Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (114220)	6/28/2008 5:29:24 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

>>longest-running study on second-hand smoke and death.<< even if the article is true and other data is wrong, it still doesn't support your view. death is only of many potential negatives to 2nd hand smoke. that logic class also would do you well. i'm not going to argue the article either way as that would take a LOT of research. people often manipulate data to proof text their agenda and it could apply to either side here.

To: longnshort who wrote (114220)	6/30/2008 10:15:08 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

longnshort, There are lots of anti smoking Nazis out there right now. Their intentions are good. Smoking is a wasteful, expensive, and unhealthy habit. However, the anti smokers (as is typically the case with all politically correct types) are not interested in truth. They are only interested in advancing their agenda. I think it's almost 100% certain that second hand smoke isn't as much of a health problem as it's being made out to be. The sheer quantity of smoke inhaled is much lower. The smoker is inhaling the original smoke plus the 2nd hand smoke and the non smoker is just getting the secondary smoke. The intensity of the smoke at any given time is different because the smoker gets a massive blast when he inhales deeply. The temperature of the smoke is different (the burning tobacco heats up the smoke for the smoker) The exposure time is different because non smokers spend a limited amount of time in the company of smokers. There are probably a dozen things I do every day that are more of a health risk than second hand smoke. All of that is irrelevant though. The debate is not about the risks of second hand smoke. Even if second hand smoke was a proven health disaster, this is about the freedom of private property owners and their customers to choose for themselves whether or not to open and attend a restaurant where smoking is allowed. That's what these totalitarian and fascist imbeciles never understand until their political opponents try limiting their freedoms instead.