Commies Want To Ban Smoking in Cars and Language Suggests Your Home Might Be Next.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

sounds to me like you're baiting steven, mr. moderator.

seems like you're admitting to baiting me to begin with....

[^_^ 5,021]

seems like you're admitting to baiting me to begin with....

that's the dumbest thing you've said this hour!

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

that's the dumbest thing you've said this hour!

your jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

[^_^ 5,021]

your jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

then clearly they will no longer work on anyone

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

then clearly they will no longer work on anyone

there's always the dnc event for you in a year or so.

[^_^ 5,021]

there's always the dnc event for you in a year or so.

well played, sir.

i shall go lick my wounds for now but rest assured, this isn't over.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't give a sh!t what anecdotes you think you can produce. Scientific studies across various geographies are conclusive on this issue. Your beliefs, perceptions or anecdotal bullsh!t won't change any of that. Your claim was that "there is no conclusive study on second-hand smoke that proves it's truly harmful." and further that "The EPA themselves even say this." Those are two explicit falsehoods in as many sentences. The facts are that the studies are indeed conclusive and that the EPA unequivocally says so. I've shown above by quoting the EPA that your claims on this matter are absolutely false.

You can't produce anyone, can you? You can't find a news story or something to satisfy it? All you can do it argue. I love it! It makes my life so much easier. As I said, not you, NOR the CDC, the FDA, The ACS, etc... can product one healthy child that has died from secondhand smoke.

Sorry, reality trumps lab-studies ANY day of the week.

Trouble focusing? Maybe that's a result of your childhood exposure to whatever your parents exposed you to? How did we get from your claim that "there is no conclusive study on second-hand smoke that proves it's truly harmful." and that "The EPA themselves even say this." both of which have clearly been debunked, to producing any case where a healthy child has died from second hand smoke?

Typically, no healthy child would die from second hand smoke - they get sick first from the carcinogen. By the time they die of the consequences, they're no longer healthy. Thanks to having been exposed to second hand smoke. But if harmful effects on the health of a child aren't good enough, an increased risk of SIDS exists for infants exposed to second hand smoke. Those would make up the population of otherwise healthy children that died by and large due to second hand smoke exposure.

Health Effects: Children

In children, secondhand smoke causes the following:

• Ear infections
  
• More frequent and severe asthma attacks
  
• Respiratory symptoms (e.g., coughing, sneezing, shortness of breath)
  
• Respiratory infections (i.e., bronchitis, pneumonia)
  
• A greater risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

In children aged 18 months or younger, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for—

• an estimated 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia annually, and
  
• approximately 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations annually in the United States.
  

You can twist and turn all you want. The facts are the same. Second hand smoke is harmful and causes cancer. There's no argument about that within the reasonably aware population living in the real world.

[^_^ 5,021]

There's no argument about that within the reasonably aware population living in the real world.

Your argument is exclusionary and designed to cast out individuals (I hesitate to use the word 'people') like Paul. I think it would be really nice of you to restate that in language that includes individuals like Paul. We may bicker here but we're all part of this community and I hate to see the use of language that is purposely designed to exclude fellow posters.

I mean, "reasonably aware", "real world".... seriously?? What were you thinking?

[SMOKE 1,426]

n/m

Edited February 7, 2012 by SMOKE

[Dakine10 5,452]

Here in Ohio we had one of those "yes means no" votes on the ballot. It overwhelmingly passed and when the smoke cleared, people said, "Wait a minute. I didn't want to vote for the ban... I wanted to vote for smoking."

Ha ha, that was clever Slim. But seriously, there are now more ex-smokers alive in the USA than there are smokers. I would expect we are going to see more of this type of regulation, not less.

[Danno 1,228]

Ha ha, that was clever Slim. But seriously, there are now more ex-smokers alive in the USA than there are smokers. I would expect we are going to see more of this type of regulation, not less.

Wait a minute, I thought the stuff was so deadly?

If the first-hand smokers are alive and well in such huge numbers..... what ails those just catching a wiff?

[Dakine10 5,452]

Wait a minute, I thought the stuff was so deadly?

If the first-hand smokers are alive and well in such huge numbers..... what ails those just catching a wiff?

Well they're not all alive and well now are they? Of course some people will smoke and live to a ripe old age. If you are in good health and feel like you are going to live longer than you really wanted too, then smoking may be a good thing for you. Other than that, I haven't met anyone who smoked with the idea that they were doing something good for their health.

[slim 1,525]

Ha ha, that was clever Slim. But seriously, there are now more ex-smokers alive in the USA than there are smokers. I would expect we are going to see more of this type of regulation, not less.

I agree. There are lots of people who think nobody else should be able to do the bad things they did in their lives.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Bolshevik libs need more and more laws in order to control the masses. They don't want you taking a dump without their permission. It's George Orwell's 1984 coming to your home sooner than you thought.