Jump to content


Dancers Who SmokeWhy do they put their life at RISK?


  • Please log in to reply
241 replies to this topic

#181 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,128 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 07:10 PM

When smoking was banned from the indoors based on health concerns, it was not a given that the problem would be transferred to the streets which escalated the amount of smoking on the streets, especially in groups.


A "given"? Perhaps not. A reasonable assumption that occurred to a fair number of people beforehand, yes. It didn't take genius - I thought of it when I read the first article I saw on the subject. Where else could people go?


Actually, the origins of much of the anti-smoking legislation was because of non-smokers who could not move (such as restaurant and bar workers) and the related public interest. These were groups that were spending extended periods of time in close quarters with smokers, and were experiencing unusually high rates of smoking-related diseases. Because these are groups that tended to be uninsured, the high healthcare costs were being footed by the tax-paying public, and so municipalities started getting involved.


Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around bans on smoking in open spaces. I think everyone sympathizes with workers whose jobs require them to stay in one place and can understand their complaints, even if the science on the health dangers was/is disputable, to say the least. I haven't brought that up because I figured that was a fight this thread doesn't need......

#182 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,128 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 09:39 PM

Forgot to add that it's nice to hear from you again, sidwich. :)

#183 Simon G

Simon G

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 564 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 05:05 AM

Why is it wise? For the tested and his outcome, or for the truth? Or, do you mean the authorities, the police are likely to corruptly falsify? My questions have to be answered or the 'in fairness to Mr. Martins' may mean something, but I haven't any idea what that might be.


Patrick,

Sidwich is unfortunately very very right. A drunk driver does have the right to refuse a breath test by the side of the road and later at the police station in which case they're taking their chances by being solely at the mercy of the courts. If no accident has occurred prior to their being stopped by the police they may very well be better off taking the pot luck choice. In the case of Martins who was by all accounts plainly drunk to the point where he was mistaking the pavement for the road he gambled and rightly so, that a judge would see that a person as "important" as he had just made a "silly mistake".

In the UK our laws regarding deaths caused by drunk driving are very different from yours unfortunately, it's only rare cases that a custodial sentence is given even for deaths caused by drunk or irresponsible driving, especially if it's a first offence. We don't have vehicular manslaughter per se, which is a mandatory sentence in your judicial system.

#184 Simon G

Simon G

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 564 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 05:07 AM

Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around bans on smoking in open spaces. I think everyone sympathizes with workers whose jobs require them to stay in one place and can understand their complaints, even if the science on the health dangers was/is disputable, to say the least. I haven't brought that up because I figured that was a fight this thread doesn't need......



Exactly.

#185 papeetepatrick

papeetepatrick

    Sapphire Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,486 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 06:38 AM

"White man who speak with fork tongue brought ballet rain dance to Land".


The name's Land. Brooke Land.

#186 richard53dog

richard53dog

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,401 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 07:05 AM

Or, since the history of tobacco in the US predates European settlers, African American immigration perhaps the right of the smoker that of the Native American should trump all other considerations. I suppose there's a poetic irony in the fact you gave them syphilis and blankets, they gave you lung cancer.


Well, going :off topic: (but this thread has certainly wandered anyway...) according to some very plausible theories, syphilis was one of the treasures of the Western Hemisphere and only came to Europe after crews returned from voyages with tobacco, gold, etc. There are counter theories that syphilis existed in Europe prior to explorations of the "New World" but just wasn't noticed or noted (that appears sort of a stretch for me). But the Europeans did bring smallpox over with the blankets......

#187 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,157 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 07:17 AM

[Admin Beanie On]

I'm not even going to try to salvage what is useful from any post that begins with "Your problem is...".

[Admin Beanie Off]

#188 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,157 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 07:24 AM

even if the science on the health dangers was/is disputable, to say the least. I haven't brought that up because I figured that was a fight this thread doesn't need......

Since this was brought up as part of the discussion, I'd be interested to see the disputed science.

#189 Simon G

Simon G

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 564 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 09:07 AM

[Admin Beanie On]

I'm not even going to try to salvage what is useful from any post that begins with "Your problem is...".

[Admin Beanie Off]



Okay, so posts which accuse other posters of being specious and silly are fine as long as the poster has a view in accordance with the prevalent argument that smoking outside is a subversive act of malice and an attack on civil liberties?

There have been many specious aspects both pro and con. What I do take issue with is this assumption that the "youth" are so facile that they'll ape their idols by engaging in similar behaviours.

My points were that Kurt Cobain a heroin addict, suicide and smoker, the biggest star in the world did not prompt a rash of suicides and heroin addiction amongst his young followers. Likewise the marvellously self destructive Amy Winehouse, who a few years ago was the biggest selling female artist in the world didn't prompt her fans to follow her into crack addiction.

Kate Moss who has directly been blamed for anorexia, lung cancer due to her refusal to stop smoking, has rather candidly repudiated the claims that she is a bad role model, saying she's not a role model she's a model. And there is absolutely no proof to link her to anorexia, cocaine addiction and abuse nor to kids taking up smoking. What I do think is sad is how much smoking has damaged one of the most beautiful faces I've ever seen - and yes, there's no way I could argue against the damaging effects of smoking.

If there is one truly specious argument here it's that young people's sense of self is so poor, their intellects so stunted that they have no choice but to follow their idols bad habits. And that much I don't buy.

This whole thread started on very shaky ground by attacking two ballerinas as being poor "role models" and indirectly setting a bad example to kids.

It's plainly obvious that kfw and several others see smokers as being sub classes of society whose liberties are privileges demanding of being revoked. Well, law has revoked many of those privileges. It's a done deal.

I've also brought up several points about the usefulness of tax dollar and revenue from tobacco, though of course those points were ignored. This convo can't progress because there is no flexibility on the anti smoking brigade's part who do seem to like to feel indignant for the mere sake of it.

#190 Simon G

Simon G

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 564 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 09:11 AM


even if the science on the health dangers was/is disputable, to say the least. I haven't brought that up because I figured that was a fight this thread doesn't need......

Since this was brought up as part of the discussion, I'd be interested to see the disputed science.



http://tobaccoanalys...hand-smoke.html

http://tobaccoanalys...w-research.html

http://www.forces.or...evid/second.htm

http://www.healbuzz....Would-Be-Enough

These should get you started and point you in the direction for deeper, further study should you so desire.

#191 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,157 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 09:29 AM


[Admin Beanie On]

I'm not even going to try to salvage what is useful from any post that begins with "Your problem is...".

[Admin Beanie Off]



Okay, so posts which accuse other posters of being specious and silly are fine as long as the poster has a view in accordance with the prevalent argument that smoking outside is a subversive act of malice and an attack on civil liberties?


Ugh, no. Posts that describe other arguments as specious or silly are watched carefully. Posts that purport to tell people what their problems are deleted, if we find them, or if, before we find them, the original poster has responded with a much better reply than we can.

#192 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,157 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 09:40 AM

http://www.healbuzz.com/All/Americans-for-Nonsmokers-Rights-Apparently-Retains-False-Secondhand-Smoke-Claims-Why-Is-It-Necessary-to-Lie-When-the-Truth-Would-Be-Enough

These should get you started and point you in the direction for deeper, further study should you so desire.


Since the context of dirac's comment was people in the workplace, not those casually exposed to second-hand smoke:

From the last link, since the others debunk claims of increased mortality due to second-hand smoke, rather than chronic or secondary effects like asthma (cited by the EPA) and as far as I can see, don't distinguish between the amount of smoke a worker is subject to, i.e. a bar vs. an office:

Starting with the title:

Why Is It Necessary to Lie When the Truth Would Be Enough?


Then

Brief tobacco smoke exposure does not cause heart damage. What is does cause is endothelial damage (reversible vascular injury to the cells that line the coronary arteries). Heart damage refers to actual damage to the heart muscle, such as one sustains after myocardial ischemia or a heart attack.


Note the use of "brief".

- FALSE VERSION: "There are virtually no health disparities between active and passive smoking."1 - ACCURATE VERSION: "The effects of secondhand smoke exposure on endothelial function are virtually identical to those of active smoking."2 - FALSE VERSION: "The risks of heart disease associated with secondhand smoke are twice what were previously thought and are virtually indistinguishable from those associated with active smoking."2 - ACCURATE VERSION: "The effects of tobacco smoke exposure on cardiovascular disease are nonlinear; as a result, the risk of heart disease associated with chronic exposure to secondhand smoke may actually approach that of very light, active smoking."3 - FALSE VERSION: "Just thirty minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart damage similar to that of habitual smokers."3 - ACCURATE VERSION: "Just thirty minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can cause endothelial dysfunction similar to that observed in active smokers.


The conclusion:

The statements are still very powerful and convey the high level of health risk associated with secondhand smoke exposure. In fact, I think they explain more accurately exactly why secondhand smoke is so strongly linked to heart disease. The statements are no less powerful in providing a rationale for regulating tobacco smoke exposure in workplaces and public places. The only real difference is that these statements are accurate, while ANR's claims are inaccurate.Why the need to lie to the public?



#193 kfw

kfw

    Sapphire Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 09:46 AM



[Admin Beanie On]

I'm not even going to try to salvage what is useful from any post that begins with "Your problem is...".

[Admin Beanie Off]



Okay, so posts which accuse other posters of being specious and silly are fine as long as the poster has a view in accordance with the prevalent argument that smoking outside is a subversive act of malice and an attack on civil liberties?


Ugh, no. Posts that describe other arguments as specious or silly are watched carefully. Posts that purport to tell people what their problems are are usually deleted, if we find them.

Specious and silly are blunt terms for describing arguments. They can be specious and silly themselves, or they can be the blunt truth and the best way to cut through the fog of rhetoric. In any case, they are directed at the argument, not the person.

I should add that I, for one, don't consider smoking outside a subversive act, or an act of malice, or an attack on civil liberties, or any other kind of attack.

#194 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,128 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 11:10 AM

As a practical matter, where wills clash, one or both sides have their liberty curtailed. The issue of smoking in public illustrates this fact. When non-smokers have to move, their liberty is curtailed. Sometimes we pass laws taking one side or another. That's the law's function. And in a democracy, where each side can push their case, that's not unfair.


Smokers, who are the objects of social shaming and reproach, as this thread demonstrates, are at a plain disadvantage in these debates. These laws are passed for reasons of health, not as matters of "personal liberty." My own feeling that if non-smokers can't be bothered to move, it might be best and safest for them to stay home.....

All of the foregoing points, including mine, were raised earlier on this thread. Just sayin'.

Since this was brought up as part of the discussion, I'd be interested to see the disputed science.


Helene, I said that was not going to be a fight I was going to start on this thread and indeed I would never have raised the matter myself and I didn't. I remain untempted to take up the cudgels. I simply pointed out that the matter was disputable. Your access to the Internet and the relevant research available elsewhere is as good as mine. :)

Thanks, Simon.

#195 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,157 posts

Posted 02 July 2011 - 11:16 AM

Helene, I said that was not going to be a fight I was going to start on this thread and indeed I would never have raised the matter myself and I didn't. I remain untempted to take up the cudgels. I simply pointed out that the matter was disputable. Your access to the Internet and the relevant research available elsewhere is as good as mine. :)

:dunno: Once raised, it becomes a legitimate part of the discussion. I asked for sources, because there's a lot of literature out there from both sides of the debate, and I was curious what the basis of your statement was, since there are arguments against global warming and evolution as well.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):