Setanta --- clearheaded, way to go. We don't wanna get 1066 mixed up with 1939, else we won't know if we going or coming.
I think now that smokers in many countries are a minority group, we should not be discriminated against. We should be protected from abuse in a similar way to other minority groups and accorded spectial rights, such as ciggie tax exemption.
Yes, and free sausages . . .
cborg - soooo, the ammo killed him, not the butts, eh?
From the article linked above:
Quote:Clive Evers, director of information and education for the Alzheimer's Society, said: "This research is test-tube based and provides chemical evidence for why nicotine has been linked to the prevention of Alzheimer's disease.
"While this research points to a way forward for future research, smoking is a known risk factor for vascular health and many other diseases.
"Most previous research suggests that persistent smoking is more likely to raise rather than lower dementia risk."
Deborah Arnott, director of the charity Action on Smoking and Health, told BBC News Online: "Nicotine is an active drug. But smoking is certainly not a good way of trying to get this drug to a particular point in the body.
"Smoking itself kills 50% of long-term smokers, half before they reach old age.
"And recent research showed that smoking had a detrimental affect on mental activity, rather than a positive one."
(Bold emphasis is mine)
I hope the research can help Alzheimers patients, but I sure wouldn't like to lose any of you guys in the testing...I've grown quite fond of you.
Setanta wrote:i would also note the six and one half hours between your having posted the material and your return. Whether or not you intend it, that sort of thing makes it appear as if you want to throw a "stink bomb" in the discussion, and then return later to watch the fun.
Actually, it merely indicates that I have a life.
I'll find a better way to make my links stand out. I tend to like the "clean" look of just making them the title, but I'd rather people notice them than have it look nice.
As to the value of the information in my citation, I think most people put a fair amount of credibility behind the WHO, and find it telling that when they reported finding no risks from second hand smoke those who were waiting for their report promptly buried it. Clearly the WHO findings were BIG news, yet so little mention was made of those findings anywhere.
Couldn't agree with you less . . . especially in this country, the World Health Organization does not enjoy a high reputation . . . i also note that you continue to ignore my contention that it is simple courtesy not to needlessly expose others to noxious gases--such as hydrogen cyanide, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide. I see what you've interjected here more than ever as another example of the delight you take in arguing for argument's sake--your delight in "stirring the pot."
"Could not agree less", or "could not be more invested in disagreeing"? :wink:
I did not intend to "ignore" your contention regarding courtesy, I simply agree with it, which made it a less interesting point to me. I think it is very good for people to choose to be courteous, but I do not see a need for the government to pass laws enforcing personal courtesy.
As to "needlessly expos[ing] others to noxious gases...", it would be impossible to catalog the number of activities by which we all do this every day, including simply exhaling, heating our homes, driving our cars, cultivating food... The argument is a non-starter.
You might dislike the smell of my cologne.
I may or may not take that into consideration before putting it on.
BUT, unless my wearing it is measurably harmful to others, the government should not be making it unlawful for me to wear it in public.
I remember seeing one of those Big John Wayne war pictures from WW2 in the Pacific Ocean. And Big John gathers his men around him on this small island to give 'em a pep talk about how they would overcome the enemy. His opening line was, "IF YOU GOT 'EM MEN, SMOKE 'EM".
That's like when Lauran Bacal said to HB, "Just whistle Sam, you do know how to whistle don't yer ?"
As i know of knowing no one here who advocates government interference (although some or all may, it has been mooted here), your argument is a "non-starter." The remarks i made about not exposing others to noxious gases is an observation, and, if you will, by inference a suggestion--not in any reasonable construction to be called an argument. Simply exhaling, heating our homes, driving our cars, cultivating food (geeze, are you serious, where'd you come up with that one?) are all activities for which a reasonable or greater social good can be posited. This is not the case with smoking, so your examples are not analogous.
I don't mind silly disputes, so you have someone to play your "argument for argument's sake" game--however, i am concerned to note to you something which seems to be beyond your comprehension--i have a life as does everyone else at this site, your sneer notwithstanding.
Setanta - I consider government bans on smoking in public to be government interference--to use your term--and I think we both know of plenty of people who are in favor of said bans.
And I would suggest that any sneer you perceive is being seen in a mirror. You consistently try to bring a fight to me, and can't seem to accept that I am not interested in having one with you.
Yeah right . . .
In fact, i'm one of those people who favor government bans on smoking in public, because i believe this is precisely the function of of government--so seek the greater good. Automotive pollution must be tollerated because of a greater social good (not just transportation, the disappearance of horse manure from the streets removed the most pervasive vector of disease in human history, and the disappearance of urban stables removed the most significant vector for tuberculosis), although i consider it appropriate to carefully investigate alternative means.
I don't for a moment accept your protestations of innocence as regards controversy at this site. It is my experience that you try to be as provocative as possible while hoping to maintain a false front of a simple desire for debate. You frequently pose your questions and frame your statements tendenciously, and your post about second hand smoke is an example of how you hope to stir up trouble while appearing simply to want to add to the debate.
so, there may be good news for the smokers of the world. But, there may not be - gotta love the field of medical research. Apparently, one by-product of nicotine clears plaque from the brain of alzheimers patients. Further research may help researches to decide wheather or not smoking helps or hurts in terms of alzheimers.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0005A656-22E7-1EEE-
Setanta - You seem to enjoy the pretense of being a great champion for A2K, poised against the great evil that is Scrat, but the reality is that I'm just someone with some opinions with which you disagree, and you apparently have some need to build me into something I am not; a windmill at which you can tilt. Well, tilt away. I really don't mind! I'm sure you're not really such a bad guy, and I've decided that I'm not going to let a little thing like the fact that you despise me get in the way of our enjoying A2K! If it helps your experience here to have someone to lay into day in and day out--someone to whom you can attribute conspiracies and evil intent--then I am here to serve.
Oh, and if you ever just want to discuss the topic, I'm here for you then as well.
I neither want nor need you to "be here for me," what a laughably absurd picture that is !
No, i've never made myself out to be a champion of any kind--i just point out to you your trollish behavior, and you want to ratchet this up to make yourself appear the hapless victim of a vendetta of some kind. You may not be aware of this, but i can go for days, for weeks, completely unaware of your existence. When you do pop in to post some tendencious horse **** like that piece you pulled from The National Post, i call you on it. You're exhibiting trollish behavior. Typically, the troll attempts to ignite an argument, and then sit back and watch the fun. I've seen you attempt it in a few other threads here in the last few days, as well. The problem for you, increasingly, is that you get ignored, because trolls have a certain stink to their posts, which soon is recognized by everyone else.
No tilting at windmills, although it really is ill-considered of me to feed the troll. The longer you are fed, the longer you'll like stick around. Never see you in the humorous threads, the threads where people have fun; never see you in the philosophy or religion threads, never see you in the word game and riddle threads--i only ever see you throwing your stink bombs into political threads, or news threads with a political import. How very, very trollish you are. Yes, you've a point about the greater good of the site, i'll stop feeding you. Whenever everyone else does so, you'll eventually shrink into cyber-nothingness . . .
Setanta wrote:Never see you in the humorous threads, the threads where people have fun; never see you in the philosophy or religion threads, never see you in the word game and riddle threads--i only ever see you throwing your stink bombs into political threads, or news threads with a political import.
You are a scream!
I don't think I have ever come across one solitary human being who was more completely and utterly full of himself! ROFLMAO!
I visit the
politics and
news categories because they interest me. I do not visit others because they do not. This is evidence only of
my interests here and the time I have to give to them, nothing more. Why does that concern you? Is everyone in the world supposed to have
your interests? Are we all to be measured by what you think we should be doing with our time???
But I've wasted too much time allowing myself to become the topic for you. I'm going to get back to sticking with the topic, and I'll trust you to do whatever you feel like. Have a good one!
Quote:I don't think I have ever come across one solitary human being who was more completely and utterly full of himself!
At the risk of being accused of throwing a "stink bomb", Few passages upon these "fora" resound as does this one.
Scrat, I believe that you have hit the sweet spot.
Back on topic... someone above wrote something regarding it not making sense that you could take a gun into a bar since it is illegal to carry a gun when you are drunk. That is a little like saying you shouldn't be allowed to drive to a bar because it is illegal to drive drunk.
The bottom line here (for me) is that if we reassert this thing called personal accountability in this country, we can stop relying on the government to outlaw all the stupid behaviors we would like people to avoid.
If you want to smoke and it is not harmful to others, the government should not be outlawing that behavior. Until the Constitution is amended to permit it, the government should not abridge the right to keep and bear arms.
So smoke 'em and holster 'em if you've got 'em.
Hey Scrat, Setanta;
It worked!
I'm just "sitt(ing) back and watch(ing) the fun".
And Scat;
The lack of accountability is precisely the point; it is when personal freedom is abused, to the harm of others, that government must step in and legislate.
I thas been, and they have. (The "one bad apple" syndrome.)
Scrat wrote:Back on topic... someone above wrote something regarding it not making sense that you could take a gun into a bar since it is illegal to carry a gun when you are drunk. That is a little like saying you shouldn't be allowed to drive to a bar because it is illegal to drive drunk.
Except the two don't quite equate because you chose to reword the original statment and in doing so mistranslated it. It is illegal to be in possession of a firearm while under the influence - that means ANY alcohol consumption at all. One sip of a beer puts you in violation of the law. On the other hand, I can drive to a bar and have a beer and still be under the legal limit set for drunk driving.
And no where in the original statement did it say that it didn't make sense that one COULD carry a firearm into a bar. The comment was that is didn't make sense that someone WOULD carry one.
The concept of "could" relates to someone else setting the limit (via a law, etc..). The concept of "should" is based in the individual acting in a responsible manner.
