO THIS x1,000,000. WE SHOULD MAKE A LAW THAT YO UHAVE TO SHOW YOUR BIG BOY PANTS TO THE CLERK BEFORE YOU CAN BUY A PACK.
Seriously. This thread cannot begin to contain my contempt for people who whine about being oppressed because they aren't allowed to publicly impose their unhealthy, addictive, expensive luxury pastime on others.
Also, "WAAAAAHHHHH but it's so addictive I have no chooooiiiiiiiice!" Fucking strap on a pair, of course you have a choice, and nobody else deserves to be inconvenienced because you made a bad decision and got addicted. Just because you do something stupid doesn't mean it's "fair" for everyone else to be imposed on. The way some people BAWWWW you'd think having to go stand on the patio to smoke was comparable to the horrors of Auschwitz.
Why do you two keep beating a dead horse?
Because they're eugenicists.
;) :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Heck yeah, we should start a pention.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2011, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Heck yeah, we should start a pention.
That s'nuff out of you!!!
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2011, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Heck yeah, we should start a pention.
That s'nuff out of you!!!
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
PIPE DOWN!
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:18:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2011, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Heck yeah, we should start a pention.
That s'nuff out of you!!!
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
PIPE DOWN!
FAGS
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
Seriously. This thread cannot begin to contain my contempt for people who whine about being oppressed because they aren't allowed to publicly impose their unhealthy, addictive, expensive luxury pastime on others.
Stop hating America™. Seriously. This IS America, dammit, and it's high time we FORCED you to eat loads of red meat and junk food. You smug, holier-than-thou hippie-type-pinko-fag patchouli-huffers are in for it now! Sarah Palin could snap your limp wrists just by flexing her womb.
TGRR,
Prepared for the new paradigm.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:18:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2011, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Heck yeah, we should start a pention.
That s'nuff out of you!!!
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
PIPE DOWN!
FAGS
Friendly Association of Gay Smokers?
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 05:07:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 04:58:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 04:56:10 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Totally! It's a biological need that everyone has. I don't see why we should be forced to go into private rooms to do it.
I disagree entirely. I do NOT wish to see ANY portion of the bodies of 95% of America, and putting up with their jowled, quivering faces is bad enough. In fact, I think they should all be fitted for colostomy bags and be forbidden from removing their clothing except to go to sleep at night, if that.
Burkas for everyone?
No. Corks.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:18:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2011, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Heck yeah, we should start a pention.
That s'nuff out of you!!!
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
PIPE DOWN!
FAGS
That was blunt.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:21:57 PM
[Sarah Palin could snap your limp wrists just by flexing her womb.
This is one of the most disgusting yet amazing things I've ever read.
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:23:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:21:57 PM
[Sarah Palin could snap your limp wrists just by flexing her womb.
This is one of the most disgusting yet amazing things I've ever read.
Have I mentioned that I love this decade? :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:24:19 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:23:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:21:57 PM
[Sarah Palin could snap your limp wrists just by flexing her womb.
This is one of the most disgusting yet amazing things I've ever read.
Have I mentioned that I love this decade? :lulz:
It just started, give it time.
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 05, 2011, 05:12:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 05, 2011, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2011, 09:11:49 PM
:lulz: The funny thing is that I smoke and I think the rest of you smokers are wah-wah babypants.
ALSO THIS x1,000,000. WE SHOULD MAKE A LAW THAT YO UHAVE TO SHOW YOUR BIG BOY PANTS TO THE CLERK BEFORE YOU CAN BUY A PACK.
Seriously. This thread cannot begin to contain my contempt for people who whine about being oppressed because they aren't allowed to publicly impose their unhealthy, addictive, expensive luxury pastime on others.
Also, "WAAAAAHHHHH but it's so addictive I have no chooooiiiiiiiice!" Fucking strap on a pair, of course you have a choice, and nobody else deserves to be inconvenienced because you made a bad decision and got addicted. Just because you do something stupid doesn't mean it's "fair" for everyone else to be imposed on. The way some people BAWWWW you'd think having to go stand on the patio to smoke was comparable to the horrors of Auschwitz.
Why do you two keep beating a dead horse?
New kid. :lulz:
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:22:43 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:18:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2011, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Heck yeah, we should start a pention.
That s'nuff out of you!!!
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
PIPE DOWN!
FAGS
That was blunt.
Please don't drag this out any longer. You're puffing up your own wit but it seems to me you're just blowing smoke.
He won't know what to do if he ever seens TGRR and ECH go at each other's throats.
...We're way overdue for one of those. WTF.
Thread over.
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:27:53 PM
He won't know what to do if he ever seens TGRR and ECH go at each other's throats.
...We're way overdue for one of those. WTF.
I've been cheating on you guys, and expending my wrath elsewhere.
Anyway, these plastic bags, huh?
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 05:27:25 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:22:43 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:18:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2011, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Heck yeah, we should start a pention.
That s'nuff out of you!!!
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
PIPE DOWN!
FAGS
That was blunt.
Please don't drag this out any longer. You're puffing up your own wit but it seems to me you're just blowing smoke.
Have I mentioned recently how much I hate you all?
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 05:27:25 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:22:43 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:18:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2011, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
I agree, I mean if we let the dogs do it why can't we? I mean, as long as we pick it up. Am I right?
Heck yeah, we should start a pention.
That s'nuff out of you!!!
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
PIPE DOWN!
FAGS
That was blunt.
Please don't drag this out any longer. You're puffing up your own wit but it seems to me you're just blowing smoke.
You're attitude is cancerous.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 05:29:02 PM
Anyway, these plastic bags, huh?
Too late. Thread killed by yet another round of weak puns.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:28:34 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:27:53 PM
He won't know what to do if he ever seens TGRR and ECH go at each other's throats.
...We're way overdue for one of those. WTF.
I've been cheating on you guys, and expending my wrath elsewhere.
I....
:aww:
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:29:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:28:34 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:27:53 PM
He won't know what to do if he ever seens TGRR and ECH go at each other's throats.
...We're way overdue for one of those. WTF.
I've been cheating on you guys, and expending my wrath elsewhere.
I....
:aww:
Yep. I am banned on 14, count'em 14 Pagan boards and a half-dozen political boards.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:29:39 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 05:29:02 PM
Anyway, these plastic bags, huh?
Too late. Thread killed by yet another round of weak puns.
Damn, I was hoping for 50 pages of meaningless arguments.
Plastic bags are for pussies.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 05, 2011, 05:36:16 PM
Plastic bags are for pussies.
Somehow I don't see that as a reliable method of contraception.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:34:12 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 05:33:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:29:39 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 05:29:02 PM
Anyway, these plastic bags, huh?
Too late. Thread killed by yet another round of weak puns.
Damn, I was hoping for 50 pages of meaningless arguments.
Fuck.
Later.
/sarcasm/
Thread Summary: Banning smoking anywhere is just an environmentalist fad, breathing fresh air should only be done in the privacy of your own home, and we should all be able to shove styrofoam down the throats of the asthmatic.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:28:34 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:27:53 PM
He won't know what to do if he ever seens TGRR and ECH go at each other's throats.
...We're way overdue for one of those. WTF.
I've been cheating on you guys, and expending my wrath elsewhere.
And the Tea Party is starting to like it, much the same way hostages grow to love their captors.
It's official Roger. Thread dead.
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 05, 2011, 05:37:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 05, 2011, 05:36:16 PM
Plastic bags are for pussies.
Somehow I don't see that as a reliable method of contraception.
Sure, ever seen a female condom?
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 05:40:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:28:34 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 05:27:53 PM
He won't know what to do if he ever seens TGRR and ECH go at each other's throats.
...We're way overdue for one of those. WTF.
I've been cheating on you guys, and expending my wrath elsewhere.
And the Tea Party is starting to like it, much the same way hostages grow to love their captors.
I'll fix that. Time to turn up the perversion level.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:29:39 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 05:29:02 PM
Anyway, these plastic bags, huh?
Too late. Thread killed by yet another round of weak puns.
This.
The problem is, the new people see it and think it's the way to be popular and well-liked.
It isn't.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:29:39 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 05:29:02 PM
Anyway, these plastic bags, huh?
Too late. Thread killed by yet another round of weak puns.
This.
The problem is, the new people see it and think it's the way to be popular and well-liked.
It isn't.
It was funny for the first 30 or so conversations it murdered.
Now it's my signal to stop putting any effort into my posts. Hell, I'd just sent you a response to your "whining smokers" post, and it got promptly buried under what aren't even puns, but rather weak & stretched plays on words.
An occasional well-crafted pun is funny. Six fucking pages of weak puns IN EVERY THREAD just makes me want to shut my computer off and take up mah jong.
I've been here four years. Clearly I haven't learned much.
eta I get the point though. Apologies.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:44:20 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:29:39 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 05:29:02 PM
Anyway, these plastic bags, huh?
Too late. Thread killed by yet another round of weak puns.
This.
The problem is, the new people see it and think it's the way to be popular and well-liked.
It isn't.
It was funny for the first 30 or so conversations it murdered.
Now it's my signal to stop putting any effort into my posts. Hell, I'd just sent you a response to your "whining smokers" post, and it got promptly buried under what aren't even puns, but rather weak & stretched plays on words.
An occasional well-crafted pun is funny. Six fucking pages of weak puns IN EVERY THREAD just makes me want to shut my computer off and take up mah jong.
Yeah, it's fucking old. Derailing into pages of weak puns at every opportunity isn't a "fun game"; it's a fucking annoying way to trash every thread in the place. Congratulations to them for bringing the inanity level of the board down to Myspace levels.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:21:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
Seriously. This thread cannot begin to contain my contempt for people who whine about being oppressed because they aren't allowed to publicly impose their unhealthy, addictive, expensive luxury pastime on others.
Stop hating America™. Seriously. This IS America, dammit, and it's high time we FORCED you to eat loads of red meat and junk food. You smug, holier-than-thou hippie-type-pinko-fag patchouli-huffers are in for it now! Sarah Palin could snap your limp wrists just by flexing her womb.
TGRR,
Prepared for the new paradigm.
Look at this shit. This is fucking
quality. This thread was
going places. But the army of would-be punsters smothered it with facile and unfunny wordplay before it even had a chance. :sad:
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:21:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
Seriously. This thread cannot begin to contain my contempt for people who whine about being oppressed because they aren't allowed to publicly impose their unhealthy, addictive, expensive luxury pastime on others.
Stop hating America™. Seriously. This IS America, dammit, and it's high time we FORCED you to eat loads of red meat and junk food. You smug, holier-than-thou hippie-type-pinko-fag patchouli-huffers are in for it now! Sarah Palin could snap your limp wrists just by flexing her womb.
TGRR,
Prepared for the new paradigm.
Look at this shit. This is fucking quality. This thread was going places. But the army of would-be punsters smothered it with facile and unfunny wordplay before it even had a chance. :sad:
Thanks. I won't be bothering again, outside of my 5-part series threads.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 06:01:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:21:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
Seriously. This thread cannot begin to contain my contempt for people who whine about being oppressed because they aren't allowed to publicly impose their unhealthy, addictive, expensive luxury pastime on others.
Stop hating America™. Seriously. This IS America, dammit, and it's high time we FORCED you to eat loads of red meat and junk food. You smug, holier-than-thou hippie-type-pinko-fag patchouli-huffers are in for it now! Sarah Palin could snap your limp wrists just by flexing her womb.
TGRR,
Prepared for the new paradigm.
Look at this shit. This is fucking quality. This thread was going places. But the army of would-be punsters smothered it with facile and unfunny wordplay before it even had a chance. :sad:
Thanks. I won't be bothering again, outside of my 5-part series threads.
I miss the old days, when a thread could spontaneously blow up into a glorious train of ranting and funny. Before people decided it was cool to just shit lame jokes everywhere instead of trying to post anything worth reading.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:21:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
Seriously. This thread cannot begin to contain my contempt for people who whine about being oppressed because they aren't allowed to publicly impose their unhealthy, addictive, expensive luxury pastime on others.
Stop hating America™. Seriously. This IS America, dammit, and it's high time we FORCED you to eat loads of red meat and junk food. You smug, holier-than-thou hippie-type-pinko-fag patchouli-huffers are in for it now! Sarah Palin could snap your limp wrists just by flexing her womb.
TGRR,
Prepared for the new paradigm.
Look at this shit. This is fucking quality. This thread was going places. But the army of would-be punsters smothered it with facile and unfunny wordplay before it even had a chance. :sad:
One last try.
I have no interest in forcing myself or my habits on anyone. I thought the open option of both smoking and non-smoking bar and grills was reasonable. No one would be forced to work in a smoking establishment. No one would be forced to patronize one.
The Little Apple Grill was one of my favorite places here. They had great single malt and mighty fine cigars for sale, it was one of their marketing ploys. Their eating space (except the bar area) was all non-smoking and they had smoke eaters in the bar to prevent drifting smoke. The restaurant and bar were always full.
No one forced their will or habit on each other. It worked. When smokers drink, they smoke. It's a vice, one I enjoy.
A buddy of mine said he went to a bar in California that solved the problem by cutting a big hole in the ceiling. The people sitting under the hole are "outside" and can smoke legally.
Eh, it's my fault, though I must say it was unintentional. I was simply having a go at BH, I didn't expect it, nor intended it, to snowball.
I would also like to point out to the newer folk that if I throw out a pun, it isn't with the intention of everyone else following suit and turning the thread into a pun thread. It's just part of my style and who I am.
Apologies to all for the shenanigans that broke lose.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:09:35 PM
A buddy of mine said he went to a bar in California that solved the problem by cutting a big hole in the ceiling. The people sitting under the hole are "outside" and can smoke legally.
The state ok'd that?
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:09:35 PM
A buddy of mine said he went to a bar in California that solved the problem by cutting a big hole in the ceiling. The people sitting under the hole are "outside" and can smoke legally.
That's more or less what most bars here do. They have nice little walled-in patios with heaters. It's nice to sit outside.
It's basically not a problem for anyone, and now it's nicer inside because no amount of fans and other machinery actually eliminates that grotesque "indoor smoking" odor or the vile clampdown on one's lungs that accompanies it. Even as someone who smokes, I really only want to be smoking WHILE I'm smoking.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 06:01:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:21:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
Seriously. This thread cannot begin to contain my contempt for people who whine about being oppressed because they aren't allowed to publicly impose their unhealthy, addictive, expensive luxury pastime on others.
Stop hating America™. Seriously. This IS America, dammit, and it's high time we FORCED you to eat loads of red meat and junk food. You smug, holier-than-thou hippie-type-pinko-fag patchouli-huffers are in for it now! Sarah Palin could snap your limp wrists just by flexing her womb.
TGRR,
Prepared for the new paradigm.
Look at this shit. This is fucking quality. This thread was going places. But the army of would-be punsters smothered it with facile and unfunny wordplay before it even had a chance. :sad:
Thanks. I won't be bothering again, outside of my 5-part series threads.
Roger, please don't do this. I look forward to reading your comments (as well as your rants). Not that anyone cares much how I feel on the matter, but it will make my experience here much less enjoyable.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:11:17 PM
Eh, it's my fault, though I must say it was unintentional. I was simply having a go at BH, I didn't expect it, nor intended it, to snowball.
I would also like to point out to the newer folk that if I throw out a pun, it isn't with the intention of everyone else following suit and turning the thread into a pun thread. It's just part of my style and who I am.
Apologies to all for the shenanigans that broke lose.
YOUR punning is tolerated (mostly) because you are good at it, it's part of your personality, and we love you. Richter can get away with in once in a while for the same reason minus the good at it.
EVERYONE ELSE needs to fucking knock it off or at least keep it in their own threads. Especially the new people.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 06:12:17 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:09:35 PM
A buddy of mine said he went to a bar in California that solved the problem by cutting a big hole in the ceiling. The people sitting under the hole are "outside" and can smoke legally.
That's more or less what most bars here do. They have nice little walled-in patios with heaters. It's nice to sit outside.
It's basically not a problem for anyone, and now it's nicer inside because no amount of fans and other machinery actually eliminates that grotesque "indoor smoking" odor or the vile clampdown on one's lungs that accompanies it. Even as someone who smokes, I really only want to be smoking WHILE I'm smoking.
I disagree. If smoke eaters are plentiful enough they are very effective and they were being improved constantly. Return air venting was also effective. I never heard even one complaint in The Little Apple.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 06:12:17 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:09:35 PM
A buddy of mine said he went to a bar in California that solved the problem by cutting a big hole in the ceiling. The people sitting under the hole are "outside" and can smoke legally.
That's more or less what most bars here do. They have nice little walled-in patios with heaters. It's nice to sit outside.
It's basically not a problem for anyone, and now it's nicer inside because no amount of fans and other machinery actually eliminates that grotesque "indoor smoking" odor or the vile clampdown on one's lungs that accompanies it. Even as someone who smokes, I really only want to be smoking WHILE I'm smoking.
That's one reason I like the meetrack in the spring and fall. The smoking patio is the nicest part of the place.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 06:12:17 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:09:35 PM
A buddy of mine said he went to a bar in California that solved the problem by cutting a big hole in the ceiling. The people sitting under the hole are "outside" and can smoke legally.
That's more or less what most bars here do. They have nice little walled-in patios with heaters. It's nice to sit outside.
It's basically not a problem for anyone, and now it's nicer inside because no amount of fans and other machinery actually eliminates that grotesque "indoor smoking" odor or the vile clampdown on one's lungs that accompanies it. Even as someone who smokes, I really only want to be smoking WHILE I'm smoking.
I disagree. If smoke eaters are plentiful enough they are very effective and they were being improved constantly. Return air venting was also effective. I never heard even one complaint in The Little Apple.
Every bar owner I know complains that they're 1. extremely expensive, 2. inadequate, and 3. prone to breaking.
Also, people who smoke don't notice the smoke they miss. People who don't smoke do.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 06:17:59 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 06:12:17 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:09:35 PM
A buddy of mine said he went to a bar in California that solved the problem by cutting a big hole in the ceiling. The people sitting under the hole are "outside" and can smoke legally.
That's more or less what most bars here do. They have nice little walled-in patios with heaters. It's nice to sit outside.
It's basically not a problem for anyone, and now it's nicer inside because no amount of fans and other machinery actually eliminates that grotesque "indoor smoking" odor or the vile clampdown on one's lungs that accompanies it. Even as someone who smokes, I really only want to be smoking WHILE I'm smoking.
That's one reason I like the meetrack in the spring and fall. The smoking patio is the nicest part of the place.
I have to agree, the outside of that place is MUCH nicer than the inside. :lulz:
I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.
To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 05:44:20 PM
It was funny for the first 30 or so conversations it murdered.
No it wasn't.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 06:19:46 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 06:12:17 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:09:35 PM
A buddy of mine said he went to a bar in California that solved the problem by cutting a big hole in the ceiling. The people sitting under the hole are "outside" and can smoke legally.
That's more or less what most bars here do. They have nice little walled-in patios with heaters. It's nice to sit outside.
It's basically not a problem for anyone, and now it's nicer inside because no amount of fans and other machinery actually eliminates that grotesque "indoor smoking" odor or the vile clampdown on one's lungs that accompanies it. Even as someone who smokes, I really only want to be smoking WHILE I'm smoking.
I disagree. If smoke eaters are plentiful enough they are very effective and they were being improved constantly. Return air venting was also effective. I never heard even one complaint in The Little Apple.
Every bar owner I know complains that they're 1. extremely expensive, 2. inadequate, and 3. prone to breaking.
Also, people who smoke don't notice the smoke they miss. People who don't smoke do.
I will agree only on the expensive part. Still, if a large part of your business involves selling top quality cigars and alcohol, it becomes a business investment. The place has an outside patio, but the winter wind here hurts. His business is off quite a bit. The bar was set up to where it wasn't required for all patrons to walk through it to get to the dining area, a failure of a lot of places. The owners petitioned against the law, as did most bar owners.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:22:28 PM
I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.
To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?
Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 06:12:17 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:09:35 PM
A buddy of mine said he went to a bar in California that solved the problem by cutting a big hole in the ceiling. The people sitting under the hole are "outside" and can smoke legally.
That's more or less what most bars here do. They have nice little walled-in patios with heaters. It's nice to sit outside.
It's basically not a problem for anyone, and now it's nicer inside because no amount of fans and other machinery actually eliminates that grotesque "indoor smoking" odor or the vile clampdown on one's lungs that accompanies it. Even as someone who smokes, I really only want to be smoking WHILE I'm smoking.
This. Before I smoked, I loathed the smell of cigarette smoke and it sticks to you if you're anywhere in the same room as it. I still hate the smell, even though I know I carry it on me to an extent (maybe less than 1/2 pack/day smokers - but I still hate it). I
won't barely smoke in my car like I used to and at home everyone either smokes outside or by the window with a fan to pull the smoke out. I feel weird even smoking in hotel rooms that allow it and will sit by an open window (sucks in the ones you can't open the windows).
I certainly don't want smoke anywhere near my food, so bad with smoking in restaurants is fine with me. I remember when I was younger, the separation between the non-smoking/smoking sections was a divider between benches and a pane of glass that didn't go anywhere near the ceiling and were pretty much a joke.
In bars, ehh, it's often tight quarters inside depending on the bar and the night, and the smoke could get overwhelming pretty quickly, especially when you're not the one smoking. I was kind of sad when they banned indoor smoking in New Hampshire because used to go to a pool hall there and you could smoke, and it wasn't as bad as a regular bar as people were more spread out. I could get behind by permit only.
I prefer smoking outside anyway because I hate it lingering inside. If it's cold, I'll probably grumble a bit, but if it's THAT cold, I won't go. Around here, except for schools (college) and few other buildings, most places, at least bars and restaurants, don't seem to enforce any sort of distance rule as long as you're not blocking the entry way, so I don't have to walk more than a few feet if I don't want to.
Since we're on the subject, I'll leave with you spags something that just came across my e-mail: Regarding, yes, third-hand smoke
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2011/thirdhand-smoke-a-lingering.html
A new study found the chemical by-products of tobacco smoke cling to the air and surfaces of smokers' homes long after they've moved out, msnbc.com reported Dec. 16.
Researchers at San Diego State University led by psychology professor Georg Matt, Ph.D., analyzed the homes of 100 smokers and 50 nonsmokers for chemical smoking residue just before the residents completed a planned move. Two months later, they re-measured air and surface nicotine in the homes that had been rented or sold to nonsmokers, and checked the fingerprints of the new residents for nicotine.
They also analyzed urine samples of the youngest new inhabitants for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite.
Although the homes had been thoroughly cleaned, including painting and carpet replacement in many cases, nonsmokers living in the homes of former smokers had seven to eight times more nicotine on their fingertips than those who moved into nonsmoker homes, and urine cotinine levels were three to five times higher in their children.
Overall, air and surface nicotine was 30 to 150 times higher in the homes formerly occupied by smokers compared with homes formerly occupied by nonsmokers.
Smoke-related chemical residues, referred to as thirdhand smoke, "hang around for months after a smoker has left," said Matt. "While there was considerably less in homes once an active smoker moved out, there was still 10 to 20 percent of what was found while the smoker still lived there."
Such homes are "reservoirs of tobacco smoke pollutants," creating a source for involuntary tobacco exposure to those who move into them, the authors said.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:34:46 PM
Since we're on the subject, I'll leave with you spags something that just came across my e-mail: Regarding, yes, third-hand smoke
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2011/thirdhand-smoke-a-lingering.html
A new study found the chemical by-products of tobacco smoke cling to the air and surfaces of smokers' homes long after they've moved out, msnbc.com reported Dec. 16.
Researchers at San Diego State University led by psychology professor Georg Matt, Ph.D., analyzed the homes of 100 smokers and 50 nonsmokers for chemical smoking residue just before the residents completed a planned move. Two months later, they re-measured air and surface nicotine in the homes that had been rented or sold to nonsmokers, and checked the fingerprints of the new residents for nicotine.
They also analyzed urine samples of the youngest new inhabitants for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite.
Although the homes had been thoroughly cleaned, including painting and carpet replacement in many cases, nonsmokers living in the homes of former smokers had seven to eight times more nicotine on their fingertips than those who moved into nonsmoker homes, and urine cotinine levels were three to five times higher in their children.
Overall, air and surface nicotine was 30 to 150 times higher in the homes formerly occupied by smokers compared with homes formerly occupied by nonsmokers.
Smoke-related chemical residues, referred to as thirdhand smoke, "hang around for months after a smoker has left," said Matt. "While there was considerably less in homes once an active smoker moved out, there was still 10 to 20 percent of what was found while the smoker still lived there."
Such homes are "reservoirs of tobacco smoke pollutants," creating a source for involuntary tobacco exposure to those who move into them, the authors said.
Then I should be banned.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:30:58 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:22:28 PM
I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.
To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?
Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.
smoking is a public health issue, not an employment issue
industries shouldn't get special rights just because they employ people and turn a profit
especially generally predatory industries like big tobacco
That's....really fucking scary.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:38:43 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:30:58 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:22:28 PM
I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.
To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?
Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.
smoking is a public health issue, not an employment issue
industries shouldn't get special rights just because they employ people and turn a profit
especially generally predatory industries like big tobacco
Sure, the economy today could easily absorb the shut down of the tobacco industry. Right?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:34:46 PM
Since we're on the subject, I'll leave with you spags something that just came across my e-mail: Regarding, yes, third-hand smoke
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2011/thirdhand-smoke-a-lingering.html
A new study found the chemical by-products of tobacco smoke cling to the air and surfaces of smokers' homes long after they've moved out, msnbc.com reported Dec. 16.
Researchers at San Diego State University led by psychology professor Georg Matt, Ph.D., analyzed the homes of 100 smokers and 50 nonsmokers for chemical smoking residue just before the residents completed a planned move. Two months later, they re-measured air and surface nicotine in the homes that had been rented or sold to nonsmokers, and checked the fingerprints of the new residents for nicotine.
They also analyzed urine samples of the youngest new inhabitants for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite.
Although the homes had been thoroughly cleaned, including painting and carpet replacement in many cases, nonsmokers living in the homes of former smokers had seven to eight times more nicotine on their fingertips than those who moved into nonsmoker homes, and urine cotinine levels were three to five times higher in their children.
Overall, air and surface nicotine was 30 to 150 times higher in the homes formerly occupied by smokers compared with homes formerly occupied by nonsmokers.
Smoke-related chemical residues, referred to as thirdhand smoke, "hang around for months after a smoker has left," said Matt. "While there was considerably less in homes once an active smoker moved out, there was still 10 to 20 percent of what was found while the smoker still lived there."
Such homes are "reservoirs of tobacco smoke pollutants," creating a source for involuntary tobacco exposure to those who move into them, the authors said.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:30:58 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:22:28 PM
I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.
To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?
Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.
I'm going to have to call shenanigans on that argument Charley. He's not arguing for the abolishment of the tobacco industry or a complete ban on smoking. What legitimate benefit does smoking have for a person, aside from assuaging their addiction?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:34:46 PM
Since we're on the subject, I'll leave with you spags something that just came across my e-mail: Regarding, yes, third-hand smoke
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2011/thirdhand-smoke-a-lingering.html
A new study found the chemical by-products of tobacco smoke cling to the air and surfaces of smokers' homes long after they've moved out, msnbc.com reported Dec. 16.
Researchers at San Diego State University led by psychology professor Georg Matt, Ph.D., analyzed the homes of 100 smokers and 50 nonsmokers for chemical smoking residue just before the residents completed a planned move. Two months later, they re-measured air and surface nicotine in the homes that had been rented or sold to nonsmokers, and checked the fingerprints of the new residents for nicotine.
They also analyzed urine samples of the youngest new inhabitants for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite.
Although the homes had been thoroughly cleaned, including painting and carpet replacement in many cases, nonsmokers living in the homes of former smokers had seven to eight times more nicotine on their fingertips than those who moved into nonsmoker homes, and urine cotinine levels were three to five times higher in their children.
Overall, air and surface nicotine was 30 to 150 times higher in the homes formerly occupied by smokers compared with homes formerly occupied by nonsmokers.
Smoke-related chemical residues, referred to as thirdhand smoke, "hang around for months after a smoker has left," said Matt. "While there was considerably less in homes once an active smoker moved out, there was still 10 to 20 percent of what was found while the smoker still lived there."
Such homes are "reservoirs of tobacco smoke pollutants," creating a source for involuntary tobacco exposure to those who move into them, the authors said.
See? I told you it wasn't going to stop with bars, outside areas (except certain designated smoking areas) and whatnot. Just wait, they're going to put a stop to it in your home, too, for the
public health.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:30:58 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:22:28 PM
I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.
To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?
Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.
Okay, but that's not the kind of benefits I was talking about. I meant direct benefits to the smoker. The industry can still exist with limiting the product's use.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:41:58 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:30:58 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:22:28 PM
I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.
To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?
Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.
Okay, but that's not the kind of benefits I was talking about. I meant direct benefits to the smoker. The industry can still exist with limiting the product's use.
You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.
Quote from: Fujikoma on January 05, 2011, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:34:46 PM
Since we're on the subject, I'll leave with you spags something that just came across my e-mail: Regarding, yes, third-hand smoke
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2011/thirdhand-smoke-a-lingering.html
A new study found the chemical by-products of tobacco smoke cling to the air and surfaces of smokers' homes long after they've moved out, msnbc.com reported Dec. 16.
Researchers at San Diego State University led by psychology professor Georg Matt, Ph.D., analyzed the homes of 100 smokers and 50 nonsmokers for chemical smoking residue just before the residents completed a planned move. Two months later, they re-measured air and surface nicotine in the homes that had been rented or sold to nonsmokers, and checked the fingerprints of the new residents for nicotine.
They also analyzed urine samples of the youngest new inhabitants for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite.
Although the homes had been thoroughly cleaned, including painting and carpet replacement in many cases, nonsmokers living in the homes of former smokers had seven to eight times more nicotine on their fingertips than those who moved into nonsmoker homes, and urine cotinine levels were three to five times higher in their children.
Overall, air and surface nicotine was 30 to 150 times higher in the homes formerly occupied by smokers compared with homes formerly occupied by nonsmokers.
Smoke-related chemical residues, referred to as thirdhand smoke, "hang around for months after a smoker has left," said Matt. "While there was considerably less in homes once an active smoker moved out, there was still 10 to 20 percent of what was found while the smoker still lived there."
Such homes are "reservoirs of tobacco smoke pollutants," creating a source for involuntary tobacco exposure to those who move into them, the authors said.
See? I told you it wasn't going to stop with bars, outside areas (except certain designated smoking areas) and whatnot. Just wait, they're going to put a stop to it in your home, too, for the public health.
Where in that article does it say ANYTHING about proposing a ban on smoking in people's homes? You think maybe, just maybe, the information would be used to educate and raise awareness? I mean, if you were a parent, wouldn't you want to know that tobacco residues can have that kind of impact on your kids? So maybe when you are looking at a house, that's another questions you can ask, to make a more informed choice?
Put the tin foil away man.
Or just start using lead-based paint again. You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:44:33 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:41:58 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:30:58 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:22:28 PM
I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.
To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?
Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.
Okay, but that's not the kind of benefits I was talking about. I meant direct benefits to the smoker. The industry can still exist with limiting the product's use.
You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.
WTF?
Whose ultimate goal? Certainly not mine, and I'm the only person I'm defending.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:44:33 PM
You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.
I think that's a mis-characterization
I have yet to see any arguments from the "keep smoke out of public places" camp indicating that they want to eliminate all smoking
and again, the economy is secondary to the issue. One might as well argue that we should remain in Afghanistan forever because the military employs a lot of people.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:44:33 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:41:58 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:30:58 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:22:28 PM
I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.
To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?
Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.
Okay, but that's not the kind of benefits I was talking about. I meant direct benefits to the smoker. The industry can still exist with limiting the product's use.
You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.
I will now bow out of this dance for reasons best left unstated. But I'm still not buying it. Carry on without me.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2011, 04:58:06 PM
I disagree entirely. I do NOT wish to see ANY portion of the bodies of 95% of America, and putting up with their jowled, quivering faces is bad enough. In fact, I think they should all be fitted for colostomy bags and be forbidden from removing their clothing except to go to sleep at night, if that.
Can we force ugly people to wear burqas?
Nobody, and I mean, nobody has as a goal to eliminate and ban smoking.
No more than I or my colleagues have as a goal to eliminate drinking.
We want to help those who want help.
We do want to promote healthy spaces in the public sphere.
But nobody has as part of their mission the complete banning of smoking. Nobody.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Or just start using lead-based paint again. You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.
Is it really the same level of seriousness? This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude. Is it really on the same level?
Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?
I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:48:51 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:44:33 PM
You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.
I think that's a mis-characterization
I have yet to see any arguments from the "keep smoke out of public places" camp indicating that they want to eliminate all smoking
and again, the economy is secondary to the issue. One might as well argue that we should remain in Afghanistan forever because the military employs a lot of people.
The tougher new law follows another national trend: companies and governments making those puffs more expensive.
Many smokers are paying higher health insurance premiums than their nonsmoking co-workers, sparking protests of discrimination and intrusion into their private lives.
But that "discrimination" isn't likely to fade. The new health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes it clear that companies, effective in 2014, can charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premium rates than nonsmokers.
In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/2051134/kansas-anti-smoking-law-starting.html#ixzz1ABkmszFH
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Or just start using lead-based paint again. You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.
Is it really the same level of seriousness? This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude. Is it really on the same level?
Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?
I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?
I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered. And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking. Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness. If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:48:51 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:44:33 PM
You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.
I think that's a mis-characterization
I have yet to see any arguments from the "keep smoke out of public places" camp indicating that they want to eliminate all smoking
and again, the economy is secondary to the issue. One might as well argue that we should remain in Afghanistan forever because the military employs a lot of people.
The tougher new law follows another national trend: companies and governments making those puffs more expensive.
Many smokers are paying higher health insurance premiums than their nonsmoking co-workers, sparking protests of discrimination and intrusion into their private lives.
But that "discrimination" isn't likely to fade. The new health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes it clear that companies, effective in 2014, can charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premium rates than nonsmokers.
In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/2051134/kansas-anti-smoking-law-starting.html#ixzz1ABkmszFH
Please continue to paint me as a tin hat person.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Or just start using lead-based paint again. You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.
Is it really the same level of seriousness? This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude. Is it really on the same level?
Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?
I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?
I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered. And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking. Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness. If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.
I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue? Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.
Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.
OH NO! There are incentives for ending an addiction? :aaa:
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 07:00:51 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.
OH NO! There are incentives for ending an addiction? :aaa:
Pressure = incentive? What fucking planet are you from, exactly?
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:59:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Or just start using lead-based paint again. You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.
Is it really the same level of seriousness? This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude. Is it really on the same level?
Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?
I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?
I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered. And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking. Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness. If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.
I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue? Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.
Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?
If the allergy is that severe, then yeah, they probably should be hiring a consultant to inspect the house to make sure it is clean enough for their child to live their.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:57:30 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:48:51 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:44:33 PM
You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.
I think that's a mis-characterization
I have yet to see any arguments from the "keep smoke out of public places" camp indicating that they want to eliminate all smoking
and again, the economy is secondary to the issue. One might as well argue that we should remain in Afghanistan forever because the military employs a lot of people.
The tougher new law follows another national trend: companies and governments making those puffs more expensive.
Many smokers are paying higher health insurance premiums than their nonsmoking co-workers, sparking protests of discrimination and intrusion into their private lives.
But that “discrimination” isn’t likely to fade. The new health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes it clear that companies, effective in 2014, can charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premium rates than nonsmokers.
In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/2051134/kansas-anti-smoking-law-starting.html#ixzz1ABkmszFH
Please continue to paint me as a tin hat person.
Hold on a second. Cancer is fucking expensive to treat.
If you do something that increases your risk of cancer, why the hell wouldn't an insurance company take that into consideration when planning your rates?
http://www.social-marketing.org/success/cs-floridatruth.html
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 07:04:11 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:59:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Or just start using lead-based paint again. You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.
Is it really the same level of seriousness? This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude. Is it really on the same level?
Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?
I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?
I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered. And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking. Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness. If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.
I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue? Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.
Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?
If the allergy is that severe, then yeah, they probably should be hiring a consultant to inspect the only be buying a brand new house to make sure it is clean enough for their child to live their.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 07:05:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:57:30 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:48:51 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:44:33 PM
You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.
I think that's a mis-characterization
I have yet to see any arguments from the "keep smoke out of public places" camp indicating that they want to eliminate all smoking
and again, the economy is secondary to the issue. One might as well argue that we should remain in Afghanistan forever because the military employs a lot of people.
The tougher new law follows another national trend: companies and governments making those puffs more expensive.
Many smokers are paying higher health insurance premiums than their nonsmoking co-workers, sparking protests of discrimination and intrusion into their private lives.
But that "discrimination" isn't likely to fade. The new health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes it clear that companies, effective in 2014, can charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premium rates than nonsmokers.
In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/2051134/kansas-anti-smoking-law-starting.html#ixzz1ABkmszFH
Please continue to paint me as a tin hat person.
Hold on a second. Cancer is fucking expensive to treat.
If you do something that increases your risk of cancer, why the hell wouldn't an insurance company take that into consideration when planning your rates?
As long as families with a history of cancer, smoking or non-smoking, get to have the same fun.
I'm going to wager that someone who skydives for a living probably has to pay higher insurance premiums as well. I bet the guy that has to change light bulbs on top of the Space Needle in Seattle has a higher insurance premium than your average joe. Is that discrimination?
When you live a lifestyle that is prone to more health issues compared to the average person, then yeah, you are going to pay a higher insurance premium compared to the average person because you are a bigger risk to the insurance company compared to the average person. That's not part of some scheme on the part of the insurance companies to get you to quit smoking. They don't give a fuck. They're just, financially, covering their asses.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 07:02:23 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 07:00:51 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.
OH NO! There are incentives for ending an addiction? :aaa:
Pressure = incentive? What fucking planet are you from, exactly?
Look again at the quote, sir. It says incentives right there.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 07:02:23 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 07:00:51 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.
OH NO! There are incentives for ending an addiction? :aaa:
Pressure = incentive? What fucking planet are you from, exactly?
Look again at the quote, sir. It says incentives right there.
Check. Because that word came first it negates the word pressures.
It's a matter of perspective.
Company offers financial incentives to quit.
Smokers expreience the negative financial outcomes, and feel it as pressure.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 07:31:05 PM
It's a matter of perspective.
Company offers financial incentives to quit.
Smokers expreience the negative financial outcomes, and feel it as pressure.
Hawk,
out.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 07:07:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 07:05:33 PM
Hold on a second. Cancer is fucking expensive to treat.
If you do something that increases your risk of cancer, why the hell wouldn't an insurance company take that into consideration when planning your rates?
As long as families with a history of cancer, smoking or non-smoking, get to have the same fun.
Surprise, they do. Medical history checks are quite common in the insurance biz.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 07:31:42 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 07:31:05 PM
It's a matter of perspective.
Company offers financial incentives to quit.
Smokers expreience the negative financial outcomes, and feel it as pressure.
Hawk,
out.
Too much semantics for ya?
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 07:11:06 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 07:02:23 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 07:00:51 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.
OH NO! There are incentives for ending an addiction? :aaa:
Pressure = incentive? What fucking planet are you from, exactly?
Look again at the quote, sir. It says incentives right there.
Check. Because that word came first it negates the word pressures.
1) Who gives a fuck the specific word used in the article?
2) Actually incentive DOES = pressure. I have to agree with LMNO, here.
I have to say, this thread has given me a lot to think about, and has done a lot to change my mind on my original position. I'm not totally there yet, I still thinking checking houses for how much smoke they once had in them is batshit insane, but y'all do make a good point about smoking being an option, and a luxury... which I obviously knew, but, well... hell, it just seemed so restrictive and I hate restrictions.
I'm still not sure I buy second hand smoke completely either as dangerous, but am starting to see the points. Though, not in open air public, that still seems insane to me too.
Anyway, I guess I just wanted to say that this thread has mostly converted at least one person to change their mind. Mostly.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 07:35:34 PM
I have to say, this thread has given me a lot to think about, and has done a lot to change my mind on my original position. I'm not totally there yet, I still thinking checking houses for how much smoke they once had in them is batshit insane, but y'all do make a good point about smoking being an option, and a luxury... which I obviously knew, but, well... hell, it just seemed so restrictive and I hate restrictions.
I'm still not sure I buy second hand smoke completely either as dangerous, but am starting to see the points. Though, not in open air public, that still seems insane to me too.
Anyway, I guess I just wanted to say that this thread has mostly converted at least one person to change their mind. Mostly.
Just to be very clear, when I talk about checking out houses I put that burden on the family looking at the houses. So the family with someone hyper-allergic to peanuts, THEY are bearing the burden of the cost to have that checked out. Not the government or the person selling the house (unless the person selling the house agrees to it willingly) I would not suggest the government do anything beyond making the information available to the public. Much like the government issues information about lead, mercury, etc., etc. Obviously it would then be up to the individual whether or not they go to those lengths to check prospective homes.
And it doesn't' even have to be the government that issues the information. Health promotion agencies and organizations will usually take care of that anyway.
Yeah, I didn't think you meant for Big Brother to stick his nose in.
Zappa denied the harm of second hand smoke in his book. I do wonder what he would think given the amount of knowledge about it today.
Probably write a dumb song about it.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:30:58 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:22:28 PM
I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.
To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?
Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.
OTOH, if tobacco was made completely illegal, it would create much
more income.
Which is why I've spent years hoping they would just outlaw that shit completely. I wanna be a black-market smoke dealer.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 07:50:57 PM
Probably write a dumb song about it.
:argh!:
He also used to say "don't vote", and then changed his mind about that before he died. So, my guess is he very well might have changed his mind about it. Penn & Teller changed theirs, and they did an entire episode of Bullshit about it.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 07:50:11 PM
Zappa denied the harm of second hand smoke in his book. I do wonder what he would think given the amount of knowledge about it today.
Despite how much LMNO hates St. Zappa, the man was actually quite intelligent and was politically active. Chances are he could have changed his mind as the research was released. Hard to say, really...
....Though he'd be having a fucking field day with the shit going on these days.
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 07:57:03 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 07:50:11 PM
Zappa denied the harm of second hand smoke in his book. I do wonder what he would think given the amount of knowledge about it today.
Despite how much LMNO hates St. Zappa, the man was actually quite intelligent and was politically active. Chances are he could have changed his mind as the research was released. Hard to say, really...
....Though he'd be having a fucking field day with the shit going on these days.
I miss him.
Wasn't alive while he was, but I miss him all the same.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:44:33 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:41:58 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:30:58 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 06:22:28 PM
I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.
To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?
Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.
Okay, but that's not the kind of benefits I was talking about. I meant direct benefits to the smoker. The industry can still exist with limiting the product's use.
You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.
I know! They've already done it to cocaine and even heroin... those poor farmers.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 08:02:00 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 07:57:03 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 05, 2011, 07:50:11 PM
Zappa denied the harm of second hand smoke in his book. I do wonder what he would think given the amount of knowledge about it today.
Despite how much LMNO hates St. Zappa, the man was actually quite intelligent and was politically active. Chances are he could have changed his mind as the research was released. Hard to say, really...
....Though he'd be having a fucking field day with the shit going on these days.
I miss him.
Wasn't alive while he was, but I miss him all the same.
My dad says, "I miss Frank." all the time.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:59:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Or just start using lead-based paint again. You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.
Is it really the same level of seriousness? This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude. Is it really on the same level?
Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?
I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?
I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered. And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking. Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness. If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.
I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue? Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.
Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?
You can fucking bet your life that parents of a child with a life-threatening allergy are going to do everything possible to make sure their kid doesn't get exposed. In some cases this means they won't buy a house
anyone else has ever lived in before.
So, in answer to your question, YEAH. DUH.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:10:22 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:59:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Or just start using lead-based paint again. You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.
Is it really the same level of seriousness? This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude. Is it really on the same level?
Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?
I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?
I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered. And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking. Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness. If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.
I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue? Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.
Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?
You can fucking bet your life that parents of a child with a life-threatening allergy are going to do everything possible to make sure their kid doesn't get exposed. In some cases this means they won't buy a house anyone else has ever lived in before.
So, in answer to your question, YEAH. DUH.
Another reminder why I don't have kids.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 07:07:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 07:05:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:57:30 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2011, 06:48:51 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 05, 2011, 06:44:33 PM
You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.
I think that's a mis-characterization
I have yet to see any arguments from the "keep smoke out of public places" camp indicating that they want to eliminate all smoking
and again, the economy is secondary to the issue. One might as well argue that we should remain in Afghanistan forever because the military employs a lot of people.
The tougher new law follows another national trend: companies and governments making those puffs more expensive.
Many smokers are paying higher health insurance premiums than their nonsmoking co-workers, sparking protests of discrimination and intrusion into their private lives.
But that "discrimination" isn't likely to fade. The new health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes it clear that companies, effective in 2014, can charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premium rates than nonsmokers.
In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/2051134/kansas-anti-smoking-law-starting.html#ixzz1ABkmszFH
Please continue to paint me as a tin hat person.
Hold on a second. Cancer is fucking expensive to treat.
If you do something that increases your risk of cancer, why the hell wouldn't an insurance company take that into consideration when planning your rates?
As long as families with a history of cancer, smoking or non-smoking, get to have the same fun.
genetic profiling is illegal
behavioral profiling is not, yo.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:10:22 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:59:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Or just start using lead-based paint again. You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.
Is it really the same level of seriousness? This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude. Is it really on the same level?
Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?
I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?
I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered. And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking. Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness. If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.
I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue? Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.
Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?
You can fucking bet your life that parents of a child with a life-threatening allergy are going to do everything possible to make sure their kid doesn't get exposed. In some cases this means they won't buy a house anyone else has ever lived in before.
So, in answer to your question, YEAH. DUH.
Another reminder why I don't have kids.
I have a question
why do people say this? I hear it all the time, and yet it makes no sense. I assume the reason you don't have kids is because you don't want them... so what's up with the weird defensive "sour grapes" sounding posturing people make whenever something about having kids sounds like it's complicated or difficult? Is it supposed to make people who have kids feel stupid for having them? I don't get it.
Nobody's like "Yup, that's why I only have sex with prostitutes" when relationship issues come up. Nobody says "Another reason to be glad I'm an orphan!" when someone's parent is having health issues. I can't think of a time anyone has said "Another reminder of why I don't date" when I've told them I can't go to a show because I have plans with my boyfriend... so why do people say it about kids?
I get that shit ALL THE TIME. If I say I can't go out because I have my kids that night, odds are about 50/50 that someone, usually an alleged "friend", will say exactly what you said. Or if one of my kids is sick and I have to miss something. Why the hell? I LIKE my kids. You don't want 'em, don't have them, but don't fucking imply that
people I love are a MISTAKE.
Sorry, not meaning all that vitriol at you personally, Hoopla. It's just a sore spot, especially after hearing it from two people in particular all last summer. I finally snapped and told them both off. I only have my kids half time, so when they're home I WANT to hang out with them, and having people act like it was some terrible burden I was suffering through really, really pissed me off. I finally told them that I was only saying I couldn't hang out with them to spare their feelings, because it seemed rude to tell them I'd rather hang out with my kids.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:20:57 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:10:22 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:59:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Or just start using lead-based paint again. You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.
Is it really the same level of seriousness? This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude. Is it really on the same level?
Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?
I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?
I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered. And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking. Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness. If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.
I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue? Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.
Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?
You can fucking bet your life that parents of a child with a life-threatening allergy are going to do everything possible to make sure their kid doesn't get exposed. In some cases this means they won't buy a house anyone else has ever lived in before.
So, in answer to your question, YEAH. DUH.
Another reminder why I don't have kids.
I have a question
why do people say this? I hear it all the time, and yet it makes no sense. I assume the reason you don't have kids is because you don't want them... so what's up with the weird defensive "sour grapes" sounding posturing people make whenever something about having kids sounds like it's complicated or difficult? Is it supposed to make people who have kids feel stupid for having them? I don't get it.
Nobody's like "Yup, that's why I only have sex with prostitutes" when relationship issues come up. Nobody says "Another reason to be glad I'm an orphan!" when someone's parent is having health issues. I can't think of a time anyone has said "Another reminder of why I don't date" when I've told them I can't go to a show because I have plans with my boyfriend... so why do people say it about kids?
I get that shit ALL THE TIME. If I say I can't go out because I have my kids that night, odds are about 50/50 that someone, usually an alleged "friend", will say exactly what you said. Or if one of my kids is sick and I have to miss something. Why the hell? I LIKE my kids. You don't want 'em, don't have them, but don't fucking imply that people I love are a MISTAKE.
Because people don't realize the pleasure of being a parent. They don't understand the attachment a parent has for a child. They don't understand what it's like to have another person be a
part of you. They should be pitied, not hated.
Well, for some people, kids just aren't their thing. I can't fault someone for that. My brother is one of them. Dude just turned 30 and it doesn't look like kids are in the cards at all. I don't know that they need or deserve to be pitied. We all walk different paths.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 05, 2011, 08:28:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:20:57 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:10:22 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:59:11 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 06:53:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Or just start using lead-based paint again. You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.
Is it really the same level of seriousness? This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude. Is it really on the same level?
Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?
I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?
I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered. And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking. Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness. If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.
I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue? Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.
Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?
You can fucking bet your life that parents of a child with a life-threatening allergy are going to do everything possible to make sure their kid doesn't get exposed. In some cases this means they won't buy a house anyone else has ever lived in before.
So, in answer to your question, YEAH. DUH.
Another reminder why I don't have kids.
I have a question
why do people say this? I hear it all the time, and yet it makes no sense. I assume the reason you don't have kids is because you don't want them... so what's up with the weird defensive "sour grapes" sounding posturing people make whenever something about having kids sounds like it's complicated or difficult? Is it supposed to make people who have kids feel stupid for having them? I don't get it.
Nobody's like "Yup, that's why I only have sex with prostitutes" when relationship issues come up. Nobody says "Another reason to be glad I'm an orphan!" when someone's parent is having health issues. I can't think of a time anyone has said "Another reminder of why I don't date" when I've told them I can't go to a show because I have plans with my boyfriend... so why do people say it about kids?
I get that shit ALL THE TIME. If I say I can't go out because I have my kids that night, odds are about 50/50 that someone, usually an alleged "friend", will say exactly what you said. Or if one of my kids is sick and I have to miss something. Why the hell? I LIKE my kids. You don't want 'em, don't have them, but don't fucking imply that people I love are a MISTAKE.
Because people don't realize the pleasure of being a parent. They don't understand the attachment a parent has for a child. They don't understand what it's like to have another person be a part of you. They should be pitied, not hated.
:lulz: That might be taking it a little far, but I'll go with it.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:31:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 05, 2011, 08:28:03 PM
Because people don't realize the pleasure of being a parent. They don't understand the attachment a parent has for a child. They don't understand what it's like to have another person be a part of you. They should be pitied, not hated.
:lulz: That might be taking it a little far, but I'll go with it.
I started to write something that started with "Because people are selfish pricks" then decided to be more subtle. :lulz:
Besides, maybe Hoops is just so traumatized from having to wade through vaginas all day, that the last thing he wants to see is a screaming, purple baby coming through one of those things. ;)
I don't want kids, and I always joke about that I hate them, but that's not true. They just...aren't my thing. And it's very hard to be a parent, and that's something that my lifestyle as I live it won't allow.
I will, however, be "that crazy awesome" aunt.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:20:57 PM
Nobody's like "Yup, that's why I only have sex with prostitutes" when relationship issues come up.
Boy, are you wrong about THAT! :lulz:
I'm guessing when Charley started this thread he hadn't imagined we'd end up talking about Frank Zappa and child-bearing.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 08:34:15 PM
Besides, maybe Hoops is just so traumatized from having to wade through vaginas all day, that the last thing he wants to see is a screaming, purple baby coming through one of those things. ;)
Pussy. :lulz:
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 05, 2011, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:20:57 PM
Nobody's like "Yup, that's why I only have sex with prostitutes" when relationship issues come up.
Boy, are you wrong about THAT! :lulz:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Show me the carhouse fax!
I'm the House Phox. :wink:
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 05, 2011, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:20:57 PM
Nobody's like "Yup, that's why I only have sex with prostitutes" when relationship issues come up.
Boy, are you wrong about THAT! :lulz:
:lulz:
I don't think anyone "should" want to have kids. I'm just wondering why people who don't have them by choice say things like that. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like that about other areas of life, like having a house or a car or a partner or a business or friends or pets. Is it that they just can't wrap their heads around the idea of enjoying having the little freaks around?
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:27:05 PM
Sorry, not meaning all that vitriol at you personally, Hoopla. It's just a sore spot, especially after hearing it from two people in particular all last summer. I finally snapped and told them both off. I only have my kids half time, so when they're home I WANT to hang out with them, and having people act like it was some terrible burden I was suffering through really, really pissed me off. I finally told them that I was only saying I couldn't hang out with them to spare their feelings, because it seemed rude to tell them I'd rather hang out with my kids.
Hay, don't worry about it, I can't say something like that without expecting a little tongue lashing in return. :lmnuendo:
I said that because I can't imagine having to go through checking a house for possible peanut contamination, the very thought of it makes me want to curl up and perish... I know I would if I had a kid, but hell if I want to go through that, so it reminds me why I don't have kids to begin with, which is basically because I'm a selfish fuck who doesn't want someone else to cramp his fun. I mostly like kids, but the idea of being responsible for a human life, especially a delicate impressionable human life, is a horrifying concept to me.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:42:30 PM
I don't think anyone "should" want to have kids. I'm just wondering why people who don't have them by choice say things like that. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like that about other areas of life, like having a house or a car or a partner or a business or friends or pets. Is it that they just can't wrap their heads around the idea of enjoying having the little freaks around?
Not at all, I've seen other parents with their kids (pretty much everyone in my immediate circle of friends has kids now), but I also see all the bad points about being a parent, which it seems like fade in the mind of the actual parent because it is overshadowed by the good points. But from an outside perspective it all seems like way too much. For me. And now and then things remind me of that. Like babysitting my niece and nephew... or thinking about checking a house for smoke or peanut residue.
Sorry if I offended any parents.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:42:30 PM
I don't think anyone "should" want to have kids. I'm just wondering why people who don't have them by choice say things like that. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like that about other areas of life, like having a house or a car or a partner or a business or friends or pets. Is it that they just can't wrap their heads around the idea of enjoying having the little freaks around?
There are a lot of parents who talk about their precious little miracles, from every vocalized misconception they have about the way the world works to their rapidly increasing size. It's understandable, because that's pretty much what that person's life becomes, but it's tiresome. I think the "this is why I don't have kids" is a counter to that. There are too many parents who don't realize how incredibly uninteresting their kids actually are to anyone but themselves. It's like people who talk about their cats, or that dream they had that,
you don't even know, felt so real.
Then for some, like me, having kids is up in the air, so the "this is why I don't have kids" is less a snooty look-how-free-I-am statement and more an affirmation as to the decision (not that it's much a decision at this point).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 08:35:46 PM
I'm guessing when Charley started this thread he hadn't imagined we'd end up talking about Frank Zappa and child-bearing.
I should have stayed in lurk mode. Where I am now.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 05, 2011, 08:58:05 PM
There are a lot of parents who talk about their precious little miracles, from every vocalized misconception they have about the way the world works to their rapidly increasing size. It's understandable, because that's pretty much what that person's life becomes, but it's tiresome. I think the "this is why I don't have kids" is a counter to that. There are too many parents who don't realize how incredibly uninteresting their kids actually are to anyone but themselves. It's like people who talk about their cats, or that dream they had that, you don't even know, felt so real.
EoC makes a great point. Also, for me, it has a lot to do with the fact that it's expected of you, in my neck of the woods at least, to get married and have kids. You're not an adult and productive member of society until you've done so. People my age who are getting married and having kids even look down on us who aren't as "mature" and "established" as them. I've never thought of me saying it before, but I suppose it's almost like a knee-jerk reaction to that fact. When those who are better than me complain because they can't enjoy those great single life moments because of their spouse or kids, that's my chance to jab them a little and maybe say "you aren't as great as you think you are." But then again, I don't really focus on people with kids, and I only really say it to people who try to use their marriage or kids as a way to show why they're better than me. I say "that's why I'm glad I'm not married/in a serious relationship" just as much as, if not more than, I say "that's why I'm glad I don't have kids."
As I said, we all walk different paths. Some of us are hit with the Shrapnel of wanting to procreate, whether it be family, society, or just that biological clock ticking, and so we enter the pathways that hopefully lead to a little bundle of joy or two. I know I've always wanted to have kids. Not for the typical macho man reasons of wanting to keep my bloodline and last name going and all that jazz. I'm just naturally drawn to having a little one or two around to explore the world with.
Last night I got out a couple of my hand drums and the boy and I played a bit. (he's not too shabby for a 9-month old). Now, I've been in plenty of drum circles with adults and friends, but, it felt a bit more special, to me, to be having that experience with my boy. Especially since this is something brand new to him that he is exploring, rhythm. It was a hoot.
Phox would dearly love to be a mommy. :)
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 05, 2011, 08:58:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:42:30 PM
I don't think anyone "should" want to have kids. I'm just wondering why people who don't have them by choice say things like that. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like that about other areas of life, like having a house or a car or a partner or a business or friends or pets. Is it that they just can't wrap their heads around the idea of enjoying having the little freaks around?
There are a lot of parents who talk about their precious little miracles, from every vocalized misconception they have about the way the world works to their rapidly increasing size. It's understandable, because that's pretty much what that person's life becomes, but it's tiresome. I think the "this is why I don't have kids" is a counter to that. There are too many parents who don't realize how incredibly uninteresting their kids actually are to anyone but themselves. It's like people who talk about their cats, or that dream they had that, you don't even know, felt so real.
Then for some, like me, having kids is up in the air, so the "this is why I don't have kids" is less a snooty look-how-free-I-am statement and more an affirmation as to the decision (not that it's much a decision at this point).
Ugh, I hate that. Some funny/cute stories are great, but the parents who go on and on about their kids need to get a hobby. Also cats. Fuck. Three of my four Monday-night regulars have cats, and they'll talk about them for HOURS. About CATS. Cats are not that interesting. It's impossible for cats to be that interesting. "And then he was laying there and it was so cute" pretty much sums up EVERYTHING ABOUT A CAT'S LIFE.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 05, 2011, 08:51:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:42:30 PM
I don't think anyone "should" want to have kids. I'm just wondering why people who don't have them by choice say things like that. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like that about other areas of life, like having a house or a car or a partner or a business or friends or pets. Is it that they just can't wrap their heads around the idea of enjoying having the little freaks around?
Not at all, I've seen other parents with their kids (pretty much everyone in my immediate circle of friends has kids now), but I also see all the bad points about being a parent, which it seems like fade in the mind of the actual parent because it is overshadowed by the good points. But from an outside perspective it all seems like way too much. For me. And now and then things remind me of that. Like babysitting my niece and nephew... or thinking about checking a house for smoke or peanut residue.
Sorry if I offended any parents.
I'm not offended, really... I just think it's weird that people say it all the time. My chickens are probably a bigger pain in the ass than my kids, but nobody ever says "Man, that's why *I* don't have chickens!" when I have to go home at dusk to close the henhouse door.
If, god forbid, my kid had a horrible life-threatening peanut allergy (pretty rare but it happens) I'd probably just buy a new house. They don't cost more than old houses, typically, it's just that they're usually in less convenient locations.
As adorable as my cats are. I have maybe...one or two genuinely funny stories about them. Other than that, they're just fuzzballs who do crazy things over and over again.
Quote from: Suu on January 05, 2011, 10:12:38 PM
As adorable as my cats are. I have maybe...one or two genuinely funny stories about them. Other than that, they're just fuzzballs who do crazy things over and over again.
Yeah, the most interesting thing I can say about my cat is the story of his name.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:11:47 PM
genetic profiling is illegal
Wait 'til we repeal Obamacare
/
:mullet:
FUCK ALL OF YOU! MY MOTHER DIED FROM 4TH HAND SMOKE!
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:42:30 PM
I don't think anyone "should" want to have kids. I'm just wondering why people who don't have them by choice say things like that. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like that about other areas of life, like having a house or a car or a partner or a business or friends or pets. Is it that they just can't wrap their heads around the idea of enjoying having the little freaks around?
I kind of like having kids being something that is socially frowned on. There are way too many people. If it's "not cool" to have children less people will have them.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2011, 10:50:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 08:42:30 PM
I don't think anyone "should" want to have kids. I'm just wondering why people who don't have them by choice say things like that. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like that about other areas of life, like having a house or a car or a partner or a business or friends or pets. Is it that they just can't wrap their heads around the idea of enjoying having the little freaks around?
I kind of like having kids being something that is socially frowned on. There are way too many people. If it's "not cool" to have children less people will have them.
They're not socially frowned on. It's just a weird phrase that people who don't have kids like to throw out there, and what I'm asking is why.
Quote from: Nigel on January 05, 2011, 10:09:16 PM
"And then he was laying there and it was so cute" pretty much sums up EVERYTHING ABOUT A CAT'S LIFE.
:lulz: TRUTH.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 03:00:49 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 06, 2011, 02:07:40 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2011, 10:50:33 PM
There are way too many people.
depends on where you live
Planet Earth.
I am not a huge fan of viewing communities from a global population perspective. It doesn't work very well on a local level.
I'm also not a person who thinks we should utilize every available square inch of planet for our fucking and feeding.
However, in some areas populations are growing far too fast, while others are in decline. Looking at it from a local perspective is a far more functional approach, IMO.
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
ZPG ITT
Yeah.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 06:52:50 PM
Yeah.
I can get behind that. Population control = necessary. Population reduction = Horrorfun involving removing humans from the planet en masse.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:54:17 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 06:52:50 PM
Yeah.
I can get behind that. Population control = necessary. Population reduction = Horrorfun involving removing humans from the planet en masse.
Excellent analysis of the difference between the two.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 06:55:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:54:17 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 06:52:50 PM
Yeah.
I can get behind that. Population control = necessary. Population reduction = Horrorfun involving removing humans from the planet en masse.
Excellent analysis of the difference between the two.
Since BH is in favor of reduction, I think he should lead by example.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:56:45 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 06:55:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:54:17 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 06:52:50 PM
Yeah.
I can get behind that. Population control = necessary. Population reduction = Horrorfun involving removing humans from the planet en masse.
Excellent analysis of the difference between the two.
Since BH is in favor of reduction, I think he should lead by example.
Did he mean reduction by attrition or reduction by throwing peeps off the planet?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Well, then, we're still ahead of the game because we're only 5% of the world's population, and we have a birthrate less than 2 (meaning there aren't any extra Americans. There are less...Only immigration is keeping our population stable/mildly increasing (300 Mn in 2000, 301 Mn today).
Now, let's talk about what "consume" means. Do we eat more, have more, etc? Yes. Do we burn each other's crops, cut down every forest we have, and overfarm the fuck out of our land? No.
Just what percentage of food consumed in America is imported, BH? How much do we export? Are you suggesting we're eating all the food grown in the Congo?
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
That's part of why I wasn't specific. I don't think we consume as much as 15 Chinese any more, I know we don't consume as much as 15 average Indians, I just know we consume a lot more than they do. The Africans are still living in shitholes so I figured 15 to 1 was a safe ratio when it came to them even if the info is a bit old.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
Such great strides that Beijing will be under sand in 17 years.
Americans have more, but that's largely because we are both underpopulated and sitting on the best farmland/mineral deposits (overall) in the world. Not because we go steal all the crops from Bangladesh, as BH seems to be implying.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
That's part of why I wasn't specific. I don't think we consume as much as 15 Chinese any more, I know we don't consume as much as 15 average Indians, I just know we consume a lot more than they do. The Africans are still living in shitholes so I figured 15 to 1 was a safe ratio when it came to them even if the info is a bit old.
So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.
You fucking fraud.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:11:24 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
Such great strides that Beijing will be under sand in 17 years.
Americans have more, but that's largely because we are both underpopulated and sitting on the best farmland/mineral deposits (overall) in the world. Not because we go steal all the crops from Bangladesh, as BH seems to be implying.
We are also pretty good at managing such assets instead of simply using them until they are depleted.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:13:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:11:24 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
Such great strides that Beijing will be under sand in 17 years.
Americans have more, but that's largely because we are both underpopulated and sitting on the best farmland/mineral deposits (overall) in the world. Not because we go steal all the crops from Bangladesh, as BH seems to be implying.
We are also pretty good at managing such assets instead of simply using them until they are depleted.
Having a low population grants you that luxury.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
That's part of why I wasn't specific. I don't think we consume as much as 15 Chinese any more, I know we don't consume as much as 15 average Indians, I just know we consume a lot more than they do. The Africans are still living in shitholes so I figured 15 to 1 was a safe ratio when it came to them even if the info is a bit old.
So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.
You fucking fraud.
Beat me to it. "I think, I know" are not substantial arguments.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:14:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
That's part of why I wasn't specific. I don't think we consume as much as 15 Chinese any more, I know we don't consume as much as 15 average Indians, I just know we consume a lot more than they do. The Africans are still living in shitholes so I figured 15 to 1 was a safe ratio when it came to them even if the info is a bit old.
So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.
You fucking fraud.
Beat me to it. "I think, I know" are not substantial arguments.
Unless you're talking about Mammon. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Well, then, we're still ahead of the game because we're only 5% of the world's population, and we have a birthrate less than 2 (meaning there aren't any extra Americans. There are less...Only immigration is keeping our population stable/mildly increasing (300 Mn in 2000, 301 Mn today).
Now, let's talk about what "consume" means. Do we eat more, have more, etc? Yes. Do we burn each other's crops, cut down every forest we have, and overfarm the fuck out of our land? No.
Just what percentage of food consumed in America is imported, BH? How much do we export? Are you suggesting we're eating all the food grown in the Congo?
Overfarm, yes we do, although not as badly as we used to and nowhere near as badly as the aforementioned impoverished nations. I don't think we're importing food from Africa, I know that we do import a fair amount from Central and South America.
There's more than food at stake though, we're importing vast quantities of oil as well as burning a huge amount of oil, we import diamonds from Africa, which is not a good thing at all as far as the environment or society goes due to the ways in which they are harvested. We consume more of everything than anyone else and that is contributing to environmental degredation all over the world.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
That's part of why I wasn't specific. I don't think we consume as much as 15 Chinese any more, I know we don't consume as much as 15 average Indians, I just know we consume a lot more than they do. The Africans are still living in shitholes so I figured 15 to 1 was a safe ratio when it came to them even if the info is a bit old.
So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.
You fucking fraud.
Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans? I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
That's part of why I wasn't specific. I don't think we consume as much as 15 Chinese any more, I know we don't consume as much as 15 average Indians, I just know we consume a lot more than they do. The Africans are still living in shitholes so I figured 15 to 1 was a safe ratio when it came to them even if the info is a bit old.
So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.
You fucking fraud.
Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans? I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.
Link to the figures you posted. I want to see proof that one American does more harm to the environment than 15 Africans. Thanks.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:18:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
That's part of why I wasn't specific. I don't think we consume as much as 15 Chinese any more, I know we don't consume as much as 15 average Indians, I just know we consume a lot more than they do. The Africans are still living in shitholes so I figured 15 to 1 was a safe ratio when it came to them even if the info is a bit old.
So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.
You fucking fraud.
Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans? I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.
Link to the figures you posted. I want to see proof that one American does more harm to the environment than 15 Africans. Thanks.
Ditto. (lurking ;) )
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 06, 2011, 07:20:02 PM
Ditto. (lurking ;) )
Hey, I'm the only one allowed to lurk! :lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Well, then, we're still ahead of the game because we're only 5% of the world's population, and we have a birthrate less than 2 (meaning there aren't any extra Americans. There are less...Only immigration is keeping our population stable/mildly increasing (300 Mn in 2000, 301 Mn today).
Now, let's talk about what "consume" means. Do we eat more, have more, etc? Yes. Do we burn each other's crops, cut down every forest we have, and overfarm the fuck out of our land? No.
Just what percentage of food consumed in America is imported, BH? How much do we export? Are you suggesting we're eating all the food grown in the Congo?
Overfarm, yes we do, although not as badly as we used to and nowhere near as badly as the aforementioned impoverished nations. I don't think we're importing food from Africa, I know that we do import a fair amount from Central and South America.
There's more than food at stake though, we're importing vast quantities of oil as well as burning a huge amount of oil, we import diamonds from Africa, which is not a good thing at all as far as the environment or society goes due to the ways in which they are harvested. We consume more of everything than anyone else and that is contributing to environmental degredation all over the world.
Bullshit. farmers know exactly when and how to manage land. Some areas are left fallow, crops are rotated to rebuild the soil. I live in farm country, and I see the fallow land, I drive right by it. Overfarmed my fucking ass.
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 06, 2011, 07:20:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:18:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
That's part of why I wasn't specific. I don't think we consume as much as 15 Chinese any more, I know we don't consume as much as 15 average Indians, I just know we consume a lot more than they do. The Africans are still living in shitholes so I figured 15 to 1 was a safe ratio when it came to them even if the info is a bit old.
So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.
You fucking fraud.
Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans? I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.
Link to the figures you posted. I want to see proof that one American does more harm to the environment than 15 Africans. Thanks.
Ditto. (lurking ;) )
I love the arguments so far. "We use more oil", while neglecting to add, "we also use a hell of a lot more pollution control technology", which is why our cities aren't covered in horrible clouds of death, like they were from 1860-1970, and like Mexico City and Beijing are now.
More people + little or no pollution control (scrubbers, baghouses, catalytic converters, etc) = WAY more damage than we produce, even with us using the lion's share of the oil.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:22:00 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Well, then, we're still ahead of the game because we're only 5% of the world's population, and we have a birthrate less than 2 (meaning there aren't any extra Americans. There are less...Only immigration is keeping our population stable/mildly increasing (300 Mn in 2000, 301 Mn today).
Now, let's talk about what "consume" means. Do we eat more, have more, etc? Yes. Do we burn each other's crops, cut down every forest we have, and overfarm the fuck out of our land? No.
Just what percentage of food consumed in America is imported, BH? How much do we export? Are you suggesting we're eating all the food grown in the Congo?
Overfarm, yes we do, although not as badly as we used to and nowhere near as badly as the aforementioned impoverished nations. I don't think we're importing food from Africa, I know that we do import a fair amount from Central and South America.
There's more than food at stake though, we're importing vast quantities of oil as well as burning a huge amount of oil, we import diamonds from Africa, which is not a good thing at all as far as the environment or society goes due to the ways in which they are harvested. We consume more of everything than anyone else and that is contributing to environmental degredation all over the world.
Bullshit. farmers know exactly when and how to manage land. Some areas are left fallow, crops are rotated to rebuild the soil. I live in farm country, and I see the fallow land, I drive right by it. Overfarmed my fucking ass.
You're wasting your time. He's just making shit up again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:54:17 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 06:52:50 PM
Yeah.
I can get behind that. Population control = necessary. Population reduction = Horrorfun involving removing humans from the planet en masse.
Negative population growth is a potential solution, but it would have to be a very slow and controlled decline because currently every economy on Earth is not only dependent on growth, but based on the assumption of growth.
The only reason the US population is currently growing is because of immigration. I don't think Tea Partiers understand what would happen to our economy if we ended immigration. But then, there's a lot they don't understand.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans? I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.
Honestly, I'm more curious how you'd accurately measure something like this, considering the scant amount of information available on some of the societies in question.
Quote from: Nigel on January 06, 2011, 07:23:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:54:17 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 06:52:50 PM
Yeah.
I can get behind that. Population control = necessary. Population reduction = Horrorfun involving removing humans from the planet en masse.
Negative population growth is a potential solution, but it would have to be a very slow and controlled decline because currently every economy on Earth is not only dependent on growth, but based on the assumption of growth.
The only reason the US population is currently growing is because of immigration. I don't think Tea Partiers understand what would happen to our economy if we ended immigration. But then, there's a lot they don't understand.
DEY'RE TAKIN' MAH JARB!
\
:mullet:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Lowering the population in underpopulated areas such as Canada and the United States will have zero impact on the overpopulation problem. China, India, and parts of Africa are hopelessly fucked, due to deforestation, poor farming techniques, and the desertification that results from the aforementioned bad practices.
Lowering the population of Montana won't do SHIT to solve that issue. The notion that it will is the same sort of thinking that gave us the concept of "Green Technology", useless sops to be thrown at a species-threatening issue.
Americans consume far more, per capita, than Indians, Africans or Chinese. If we were actually producing locally and not part of a globally interconnected economy then I'd agree with you, but since we are actually a globally interconnected economy every extra American is about as bad as 15 extra Africans.
Um, double check your info about the Chinese. They have been making great strides recently.
That's part of why I wasn't specific. I don't think we consume as much as 15 Chinese any more, I know we don't consume as much as 15 average Indians, I just know we consume a lot more than they do. The Africans are still living in shitholes so I figured 15 to 1 was a safe ratio when it came to them even if the info is a bit old.
So you made your figures up, just like every other argument you take part in.
You fucking fraud.
Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans? I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.
the question is not whether we consume more than they consume, but whether we consume more than we produce.
Most years, we export more food than we import.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 06, 2011, 07:24:51 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans? I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.
Honestly, I'm more curious how you'd accurately measure something like this, considering the scant amount of information available on some of the societies in question.
http://babylonhoruvsass.com
From this source
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Americas/United-States-of-America-AGRICULTURE.html
Quote
There have been dramatic improvements in agricultural technology in the United States. Improvements include increased use of computers, scientific soil and crop analysis, and more sophisticated machinery. Genetic engineering of seeds has also increased crop yields but created controversy over the safety of genetically altered products. There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers. However, the pesticides used are much more powerful and lethal than earlier chemicals. About two-thirds of the states have had deep reductions in agriculture. Agriculture has declined most significantly in the New England states and New Jersey. In the West and southern plains, some states have had minor declines, while others have had small increases. The only regions of the nation that have seen major expansion of agriculture have been the middle-Atlantic area and the Pacific Northwest. The states with the largest increases in output were Arkansas, Washington, Delaware, Florida, and Georgia.
There has been a decline means that it is still occurring, albeit at a reduced rate.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 06, 2011, 07:24:51 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans? I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.
Honestly, I'm more curious how you'd accurately measure something like this, considering the scant amount of information available on some of the societies in question.
Which Africans are we talking about? There's plenty of data on some countries.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Population_growth_rate_world.PNG)
Human population growth rate in percent, with the variables of births, deaths, immigration, and emigration - 2006from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Food
QuoteThe amounts of natural resources in this context are not necessarily fixed, and their distribution is not necessarily a zero-sum game. For example, due to the Green Revolution and the fact that more and more land is appropriated each year from wild lands for agricultural purposes, the worldwide production of food had steadily increased up until 1995. World food production per person was considerably higher in 2005 than 1961.[91]
As world population doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion, daily Calorie consumption in poor countries increased from 1,932 to 2,650, and the percentage of people in those countries who were malnourished fell from 45% to 18%. This suggests that Third World poverty and famine are caused by underdevelopment, not overpopulation.[92] However, others question these statistics.[93] From 1950 to 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the world, grain production increased by over 250%.[94] The world population has grown by about four billion since the beginning of the Green Revolution and most believe that, without the Revolution, there would be greater famine and malnutrition than the UN presently documents.[30][95]
The number of people who are overweight has surpassed the number who are undernourished. In a 2006 news story, MSNBC reported, "There are an estimated 800 million undernourished people and more than a billion considered overweight worldwide." The U.S. has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world.[96]
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations states in its report The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2006, that while the number of undernourished people in the developing countries has declined by about three million, a smaller proportion of the populations of developing countries is undernourished today than in 1990–92: 17% against 20%. Furthermore, FAO's projections suggest that the proportion of hungry people in developing countries could be halved from 1990-92 levels to 10% by 2015. The FAO also states "We have emphasized first and foremost that reducing hunger is no longer a question of means in the hands of the global community. The world is richer today than it was ten years ago. There is more food available and still more could be produced without excessive upward pressure on prices. The knowledge and resources to reduce hunger are there. What is lacking is sufficient political will to mobilize those resources to the benefit of the hungry."
Is there an overpopulation problem now? No. Will there be in the future? Maybe. But I think a lot of the ills we are worrying about are actually economic, agricultural, or industrial problems which are exacerbated by a high population.There is no shortage of food - we just have trouble getting it into everybody's mouths. If we could fix things like absurd wealth inequality we would have starvation beat too.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
From this source
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Americas/United-States-of-America-AGRICULTURE.html
Quote
There have been dramatic improvements in agricultural technology in the United States. Improvements include increased use of computers, scientific soil and crop analysis, and more sophisticated machinery. Genetic engineering of seeds has also increased crop yields but created controversy over the safety of genetically altered products. There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers. However, the pesticides used are much more powerful and lethal than earlier chemicals. About two-thirds of the states have had deep reductions in agriculture. Agriculture has declined most significantly in the New England states and New Jersey. In the West and southern plains, some states have had minor declines, while others have had small increases. The only regions of the nation that have seen major expansion of agriculture have been the middle-Atlantic area and the Pacific Northwest. The states with the largest increases in output were Arkansas, Washington, Delaware, Florida, and Georgia.
There has been a decline means that it is still occurring, albeit at a reduced rate.
From 2000? FFS.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
A decrease from what level? How bad was it?
I mean, I know Kansas and Nebraska are both deserts now, but besides that. :lulz:
But according to that link, your argument is that we're bad people because we're constantly improving our farming techniques, or bad because we aren't utterly perfect?
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:32:05 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
From this source
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Americas/United-States-of-America-AGRICULTURE.html
Quote
There have been dramatic improvements in agricultural technology in the United States. Improvements include increased use of computers, scientific soil and crop analysis, and more sophisticated machinery. Genetic engineering of seeds has also increased crop yields but created controversy over the safety of genetically altered products. There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers. However, the pesticides used are much more powerful and lethal than earlier chemicals. About two-thirds of the states have had deep reductions in agriculture. Agriculture has declined most significantly in the New England states and New Jersey. In the West and southern plains, some states have had minor declines, while others have had small increases. The only regions of the nation that have seen major expansion of agriculture have been the middle-Atlantic area and the Pacific Northwest. The states with the largest increases in output were Arkansas, Washington, Delaware, Florida, and Georgia.
There has been a decline means that it is still occurring, albeit at a reduced rate.
From 2000? FFS.
Yeah, I think we should go back to 1800 for proof that we currently use bad farming techniques.
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on January 06, 2011, 07:30:02 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 06, 2011, 07:24:51 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans? I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.
Honestly, I'm more curious how you'd accurately measure something like this, considering the scant amount of information available on some of the societies in question.
Which Africans are we talking about? There's plenty of data on some countries.
He said "Africans". I can only assume he meant "all".
Because, you know, they all look alike.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
From this source
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Americas/United-States-of-America-AGRICULTURE.html
Quote
There have been dramatic improvements in agricultural technology in the United States. Improvements include increased use of computers, scientific soil and crop analysis, and more sophisticated machinery. Genetic engineering of seeds has also increased crop yields but created controversy over the safety of genetically altered products. There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers. However, the pesticides used are much more powerful and lethal than earlier chemicals. About two-thirds of the states have had deep reductions in agriculture. Agriculture has declined most significantly in the New England states and New Jersey. In the West and southern plains, some states have had minor declines, while others have had small increases. The only regions of the nation that have seen major expansion of agriculture have been the middle-Atlantic area and the Pacific Northwest. The states with the largest increases in output were Arkansas, Washington, Delaware, Florida, and Georgia.
There has been a decline means that it is still occurring, albeit at a reduced rate.
:facepalm:
Did you read what you just quoted? It says "About two-thirds of the states have had deep reductions in agriculture." Do you understand what those words mean?
Do you know about farming subsidies? Do you understand the reasons they were introduced?
Yes, in many areas US farms still engage in unsustainable farming practices. However, that is very very different from overfarming.
Do you know what "overfarming" means? :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:33:07 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:32:05 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
From this source
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Americas/United-States-of-America-AGRICULTURE.html
Quote
There have been dramatic improvements in agricultural technology in the United States. Improvements include increased use of computers, scientific soil and crop analysis, and more sophisticated machinery. Genetic engineering of seeds has also increased crop yields but created controversy over the safety of genetically altered products. There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers. However, the pesticides used are much more powerful and lethal than earlier chemicals. About two-thirds of the states have had deep reductions in agriculture. Agriculture has declined most significantly in the New England states and New Jersey. In the West and southern plains, some states have had minor declines, while others have had small increases. The only regions of the nation that have seen major expansion of agriculture have been the middle-Atlantic area and the Pacific Northwest. The states with the largest increases in output were Arkansas, Washington, Delaware, Florida, and Georgia.
There has been a decline means that it is still occurring, albeit at a reduced rate.
From 2000? FFS.
Yeah, I think we should go back to 1800 for proof that we currently use bad farming techniques.
:lulz:
I think he should come here and try that shit on the K-State campus. Agricultural colleges don't like made up bullshit about this kind of thing.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 06, 2011, 07:33:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 06, 2011, 07:30:02 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 06, 2011, 07:24:51 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans? I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.
Honestly, I'm more curious how you'd accurately measure something like this, considering the scant amount of information available on some of the societies in question.
Which Africans are we talking about? There's plenty of data on some countries.
He said "Africans". I can only assume he meant "all".
Because, you know, they all look alike.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:32:30 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
A decrease from what level? How bad was it?
I mean, I know Kansas and Nebraska are both deserts now, but besides that. :lulz:
But according to that link, your argument is that we're bad people because we're constantly improving our farming techniques, or bad because we aren't utterly perfect?
My arguement was that we are overfarming. Not that we are bad people. Good for us for improving, unfortunately we improved with some very toxic pesticides and GM crops, both of which are dangerous in ways that we don't even fully understand (especcially the GM crops) the ideal solution would be lower intensity farming, but that is not possible while feeding a high population.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 06, 2011, 07:31:44 PM
Is there an overpopulation problem now? No. Will there be in the future? Maybe. But I think a lot of the ills we are worrying about are actually economic, agricultural, or industrial problems which are exacerbated by a high population.There is no shortage of food - we just have trouble getting it into everybody's mouths. If we could fix things like absurd wealth inequality we would have starvation beat too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
QuoteIt is possible for a species to exceed its carrying capacity temporarily. Population could then crash.
and
QuoteAgricultural capability on Earth expanded in the last quarter of the 20th century. But now there are many projections of a continuation of the decline in world agricultural capability (and hence carrying capacity) which began in the 1990s. Most conspicuously, China's food production is forecast to decline by 37% by the last half of the 21st century, placing a strain on the entire carrying capacity of the world, as China's population could expand to about 1.5 billion people by the year 2050.[11] This reduction in China's agricultural capability (as in other world regions) is largely due to the world water crisis and especially due to mining groundwater beyond sustainable yield, which has been happening in China since the mid-20th century.[12]
and
QuoteOne result shows that humanity's demand for 1999 exceeded the planet's biocapacity for 1999 by over 20 percent[13
So, yeah, there's an overpopulation problem. The best estimate I've heard for the current sustainable population is 2 billion. We are a hair from 7 billion now.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:32:30 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
A decrease from what level? How bad was it?
I mean, I know Kansas and Nebraska are both deserts now, but besides that. :lulz:
But according to that link, your argument is that we're bad people because we're constantly improving our farming techniques, or bad because we aren't utterly perfect?
My arguement was that we are overfarming. Not that we are bad people. Good for us for improving, unfortunately we improved with some very toxic pesticides and GM crops, both of which are dangerous in ways that we don't even fully understand (especcially the GM crops) the ideal solution would be lower intensity farming, but that is not possible while feeding a high population.
Anhydrous ammonia is one of the most widely used around here. Maybe you prefer to return to the days of DDT?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
My arguement was that we are overfarming.
Which you haven't proven. You've proven that 10 years ago we WERE overfarming slightly, but improving.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Not that we are bad people. Good for us for improving, unfortunately we improved with some very toxic pesticides and GM crops, both of which are dangerous in ways that we don't even fully understand (especcially the GM crops) the ideal solution would be lower intensity farming, but that is not possible while feeding a high population.
Oh, Christ. How, specifically, are GM foods dangerous, and how do we know they're dangerous if we don't understand it? Do you have death/illness figures from a credible source showing that GM food is killing or injuring people, or even damaging cropland?
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:39:55 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:32:30 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
A decrease from what level? How bad was it?
I mean, I know Kansas and Nebraska are both deserts now, but besides that. :lulz:
But according to that link, your argument is that we're bad people because we're constantly improving our farming techniques, or bad because we aren't utterly perfect?
My arguement was that we are overfarming. Not that we are bad people. Good for us for improving, unfortunately we improved with some very toxic pesticides and GM crops, both of which are dangerous in ways that we don't even fully understand (especcially the GM crops) the ideal solution would be lower intensity farming, but that is not possible while feeding a high population.
Anhydrous ammonia is one of the most widely used around here. Maybe you prefer to return to the days of DDT?
I would, but only if it guarantees the extinction of bald eagles.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:41:01 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
My arguement was that we are overfarming.
Which you haven't proven. You've proven that 10 years ago we WERE overfarming slightly, but improving.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Not that we are bad people. Good for us for improving, unfortunately we improved with some very toxic pesticides and GM crops, both of which are dangerous in ways that we don't even fully understand (especcially the GM crops) the ideal solution would be lower intensity farming, but that is not possible while feeding a high population.
Oh, Christ. How, specifically, are GM foods dangerous, and how do we know they're dangerous if we don't understand it? Do you have death/illness figures from a credible source showing that GM food is killing or injuring people, or even damaging cropland?
Things like wheat growing shorter so less is lost prior to harvest? Or more pest resistant? Or more drought resistant? Or more mildew resistant. Those perverted bastards.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 06, 2011, 07:42:25 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:39:55 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:32:30 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
A decrease from what level? How bad was it?
I mean, I know Kansas and Nebraska are both deserts now, but besides that. :lulz:
But according to that link, your argument is that we're bad people because we're constantly improving our farming techniques, or bad because we aren't utterly perfect?
My arguement was that we are overfarming. Not that we are bad people. Good for us for improving, unfortunately we improved with some very toxic pesticides and GM crops, both of which are dangerous in ways that we don't even fully understand (especcially the GM crops) the ideal solution would be lower intensity farming, but that is not possible while feeding a high population.
Anhydrous ammonia is one of the most widely used around here. Maybe you prefer to return to the days of DDT?
I would, but only if it guarantees the extinction of bald eagles.
BAD PHOXY!
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:45:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 06, 2011, 07:42:25 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:39:55 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:32:30 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
A decrease from what level? How bad was it?
I mean, I know Kansas and Nebraska are both deserts now, but besides that. :lulz:
But according to that link, your argument is that we're bad people because we're constantly improving our farming techniques, or bad because we aren't utterly perfect?
My arguement was that we are overfarming. Not that we are bad people. Good for us for improving, unfortunately we improved with some very toxic pesticides and GM crops, both of which are dangerous in ways that we don't even fully understand (especcially the GM crops) the ideal solution would be lower intensity farming, but that is not possible while feeding a high population.
Anhydrous ammonia is one of the most widely used around here. Maybe you prefer to return to the days of DDT?
I would, but only if it guarantees the extinction of bald eagles.
BAD PHOXY!
:aww:
Can we haz spanking tiem now?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 06, 2011, 07:46:35 PM
Can we haz spanking tiem now?
:fap:
ETA: THAT WAS FUCKING FUCKED.
completely relevant to population problem direction this thread has taken.
there's 8 videos in the set, that's part one and the rest are easily found on the side bar. REALLY good lecture basically discussing how humanity's inability to truly grasp the concept of exponential growth is the real problem that will do us in.
the example he uses with the jar is just fucking great at explaining it for non math heads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=BF&list=FLKNpJnoWqQVE&index=88
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 06, 2011, 07:51:27 PM
completely relevant to population problem direction this thread has taken.
there's 8 videos in the set, that's part one and the rest are easily found on the side bar. REALLY good lecture basically discussing how humanity's inability to truly grasp the concept of exponential growth is the real problem that will do us in.
the example he uses with the jar is just fucking great at explaining it for non math heads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=BF&list=FLKNpJnoWqQVE&index=88
Over population is self correcting.
So, a noob came here and started reading about plastic bags. At post 461 their head exploded.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:55:48 PM
So, a noob came here and started reading about plastic bags. At post 461 their head exploded.
Actually, I would say if they made it that far with their head intact, then I doubt that particular post would cause a cerebral meltdown. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:37:51 PM
So, yeah, there's an overpopulation problem. The best estimate I've heard for the current sustainable population is 2 billion. We are a hair from 7 billion now.
good points. I stand corrected.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 06, 2011, 07:52:29 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 06, 2011, 07:51:27 PM
completely relevant to population problem direction this thread has taken.
there's 8 videos in the set, that's part one and the rest are easily found on the side bar. REALLY good lecture basically discussing how humanity's inability to truly grasp the concept of exponential growth is the real problem that will do us in.
the example he uses with the jar is just fucking great at explaining it for non math heads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=BF&list=FLKNpJnoWqQVE&index=88
Over population is self correcting.
you should watch the videos. I think you'll like the lecture.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 06, 2011, 07:51:27 PM
the example he uses with the jar is just fucking great at explaining it for non math heads.
I've seen that video. When the thing shatters in his anus, it's a singular experience.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 06, 2011, 08:00:49 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 06, 2011, 07:51:27 PM
the example he uses with the jar is just fucking great at explaining it for non math heads.
I've seen that video. When the thing shatters in his anus, it's a singular experience.
I had almost forgotten about that god damned video.
:vom:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:32:30 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
A decrease from what level? How bad was it?
I mean, I know Kansas and Nebraska are both deserts now, but besides that. :lulz:
But according to that link, your argument is that we're bad people because we're constantly improving our farming techniques, or bad because we aren't utterly perfect?
My arguement was that we are overfarming. Not that we are bad people. Good for us for improving, unfortunately we improved with some very toxic pesticides and GM crops, both of which are dangerous in ways that we don't even fully understand (especcially the GM crops) the ideal solution would be lower intensity farming, but that is not possible while feeding a high population.
Actually I think that your argument was that we (the US) are overpopulated, and you switched it to overfarming when you were proven wrong.
Quote from: Nigel on January 06, 2011, 08:06:23 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:32:30 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
A decrease from what level? How bad was it?
I mean, I know Kansas and Nebraska are both deserts now, but besides that. :lulz:
But according to that link, your argument is that we're bad people because we're constantly improving our farming techniques, or bad because we aren't utterly perfect?
My arguement was that we are overfarming. Not that we are bad people. Good for us for improving, unfortunately we improved with some very toxic pesticides and GM crops, both of which are dangerous in ways that we don't even fully understand (especcially the GM crops) the ideal solution would be lower intensity farming, but that is not possible while feeding a high population.
Actually I think that your argument was that we (the US) are overpopulated, and you switched it to overfarming when you were proven wrong.
Which is even more wrong.
Bananas are good food.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 07, 2011, 07:37:07 PM
Bananas are good food.
(http://crossderry.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/kinggator.jpg)
Non-sequitur.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 06, 2011, 07:24:51 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Are you seriously disputing that we consume a lot more per capita than Chinese people,Indian people or Africans? I can source if I have to, but I know there's no way you're going to read the sources.
Honestly, I'm more curious how you'd accurately measure something like this, considering the scant amount of information available on some of the societies in question.
In Africa in particular, aid fraud and corruption is rife. There are villages in Sierra Leone with more prosthetic limbs than people living in them (militias during the civil war had a nasty tendency to lop off limbs. Those who survived were sent to special limbless villages, for some bizarre reason. Those villagers now make a living out of hiding the vast amounts of aid they are given by the international community and complaining about how hard done by they are). In the Goma "refugee camp", the Rwandan
genocidaires were eating more food than the average person in western Europe....in fact, they stepped up "food taxation" via their cell structure in the camp to the point where they could use it to finance daily raids back into Rwanda, to kill more "Tutsi cockroaches".
Lack of food isn't a resource/distribution issue anyway, except in the vaugest of senses. Food distribution is a political weapon. Nations in Africa, such as Sudan and Ethiopia, are only too happy to hoard food from resource rich regions, send in soldiers to kill farmers and burn down crops, and then invite humanitarian organizations in to carry the cost of feeding their population. Starving your own population is cheaper than feeding them, keeps them from rebelling, and the useful idiots in the humanitarian aid community and media will always be there to pick up the costs.
This probably accounts far more for differences in resource consumption between Africans and Americans than any other issue, outside of certain extremely arid areas.
Quote from: Able on January 08, 2011, 04:58:23 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 07, 2011, 07:37:07 PM
Bananas are good food.
Isn't there a shortage?
I doubt it, because bananas are proof that God exists, therefore God wouldn't let there be a shortage of bananas.
I got to add to Cain's story a bit, though. A good friend of mine has been doing her final years of medical school (co-assistentship) in Africa (she went multiple times, to Tanzania and Malawi amongst other places), and from her stories, I really got the impression that a lot of the aid does actually end up helping people.
I'm sure Cain's point still stands, but I just wanted to add that it's not entirely as if all the aid that goes to Africa ends up in a bottomless pit either (before people start to use it as an argument that all foreign aid is useless).
However, it's an interesting topic, and I'll be sure to ask her about it next time I see her. I didn't get that impression from her stories. But on the other hand, her accounts of usefulness of the aid has been from a doctor's perspective, and spoke more about level of medical education, and cultural differences in work ethics.
Quote from: Able on January 08, 2011, 04:58:23 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 07, 2011, 07:37:07 PM
Bananas are good food.
Isn't there a shortage?
No, but there is something about the monoculture in global banana production that makes them extra vulnerable to disease and that might make the strain that we commonly know as a normal banana non-viable for large scale production at some point in the future. We'd still have bananas, but they'd look and/or taste different than we're used to.
In other news Iceland grows bananas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_production_in_Iceland), too. And that is wonderful.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 08, 2011, 10:06:17 AM
I got to add to Cain's story a bit, though. A good friend of mine has been doing her final years of medical school (co-assistentship) in Africa (she went multiple times, to Tanzania and Malawi amongst other places), and from her stories, I really got the impression that a lot of the aid does actually end up helping people.
I'm sure Cain's point still stands, but I just wanted to add that it's not entirely as if all the aid that goes to Africa ends up in a bottomless pit either (before people start to use it as an argument that all foreign aid is useless).
However, it's an interesting topic, and I'll be sure to ask her about it next time I see her. I didn't get that impression from her stories. But on the other hand, her accounts of usefulness of the aid has been from a doctor's perspective, and spoke more about level of medical education, and cultural differences in work ethics.
Quote from: Able on January 08, 2011, 04:58:23 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 07, 2011, 07:37:07 PM
Bananas are good food.
Isn't there a shortage?
No, but there is something about the monoculture in global banana production that makes them extra vulnerable to disease and that might make the strain that we commonly know as a normal banana non-viable for large scale production at some point in the future. We'd still have bananas, but they'd look and/or taste different than we're used to.
In other news Iceland grows bananas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_production_in_Iceland), too. And that is wonderful.
I am curious how Icelandic Bananas taste as opposed to tropical bananas. Do they have a sulfery flavor from the hot springs I wonder?
Quote from: Rumckle on January 08, 2011, 09:35:07 AM
Quote from: Able on January 08, 2011, 04:58:23 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 07, 2011, 07:37:07 PM
Bananas are good food.
Isn't there a shortage?
I doubt it, because bananas are proof that God exists, therefore God wouldn't let there be a shortage of bananas.
http://ethiopiaforums.com/banana-shortage-hits-ethiopian-capital
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 08, 2011, 10:06:17 AM
I got to add to Cain's story a bit, though. A good friend of mine has been doing her final years of medical school (co-assistentship) in Africa (she went multiple times, to Tanzania and Malawi amongst other places), and from her stories, I really got the impression that a lot of the aid does actually end up helping people.
I'm sure Cain's point still stands, but I just wanted to add that it's not entirely as if all the aid that goes to Africa ends up in a bottomless pit either (before people start to use it as an argument that all foreign aid is useless).
Not entirely useless no, but a lot of it is.
Lots of non-professional organizations end up sending crap (ski equipment was sent to the Goma camp mentioned above, for example. Since Goma is set near an active volcano, in DR Congo) and useless medical supplies (diet pills were sent to Kenya by one group).
Religious groups tend to either end up doing missionary work foremost or, for some strange reason, getting involved in human trafficking and kidnapping children (like the American church in Haiti recently. Similar events have happened in Sierra Leone, DR Congo and other areas).
Professional aid groups are bound by humanitarian aid laws and customs, which mean they cannot avoid giving aid to any particular group. As a consequence, they almost always end up helping to fund the conflict, acting as auxilaries for medical and food supplies which, almost immediately after they are given to individuals, are then seized as "taxes" or, more accurately, "plunder" by the warring parties. Also, in most war zones, aid agencies need the permission of either the country's leader, or regional warlords, to operate in that region. Permission is often granted with about 5-20% of the budget of any aid project being handed over to that leader, no questions asked.
Some aid is good, yes. Hell, I did aid work in Peru, helping to build a school in an impoverished community. The French MSF in particular seem to hold themselves to very high ethical standards, probably as a result of their original disupte with the International Red Cross. But the aid industry, as a whole, has a lot to answer for. In any zone where aid agencies work, schools and hospitals are left by the wayside, as restaurants and entertainment complexes are built first, to cater to the needs of foreign organizations. Inflation caused by an influx of rich foreigners often destroys the local economy, leaving entire industries destitute. As a result of that, prostitution (especially child prostitution) and drug-dealing become entrenched in local communities. The destruction of the local economy makes the area dependent on foreign aid for its needs, justifying a permament NGO presence which, for the reasons detailed above, means the area likely wont recover.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2011, 07:32:30 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 06, 2011, 07:29:52 PM
There has subsequently been a decrease in soil erosion caused by over-farming and an overall decline in the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
A decrease from what level? How bad was it?
I mean, I know Kansas and Nebraska are both deserts now, but besides that. :lulz:
But according to that link, your argument is that we're bad people because we're constantly improving our farming techniques, or bad because we aren't utterly perfect?
Didn't heavy use of fertilizers that corn requires fuck up the Mississippi river basin, where they have a small country size dead zone now, that stays until the hurricane season?
Quote from: Cain on January 08, 2011, 03:32:58 PM
lots of stuff
Also on top of this many people in the humanitarian aid industry are insufferable pricks who'd have you believe they're pure angels for helping the benighted heathen, acting towards the people they are supposed to be helping with such a condescending attitude even thorough-going Victorian imperialists would likely be appalled.
Quote from: Cain on January 08, 2011, 03:39:52 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 08, 2011, 03:32:58 PM
lots of stuff
Also on top of this many people in the humanitarian aid industry are insufferable pricks who'd have you believe they're pure angels for helping the benighted heathen, acting towards the people they are supposed to be helping with such a condescending attitude even thorough-going Victorian imperialists would likely be appalled.
I have met such.
Yeah, they're unfortunately common.
Anyway, the point I was getting back to was underconsumption in Africa is due to political reasons, especially the corrupted institutions present in many African countries and strongman Presidents who can do what they like. Currently, such conditions do not prevail in liberal democracies, though they have made use of these methods abroad (Fallujah in 2004, Gaza currently). If the African continent were to have more similar conditions to other liberal democracies over the world, I have no doubt their consumption would quickly reach comparable levels, and there would definitely be a greater capacity for production than present (or, at least, the current production levels would be maintained minus the ongoing theft and destruction detailed in earlier posts).
Quote from: Cain on January 08, 2011, 03:50:01 PM
Yeah, they're unfortunately common.
Anyway, the point I was getting back to was underconsumption in Africa is due to political reasons, especially the corrupted institutions present in many African countries and strongman Presidents who can do what they like. Currently, such conditions do not prevail in liberal democracies, though they have made use of these methods abroad (Fallujah in 2004, Gaza currently). If the African continent were to have more similar conditions to other liberal democracies over the world, I have no doubt their consumption would quickly reach comparable levels, and there would definitely be a greater capacity for production than present (or, at least, the current production levels would be maintained minus the ongoing theft and destruction detailed in earlier posts).
For some reason I forgot about food being used to control people. It really works better than religion because when people are starving they tend to get pissed at {god}.
It's an unfortunately common tactic. Food security is actually a quite popular subject of study among Human Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_security) scholars.
My personal favorite horror story is the Creole Pig. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_pig)
Basically, the creole pig was naturally adapted to Haiti's environment, diseases, etc. It was cheap to keep on top of it. The US, along with the Haitian government, said they were susceptible to a disease and ordered a culling. They killed off all these pigs and replaced them with the breeds used in the US.
The new pigs had a more stringent feeding schedule, weren't resistant to local climate or diseases, and were fed grains imported from the US. Locals stared calling them something like "prince-au-quatre-pied" (princes on four feet, roughly).
That's a trend that continues, not necessarily as blatantly. With subsidized crops imported from the US, it's cheaper for a lot of Haitians to buy what we grow here than it is to buy what's grown by their own farmers on their own land. Lucky for us, that means farmers can make a living growing something like sugar cane instead of worrying about something pesky like feeding their local population.
Food systems - SUPERFUCKED.
Playing with ecosystems is always a dangerous game. Hell, Australia has two very well known horror stories about that: Cane Toads and European Rabbits. And yeah, crop subsidies by the EU and USA have a lot to do with third world choices in farming, simply because they allow western nations to sell food so cheaply.
Quote from: Cain on January 08, 2011, 04:39:33 PM
Playing with ecosystems is always a dangerous game. Hell, Australia has two very well known horror stories about that: Cane Toads and European Rabbits. And yeah, crop subsidies by the EU and USA have a lot to do with third world choices in farming, simply because they allow western nations to sell food so cheaply.
Ask Florida about walking catfish.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 08, 2011, 04:42:00 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 08, 2011, 04:39:33 PM
Playing with ecosystems is always a dangerous game. Hell, Australia has two very well known horror stories about that: Cane Toads and European Rabbits. And yeah, crop subsidies by the EU and USA have a lot to do with third world choices in farming, simply because they allow western nations to sell food so cheaply.
Ask Florida about walking catfish.
If I see a fish walking, I will shoot it until my pistol is empty.
TGRR,
Cleansing the mutants and heretics.
It's catching, in Austin, places simply will NOT give you a bag, if you didn't come in with some re-usable cloth bag you will be told to kindly get fucked, twice, you might get lucky and they might sell you a cloth bag, or they just might have a paper bag to sell you, yet.. seeing it in action, I don't think it's a bad thing.