|
|
#31
10-16-2007, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder, why is this so hard to believe? Normal smoking is filtered, second hand smoke is unfiltered. [/ QUOTE ] Seriously? I think the problem with the statement is obvious. In one case you're sucking many drags worth of "filtered" smoke directly into your lungs. The concentration is huge. In the other case, you're inhaling mostly air, with some amount of second hand smoke. Recently I saw an ad here in Cali about how second hand smoke from one house can be harmful in the next house, so we need to stop smokers. I was so frickin' pissed, and I'm no smoker sympathizer. I used to berate my folks daily about smoking. The ad just reeked of fear mongering. 
|
|
#32
10-16-2007, 07:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
Even if we don't agree on that - I have no problem saying second hand smoke is not as harmful as first hand, as its fairly irrelivant and I'm not sure about that anyways - would you agree that second hand smoke IS harmful? I don't see any reason to think it wouldn't be.
|
|
#33
10-16-2007, 07:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
it's harmful, I just think it's vastly overstated. Cars? Sure whatever. Apt buildings? There are probably more harmful things in my refrigerator.
|
|
#34
10-16-2007, 09:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
driving on the freeway behind 50 million polluting cars is wayyyyy worse then some tobacco smoke once in a while.
please ban kids from all places within 100 feet of any car. WE NEED TO KEEP THE KIDS SAFE!!!!!!!!!!!!11
|
|
#37
10-16-2007, 09:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] wtf? Do you actually believe that smoking is a right protected by the US Constitution? [/ QUOTE ] 9th amendment [/ QUOTE ] The 9th amendment ALLOWS for enactment of other rights not specifically set out by the constitution, it does not provide those rights in of itself. Try again.
|
|
#38
10-16-2007, 10:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
[ QUOTE ]
wtf? Do you actually believe that smoking is a right protected by the US Constitution? [/ QUOTE ] I don't believe smoking is a "right". However, that doesn't mean anyone else has a right to prevent me from engaging in that activity. Do you think eating a cheeseburger is a right? I don't think anyone would say that it is. Do you think the government therefore has a right to prevent you from eating one? How about this one: http://www.theagitator.com/archives/028018.php#028018 Cliffs notes: A court ruling says there is no "fundamental right" to lifesaving drugs; therefore, it's open season for the government to restrict your access to them. [ QUOTE ] This isn't surprising. It's a predictable application of drug war philosophy. If the government can stop you from putting drugs in your body that make you high, it's a short leap to say that the government can let you die while waiting for drugs that could save your life, albeit still in the name of "protecting" you. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#40
10-16-2007, 10:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Do you think the government therefore has a right to prevent you from eating one? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. [/ QUOTE ] OK, please answer the following: 1) where does this right come from? 2) how do governments have rights at all?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
