|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| candy bar wrote: |
| nicwr2002 wrote: |
| radcon wrote: |
| Sister Ray wrote: |
| I certainly don't want nicotine to be criminalised. I also do not have a congressman. |
Then why would you deny business owners and their patrons from engaging in a legal activity in establishments and buildings that they own. |
It is for the same reason you can't drink and drive. It's your car, so why shouldn't you be able to drive drunken? Because it puts other people's lives at risk. Smoking just does it slower than a drunk driver. |
Hallelujah!
 |
Not a good analogy. If you have your own private land, you can drink and drive upon it as much as you want. I am only advocating allowing smoking in places where the owner agrees. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Researchers have found many of the 4,000 compounds in second hand smoke, which wafts through the air as a cigarette is smoked, can linger indoors long after a cigarette is stubbed out.
These substances can react with indoor pollutants such as ozone and nitrous acid, creating brand new compounds |
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140320-thirdhand-smoke-cigarettes-cancer/
| Quote: |
Dr Bo Hang, of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, found the residue NNA locks onto DNA to form what is known as a 'bulky adduct' - which is a piece of DNA bound to a cancer-causing chemical.
Other large compounds that attach to DNA tend to cause genetic mutations.
Dr Hang told an American Chemical Society meeting in Dallas: 'The best argument for instituting a ban on smoking indoors is actually third hand smoke.' |
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/23/us-smokers-smarter-idUSTRE61M3UQ20100223
| Quote: |
| Cigarette smokers have lower IQs than non-smokers, and the more a person smokes, the lower their IQ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| Quote: |
Researchers have found many of the 4,000 compounds in second hand smoke, which wafts through the air as a cigarette is smoked, can linger indoors long after a cigarette is stubbed out.
These substances can react with indoor pollutants such as ozone and nitrous acid, creating brand new compounds |
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140320-thirdhand-smoke-cigarettes-cancer/
| Quote: |
Dr Bo Hang, of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, found the residue NNA locks onto DNA to form what is known as a 'bulky adduct' - which is a piece of DNA bound to a cancer-causing chemical.
Other large compounds that attach to DNA tend to cause genetic mutations.
Dr Hang told an American Chemical Society meeting in Dallas: 'The best argument for instituting a ban on smoking indoors is actually third hand smoke.' |
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/23/us-smokers-smarter-idUSTRE61M3UQ20100223
| Quote: |
| Cigarette smokers have lower IQs than non-smokers, and the more a person smokes, the lower their IQ |
|
None of which deals with the issue of people being free to expose themselves in private business to those chemicals.
Cell phones and TVs give off EM radiation. Some people and some scientific research suggests a link between this and cancer. Should we have bans on cell phones and TVs in public places? Don't I have a right to having EM-free clean air?
Should we ban indoor use of TVs and cell phones in bars and coffee shops? Even if the people there all just want to watch the game and eat some chicken fingers? Are you forced to enter the bar?
And this third hand smoke seems pretty flimsy. I'd think it would be almost impossible at that degree to have any kind of reliable control group to compare to those who are exposed to "third hand smoke".
Lastly, as far as IQ, is that correlation or causation? It doesn't state which. It may well be likely that poorer and less educated individuals are more likely to smoke.
Of course back in the 1940s to 60s, when we were inventing A-bombs and putting men on the moon, everyone was smoking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chopstick
Joined: 03 Oct 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Smoking is stupid. So is driving a motorbike. So is drinking excessively. So is eating fried food. So are lots of things. Should we ban everything World Traveller thinks is 'stupid'.
Why not just have bars where you can smoke, bars where you can't and bars that have designated areas.
Then let people choose where they can go. World Traveller will then be able to go to the no-smoking bar.
You would make a good prohibition agent.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cj1976
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Smoking and banging hookers might be stupid, but so is telling people that. Most people know, at least deep down, that these actions are probably poor choices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cave Dweller
Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Damn it first you tell me smoking is bad for me. Now hookers. I bet you think my hookers and blow habit is bad for me. I need something to live for.
| cj1976 wrote: |
| Smoking and banging hookers might be stupid, but so is telling people that. Most people know, at least deep down, that these actions are probably poor choices. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cj1976
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cave Dweller wrote: |
Damn it first you tell me smoking is bad for me. Now hookers. I bet you think my hookers and blow habit is bad for me. I need something to live for.
| cj1976 wrote: |
| Smoking and banging hookers might be stupid, but so is telling people that. Most people know, at least deep down, that these actions are probably poor choices. |
|
I will leave that for you to decide. Knock yourself brother! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| World Traveler wrote: |
| Quote: |
Researchers have found many of the 4,000 compounds in second hand smoke, which wafts through the air as a cigarette is smoked, can linger indoors long after a cigarette is stubbed out.
These substances can react with indoor pollutants such as ozone and nitrous acid, creating brand new compounds |
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140320-thirdhand-smoke-cigarettes-cancer/
| Quote: |
Dr Bo Hang, of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, found the residue NNA locks onto DNA to form what is known as a 'bulky adduct' - which is a piece of DNA bound to a cancer-causing chemical.
Other large compounds that attach to DNA tend to cause genetic mutations.
Dr Hang told an American Chemical Society meeting in Dallas: 'The best argument for instituting a ban on smoking indoors is actually third hand smoke.' |
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/23/us-smokers-smarter-idUSTRE61M3UQ20100223
| Quote: |
| Cigarette smokers have lower IQs than non-smokers, and the more a person smokes, the lower their IQ |
|
None of which deals with the issue of people being free to expose themselves in private business to those chemicals.
Cell phones and TVs give off EM radiation. Some people and some scientific research suggests a link between this and cancer. Should we have bans on cell phones and TVs in public places? Don't I have a right to having EM-free clean air?
Should we ban indoor use of TVs and cell phones in bars and coffee shops? Even if the people there all just want to watch the game and eat some chicken fingers? Are you forced to enter the bar?
And this third hand smoke seems pretty flimsy. I'd think it would be almost impossible at that degree to have any kind of reliable control group to compare to those who are exposed to "third hand smoke".
Lastly, as far as IQ, is that correlation or causation? It doesn't state which. It may well be likely that poorer and less educated individuals are more likely to smoke.
Of course back in the 1940s to 60s, when we were inventing A-bombs and putting men on the moon, everyone was smoking. |
Argue freedom all you like--fine. But freedom is limited when it can hurt or endanger others. Smoking has been shown to do both.
You want to argue with the science, but you have no evidence. Put up or shut up.
As for smartphone use and brain cancer, SK, where average smarphone use is now over three hours a day for many, should be a great test case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
