So you're for people being able to talk on a phone while driving as well? And hey, let's allow people to kill someone, because then we're not taking away a right!
What you've just said is simply wrong. When again was murder legal in the UK or US? I must've missed that period of time. People never had the "right" to murder someone. But they
did once have the right to smoke in their cars.
Cell phones while driving are only a problem if the person driving is a clueless idiot. The type of person who can't chew gum and walk at the same time. But of course, then there's the wild and crazy idea that people could just be responsible themselves and not answer their phones.
Besides, making talking on your cell phone while driving illegal is a pretty ineffective thing when you can't be pulled over by the police simply for talking on the phone. Same as you can't be pulled over simply for not wearing your seatbelt.
If you read the thread you'll see I discussed this already.
What, your argument that because people don't start campfires as often as they do smoke cigarettes that it should remain legal? You realize that campfires emit about 100 times as much carbon monoxide as a cigarette, right?
Please, evidence for this? Children who live with parents as smokers have higher levels on Carbon Monoxide in their body. That is PROVEN. Cigarette smoke has over 400 chemicals in it. How do you not expect that to harm a child?
Did I say that smoking does not emit carbon monoxide? No I did not. The amount of carbon monoxide that enters a person's lungs from second hand smoke is so incredibly miniscule, that it's just downright laughable to try and tell me that second hand smoke kills. Laughable.
1 campfire, what? Once a year. 20 cigarettes a day. Furthermore, a campfire doesn't have all the chemicals a cigarette does.
Oh I'm sorry, when did I miss the election that elected you the all knowing being of how many campfires someone lights per year and how many cigarettes they smoke per day? What's funny too here is that those 20 cigarettes still don't equal the carbon monoxide that a campfire does. You're missing the point though. Second hand smoke being illegal is just an idiotic thing. It's similiar to exterminating an entire animal species because 3 people die from it every year. You're causing more harm by stopping it then the harm it was causing to begin with. You're taking away people's rights.
Lawls. Well, I guess it's true they say ignorance is bliss.
You must be in Nirvana then. Because your BBC link is laughable.
Did you even look at how the British Medical Journal compiled that study? Because this is basically what that study did in a nutshell:
"That man died of lung cancer. In his fifty seven years on this planet, was he ever exposed to second hand smoke? Yes?! SECOND HAND SMOKE KILLED THIS MAN!".
That's how that study was done basically. The study proved no direct link between second hand smoke and those diseases. Try again.
And this was 3 Years ago. Who knows what the numbers are now. I'll wait for you to say this source is baised. Anything, yano, to make you look right whilst provding no evidence for anything you're saying. Nice try though.
What's more laughable here is that you assume that the media is not biased. Allow me to introduce you to the real world, the one in which EVERY MEDIA OUTLET is biased on some issue or topic. To argue it isn't is naive and rather pathetic. But no actually, I didn't attack the BBC's credibility, instead I calmly showed you how flawed of a study the BMJ did. See, I actually looked into the sources of an article instead of simply reading it and saying "OH MAN IT'S ON THE INTERNET SO IT MUST BE TRUE!".
And also, if you think about what you just said, those numbers would be
down from 2005 because people are smoking less and less per year, not more and more.
But they don't harm anyone else, which is my point. People should have the right to smoke, yes. But they shouldn't be allowed to smoke around children, especially young ones who haven't made their mind up about smoking. Do you really think it's fair to subject them to it?
Yes, I do. Because it's something that a child needs to learn. You can't safeguard your children from every little miniscule danger, or raise them to think that they have the right to choose what the people around them do with their bodies. Because that's what this law does. Am I advocating for people to grab their kid and light up infront of them? Not at all. All I'm saying is that it's a person's right.
Because here's something you've failed to think about in regards to this issue: What about the majority of smokers (who don't have children)? Why should they not be allowed to smoke in their own car when it's harming nobody but themselves?
Wouldn't it simply have been easier to make smoking in your own car WHILE THERE ARE CHILDREN IN THE CAR illegal instead of just making smoking in your car all the time illegal? Would that not have made more sense? Can you not see the easily fixable problem with this law?
A child doesn't choose to breath in smoke second hand. What about that 2 year old in her car seat while the parents are busy smoking and not giving a shit what it does to their child.
Again, absolutely miniscule amount of nicotine being introduced to the child's system.
Minn., Calif. tests prove secondhand smoke not a health hazard
Associated Press
Air quality tests performed in Minnesota and California in smoke-filled bars and restaurants show that secondhand smoke may not be the major health hazard that some claim it is.
The Environmental Health Department in St. Louis Park, Minn., tested for trace levels of nicotine and found results between 1 and 33 micrograms of nicotine per cubic meter of air.
The California Environmental Protection Agency tested for trace levels of nicotine in outdoor smoking areas and found (PDF) results between 0.01 and 5 micrograms of nicotine per cubic meter of air.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations specify a limit for nicotine in the air of 500 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
The California study went on to state that people who have only brief encounters with [secondhand smoke] are likely to be exposed to less than 0.1 [micrograms per cubic meter of air] over a 24-hour time-weighted average.
See how that article cites how the study was performed instead of just throwing numbers at you without backing them up? Crazy isn't it?
And that's the amount of nicotine introduced to your system in a BAR (where the most smoking of any place occurs) in an ENCLOSED AREA. Now imagine that in a car with all of the windows rolled down. The horror, the horror!
Yet I believe it'd cause me to know more than someone who hadn't. And I'd know the basics. Right? Just like you took a drivers ed lesson so you'd know more than me and know the basics, yeah?
But wouldn't someone who has actually driven a car before yet never taken a class on driving know more about driving them someone who just took a class and has never driven before? I took a class on 17th century British literature, does that make me automatically right as you apparently think your "anti-smoking class" has done for you? By the way, what school holds anti-smoking classes? Or was this just a nurse coming in for an hour and talking about how smoking is bad for you? Is that the comprehensive research you've done here? Come back and talk to me when you've gone through actual medical journals and done some studying for yourself.
Oh right. Yeah I'll just conduct my own experiment on it. Oh no wait, you won't listen to that either will you. Because you don't want to face it. And go on, where's the evidence for your claims? I've seen nothing from you at all that would suggest you're right. Unles swearing to get your point across makes you right.
Or you could have taken all of 60 seconds to actually look up the actual study that your article is based on and taken a look at how flawed of a study it is. My evidence I've provided to you above. So please, again, Miss I'm Sixteen So I Clearly Know Everything About the World, tell me again how second hand smoke kills.
Why do you think people are against smoking? If it makes so much money why do you think they wanted it banned in public places? Why is it illegal? for the fun of it, right?
Why are people against smoking? Because it kills. Never did I even slightly imply that I didn't think smoking kills. This topic however is not about smoking, but second-hand smoke. Completely different. No shit tobacco companies make money, they do sell a product do they not?
I've just shown you an article in which it says the number is in its thousands. But I'm sure you'll find a way to say it's biased, because as I said you just won't admit you're wrong.
Or I could just take about a minute of my time to actually look at the study myself and easily make you look foolish without even batting an eye.
Please, tell me what 'proof' you want.
Oh, I don't know, a direct link between second hand smoke and cancer? Something along those lines?
Funny how you say I have a lack of evidence, yet I haven't seen evidence for ONE thing you've claimed. And if he isn't going to accept passive smoking exists, I don't expect him to understand whyt his law was passed. Which was what that comment was directed at.
It was my first post. I've provided you evidence in this one. All you had to do was ask. Your "evidence" is shabby at best however.
Provided.
That was so hard to read due to how little sense it makes. Due to how little sense your entire post made. Do you believe people should be allowed to use mobile phones then?
I'm sorry, should I only use words with two syllables and keep my vocabulary at an elementary level? Would it be easier to understand then?
It's quite simple what I said. You argue that because smoking distracts a driver from driving, it's a reason for it to be illegal. I countered by saying that a radio distracts a driver from driving (more so then a cigarette), so would that not be a reason to make radios in car's illegal?
Do I need to say that again or did you understand me this time?
