John, I think that I'm done arguing with Chris on this one. He has ascended into the ozone layer now and I fear he may never come back to reality. Maybe we should send Al Gore after him? ;-)
Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless oyr peacekeepers
Never argue with Chris....he'll only drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience!
Doug
Mark Simpson wrote:
Not as much difference as you'd think. Go read about it, or rip up the KeMisT dahgree. :)
Speaking of booths, I had an uncle that worked in a factory at a high dB sound level for many years. They gave him ear plugs after a while. Then they gave his a sound booth to stay in 'most of the time' while watching the assembly line for problems. Both were too late for his hearing loss. I suppose sound is just as 'annoying' in the workplace as exposure to other health hazards (such as airborne carcinogens, ehem!), and he should have just found another job and stop waiting for the nanny government to help him? My father also worked in the same factory with somewhat lower levels of sound exposure and wore hearing protectors for only about 1/2 of the 43 years he worked there. The change in the laws probably saved much of his hearing. My mother also worked there for 16 years and lost most of the feeling in her arms from continued use at repetitive tasks, all day with three 20 minute breaks. I worked there for 3 months and high-tailed it back to college, thanks to the money they made trying to keep the only jobs that were around. They've been retired for 18 years. The factory is closing this year after being in my home town for 100 years (Nestle's Foods, Fulton, NY). My uncle passed away a few years ago at 84 from complications left over from malaria he got while serving 11 tours of duty in WWII as a landing craft pilot for the Marines for many of the famous beachhead landing in the South Pacific. Most of the boat pilots didn't make it to 21 years old! By Dad was in the Navy SeaBees in WWII and followed in after the Marines to build airstrips on the same islands.
Why am I typing all this? I really don't remember. Must have something to do with my tendency toward the topic of this thread. ;) Or maybe some perspective as to why my diehard Conservativism has its limits when it comes to occupational health hazards. The government (as an extension of us citizens) should have an obligation to regulate where there is compelling scientific evidence. Maybe you don't have a similar background to be able to balance your idealism?
-John
I think Algore already got to him long ago. They've somehow morphed into one superbeing. ;) Have you every seen them both at the same time? Hmmmm?
-John
Trouble is, this applies to any potential carcinogen, not just tobacco smoke. Have you ever heard of "hut lung"? Probably not, few people have. It refers to cancer caused by long-term exposure to ordinary wood smoke, and most often affects people in Third World countries who rely on woodfires for heating and cooking. How long before we see someone trying to ban woodstoves and fireplaces here in the US?
And there are plenty of natural sources of carcinogens that people pay no attention to whatsoever. The problem is that _certain_ carcinogens have been targeted for demonization. For instance, that idiotic "Alar" apple hysteria a few years ago -- someone claimed that the alar used on apples was carcinogenic, and had to be banned. What got very little press was the fact that the risk level was _lower_ than the naturally-occurring carcinogens in the apple itself.
Don't get me wrong, I think smoking or chewing tobacco is a dirty, unhealthy habit. There are plenty of good reasons why smokers/chewers should give it up. And I'm glad I can go into a restaurant and not have my meal ruined by the foul odor of cigarettes.
What I object to are the extremist propaganda, misinformation, lawsuits, etc of the anti-tobacco movement; and the fact that the same tactics can and are being used against other products or activities that are deemed politically incorrect.
There have already been cases recently where someone has tried to use smoking as an excuse to deny someone else their parental rights.
but at proper levels you and I know water is perfectly safe in fact you die without it.
what level of ciagrette smoke is healthy ? NONE.
its a silly question. its like how many exploded nukes in you city are safe or how much cyanide is safe.
Well, I think you're looking at it backwards. I don't think there is anything, either expressed or implied, in the Constitution to PROTECT you against solicitors. And while your phone is (these days) your private property, it's only in recent years that that has been true (remember when all phones were the property of the phone company?). Further, you are attaching it to a 'public utility' (the phone system), and implicit in that agreement is that you may well receive calls you don't want. That was somewhat stifled years ago by having an unlisted number, but technology (auto-dialers, etc.) overcame much of that. And yes, if you are called on a cell phone, you're paying, but that is again an agreement that you made when you signed the phone company contract (that you would pay for incoming calls). Nothing forced you to do that, and if enough people complained, sooner or later competition would have forced the issue.
My bigger problem is that these types of laws grant powers to those that shouldn't have them, to punish for reasons that shouldn't be there. Let's take the example of the 'swindler of the elderly'. I would far prefer that the individual be prosecuted for the act (swindling), than for the medium (making the phone call). If he actually swindled someone, that should be the punishable crime, not the fact that a phone was used. I remember as a kid hearing about Al Capone getting put away for tax evasion, rather than murder. That simple action screamed to me that the system was broken, not working. That's because ANYONE can be found to have broken a law in the tax code, simply because it is so massive and incomprehensible. Therefore, government could go after ANYONE for tax evasion (and likely get them, no matter what). The same is true of these silly telephone laws -- you can essentially argue that almost any phone call you get would be a breach, and I doubt if it would take much to stretch the law. Then, the salesman who sold me a refrigerator last year and who was calling to 'check in' (and obviously hoping to make some other sale) would be treated in the same fashion as the boiler-room guy who's trying to gyp Grandma and Grandpa out of their life savings. I don't like having government, at any level, have that kind of power, because then it can be easily abused.
Side note (writing this just reminded me): my father lost his life savings through one of these 'solicitors'. It was a fairly famous case back at the time (many people were taken in). The 'law' nabbed the 'perpetrators', and then the 'lawyers' administered what was left in bankruptcy court. If what had been done at the time had been to divvy up what was left to those who had lost their savings, they would have had a tiny bit left. Instead, the 'lawyers' (I use the word in quotes because they were the ones purportedly upholding 'justice'), spent every penny that was left on all their legal wranglings, including expensive catered lunches and dinners, all sorts of perks, and the usual 'billable hours' stuff that is accepted as a given these days. I'm actually angrier at the attorneys who wasted what was left more than I am at the crooks. At least the crooks KNEW they were crooks, the lawyers pretended they were 'protecting' folks, when in reality all they did was line their own pockets.
David Erbas-White
Phone solicitations cost me time and sometimes money. they invade my privacy.
Free Speech does not extend from citizen to citizen. Free Speech's intent was for speaking up against our government without threat or recourse for doing so.
In today's terms free speech has been extended to mean you can have your say. THIS IS FINE by me but that does NOT extend to FORCING ME to hear it. that is NOT what free speech is.
Telemarketing is not free speech. Spamm is not free speech.
Chris Taylor
Government should to SOME extent protect me from you. but not me from me.
Chris Taylor
here here
and its is NOT free speech. Free Speech give you the right to say it. NOT the right to say it to me.
If billions of people flew rockets and it became hazardous to our health I would have no problem with the rocketry community being told to make it cleaner.
as it stands right now it is NOT a health risk.
Plus I doubt all rocket launches a year times 1000 would produce enough harmful material to be a health hazard.
plus again the analogy does not fly with reality.
Rocketry is REALLY fun (not fun because of the illusion of addiction) benificial and educational.
you can not say ANY of that for smoking.
you guys keep trying to compare it to things which you can not legitimately compare it to.
you find me something else that has NO USE but to HARM with NO POSITIVE BENIFITS AT ALL in ANY SHAPE OR FORM short of making people rich
Something that also harms both the USER and the non user
and that you think I would agree with being legal.
you f> >
clearly the dangers are NOT known by the claims of people on this newsgroup that to this day do NOT think their is any risk.
plus its her JOB a required activity in order to LIVE.
she should not be the one forced to change even if she DID know the risks the SMOKER should change.
the SMOKER is caus>
Wait a minute. we are comparing the choice to WORK with the CHOICE to smoke and you think the SMOKER should win in this ?
did you REALLY mean to say that ? you must be just plain LOONEY.
SHE DID NOT SMOKE!! The warnings were intended and ACCEPTED as being warnings for the SMOKER. the USER of the product. not BYSTANDERS.
A Lawn Mower has warnings that it can cut your hand off. I should decide not to work in a place that has them even though I will never stick my hand in one or even touch one ? (I assume she never touched a cigarettes or smoked one ??)
You really are crazy of you believe the crap you just typed
people believing what you just stated is why this country is in such a shit hole.
Chris Taylor
how about in an office with ten smokers.
they got filters she did not.
Actually that is a grey area with me. greay because I do not have all the solid facts. but from what I understand the tabacoo companies did things that make lawsuits against them very deserving.
but as for it extending to being abused against other products we 100% agree
Chris Taylor
you never existed in reality on this topic.
you ignore all the points I make because you can not legitimately reply to them. so you make up crap and reply to that.
Wow I am impressed (right)
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:49:02 -0400, John DeMar is alleged to have written:
Where will he loose his job, and what will it do once he releases it?
- Rick "And now his cooking _what_?" Dickinson
OH!!!
So now my cough syrup is evil?!?!?!?!!!??
You liberal weinies need to stay out of my expectorant!
Why should I give up my right to hack up phlem-balls just because you think people should give up the sacred syrup?
I'll takea gallon of mucus cutting, nose clearing, chest heaving, eyeball watering, alcohol filled elixir before I swallow one ounce of liberal clap-trap that you percolate!!!
nuff said ;^)
This should be in the FAQ.
Jerry
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.