Note: We need to BAN driving in public places in California, ASAP

[The Straight Story]

Just like smoking, this is a health issue that affects the health of others. If we ban smoking in bars for the health of consenting adults, this study should makes us do the right thing:

“These are pollutants that all derive from vehicle emissions and the combustion of fossil fuels,” Gauderman said.

Smog May Cause Lifelong Lung Deficits
09/08/04
A long-term USC study following the pulmonary health of children in polluted L.A. areas signals likely health problems in adulthood.
By Alicia Di Rado


By age 18, the lungs of many children who grow up in smoggy areas are underdeveloped and will likely never recover, according to a study in this week’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The research is part of the Children’s Health Study, the longest investigation ever into air pollution and kids’ health.

Between 1993 and 2001 (OMG the clinton years, this was his fault ya know....), study scientists from the Keck School of Medicine of USC tracked levels of major pollutants in 12 Southern California communities while following the pulmonary health of 1,759 children as they progressed from 4th grade to 12th grade.

The 12 communities included some of the most polluted areas in the greater Los Angeles basin, as well as several low-pollution sites outside the area.
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10495.html

We only drive to maintain a lifestyle of consumerism, which leads to the death of those who do not drive - kids...

ok some :sarcasm: in all this...

[we can do it]

1. Is This Another Whiny Smoker Victim Thread?

So I can call the waaaaambulance.

[The Straight Story]

2. naw, just trying to protect my fellow 'merucans and children is all

lol

[we can do it]

4. Ok - Thats Cool

Don't drive in my house and I won't fart in your car.

[Kingshakabobo]

5. Yep. More twisting and turning of logic.

Trying to equate a necessary action with the selfish need to satisfy a silly drug addiction in public.

[parasim]

7. Driving pollution spewing vehicles is not a necessary action...

... it's just an addiction that's much harder to quit.

[Kingshakabobo]

9. Sure.

Come to think of it, I need to run out now, in the middle of the night, to drive my car around the block because I have the sweats and a headache. I can't stop thinking about my car in my driveway....I'll be right back.

[G_j]

13. driving is an American addiction

I thought most people acknowledged that at this point.

[Kingshakabobo]

22. I agree. Most of the country is built around the automobile.

It's a problem that can't be fixed over night.

I just don't acknowledge that it has anything to do with satisfying a drug habit in a restaurant to the detriment of some poor Waiter or bartender's health.

[parasim]

18. Hey, man, if you got an itch, better scratch it...

As for me, I can guarantee you that I will be causing less harm to the public as I walk down to the local store to grab a pack of smokes, smoke one while walking back (in the open air, not in a restaurant, not near anyone else who could possibly breathe in what I leave behind) than the 14 (make that 15) cars and 1 city bus (which tends leave a trail of black smoke a block and a half long) that drove past my window while writing this post.

[XemaSab]

36. I used to think that

before I moved to a small town up in the mountains.

I lived three miles (and about 1000 vertical feet) from work and three and a half miles from a grocery store. The only route would have involved walking along the highway. Also, I lived about 40 miles from the nearest urban center which I had to visit for stuff like furniture and clothes.

No public transportation whatsoever.

It would be impossible to live there without a car.

[stepnw1f]

3. Actually... Excellent Point (nt)

[TNDemo]

6. Driving in public places done correctly doesn't hurt anyone.

There is no way to smoke correctly so that it doesn't hurt anyone.

[Pastiche423]

10. Done correctly?

:wtf: does that mean?

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Having someone push your car...

...rather than switching on the engine, I assume.

[TNDemo]

17. Oh, I misread that.

In fact I skimmed it much too quickly. I thought it was one of those posts about cars mowing down people in markets and how driving in public places ought to be banned and was trying to relate it to smoking. Oops - sorry about that.

[CAcyclist]

46. 40,000 deaths a year isn't hurting anyone?

I say give the driving ban a chance. :P

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Here's An Idea, Let's Ban EVERYTHING we don't approve of!!!

Then we allllllll can run around like self-righteous preachers who speak from ignorance! :rofl:

[SPKrazy]

12. Don't Drive If You Don't Have To

and don't smoke because you don't have to either

[wuushew]

14. such silly strawman arguments will be mute in a hydrogen economy

are lungs harmed by the emission of pure water vapor? (The hydrogen which has not come from a fossil fuel source)


Looks like the future will be cleaner and less smelly to boot. Sorry smokers :P

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. This "hydrogen economy" isn't going to happen.

Not anytime soon, and maybe never -- it doesn't work out thermodynamically. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source; it requires more energy to isolate hydrogen (either through electrolysis of water or thermal separation of natural gas) than is obtained when the same hydrogen is used as a fuel.

[wuushew]

21. Yes I am well aware of that fact

Hydrogen or other bio fuels are completely workable as transportation fuels given that we reduce human population levels to much smaller and sustainable levels. So many acres to produce x gallons of ethanol or X number of wind or solar megawatts producing a given amount of hydrogen.

In any case the future would be showcasing "cleaner" cars. When in the last 30 years has the tobacco industry given a "cleaner" cigarette?

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. Secondhand smoke is a negligible health risk.

Research has shown that a non-smoker regularly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke receives the equivalent of about six cigarettes per year (vs between ten and eighty a day for smokers). The increased risk of lung cancer to a nonsmoker from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke has been found, in a World Health Organisation study, to be statistically insignificant, and the US EPA study that labelled secondhand smoke a 'Class A carcinogen' actually found a risk of lung cancer for nonsmokers at the same 'statistically insignificant' level.

Besides, if you think we need to 'reduce the human population to sustainable levels', one would think you'd want to make smoking mandatory.

[Kingshakabobo]

24. Oh come on.

A waitress working in a bar only inhales the equivalent of 6 cigarettes per year? Are you sure that wasn't per night?

Got any links?

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Sure.

Study conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20000203-00

[Kingshakabobo]

26. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

This is DU not FR. We (edit:by we I mean you and me) use google here...... Not accusing you of being a freeper but you should be a little more selective about the crap you post.

After 8 seconds of googling:

CENTER FOR INDOOR AIR RESEARCH

According to the minutes of a meeting of the Tobacco Institute’s Executive Committee, the Center for Indoor Air Research was initially formed and funded by Lorillard, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds to “sponsor and foster research in indoor air issues with emphasis on environmental tobacco smoke.”

(http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/documents/ets/cia_center/; accessed 5/15/02)

According to a U.S. Newswire article “the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) - was created for the very purpose of spearheading…deceptive industry efforts and was shut down by the state attorneys general as part of the 1998 state tobacco settlement. In January 29, 2003, court filings to support its racketeering lawsuit against the tobacco industry, the U.S. Department of Justice stated, ‘CIAR was officially created ... to act as a coordinating organization for Defendants’ efforts to fraudulently mislead the American public about the health effects of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) exposure.’ The Justice Department also stated that CIAR ‘was not only used for litigation and public relations, but it was (sp) also funded research designed not to find answers to health questions, but solely to attack legislative initiatives related to ETS exposure. Lawyers specifically engineered and constructed scientific studies to get results that would be useful for public relations, litigation, and legislative battles, as opposed to results that would assist the scientific community in further understanding the health effects of ETS exposure.’” (Statement by Matthew L. Myers, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, in the U.S. Newswire, 5/15/03, National Desk)




Back to Top

edit: spelling

[Spider Jerusalem]

28. That doesn't negate the study...

performed by a reputable institution, and peer-reviewed. If you want to dispute the conclusions, you'll have to do a little better than resorting to logical fallacies. (Besides which, a study conducted by the American Medical Association reached essentially the same results, measuring particulate concentrations no higher than 348 mcg/m³.)

[Kingshakabobo]

30. Oh Ok. You are killin me.

Just because the study you referenced was funded by and organization that was specifically created to spearhead the misinformation campaign regarding ETS doesn't make it a bad study.

Just because the justice department stated:

"‘CIAR was officially created ... to act as a coordinating organization for Defendants’ efforts to fraudulently mislead the American public about the health effects of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) exposure."

Doesn't make it a Bad study?

Who peer reviewed it? Joe Camel??? White supremacists????? The Marlboro Man????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Thanks for the laugh before bed. I bid you good night Sir (best FogHorn LegHorn voice)

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. Funded, maybe.

But who conducted it? And have the findings been challenged? Can you show me that they have? I mentioned an AMA study that came to the same essential conclusions; do you have a problem with THEIR research?

As to "peer review", it's an essential step prior to publication in an accredited journal. The reviewers would be specialists in a specific area selected by the editors of the journal. (This is standard practice in scientific and medical research.)

[Kingshakabobo]

32. They weren't "peer reviewed" they were "special reviewed".

Besides, how do you peer review cooked data? For all we know the test subjects were paid off to plug the air intakes. We'll never know because they were sued for RACKETEERING and enjoined from spreading this crap. Don't let that stop you from regurgitating it.


Here. Now I have spent a total of 16 seconds on google:

http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/archives/2004/11/09/center-for-indoor-air-reseaarch

http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=81


>Local and state hospitality associations often mention studies conducted by the official sounding Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) that questioned the science of secondhand smoke. What they don't tell you is that these studies 1) are bought and paid for by the tobacco industry and 2) do not in any way reflect U.S. Government opinion. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a Department of Energy lab that works on nuclear energy issues in its official capacity, but does private contracting work on the side. Big Tobacco took advantage of this opportunity to whitewash industry-funded science through an official sounding lab. Don't let policymakers and the media be fooled.

[AgadorSparticus]

35. here's just a few to refute your assertions:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/environmental/factsheet_ets.htm

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healtheffects.html

http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1061005599356&pagename=CHN-RCS%2FCHNResource%2FFAQCHNResourceTemplate&c=CHNResource&lang=En

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/may97/smoking_5-20.html

http://www.doh.gov.ph/tobacco/shs1.htm

http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/en/

http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/health-info/docs/2900/2941.asp?index=10644&src=news

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3011851

http://www.sa.psu.edu/uhs/healthinformation/patientlibrary/health/secondhandsmoke.cfm

C'mon, you can't really believe that second hand smoke has negligable effects.

[unblock]

15. would nicotine addicts be so high-and-mighty if they had to shoot up?

years of movie propaganda trained us to think smoking was not disgusting, perhaps even "cool".

but it just has a different delivery system than other drugs with worse images.

personally, i'd be a LOT happier if nicotine addicts injected, chewed, took pills, used a patch, or whatever. smoking is one of the very few ways of satisfying an addiction that exposes anyone around you to it as well.

[mitchtv]

16. it's called mandatory emission control

teaching them to drive would help immensely. take away the cell phones and makeup bags too-

[mitchtv]

19. That would mean...Gasp..

investment in mass transit....Heresy!

[Clara T]

27. No Way You're Messin' With My Freedom

Asphalt Nation is a major work of urban studies that examines how the automobile has ravaged America's cities and landscape, and how we can fight back.

The automobile was once seen as a boon to American life, eradicating the pollution caused by horses and granting citizens new levels of freedom and mobility. But it was not long before the servant became the master - public spaces were designed to accomodate the automobile at the expense of the pedestrian, mass transportation was neglected, and the poor, unable to afford cars, saw their access to jobs and amenities worsen. Now even drivers themselves suffer, as cars choke the highways and pollution and congestion have replaced the fresh air of the open road.

Today our world revolves around the car - as a nation, we spend eight billion hours a year stuck in traffic. In Asphalt Nation, Jane Holtz Kay effectively calls for a revolution to reverse our automobile-dependency. Citing successful efforts in places from Portland, Maine, to Portland, Oregon, Kay shows us that radical change is not impossible by any means. She demonstrates that there are economic, political, architectural, and personal solutions that can steer us out of the mess. Asphalt Nation is essential reading for everyone interested in the history of our relationship with the car, and in the prospect of returning to a world of human mobility.

http://www.janeholtzkay.com/AsphaltNation/



Car Cult(ure) is nuts.

[CAcyclist]

47. Very good book - I have it on my shelf.

[evirus]

29. i dont think so, heres why

um smoking isn't essential to the economy of local businesses nor the ability for certain people to participate in those local businesses by working for them.... unless there can be a mass transit and shipping system in the area it would be nuts to argue a ban on one should fallow a ban on others

[incapsulated]

33. Yep.

God forbid you touch someones god given right to fucking drive no matter what the consequences to the planet and everyone else.

But smokers, we should all be put in interment camps. Self-righteous hypocritical bullshit...

I promised myself I wouldn't even open smoking argument threads.

Now I need a cigarette.

[evirus]

34. you call us hypocrits?

lets see you start the fad by living in the suberbs which has no non automobile forms of transportation and not own a car or use a car, if not then your arguement is not valid, we must weigh what is needed for the back bone of our economy(the transportation of goods and people to their respective places or use) and what is not needed, there is no way in hell that you can expect any state to ban automobiles withen a month even theres plenty of problems like the above stated transportation problem. frankly you just cant justify your "right" to smoke like other people can justify their right to work, honestly do you think you can skate by with a such an argument. how about food, food kills people daily(choking for example) how about we ban all food?


if you want to argue banning smoking should also result in banning cars due to death rates, you must also be able to make the same statment about food, and friction, if you cant then your point is in fact pointLESS

[incapsulated]

37. If you want to list all the ways smoking is a danger and a hazard

As justification for banning it, and then get all bent out of shape when something as obvious a hazard as emissions from automobiles is brought into the discussion, then yes, you are a hypocrite. Not everyone who drives needs to drive. And they don't have to drive SUV's, either. Let's ban them for the sake of the planet and everyone's health.

The OP was being deliberately extreme, but any discussion of limiting fuel emissions by LAW in this country is shot down like you are declaring war on American Values, while smokers are treated as if they are personally responsible for deaths of millions. It's bullshit.

[evirus]

40. now heres the deal

ive been to newyork, sure they dont have a ban on automobiles, i can see it working for them because of their subway system. what i was saying was that an instant ban would be compleatly impossable to anyone who thinks because are economy cant exactly shift over to a new shiping system over night when it dosnt exist in a way to benifit the business not within a block of railroad tracks or the coast line...

the reason why congress gets bent out of shape is cause they over react and mostly republican at the moment, i figured you would realise that by now, the best way to ban the use of cars is first set up a transportation and shipping system that works then after thats all up and running then start taking measures to reduce the amount of cars on the road, for instance tax gas prices heavily(the mass transit system would make it so people can realisticly not drive) then by demand the car companies will run out of buisness leaving tons of people out of the job.... now what do you do with the people who lost their jobs for you supposed need for rationality?

[400Years]

42. smoking is dwarfed by the pollution of automobiles

Self rightous freedom haters spew thousands times more pollutants into the air just driving to the voting booth to vote against allowing smoking in bars.

The hypocritical bullshit is waste deep.

I don't smoke but if some other bloke wants to light up in some dark bar on the other side of town, what do I give a shit.

[LincolnMcGrath]

43. "I don't smoke" Really? Why are an overwhelming majority of your posts

in threads related to smoking bans?
:yoiks:

[400Years]

45. Either prove it or admit you are lying

You can't debate honestly and have to resort to smears.

Yes you and your little friend were the ones who couldn't come up with a rational argument so you tried to attack me personally.

Now go ahead and prove that a majority of my posts are about smoking. You can't. But this pathetically childish post of yours is just a continuation of the pattern of hate mongering by you.

I really don't understand why people like you turn into such hateful specimens as soon as someone doesn't agree with you.

[LincolnMcGrath]

49. Tell ya what Mr.400

As for proof, I post one for every one every one of your pithy Childish? replies. How about that?

A. Who is my little friend?

C. Your own posts are not a smear

D. You might want to check yourself on the hateful Comments

D. You can scream from the roof tops for the next century that you are not a smoker, that doesn't mean anyone believes you.

[400Years]

50. Both of those posts of mine are right on

I also don't give a rats ass what you believe.

Got anything else?

[LincolnMcGrath]

51. Your first reply made your level of intrest in my opinion very clear.

Your not adressing the questions speaks volumes as well.

Just keep throwing the nazi and Jihadist comments around, it serves your side well. :eyes:

[400Years]

52. ha ha, that is rich!

:rofl:

You want to play some kind of childish tit for tat game and then get mad at me when I don't stoop to your level.

:rofl:

Whenever people like you come on and advocate absolutist positions such as trying to ban everything you paint yourself as an extremist. Just because I observe your behavior and take note of it doesn't mean I'm attacking you. You've made your own bed.

All I have ever said about the smoking thing is why not let some places be smoking and some be non-smoking and let it be at that. I don't hate people who smoke because they are responsible for themselves. In my town most of the bars were non-smoking and there were plenty of places for
people like you to go but then the absolutist types couldn't stand that and they had to force it
on people and now a good freind of mine who works at a bar where everybody who worked there was against the all out smoking ban are having to deal with lost business. If you want to have a rational discussion / debate lets do it but if you want to engage in childish games I'll leave you to your own sad life. Meanwhile people I know and care about are suffering financially because of people like you.

[LincolnMcGrath]

53. Tee Hee Hee

A. Does Tit 4 Tat means putting your "rational?absolutionist?extremist?" posts on display for all to see?

:rofl:

B. I'm having fun, are you?

:rofl:

C. Where have I tried to ban everything? (Does the phrase "prove it or shut up ring a bell?


:rofl:

[LynnTheDem]

38. WHY do you HATE OUR DEAD TROOPS???!

bush's close personal pal, Rep Hall (R) floats the facts;

“The War on Terror involves keeping the bad guy from having his foot on half the oil reserves in that most populated area,”

Hall terms it “a war for energy,” a strategy Bush downplays.

“He (bush) sees energy as a secondary purpose,” Hall continued. “It is clearly a strong secondary purpose, and in my belief the real reason for going over there.”

http://web.theparisnews.com/story.lasso?wcd=24524

*god bless george w bush for sending american boys & girls to war to die or be maimed & scarred for life so we 5% of the world population can continue to enjoy 25% of the world's oil! DRIVE THOSE BIG VEHICLES! SUCK UP THE BLOOD-OIL! SUPPORT OUR DEAD/DYING TROOPS! thank you george w bush!

*If you can't tell this is the height of bloody angry sarcasm, then you're a MFing rightwingnut moran and should just FO and die, preferably in Iraq for george w bush's oil war.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. Not a bad idea

After the San Fernando Valley earthquake, I wrote an LTTE suggesting that the area's freeways NOT be rebuilt, since the L.A. climate is perfect for walking and cycling. :shrug:

Just think--no smog. :-)

[Bridget Burke]

41. Alas, poor smokers.

Excuse me a moment while I break out in tears.

(By the way--I commute by bus & lite rail.)

[Loonman]

44. I agree

I don't drive, neither should you.

[reelcobra]

48. We need to ban banning things and then ban banning banning things

If we ban banning things then those idiots gathering petitions at grocery stores could be banned also. I say we go for it. We could then ban banning banning things.