Hi.

Uhh, dude, I'm jumping in here but, neither do cigarettes, IF, you only had one a week I'm sure you'd be pretty much ok. But if you take them over a long period of time several times per day they'll kill you..

Well, this is not exactly true. Even a single cigarette does permanent damage to your body. However, that amount of permanent damage doesn't cause much trouble because the human body has _lots_ of reserves to work from. As an example: After an accident, almost 4 years ago, I lost most parts of my right leg. The rest that remained was only half covered by skin, so I had skin transplanted from the left leg to the right. On follow-up surgeries, that transplanted skin was removed again and the skin that had remained was stretched to finally cover the whole stump again. Nowadays, you couldn't tell that I had once transplanted skin (so called meshcraft) there. Yet, the skin that was originally there is gone forever, which I can tell because when I am touched at the inner side of the stump (where the meshcraft originally was), I have the sensation that I am touched at the front middle. Likewise, touching the lower front gives the sensation of being touched on the hollow of my knee.
Much like you can't tell from the outside that I ever had meshcraft transplanted to my right leg (or the stump of it), you can't always tell which damages a cigarette caused. As you might know, the inner of your lungs (well, most of it) is covered by a kid of extremely fine (and short and sensitive) fur. This fur is partly covered and damaged by small tar particles when enhaling smoke. While the body is able to repair most of the damage and regain its original ability to clean the lungs from dust and other small particles, the regrown fur isn't as strong and agile as the original one. So: There is permanent damage, even if most of it is repaired by the body.

But as I see it, we mostly agree anyway.

cu,
sven

PS: I more and more gain the feeling that Yz is nothing but a troll.

Warehouses don't want asbestos- the asbestos doesn't serve any purpose. It's just toxic waste.

Are you kidding? Do you think that companies decided to place asbestos in buildings years ago just because it was fun? Or maybe it's a form of spontaneous asbestos generation?

Asbestos was, and is, one of the best thermal insulators and fire retardants in the world. It is really only friable asbestos that has been banned (for good reason), which occurs mostly in pipe insulation and ceiling coverings. In fact, non-friable asbestos is still used for many applications, including such things as automobile and elevator brakes, roof shingles, and floor tiles.

I think I am just gonna agree to disagree with you on this one. I think our disagreement goes beyond smoking, and into every other realm that involves "ownership" issues, property rights, and personal rights in general. I am not gonna play "he is just a young immature kid" on you because there are plenty of adults who think this way, and I am probably not older than you. I think that some people who tout such political ideas hide selfish personal gains behind the claim of "ownership" rights. ("They can't tell *me* what to do!") In a general sense, we live in a world dominated by self-interest, but I don't think that holds true in every specific instance.

It's not about being selfish. If I come to your house and tell you to change your air-freshener cause I don't like how the current one smells, are you being selfish if you choose to not to change it?

I think it's selfish to go to someone's place of business and demand that they stop doing a perfectly legal and justified acivity simply because you don't like it. Afterall, the owner doesn't have to let you inside in the first place, so why should you have any say on what legal activities go on inside?

You're right, my mistake. The problem where I worked is it usually got where it didn't belong- the floor, on the products, etc.

You said you were for the legalization of marijuana and the banning of tobacco. Why the different takes on these two drugs? As I understand it, weed does just as much damage to the lungs as tobacco.

Actually, there are only about one hundred pubs in Cambridge (used to be more, but you know that, just down the road from the ex-Globe and ex-Racehorse...).

Interesting story about smoking.... I had a friend in the military who was a adamant non-smoker, his two roomies where smokers. Everyday he'd tell them to quit, that it was a nasty habit, they would respond that "we can't, it's just not that easy", his response "sure you can, it's all in your head". So his roomies bet him 100 bucks each that he couldn't smoke for a month then quit. So to prove a point he smoked for a month.... and is now a chain smoker 10 years later.

I'm glad you got your car back.

Hey, that was off-topic.
Oh, my mistake.

I'm glad he got his car back too, but even happier about the 'peg. Now can we get back to the coffin-nail discussion?

Smoke IS toxic waste. Look up the componets and ingredients in cigarettes and cigarette smoke and see for yourself. There are even radioactive substances in there.

I think if there was such a possibility as to outlaw any kind of potential harm, to outlaw violence and outlaw war, then certainly it would have been done. In this particular case, this is voluntary behavior that hurts other people.

Calvin

Can the owner of a business arbitrarily shoot customers he does not like because he "owns" the business? No? Why? Because it is illegal.

Can the owner of a business allow smoking in his business arbitrarily? No? Why? Because it is illegal.

Calvin

The problem with Yz33d is he may pretend to believe in the civil rights of the individual, but then he picks and chooses sides. The argument of why somebody should be told to not do something against their will can equally be turned around into why somebody else can put toxic substances into your personal space without your permission. Yz33d doesn't make sense at all.

Calvin

The question is whether or not it should be illegal.

"can equally be turned around into why somebody else can put toxic substances into your personal space"

Except it's not your space if you don't own the place.

In any situation that I can not avoid, where somebody else puts cancer causing substances on me, or in me without my permission should be made illegal. Do you agree?

Calvin

Yes.

I own my lungs, I own my body. So if you and I were in a store that neither of us owned... and I sprayed a hazardous liquid on your face and the owner did not care either way, then that is ok? Regardless of the physical location, if there is no choice of the matter, (e.g. I have to eat, I have to take a flight, I have to go into a business establishment to complete my business) what right of yours is it to put me in danger without my permission? Or are you saying that people should just stay home and not buy things, not go to stores, not go anywhere even if they wanted to, against their free will?

Calvin

These laws are more recent the smog pollution days. These days California has an almost fascist-strict obsession with any kind of pollution. They're planning on tightening down the smog testing system to require dyno-testing of all cars. Smog is significantly reduced these days. I'm sure toxic waste dumping in backyards is out of the question here. You can't light up a cigarette indoors goes without saying. So while I don't totally agree with all of these legislative moves, the policies are definitely working towards a cleaner environment.

Calvin

Personally, I don't give a rats ass whether smoking (tabacco or pot) is illegal or not. If you want to do it, do it somewhere else. Do it in your car. Do it in your own home. Just don't do it in a public place. You may choose to run a crackhouse, or a business that allows smoking or whatever you call it, it comes down to the same thing. You opened a business that allows other people to hurt their patrons against their will. If the business owner wants to run a *public* establishment where any person may choose to enter, then they should not be assaulted against their will. If the business owner wants to open up a shop that says "for smokers only" (such as the cigar smoking rooms in california) then clearly that is ok. It is clearly marked that it is not a public place, it is for smokers only. But to open an establishment and to mark it as a non-public location is tantamount to a "whites only" sign. Most people are not going to want to go in there.

Calvin

First of all, you have a choice to go in or to not go in a store. If smoking is allowed, don't go in. If you go in, then you obviously plan on breathing the air inside. So, if there is smoke in the air (which you should be able to detect unless you are blind and have no sense of smell), then you are choosing to breathe it in. Perhaps a comprise could be a law requiring a sign on the door stating that smoking is allowed.

Besides that, a little bit of smoke isn't gonna hurt you. You'll be alright.

I don't see why you continue to argue a point that's clearly covered by law?

He thinks the law infringes on the personal rights of the business owner and therefore the law is wrong.

I'm trying to lead this a little to say that the law is correct because without it, other people will infringe upon my rights in any public situation. He does not seem to understand this. It's strange really, as yz33d seems to believe so strongly in personal liberties that he should advocate giving up the personal freedom to go anywhere so that a small number of people can infringe upon the majority of people who don't really want shit in their lungs.

Calvin

If you own a place, you can say who goes in and who doesn't (short of being racist, which while I don't condone any kind of rascism, I still think the owner should be able to not allow anyone he wants for whatever reason he wants). It is a private establishment, of which the owner may or may not choose to open to the general public, meaning to allow anyone and everyone in. That doesn't mean it becomes public property.

Let's say that you open your home to the general public, meaning you'll allow anyone who wants to come in to come in (let's say you're having a garage sale or something). I decide to go in your house and I am allergic to cats (they'll get me really sick). I go in your house and see you have cats, now do I have a right to legally have your cats removed so that I can enter your home, which you so graciously invited me to do? Afterall, it's not illegal nor wrong to own a cat, yet they have a negative effect on my health. Yes or no?

"I'm trying to lead this a little to say that the law is correct because without it, other people will infringe upon my rights in any public situation. "

Right, and I think it is incorrect.

"It's strange really, as yz33d seems to believe so strongly in personal liberties that he should advocate giving up the personal freedom to go anywhere so that a small number of people can infringe upon the majority of people who don't really want [censored] in their lungs. "

The difference is that some people believe they have a right and the freedom to go into any business they wish, but they don't- not without the owner's permission.

Well, when you get to be old enough to vote, you can see about getting the law changed.

LOL - How about when you are old enough to buy cigarettes! (actually, 19 should be plenty old enough) I was going to post that in another thread when someone said that we aren't truely free if we are forced to pay taxes that go to causes we don't support. Well guess what - those causes wouldn't be supported if people didn't vote those policy makers into office!

As far as this thread goes.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What do you think I should do?

Yeah, I know. I was just taking a cheap shot

But is this something that should be legislated by state or federal government? Town or City Govt, I can understand. I understand that a small percentage of non-smokers cannot bear to be in a smoking establishment. As I understand that a large percentage of non-smokers can't bear to be in a smoky environment. (that applies to smokers too). And I can understand that non-smokers currently don't have much choice in avoiding smoking establishments (outside California).

But, I can't bear to be in a non-smoking pub for any length of time There's just something relaxing about a pint and a cigarette together that a non-smoker couldn't understand. State- or federal-wide bans would remove my choice. I could deal with and accept non-smoking towns, as I can deal with the concept of non-drinking towns. I think that would be a reasonable compromise. If you have a problem with me smoking in a pub 5 miles away then you have larger issues than second-hand smoke.

As regards to the health issues; no legal, religous or moral code that I know of states that anyone has the absolute right to prolong their life by removing other peoples' liberties. You may or may not like this, but that's the way it is.

Look on the bright side - you're worrying about the possible long-term effects of repeated inhalation of second-hand toxins. Is that all? Over 2/3 of the World's nations are locked in armed conflict. Over 1/2 the World's population live in poverty. Nearly 1/6 of the World's population can't read or sign their names.

Keep it in perspective and enjoy life.

Better yet, take up a cause that means something.

This "I'm in your face NOW, smoker!" mentality is weak. When I smoked I had people walking up to me on the street to deliver some really original lectures. You know what? If you really care about your health and the health of others, get tobacco products criminalized. While you're at it, take up the cause on all fronts -- lobby for cleaner water, air and food. Call or write your representatives and let your voice be heard. Sound too tough? Rather write anonymous slams to strangers online or be rude to people on the street? That's your right, Jack, but you aren't fooling me with your sincerity.

To backfill my statement a bit, I agree that one should not smoke around those who don't want to die an early death. But the sanctimonious crap that flies so easily out of the mouths of people who probably eat a steak for dinner, chug six beers, get five hours of sleep, wake up and drink a pot of coffee, eat two donuts, drive to work in their SUV, work a stress-filled morning, eat fast food for lunch, chew on a roll of Tums an hour later, get home late to an irate spouse and try to catch up on bills while drinking bottled water because the tap water tastes so damn horrid just sounds FUNNY to me. And not ha-ha funny.

In short, "Keep it in perspective and enjoy life."