Anyone else noticed this?

TWISTED said:
Cause the average person goes through maybe 1 bag a week vs the smoker that goes through maybe 20 smokes a day.
Click to expand...

I think in MI it's about even for cigarettes and McD consumption.... the diabetisses don't lie.
brimley.jpg
 
I want to put a ban on all cars with aftermarket exhausts on them. The toxic NOX gasses, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide DIRECTLY effects me when I drive on the roads. It's bad for my health. It's my right to be able to breath clean air while on the road. I also think Semi trucks and all diesels should be banned. All that soot kills the environment and peoples lungs.
 
ItsAllAboutTheT&A said:
I want to put a ban on all cars with aftermarket exhausts on them. The toxic NOX gasses, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide DIRECTLY effects me when I drive on the roads. It's bad for my health. It's my right to be able to breath clean air while on the road. I also think Semi trucks and all diesels should be banned. All that soot kills the environment and peoples lungs.
Click to expand...

The are already banned from being operated inside restaurants and bars. Plus the emissions are regulated, and aftermarkets exhausts are supposed to meet oem pollution standards.
 
Roadrage said:
The are already banned from being operated inside restaurants and bars. Plus the emissions are regulated, and aftermarkets exhausts are supposed to meet oem pollution standards.
Click to expand...

theres no law on the books banning them from running a car or truck in a public venue, restrauant or bar

also there is there is no law or statute concering the pollution standards of a exhaust after the converter
 
moneypit said:
theres no law on the books banning them from running a car or truck in a public venue, restrauant or bar

also there is there is no law or statute concering the pollution standards of a exhaust after the converter
Click to expand...

Pull a running vehicle into a bar or restaurant for more than a minute and see how long it takes before you get arrested for it.

And what "pollution controls" are after the cat?
 
Roadrage said:
Incorrect. It has DIRECT effect on the others around the smoker.
An uninsured driver involved in an accident has an indirect effect on other people paying for insurance, because they arent involved in the accident, but their rates are effected.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight...

  • Insurance: Uninvolved person's insurance rates are effected by someone elses actions.
  • Smoking: Uninvolved person's (non-smoker's) health is effected by someone elses actions.

But one is a direct effect and one is indirect? They both sound like the same situation to me. To me a direct effect would be a driver affecting their own insurance rates by getting points on their license or a smoker affecting their own health by breathing directly from a source of smoke.
 
JoeliusZ28 said:
So let me get this straight...

  • Insurance: Uninvolved person's insurance rates are effected by someone elses actions.
  • Smoking: Uninvolved person's (non-smoker's) health is effected by someone elses actions.

But one is a direct effect and one is indirect? They both sound like the same situation to me. To me a direct effect would be a driver affecting their own insurance rates by getting points on their license or a smoker affecting their own health by breathing directly from a source of smoke.
Click to expand...

So by your logic punching somebody in the face is indirectly harming them, since they didnt do it to their self.

An indirect effect is when someone isnt involved directly in a situation, but it effects them somehow.

I didn't think it was that complicated, but I forget sometimes....
 

Attachments

  • common sense.jpg
    common sense.jpg
    38.4 KB · Views: 40
Someone getting punched in the face would not be an uninvolved party unless it was an accident as a result of a miss-guided punch ;)
 
Roadrage said:
Correct, much like a non smoker breathing in someone elses smoke is an involved party.
Click to expand...
i see your logic then. I viewed it as indirect because of the intent and focus of the action. (A person taking an accidental punch is not an involved party even though his health is affected). Whether or not smokers intend negative effects on others is entirely up for individual interpretation.
 
Last edited:
JoeliusZ28 said:
i see your logic then. I viewed it as indirect because of the intent and focus of the action. (A person taking an accidental punch is not an involved party even though his health is affected). Whether or not smokers intend negative effects on others is entirely up for individual interpretation.
Click to expand...
If you get punched accidentally you arent an involved party? If someone is shooting at another person and you accidentally get shot in the face would you be an involved party? You may not have been intended to be a target, but you certainly became one.

moneypit said:
roadrage did you quit smoking or were you a a smoker at one time???
Click to expand...
Never smoked, an honestly don't care if people smoke 100 packs a day (unless it's a girlfriend). If I was in power I probably would have never even thought to write a bill like this one either. I am just amazed that people think they have a right to smoke in a building when everyone in their right mind knows they are releasing poison into the air in an enclosed space filled with hundreds of other people.
 
i was just thinking the other day how fucked most of us would be if they started enforcing the cat converter law.. thats a BIG money fine..
 
Roadrage said:
Never smoked, an honestly don't care if people smoke 100 packs a day (unless it's a girlfriend). If I was in power I probably would have never even thought to write a bill like this one either. I am just amazed that people think they have a right to smoke in a building when everyone in their right mind knows they are releasing poison into the air in an enclosed space filled with hundreds of other people.
Click to expand...

Plenty of business owners chose to allow smoking or not in the buildings they OWN AND OPERATE before the 'ban'. Patrons CHOSE to enter those buildings when they knew full well people smoke in there. You had just as much a right to not go there as smokers had a right to smoke there.

It's like buying a home near the airport then complaining about the noise and petitioning for the airport to close...

Lets face it, this ban was not about public health. If it was it would be across the board an no exemptions for businesses with big lobby money ;)
 
Joe said:
Plenty of business owners chose to allow smoking or not in the buildings they OWN AND OPERATE before the 'ban'. Patrons CHOSE to enter those buildings when they knew full well people smoke in there. You had just as much a right to not go there as smokers had a right to smoke there.

It's like buying a home near the airport then complaining about the noise and petitioning for the airport to close...

Lets face it, this ban was not about public health. If it was it would be across the board an no exemptions for businesses with big lobby money ;)
Click to expand...

amen somebody can see the light , public safety and health go as far as the money trail. With any new law or regulation follow the money
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top