| |
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by redliner1989
on Sun Nov 09, 2003 11:54 am |
|
C
http://www.census.gov/
http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/tfn/arr/tfnses.htm
also contains link to EPA Study
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/statehi/html_2002/current_2000.htm
I included a link to the CDC with a chart that appears to change the stats. Don't worry, the change is small, and works slightly in you favor. It increases the total number of smokers from 50 million to 67.5 million. The change results in a lowside increase from .50 deaths per year (from .46) to a high side increase of 1.09 per year (from 1.01), the mediun being 0.82, and sill below the risk of drunk driving deaths at .96 per year.
Alcohol kills innocents. Those killed in these accidents do not know they are under it's influence, while ETS, if it does kill, kills only those who volunteer to be in its influence. Thus the risk to the "unknowing" public is far greater.
The ETS stats "assume" deaths, the drunk driving stats are "real" and backed up by actual data (death certificates, police reports, etc.)
Do not assume that all drunk driving accidents result in deaths. The accident often leaves its victims seriously injured. One women here has had $19 million in treatment for her injuries alone! Alcohol also poses “public” risk by the broken homes it causes, the spread of sexually transmitted deseace, assaults, unwanted pregnancies, and on and on. The health cost to the public, from alcohol is staggering.
Whether you beleive that smoking in public is acceptable or not does not allow a governing body to legislate "it" for health and safety reasons. I might feel a fat person eating twinkies in public is "unacceptable". I may, using my right to "self determination", turn from the veiw of that person and both their, and my rights are excersized.
Your thoughts. |
|
|
redliner1989
Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2003
Posts: 133
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by C716
on Sun Nov 09, 2003 12:30 pm |
|
I have to run into work to get some things done, but I WILL look at those numbers. on a cursory glance, I have seen the numbers of smoker to hover close to 48 M, the increase to 67M is a considerable difference which I would question in a heartbeat.............. anyway, I will look.
I do agree with you about the drinking / driving thing. And I DO take the same stance with alcohol as I do with ciggs........ While I could give a care if someone wants to drink or not,, just do NOT put ME in harms way for something they want to do. I dont believe in overtaxing alcohol or banning it, BUT,, public drinking ( outside a bar environment) , no way...... selling to children,, nope....
I WOULD disagree with you about your statement here:
Whether you beleive that smoking in public is acceptable or not does not allow a governing body to legislate "it" for health and safety reasons. I might feel a fat person eating twinkies in public is "unacceptable". I may, using my right to "self determination", turn from the veiw of that person and both their, and my rights are excersized.
If citizens decide something is Unacceptable, they DO solicite to thier forms of government ( depending on what level) to enact some enforcement, restrictions or outrighht Bans. It does happen. For instance, at the turn of the century ( 20th) you could find Spitoons in bars and restuarants, while spitting in a can does not have any secondary affect ( like 2 nd hand smoke), people simply thought it an unacceptable practice. Ergo it was Banned. Soon, you will see the same thing happen with cell phones in certain areas, While they pose no danger to someone else across the room hearing a conversation, they are considered a nuisence, you will see restrictions set upon THIER use aside from the driving & chatting issue. |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by redliner1989
on Sun Nov 09, 2003 1:21 pm |
|
I think you will find that, even the CDC dissagrees with the number of smokers as both numbers that you question are from seperate places within the same organization (the CDC).
Your statement on drinking. "as long as it doesn't effect me", is understandable, but alas, unreasonable.
Again, YOU control when to be around Tobacco, you have NO control around the deadly "second hand" deadly effect of alcohol.
Problem with citizen groups organizing to "ban" a consumer product is the 14th amendment which protects against such things. The courts have ruled that the evidence to make such "bans" not in violation of the 14th must be compelling and demonstrate that the "ordinary" citizen finds the risk unacceptable. The problem is, if the "evidence" is that alcohol related driving deaths don't require a ban of alcohol, the evidence that tobacco is only equal or less then this. The evidence does not therefor meet the "compelling" standard.
This is a Constitutional Government, you can not violate these edicts.
Your feedback |
|
|
redliner1989
Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2003
Posts: 133
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Rick
on Sun Nov 09, 2003 5:40 pm |
|
redliner1989 wrote: The argument is ALL about numbers.
THE NUMBERS tell the entire story. I make my living revealing either truths or myths, mostly by the "numbers" that are touted.
So which organization that spreads disinformation and uses fuzzy math (and logic) is it that you work for? thetruth.com OR tobaccofreekids.org?
I think it is funny that you have kids. Are you also teaching them your fuzzy math and logic to apply towards other things??
Personally I feel sorry for the next generation, because if their parent's use fuzzy math and logic to reason things out then they are learning the same assbackwards things to perpetuate society backwards. |
|
|
Rick
Smoker
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 124
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by redliner1989
on Sun Nov 09, 2003 6:25 pm |
|
Where is the "fuzzy math"?
Or do you think that all math is fuzzy?
Be a bit specific, or is yours a "fuzzy" comment..... |
|
|
redliner1989
Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2003
Posts: 133
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by C716
on Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:34 am |
|
Well just to let you guys know, there IS such a thing as Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy math. Utilizing both within AI is going to be our next step in processor developement ( well it IS being tested now), but basically it is where a math equation does NOT have to be of standard Sum........... thus fuzzy logic. I know this has nothing really to do with this topic, but maybe we needed to step back a bit.... and aside from that,, kind of cool subject this Fuzzy Logic.
Again, YOU control when to be around Tobacco, you have NO control around the deadly "second hand" deadly effect of alcohol.
I tend to disagree with you here RED, If I am in a restuarabnt which allows smoking, side from NOT going TO that place, I can not control where the smoke goes. If smoking were allowed in offices, the same would apply.
I have been remiss at looking at the links you have graciously supplied, I will make every attempt to remedy that soon. |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by redliner1989
on Mon Nov 10, 2003 10:48 am |
|
Fuzzy math mostly occurs with Fuzzy Issues. Case in point is the debate about ETS deaths. With no certainty as to any exact number of these, if any, I think it is wise to use statistical analysis.
Obviously I am Pro-Smoking and attempted to "temper" my political stance by using the numbers that are specific, from the Anti-Smoking side to either prove, or disprove the theory.
You might be interested to know that I have attended 2 public hearings on this ban, it was 5 hours into the second hearing before I spoke, only when I asked the question "we have spent 10 hours of public debate on this proposed ban and no one has asked this simple question. How many people die from ETS".
The Council Chair's jaw hit his chest and said "ya know, he's right, how do we decide a public health ban without first debating the risk?"
I then was asked to question the Health Director about how he determined the risk. He made the statement that 17 hospitality workers would die in Lincoln each year.
When I questioned him, using only the numbers that Tobacco Free Nebraska had presented into testimony, and an organization that he is a board member of, his entire testimony fell apart. They were HIS numbers that conflicted HIS numbers. Although I am not sure the "death toll" actually mattered, after all, this appears to be a political, not a health issue.
This is what "fuzzy math does", it indicts itself. The one part that is not fuzzy is the number of drunk driving deaths. These are backed in indisputable fact.
You also contend that somehow you are "forced" to enter the Restaraunt or bar. Do you not have the right NOT to enter?
The dearest right that we have as Americans is the right to self determination. That right is under attack. I have yet to see a baseball pitcher arrested for hitting a batter in the head with a baseball. Why?. Because the batter assumes the risk when he enters the batters box. The same is true in entering a bar that allows smoking.
Many of those that testified at the meeting and for the ban, were the wealthiest in the City. I asked several why they don't pool their resources to open "smoke free" bars and restaraunts. None wanted the "risk". I question this as it appears that the non-smoking public want somebody else to do this for them? Seems a bit odd in the light of the huge fortunes that these individuals have amassed.
Thanks for your comments, and sorry about the rough start in this.
I will attempt to temper future comments. You deserve that. |
|
|
redliner1989
Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2003
Posts: 133
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by C716
on Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:12 pm |
|
Red, honestly, you tempered yourself damned good, I took no offense................. I will go as far as to say you are righht...... much like a TV program I dont like,, I simply turn it off, I would do the same to a restuarant, However, I have been in a position of being the first person IN a restuarant, and a smoer comes in, what the heck do I do then??? Do you really think most smokers would turn to me and ask " do you mind if I smoke"?? No way,, they light up.
I just believe there has NOT been enough sstudy to determine exact numbers of non-direct smoking related Illness and death, God, look how long it took to finally have cigarrette companies admit thier own product was dangerous to the user....................
With that in mind, knowing that smoking is dangerous to your health ( a smokers) , I simply see no metamorphous happening to the smoke just because it travels a foot ( to MY nose) intead of right in someones mouth,, same smoke,, same type of lungs................ It is the SAME smoke,, that is my point. I honestly see no need for someone to tell me,, oh yeah.. it changes somehow when it reaches the nose of a non-smoker.. please dont ask me to believe THAT logic.
Red, I know you are passionate. I am too. My father died a HORRIBLE death by smoking..................I had an old gf hit & killed by a drunk driver. BOTH are wrong...............IN DIFFERENT ways. Smoking is simply a slower more insidious death,, it doesnt happen to everyone. BUT, to those it HAS happened to...........well,, they aint exactly singing a praise to smoking.
Also,, I hate frivoulous lawsuits, yep, even those by people who sue RJ Reynolds and PM................ BUT, they aint non smoking who are suing, its former smokers who could NOT kick the habit and are in Pain......... THOSE people have done more harm to your privledge of smoking than a non-smoker ever has.
I saw on the news JUST before smoking in restuarant ban came to be,, they interviewd smoker in a resuarant what thier thoughts were......... They complained and whinned and said they would NOT come back.................. so, in essance. it was the smokers who were punishing the owner for someone the people of florida wanted...............hhmmm
The Fuzzy logic I was spewaking of is computer geek stuff Red, it how we will really make machines start to analyze data and come to a human like assesment.. I was being silly |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by redliner1989
on Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:28 pm |
|
The "fuzzy comment" logic was NOT directed at you. You have been very straight forward.
I will make a few comments about your latest post. I too have lost both of my parenst, one to alzhemers (another slow and agonizing way to go) and the other to the broken heart caused by watching him slowly pass. You have my deepest sympathy at the loss.
I do have to take a couple of pokes at your posting. First, it is not the non-smoker that is being "tossed out", it is the smoker. Part of the reason he was probably their in the first place was that it was one of the "last bastions" for him, to set in confort and enjoy a smoke.
Look, Shopping Malls, office buildings, amusements parks, even outdoor stadiums, all smoke free. It would seem that the smoker, who did not protest those, are now facing a TOTAL and complete isolationism.
I do not smoke in Restaraunts, never have, even before anyone ever said anything about ETS. I used it as a way to keep my habit down. BUT BARS, you have got to be kidding me.
I also disagree with your assessement of Drunk Driving ailements. I personally know two individuals that are still suffering from severe injuries from drunk driving accidents from more then 10 years ago. They can not work, they can not participate in most things you and I take for granted.
As for the shear verocity of Alcohol, I had 6 high school friends of mine killed in the SAME accident when a drunk driver hit them while they sat at a red light.
These deaths and injuries leave zero doubt as to their cause.
I did have an interesting conversation with a City Councilman today, about this issue. I suggested to him that the City offer grant money, or tax breaks to anyone who would start up, and run "smoke free" Restaurants and Bars.
Your Opinion? |
|
|
redliner1989
Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2003
Posts: 133
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by C716
on Tue Nov 11, 2003 10:36 am |
|
Maybe I am not being clear, If I am not, I aplogize.
You point on drinking.I am not arguing with you at all.
The deal about the place being the guys last safe harbour, well maybe,, but I was there first and common couresty simply didnt apply, thats all. I finished my meal and left.
Bars, I have never said bars should go smoke free. I know that when folks drink, they like to smoke. Not being a big drinker, I dont go to bars.....so,, go ahead. I am not sure how to approach the employee aspect. I am honest enough to admit that.
Drinking in excess is a horrible thing . Drinking and driving is damned dumb, but ya know Red, When drinking & driving was really looked at in late 70's early 80's ( and yes, mainly by MADD org.) I heard many folks saying that monitoring THEM and thier drinking was an infringment upon thier rights............... and maybe to a point you have to say Yup,, .
Anyway. back to the grind,, I will post later. |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
