:clit:

Wish you could've seen the Daily Show tonight... reminds me of this thread quite a bit, and the "old man in sleeves" reminds me of Steve.

:D

I've just discovered another side affect for smoking. GT thanks for helping with that.

Side affect 9483: Denial of the truh.

both of you are taking is to the extremes, your not going to directly kill anyone because of second hand smoke, just like your not going to directly kill anyone from dumping oil into the drain, or burying your antifreeze in your backyard, but it seeps into our resources, mainly water contaminating it. once again wont kill you but will harm you. maybe not make you sick or give you cancer but if thats 0.01% extra in the supply then it adds up. or what about power plants buring off sulfer. once again its not going to kill you, but its an added pollutant in the air. the difference with that and smoking is smoke stays centralized, at least in its semi-toxic form, then disapates intot eh air where it cant be efficiently measuered over a population. but its similar to living in large industrialized cities with higher rates or pollution released compaired to rural areas, your going to have a higher % of people who contract airborne related illnesses, no matter what they are.

now lets look at 3 people, A B and C, one who visits boston(just an example, follow along) 3 times a week, then lives in the country for 4 days out of the week is exposed to that air X number of hrs per week. this is person A. person B lives there 24/7 and person C never goes near the city. all 3 have a probobility of contracting lung cancer just by their genetics, but assuming all is equal, then person A has the highest risk being exposed to it all the time, person B has a elevated risk due to the peacemeal exposure through the course of ther trips there and person C is at the baseline risk for avoiding the extra SO2 (sulfur dioxide) all together.

this is the same this as someone who smokes, someone who is exposed to second hand smoke when they go to bars, resturants, or anywhere else smoking is allowd, and person C is living in most of the united states where smoking indoors is not allowd indoors at all.

now theres a chance person B will experience any side effects, just like the chance person C will, but its all probobility, and the long term welfare for our entire country is what these laws are there for, and why people, even if they dont know it, dont want to be around smoke. they are not made and inforced for just some person in some spot in some instance of time. its much deeper than that.

heh my enviromental economics class in action

follow?

Ok...edit...this was fun while it lasted, but I don't think anyone feels like beating a dead horse anymore. If you do feel like beating a dead horse, feel free to PM me and I'll re-open this and you can beat it into the ground.


----CLOSED----

I'm going put in my 2 cents because i'ma mod and can. Smokers can smoke. Let them. Shut up. I don't smoke. Nor will I. But. IF they want to smoke. Let them smoke. They are passing a law here where you can't smoke within 20 feet of a building entrance...I think it's bs. If they want to smoke, go ahead. I don't think it's fair to tell someone where they can or can not smoke outside. Inside however. Fair game. Done...that's my though.

^yeah, outside it disapates fast, i can see maybne not in front of a school or something like that where there are kids around, but as long as your not blowing smoke inside then its all good

Exactly. Like I said...outside..fair game...who cares...

you don't think smoke enters a building if you're within a few feet of the door?

For the foot of smoke that enters a building and disapates in the air...I think I can handle it.

I am a heavy smoker, i smoke over 2 packs a day and none of that inside. i usually get my ass outside when i need to smoke. i think it's pretty dumb smoking inside.

they are just trying to keep em far enough away to keep the smell out, the laws wont be stricktly inforced, they are just there to make a point