Thats one of my biggest pet peeves. Smoking pigs who apparently aren't smart enough to realize that tossing a butt out of the window is LITTERING.
Not to mention the idiots that flip that butt out the window while going down the road......and it lands on the guy riding the bike behind him.
Next time you're on an expressway off ramp and are stopped at a traffic light, notice how many butts are laying along the side of the road.
Those that do this should be treated the same as any other litterer, fine them, big!
posted by JeepMaker at 12:32 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
go out into the country and ask a volunteer fireman how many wheat field and ditch fires theyve had to put out due to butts.
posted by billy at 12:45 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
I see this happen almost on a daily basis and will never understand it.
So disrespectful and just plain lazy.
posted by Ryan at 01:03 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
The World is nothing more than a giant ashtray to most smokers.
posted by buckeye277 at 01:32 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
It's bad enough to throw something out of a moving car, but to set something on fire and then throw it out the window is just the worst.
My car got hit a few months ago when the fellow driving a jeep in front of me (why is it always the people in jeeps?!) flicked it out their window.
True class....
posted by timault at 02:40 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
The only place other than ashtrays they should be put in is urinals. Theyre fun do destroy...
posted by billy at 02:48 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
I thought that this would be one of those smoking posts that gets really fired up (pun intended), but so far none of our resident smoking advocates have weighed in.
:-}
C'mon, Darkseid and Starling02! What good is a smoking post that is one-sided?
In my former life as a retail business owner, this used to cheese me off. Smokers would take a drag, toss the cigarette, and then go in the store. By the end of the week there would be hundreds of butts all over the place.
Now, as an ex-smoker, I know how easy it is to grind a butt out with your shoe and leave it, but I think it's not too much for us to expect smokers to clean up after themselves.
Grossest anecdote: as a twentysomething I was full of bragadoccio at a party, and I proceeded to drink a bunch of half-consumed beers left by the "lightweights."
One of the beers, though, had a bunch of lumps, and it turned out I was drinking someone's ersatz ashtray. Interesting turn of events the next morning, that's for sure...
posted by historymike at 05:40 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
This thread is pointless, because I don't believe for one minute that cig butts account for 50 percent of the world's trash. Stop & think about that for a minute, before believing everything you read (especially from a biased site). You're always on my ass about being gullible for believing things I've read, and yet, you've swallowed this huge fish story whole. Why? Because you WANT to believe it. Wanting to believe it does not make it true though. Back up that statement with proof. I hestitated even to comment on this thread, because regardless of what I say, you'll all jump my shit that I'm just defending smoking. You'd all rather believe that, than the story is bogus. Whatever. Yes, there are people who toss butts carelessly, just as there are people who toss out beer & soda cans/bottles carelessly. At any rate, just try using your brains & try to envision what comprises the trash in the entire world. I highly doubt cig butts comprise 50 percent of it. Before you heckle me, PROVE it's true.
posted by starling02 at 05:49 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
And, even if it were true (which it is not), it still does not make a good argument for smoking bans, which strip private business owners of rights.
posted by starling02 at 05:51 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
I'll have to start keeping a tally of how many broken bottles I drive over.
posted by starling02 at 05:51 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
Yikes!
I wasn't trying to pick on you, Starling02. Sorry for coming across that way.
posted by historymike at 06:09 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
True or not - people do it and its wrong. Do you throw them outside Starling? Because there is no reason for it - and has nothing to do with the ban.
posted by Ryan at 06:23 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
And they said litter - not trash. Two completely different things, btw.
Not trying to jump your stuff - but you are so defensive when anything negative is said about the bad results of butt puffery.
posted by Ryan at 06:30 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
Heh - "butt puffery" - nice turn of phrase, Ryan.
posted by historymike at 07:01 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
My favorite is when you see people in a parking lot dumping their ashtray out into the street. Yeah, someone else will pick it up, don't sweat it
posted by drago at 08:35 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
How long does it take a cigarette to break down? A week?
posted by thetoledowire_com at 09:46 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
No, I do not toss my butts. I have an ashtray in my car. If I'm smoking outside & no ashtray is available, the butt gets stomped by my shoe, and placed in either a tissue in my purse or my pocket, to dispose of later. I do not litter. Period. My kids don't litter. My daughter also smokes, and I've never seen her toss a butt. I agree that butts are unattractive, almost as much as fast food wrappers & pop cans. (but not as much). I have seen people dump car ashtrays out in parking lots, and agree, it's disqusting. I keep a plastic grocery bag in my car to dump my trash in, and toss it in a trash can when it's full. (Shane seems to think though, if you use anything that uses oil or plastic you are promoting terrorism, does that include plastic grocery bags?)
(historymike - I know you weren't trying to push my buttons, shane already did that on sb, which is probably why I'm 'snarky' on this thread. I'm just tired of smokers being blamed for every bad thing in the world - like non-smokers don't litter.)
ryan - litter or trash, either way - I want to see the PROOF that cig butts comprise 50 percent of the world's trash. I am anxious to see the proof. That is a 'green' website, and surely connected to smokefree, so I suspect it's a bit biased against smokers.
posted by starling02 at 10:41 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
...none of our resident smoking advocates have weighed in.
I am not a smoking advocate, but I am an advocate of individual liberty and property rights and I think I do a pretty good job of keeping the issues straight.
This is an issue about littering - not smoking. We have a law that covers littering, let's go out and enforce it. We should not use littering as an argument against smoking any more than we should use murder as an argument against guns.
posted by babbleman at 06:21 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
Terrific.
So, we all agree that flicking a cigerette butt to the ground constitutes littering and should be enforced with the appropriate fine.
Or, perhaps, smokers will volunteer to go around and pick up discarded butts from parking lots, street curbs and grassy areas.
I'm sure that will happen, because lords knows smokers are always so considerate and law-abiding in this particular area.
posted by McCaskey at 09:48 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
BTW Starling, I have no idea about the scientific accuracy of 50% of the Earth's trash due to cig butts, and there's no way in my opinion to prove or disprove that.
But all anyone has to do is look around in curbs, gutters, parking lots, basically anywhere outside and for every discarded beer bottle/pop can/piece of paper/tissue/whatever you'll easily see 50-75 cig butts. Easily. Anywhere and everywhere.
From a practical standpoint, there's no question smokers are the biggest source of littering (and, by extension, probably one of the largest polluters) we have on Mother Earth.
posted by McCaskey at 10:18 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
Just when you thought smoking couldn't get any worse...
Besides puffing their lives away...
...there's no question smokers are the biggest source of littering...
So it seems like we are dancing around something here. What are you guys saying? Now that government has climbed up to the ledge of smoking bans on private property, are you now prepping it for a climb to the next ledge of banning smoking altogether?
Is there any purpose to this thread outside of the observation that alot of litter comes from smokers?
posted by babbleman at 10:34 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
One of my duties for my job is to keep a small number of property yards and parking lots clean from debris.
From my experience, I would say we need to outlaw fast food (bags and cups), beer (bottles), children's toys, Band-Aids, Mountain Dew (cans), scratch-off lottery tickets and store receipts, as these items combine for probably 90 percent of the trash I pick up. Cigarette butts are probably about one percent of the litter on my properties. (You wouldn't believe the weird crap that makes up the remaining 9 percent!)
So I agree with babbleman -- this is an issue about littering, not smoking. Or, at least, the bigger issue here is littering.
posted by jmleong at 10:47 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
Sheer, Rabid hatred of smokers is the only thread purpose that I can see, babbleman. By the way, nice to see you back more regularly.
posted by Darkseid at 10:49 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
This point of this thread, as clearly stated at the top of it, it about cigarette litter, not the smoking ban.
Smokers and those against the smoking ban have access to and have provided a million and one other threads here, there, and everywhere dealing with the ban.
Whatzamatter, don't particularly enjoy it when a topic not in your smoking-related comfort zone gets started?
posted by McCaskey at 12:51 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
I did a little googling about cigarette litter and found a few interesting links.
http://www.boonecountyky.org/BCSWM/CigaretteLitterBrochure2007.pdf
According to most, it takes anywhere between 18 months and 11 YEARS, for a cigarette butt to deteriorate.
One of the links stated that cigarette butts are the number one type of litter worldwide.
posted by JeepMaker at 01:15 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
Whatzamatter, don't particularly enjoy it when a topic not in your smoking-related comfort zone gets started?
No, mccaskey - the problem I have with this thread is that it's based on a bogus percentageof litter, being blamed on smokers, with no proof. And like the lemmings that the smoke haters are, they'll believe this shit to be true, and repeat it, & repeat it, to whoever will listen, even though it's a number pulled out of WHERE? And like was said before, if you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it. I have to agree with jimleong about what constitues the most trash. Cig butts have less mass than a pop can,or fast food wrapper or styrofome (sp) food box.
How Long Does It Last?
http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/21-117/033_dispose.html
Here are some estimated life expectancies for different kinds of litter:
Paper: two to four weeks Rubber boot sole: 50 to 80 years
Banana peel: three to five weeks Tin can: 80 to 100 years
Wool cap: one year Aluminum can: 200 to 400 years
Cigarette butt: two to five years Plastic six-pack holder: 450 years
Disposable diaper: 10 to 20 years Glass bottles: Thousands or millions of years
Hard plastic container: 20 to 30 years
posted by starling02 at 07:02 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
Once again - smoking rules!
LOL!
Hopeless.
posted by Ryan at 08:04 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
No, cig butts just don't account for most of the litter. And they do decompose faster than some posters here have claimed.
ryan - why do you assume that because I questioned the article that claimed cig butts account for 50 percent of the world's trash, it means that I think smoking is good? Yes, I smoke - but I have never said it's good for you (or me). What did I ever say that makes you disclaim "Once again - smoking rules (sarcastically)"?
Yes, I get irritated when false or bogus statements are made, laying blame for near everything on shs or smoking. I simply asked for proof of that statement, because almost every statement, study, editorial about shs has been biased or bogus or just flat out inaccurate, but people throw out the statistics to push people's buttons, get them riled up, and too many people believe it, repeat it, more people believe & repeat it, etc. If more people had taken the time to actually READ the studies on shs & 'the other side of the story', they'd have known it was a whitewash job to pass the ban. Or, at least they'd have known the real reason the ban got passed (Big Pharma & ACS making big bucks). I'm angry that people will blindly believe any crap that's put out if it's connected to smoking or shs. But I never defended smoking. I did defend the rights of private business owners to allow legal activities in THEIR places of business. My gripes about the smoking ban has never been about my right to smoke - it's about taking the rights of private business owners away. And doing it based on lies & inaccuracies. Your response was pretty juvenile & ignorant.
posted by starling02 at 10:42 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
Sorry, I don’t take some things as seriously as you do.
But, you don’t believe in the dangers of SHS – so that speaks volumes.
Lighten up!
posted by Ryan at 07:31 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
Sorry, Starling, here's all kinds of links that refute your opinion about cigarette littering:
http://www.cigarettelitter.org/
http://www.litterbutt.com/v3/Default.aspx
http://www.buttsout.net/litter_stats
http://www.surfrider.org/a-z/cig_but.asp
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Environment/CleanHarbourPartners/LitterButts.asp
http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/cigbuttqanda.htm
http://www.csrsolutions.co.uk/litter_cigarette.htm
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/35648/confronting_smokers_on_cigarette_butt.htmlhttp
posted by McCaskey at 12:11 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
I'll be gone from here for awhile, Starling, so I wanted you to have plenty of reading material while I was away, LOL.
When I get back, I'll give you a pop quiz on all that material I left for you...
posted by McCaskey at 12:17 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
ryan said "But, you don’t believe in the dangers of SHS – so that speaks volumes"
ryan, I suggest you read my post (s) on swampbubbles, a repeat of what was posted here in 2005 - a summation/results of ALL the studies done on shs. NOT one registered numbers high enough to even be considered as a risk. To save time, I'll repeat it here (to educate people to the lies about shs studies). These are not numbers I pulled out of my hat - these are legitimate studies. I'm sorry the link doesn't copy & paste well on this board (it stretches it out, making it hard to read, but if you click on the link, you get it in a more readable form & it even has a pie chart! :)
The fact that you believed all the lies told about shs speaks volumes.
Marcia Angell of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has said, “As a general rule of thumb we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more” before accepting a paper for publication. Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration said, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” The National Cancer Institute explains, “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors [other causes] that are sometimes not evident.” In the pie chart below those stratistically insignificant findings are highlighted in yellow.
A relative risk of less than unity (1.0) is considered by reputable researchers to be the opposite of a risk and can even signify a protective effect. These negative risks are shown below in gray.
Relative risks above 2.0 are shown in black.
Meta-analyses are not included in this chart because they lend themselves to selective inclusion of studies chosen just because they may prove the researcher's preconceived conclusion.
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES ON SHS
Wherever possible, these figures were taken directly from the US Surgeon General's Report, EPA's 1993 Report, or from the World Health Organization's published reports.
Name
Yr
Locale
Type
Sex
Relative
Risk
Confidence
Interval
Garfinkel 1 (+) 81
US
Spouse
F
1.18
.90-1.54
Chan + 82
HK
Spouse
F
0.80 *
.43-1.30
Correa(+!) 83
US
Spouse
F
2.07
.81-5.25
Correa(+!) 83
US
Spouse
M
1.97
.38-10.32
Trichopouls(+!) 83
Grk
Spouse
F
2.08
1.20-3.59
Buffler 84
US
Spouse
F
0.80 *
.34-1.90
Buffler 84
US
Spouse
M
0.51 *
.14-1.79
Hirayama (+)! 84
Jap
Spouse
F
1.60
1.00-2.40
Hirayama +
84
Jap
Spouse
M
2.24
1.19-4.22
Kabat 1(+)
84
US
Spouse
F
0.79 *
.25-2.45
Kabat 1(+) 84
US
Spouse
M
NS *
0.20-5.07
Garfinkel 2(+)
85
US
Spouse
F
1.23
0.81-1.87
Lam W 85
HK
Spouse
F
2.01
1.09-3.72
Wu(+!) 85
US
Spouse
F
1.40
0.40-4.20
Akiba(+)
86
Jap
Spouse
F
1.50
0.90-2.80
Akiba(+) 86
Jap
Spouse
M
1.80
0.40-7.00
Lee(+) 86
UK
Spouse
F
NS *
0.37-2.71
Lee(+) 86
UK
Spouse
M
1.30
0.38-4.39
Bownson 1 87
US
Spouse
F
1.68
0.39-6.90
Gao
87
Chin
Spouse
F
1.19
0.82-1.73
Humble 87
US
Spouse
F
2.20
0.80-6.60
Humble 87
US
Spouse
M
4.82
0.63-36.56
Koo 87
HK
Spouse
F
1.64
0.87-3.09
Lam T
87
HK
Spouse
F
1.65
1.16-2.35
Pershagen(+)
87
Swed
Spouse
F
1.20
0.70-2.10
Butler 88
US
Spouse
F
2.20
0.48-8.56
Geng
88
Chin
Spouse
F
2.16
1.08-4.29
Inoue 88
Jap
Spouse
F
2.25
0.80-8.80
Shimizu
88
Jap
Spouse
F
1.08
0.64-1.82
Choi
89
Kor
Spouse
F
1.63
0.92-2.87
Choi 89
Kor
Spouse
M
2.73
0.49-15.21
Hole
89
Scot
Spouse
F
1.89
0.22-16.12
Hole 89
Scot
Spouse
M
3.52
0.32-38.65
Svensson 89
Swed
Spouse
F
1.26
0.57-2.81
Janerick
90
US
Spouse
M&F
0.93 *
0.55-1.57
Kalandidi
90
Grk
Spouse
F
2.11
1.09-4.08
Sobue
90
Jap
Spouse
F
1.13
0.78-1.63
Wu-Williams 90
Chin
Spouse
F
0.70 *
0.60-0.90
Liu Z 91
Chin
Spouse
F
0.77 *
0.30-1.96
Brownson 2 ^ 92
US
Spouse
F
NS *
0.80-1.20
Stockwell ^
92
US
Spouse
F
1.60
0.80-3.00
Liu Q ^ 93
Chin
Spouse
F
1.66
0.73-3.78
Wu
93
Chin
Spouse
F
1.09
0.64-1.85
Fontham ^ 94
US
Spouse
F
1.29
1.04-1.60
Layard 94
US
Spouse
F
0.58 *
0.30-1.13
Layard 94
US
Spouse
M
1.47
0.55-3.94
Zaridze 94
Russia
Spouse
F
1.66
1.12-2.46
Kabat 2 ^
95
US
Spouse
F
1.08
0.60-1.94
Kabat 2 ^ 95
US
Spouse
M
1.60
0.67-3.82
Schwartz ^
96
US
Spouse
F
1.10
0.72-1.68
Schwartz ^ 96
US
Spouse
M
1.10
0.60-2.03
Sun 96
Chin
Spouse
F
1.16
0.80-1.69
Want S-Y
96
Chin
Spouse
F
2.53
1.26-5.10
Wang T-J
96
Chin
Spouse
F
1.11
0.67-1.84
Cardenas ^ 97
US
Spouse
F
1.20
0.80-1.60
Cardenas ^
97
US
Spouse
M
1.10
0.60-1.80
Jockel-BIPS 97
Ger
Spouse
F
1.58
0.74-3.38
Jockel-BIPS
97
Ger
Spouse
M
1.58
0.52-4.81
Jockel-GSF 97
Ger
Spouse
F
0.93 *
0.66-1.31
Jockel-GSF 97
Ger
Spouse
M
0.93 *
0.52-1.67
Ko ^
97
Tai
Spouse
F
1.30
0.70-2.50
Nyberg 97
Swed
Spouse
F
1.20
0.74-1.94
Nyberg 97
Swed
Spouse
M
1.20
0.57-2.55
Boffetta (WHO) 98
Eur
Spouse
M&F
1.16
0.93-1.44
Kabat 1 ^
84
US
Work
F
0.70 *
0.30-1.50
Kabat 1 ^
84
US
Work
M
3.30
1.10-10.40
Garfinkel 2 ^ 85
US
Work
F
0.93 *
0.70-1.20
Wu ^ 85
US
Work
F
1.30
0.50-3.30
Lee ^
86
UK
Work
F
0.63*
0.17-2.33
Lee ^ 86
UK
Work
M
1.61
0.39-6.60
Koo ^ 87
HK
Work
F
0.91 *
0.15-5.37
Shimizu ^ 88
Jap
Work
F
1.18
0.70-2.01
Janerich ^ 90
US
Work
F&M
0.91 *
0.80-1.04
Kalandidi ^! 90
Grk
Work
F
1.39
0.80-2.50
Wu-Williams ^ 90
Chin
Work
F
1.20
0.90-1.60
Brownson 2 92
US
Work
F
0.79 *
0.61-1.03
Stockwell ^ 92
US
Work
F
NS *
NS
Fontham ^ 94
US
Work
F
1.39
1.11-1.74
Zaridze 94
Russia
Work
F
1.23
0.74-2.06
Kabat 2 ^ 95
US
Work
F
1.15
0.62-2.13
Kabat 2 ^
95
US
Work
M
1.02
0.50-2.09
Schwartz ^
96
US
Work
F&M
1.50
1.00-2.20
Sun 96
Chin
Work
F
1.38
0.94-2.04
Wang T-J 96
Chin
Work
F
0.89 *
0.46-1.73
Jockel-BIPS
97
Ger
Work
F&M
2.37
1.02-5.48
Jockel-GSF
97
Ger
Work
F&M
1.51
0.95-2.40
Ko ^
97
Tai
Work
F
1.10
0.40-3.00
Nyberg 97
Swed
Work
F&M
1.60
0.90-2.90
Boffetta (WHO) 98
Eur
Work
F&M
1.17
0.94-1.45
Correa +
83
US
Childhd
F
NS *
NS
Kabat & Wyn ^
84
US
Childhd
F
0.92 *
0.40-2.08
Kabat & Wyn ^
84
US
Childhd
M
1.26
0.33-4.83
Garfinkel 2 + 85
US
Childhd
F
0.91 *
0.74-1.12
Wu (+)
85
US
Childhd
F
0.60 *
0.20-1.70
Akiba + 86
Jap
Childhd
F&M
NS *
NS
Gao ^
87
Chin
Childhd
F
1.10
0.70-1.70
Koo ^!
87
HK
Childhd
F
1.73
0.60-6.40
Pershagen ^ 87
Swed
Childhd
F
NS *
0.40-2.30
Svensson ^
89
Swed
Childhd
F
3.30
0.50-18.80
Janerich ^ 90
US
Childhd
F&M
1.09
0.68-1.73
Sobue (^)
90
Jap
Childhd
F
1.28
0.71-2.31
Wu-Will(^)! 90
Chin
Childhd
F
NS *
NS
Brownson 2 ^ 92
US
Childhd
F
0.80 *
0.60-1.10
Stockwell ^
92
US
Childhd
F
1.10
0.50-2.60
Fontham ^ 94
US
Childhd
F
0.89 *
0.72-1.10
Zaridze 94
Russia
Childhd
F
0.98 *
0.66-1.45
Kabat 2 ^ 95
US
Childhd
M
0.90 *
0.43-1.89
Kabat 2 ^ 95
US
Childhd
F
1.55
0.95-2.79
Sun 96
Chin
Childhd
F
2.29
1.56-3.37
Wang T-J 96
Chin
Childhd
F
0.91 *
0.56-1.48
Jockel-BIPS 97
Ger
Childhd
F&M
1.05
0.50-2.22
Jockel-GSF 97
Ger
Childhd
F&M
0.95 *
0.64-1.40
Ko ^ 97
Tai
Childhd
F
0.80 *
0.40-1.60
Boffetta (WHO) 98
Eur
Childhd
F&M
0.78 *
0.64-0.96
Garfinkel 2 85
US
Social
F
1.42
0.75-2.70
Lee
86
UK
Social
F
0.61 *
0.29-1.28
Lee 86
UK
Social
M
1.55
0.40-6.02
Janerich
90
US
Social
F&M
0.59 *
0.43-0.81
Stockwell
92
US
Social
F
NS *
NS *
Fontham
94
US
Social
F
1.50
1.19-1.89
Kabat 2 (^)
95
US
Social
F
1.22
0.69-2.15
Kabat 2 (^) 95
US
Social
M
1.39
0.67-2.86
Boffetta (WHO)
98
Eur
Social
M&F
1.03
0.82-1.29
1
posted by starling02 at 07:03 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
Sorry - forgot the link:
http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/SHSSCAMCHARTED.htm
I'm sorry if I'm being repetitive on this studies article. But the way I see it, the masses have had bogus results of shs studies shoved down their throats, enough to make people paranoid, when there's nothing to fear, but fear itself (I stole that line..) I think it's only fair to put out the facts about all these shs studies.
ryan - there are a few more very enlightening threads posted on swampbubbles, if you really care to educate yourself on what a sham (educationally, financially, politically) this damned smoking ban was really about. Lots to read, but an eye opener. May sting your eyes a bit if you're a rabid smoke hater.
posted by starling02 at 07:08 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
mccaskey - my stats came from the Boy Scouts of America. Are you suggesting that they lied to the Boy Scouts of America about how long it takes a butt to decompose? (although, all your websites gave close to the same number of years to decompose - which is still considerably less than disposable diapers or pop cans).
I read every link, and two key words kept popping up: "estimated" & "approximately". Vague type of words. One site said that 230,000 cigarette butts had washed ashore. Ok, I can believe that - if it's at a major resort, and they'd accumlated for 5 years or so. But what I WANT to know, is who did the actual COUNTING of those 230,000 cig butts? Do you really believe somebody sat there & counted them? I'm not arguing that cig butts account for a lot of litter - they are. But (maybe because I've been paying more attention since this thread was first posted), I've seen more empty fast food cups, foil wrappers, pop cans, plastic water or soda bottles, and those road alligators (tire retreads that fall off on the xway), than I have cig butts (and I've been looking for them). I agree tossing butts is littering - and they should fine people for doing it (My friend said that the law says, that it's a $500.fine if a cop sees you toss a butt or any litter out of a car. I don't know if that's true, but it should be - maybe not that high of a fine, but they need to enforce the no littering laws.) I also noticed on one of those sites you posted, was the suggestion that part of the solution would be MORE ASHTRAYS. hmmmmmm. I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more cig butt litter with the smoking ban - they say you have to 'step outside to smoke', but the ban requires removal of anything resembling an ashtray. Where do they think those butts are supposed to go, if the designated smoking area is not allowed to have ashtrays? At any rate - I'm not arguing it accounts for some of the litter. I do highly question the high percentages - even with your links. I want to see the piles of butts, or the counting tally sheets where they actually counted them. I get irritated when 'estimated' percentages, etc. are tossed out as facts, or numbers just pulled out of the air by the nannys.
posted by starling02 at 07:25 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
Mmmkay - that was the most annoying post ever.
No, I am not a rabid smoker hater as I have stated before. I just find it amusing that you believe everything that supports smoking and nothing against it. Google it up!
Everyone should smoke, how silly of me.
posted by Ryan at 08:11 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
ryan, you're doing it again. I don't believe everything that supports smokers, and have said before that smoking is not healthy, and yes, I've googled plenty. I just don't believe everything I read or hear. When they pushed a ban that infringes on the rights of private business owners, on the grounds of protecting people & employees against the horrors & disease of shs, people bought it, because it was spewed from "reputable" sources, like the ACS, WHO, the surgeon general, etc. Yes, I agree that the way that post copied out was annoying & difficult to read - I said as much when I posted it, and suggested to click the link to be able to read it easier (that you clearly didn't do that, tells me you are not interested in the the actual results of the shs studies, preferring I assume, the rubbish that's been spoon fed to you by the Stand Up kids). I posted that article for the simple, good reason that it SHOWS the actual results of ALL the shs studies - and NONE of them even came close to showing shs as having any kind of risk factor, to disease, etc. THAT proves, that the crap that the ACS, WHO, surgeon general spewed, was CRAP. Almost every one of those studies has been thrown out in courts, or proven to be inaccurate, cherry picked, poorly run, or most often, just flat out "No Risk". It's looking to me, like YOU believe everything that supports the shs bullshit scare tactics & nothing that proves it IS bullshit. Your comment that "everyone should smoke, how silly of me" - juvenile, and just leaping to the conclusion that I believe smoking is good, healthy & something everybody should do. I have respect for non-smokers - it is the rabid smoke haters/ban lovers nannys that used the lies of shs disease risk, for the safety of people, kids & employees, to pass a ban that encompasses ALL hospitality businesses - when it's more likely the real reason was "I don't like how it smells". That is NOT a good enough reason to destroy a business owner's livelihood. I personally think there's room in this world for both smokers & non-smokers - if people simply used their freedom of choise to enter, or not enter a place that allows smoking. Funny how freedom of choise works - kind of easy really, you see that a business has a smoking section (enclosed or separate with a good ventilation system, or just smoking allowed), & you don't walk in if you're easily offended by shs. But at least have the balls to say honestly what the real reason IS - that you don't like the smell, and stop going on & on about how shs is going to kill everybody, because it won't. It has never once been medically proven to have caused any disease or death, because, like the article I posted above PROVES, the numbers on the studies simply are too low to even worry about. Those study results I posted, came directly from the New England Journal of Medicine - one of the most prestigious in the country. Google that. Better (and easier) yet, simply click the damned link & see for yourself. As for the claim that it was to protect the bar & restaurant employees - 90 percent of bar & restaurant employees SMOKE anyway. I don't know how many of those you've ever worked for - I've worked at quite a few, and that 90 percent seems pretty accurate to me.
posted by starling02 at 12:08 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 28, 2007 #
I just find it amusing that you believe everything that supports smoking and nothing against it. Google it up!
----------------------------------------
So? YOU and your ilk believe everything that hates smokers/smoking, and nothing the other way. Yet your way is right and her way is wrong? Star has never said everyone should smoke. She merely knows that the ETS horseshit is just that-horseshit. And most of the rabid smoker-haters of today even KNOW it's horseshit, or don't care-as long as the lies can be used to get law-abiding citizens who use a legal product out of society-since they find the smell offensive. Smokers don't want to be around YOU, either, Einstein-how's that for a newsflash? All they ever wanted was the freedom to assemble in adult venues to enjoy a meal or a few drinks-the same as everyone else at the end of a hard day or week. All they ever wanted was accomodation and compromise-but there is none. They get indoor bans-then they go for outdoor ones. They get those-then they go for your cars. There will soon be nowhere but your home-and if you rent, or own a condo, they're already working on that, too. She has at least seen the lies and hypocrisy and media brainwashing that have led to sheer hatred. And please don't tell me you don't hate. It's subliminal, and you either don't realize it yet, or you won't admit it. They couldn't treat smokers (or private property rights, which are now non-existent)as they continue to do without the hate slowly nurtured over about 25 years. You reach a point over time where you don't realize you hate merely an act itself, but the people who do it. Slowly but surely over a period of years,this is repeatedly put into your head (although they still want their taxes) which is why smokers are the new niggers, only we can't even get on the bus of society.
I'm out of the thread. I still don't know why you constantly attempt to have conversation with these people, Star. Ta Ta!
posted by Darkseid at 05:00 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 28, 2007 #
You're right dark - They won't believe anything that contradicts what what they want to think is the truth, even if the proof smacks them in the face (in the form of EVERY SHS STUDY DONE that PROVES it is NOT a risk). The fact is, many people enjoy smoking, for various reason. But the smoke haters HATE, & are all too happy parroting the lies about shs, and I am wasting my time here. I did not post these threads to agitate people - I posted them to prove that not everything they've heard is true, to inform people - I actually believed that people would care about the difference between truth & bogus propaganda that fattens corporate pockets. But you're right - it's a waste of my time. I'd much rather fill my life with activities & people that make me happy, that pissy dart throwing/name calling contests here. For every 30 minutes I spend bantering with these people about this, I could be painting, or reading, or working. And sleep better at night with a smile on my face. I need to start taking breaks from these forums - they seem to focus on smoke haters & TPS & Carty bickering. I'm weary of all of it.
posted by starling02 at 12:59 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 29, 2007 #
Ever heard the expression, "Methinks though dost protest too much"?
Will you even admit that smoking is hazardous to the smoker?
If not, you're truly delusional.
If so, how could it be that the smoke coming from the cigarette that doesn't pass through the filter would NOT be harmful if what passes through the filter is?
Rest assured though, if I should ever find out that you're on your deathbed dying slowly from cancer, I'd still say a prayer for you.
posted by JeepMaker at 11:10 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 29, 2007 #
jeepmaker - I have always said that smoking is hazardous to the smoker's health. Show me where I said otherwise. Of course smoking is bad for you. But it is not as horrific as the the smoke police would have us believe. Their numbers of deaths/cancer do not jive. Fact: One out of 10 smokers will get lung cancer. That is far below the numbers the ACS tosses out (And the ACS numbers have been hugely & hotly disputed & disproven). Not good of course, but the sun causes cancer at a higher rate. My rants on these boards have not been to say smoking is healthy. They have been to say that the shs studies have proven that shs does not hold the risks (not even close) that ACS has spouted. The link I posted with all the shs studies ever done has proven that (check it out yourself). I'm more likely emphasima (sp)than cancer - some people are more predisposed to cancer than others. And, chances are, I could easily outlive you. I'm very healthy, no no meds.
posted by starling02 at 02:09 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 29, 2007 #
Then if you admit that smoking is unhealthy, can you deny that second hand smoke is unhealthy?
If your point is that SHS is harmful, but not AS harmful as is reported, then I ask, what right do you have to endanger anyone else AT ALL?
posted by JeepMaker at 05:29 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 30, 2007 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
