www.zastitaumestozabrane.com/

[harper lee]

U demokratskom procesu, ako ista valja, ne pobedjuje misljenje vecine, vec misljenje onih koji imaju najbolje argumente da sa njima ubede dovoljnu vecinu. Uostalom, videli smo u medjuvremenu da su ti tvoji procenti malo klimavi? Ja vidim to kao deo procesa. Uopste ne mislim da ce da padne nebo ako se u Srbiji sprovede ta zabrana, niti se uopste slazem sa tvojom logikom, pominjanjem nekakvog duuuuleta savica i kojecega. Boze, da ne znam bolje, pomislio bih da citam Biki Srki na blogu B92. Ja uopste ne mislim da postoji kvalitativna razlika izmedju Srbije i vecine srednjerazvijenih zemalja, barem ne takva komadina od razlike koju ti izgleda vidis. Nije bre to Chad. Postoji velika kvantitativna razlika (=prosecna primanja), ali to bas i nema previse veze s konkretnom temom.Ja nijednom, ali ne mogu da se slozim s tim sto je napisao (inace mi obicno nije nimalo tesko da se s njim slozim).

Ne da nece nebo da padne ako se ovo izvede u Srbiji vec se nece desiti nista. Bas nista.Drugo, postavljas stvar logicki lose. Ukoliko se u Srbiji primeni, prihvati i dosledno sprovede zabrana pusenja u svim javnim prostorima (pa i u onim privatnim sa javnom namenom) bez ikakvih prethodnih radnji, dakle ako se uspesno sprovede stvar koja nigde nije probana takvom dinamikom, onda ce ta kvalitativna razlika u odnosu na druge zemlje i to one najrazvijenije, ici u korist Srbije. Znaci nece biti, Srbija < Cad vec Srbija > Norveska, Kanada, Australija,... Kad si vec kod analogija. ;) A svi dobro znamo koliko je to realno.Sto se ovog boldovanog tice nisam bas siguran da je upravo to ono sto valja u demokratiji. Razni su dolazili na vlast zbog svoje velelepne moci ubedjivanja vecine. Jedan od tih velikih Onih Sto Valjaju U Demokratiji je pre ciglo 60 i kusur godina satro 50 miliona ljudi.

[Idioteque]

Meni zaista nije jasno kako rasprava o zabrani pušenja može da se toliko spusti na nivo ličnih obračuna, ali očigledno da može. Apelujem da se smire strasti ili će topic biti zaključan do daljnjeg. I da, sledeći ad hominem napad - ban.

[Indy]

@ harperDobro, nece biti da je bas dosao na vlast demokratski ;-)

Edited April 26, 2009 by Indy

[Indy]

dupli post

Edited April 26, 2009 by Indy

[savindan]

Devojke bi ovo trebalo da imaju u viduhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hpv#cite_note-ACS_CCRisk-55Zanimljivo je inače da smo u školi učili kako nastaju koralni sprudovi i nazive nekih izumrlih paprati, a nikad nijednu reč nisam čula o HPV virusu, ne daj Bože sve sa nekom statistikom tipa ove.

Очито да постоји веза између тога зашто Србија у Европи држи два неславна рекорда:- проценат пушача- стопa рака грлића материцеSmoking: Women who smoke are about twice as likely as non-smokers to get cervical cancer. Smoking exposes the body to many cancer-causing chemicals that affect more than the lungs. These harmful substances are absorbed by the lungs and carried in the bloodstream throughout the body. Tobacco by-products have been found in the cervical mucus of women who smoke. Researchers believe that these substances damage the DNA of cervix cells and may contribute to the development of cervical cancer. Edited April 26, 2009 by savindan

[savindan]

A protiv pusenja... evo jednog maloglinkica: (klik na slik)

Па није баш тако, у ствари није уопште такоNazi Medicine and Public Health PolicyBy Robert N. Proctorhttp://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_nazi_med.asp

Nazi Ideology and Anti-Tobacco ResearchIf you ask most experts when the first good evidence arose that tobacco was a major cause of lung cancer, they will point to a series of epidemiological studies by English and American researchers in the early 1950s. If you ask when a medical consensus on this question first arose, they will most likely point to the 1964 Surgeon General's report, which took a strong stand on this question, or a similar report by Britain's Royal College of Physicians two years earlier.I have become convinced, however, that there was an earlier and overlooked consensus, a consensus within the German medical and scientific community, that emerged during the Nazi period. The Nazis had a powerful anti-tobacco movement, arguably the most powerful in the world at that time. Tobacco was opposed by racial hygienists fearing the corruption of the German "germ plasm" (i.e., genetic material), by industrial hygienists fearing a reduction of people's capacity to work, by nurses and midwives fearing harm to the "maternal organism." Tobacco was said to be a "corrupting force in a rotting civilization that has become lazy." The Nazis' anti-tobacco rhetoric drew from an earlier generation's eugenics rhetoric and also reflected an ethic of bodily purity and zeal for work.3 Tobacco use was attacked as an "epidemic," a "plague," as "dry drunkenness," and as "lung masturbation"; tobacco and alcohol abuses were "diseases of civilization" and "relics of a liberal lifestyle."Anti-tobacco research flourished in the Third Reich. Animal experimental work demonstrated that the tar extracted from cigarette smoke could cause cancer; and physical chemists distilled tobacco tars to identify the carcinogenic components. The editor of Germany's Monatsschrift f?r Krebsbek?mpfung (Monthly Anti-Cancer Journal) organized animal experiments to test whether smoking causes lung cancer: rats were put into a "gas chamber" and cigarette smoke was pumped in from the top (many animals suffocated).4 Germans under the Nazis established ambitious tumor registries, which included the first broad registries of cancer incidence, and not just cancer mortality.Third Reich scientists also performed extensive work in the area of occupational carcinogenesis. Physicians documented the health hazards of asbestos, and in 1943 Germany became the first nation to recognize lung cancer and mesothelioma caused by asbestos inhalation as compensable occupational illnesses. Nazi Germany also pioneered what we now call experimental epidemiology: two striking papers -- a 1939 article by Franz H. M?ller of Cologne, and a 1943 paper by Eberhard Schairer and Erich Sch?niger of Jena -- presented the most convincing demonstrations up to that time that cigarettes were a major cause of lung cancer. Let me say a few words about these papers because they represent a different kind of science than we are accustomed to associating with the Nazi era.Franz H. M?ller, a physician at Cologne's B?rgerhospital, analyzed the smoking habits of 86 male lung cancer patients and compared them with the habits of age-standardized "controls" not suffering from lung cancer. His findings were clear-cut and striking: the lung cancer patients were much more likely to be heavy smokers and much less likely to be nonsmokers. Sixteen percent of the healthy group were nonsmokers, compared with only 3.5 percent for the lung cancer group. The 86 lung cancer patients smoked a total of 2,900 grams of tobacco per day, while the 86 healthy men smoked only 1,250 grams. M?ller concluded that tobacco was not just "an important cause" of lung cancer, but also that "the extraordinary rise in tobacco use" was "the single most important cause of the rising incidence of lung cancer" in recent decades (emphasis in original).5M?ller's work was taken one step further by Eberhard Schairer and Erich Sch?niger, physicians working at Jena's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research. The Jena scientists were well aware that German lung cancer rates were on the rise, and that many of the nontobacco explanations of the rise were flawed (the automotive exhaust theory, for example, failed to explain the fact that rural rates were also rising). Schairer and Sch?niger drew attention to the fact that a heavy smoker could inhale as much as four kilograms of tar over a lifetime, a frightening figure given Angel H. Roffo's demonstration that animals painted with tobacco tars develop high rates of cancer.6Closely following the method pioneered by M?ller, Schairer and Sch?niger sent questionnaires to the relatives of 195 lung cancer victims, inquiring into the smoking habits of the deceased. Going beyond M?ller, however, they sent an additional 555 questionnaires to the families of patients who had died from other kinds of cancer -- the presumption being that smokers would be more likely to develop certain kinds of cancer rather than others. Questionnaires were also sent to 700 male residents of Jena to determine the smoking habits among a population apparently free of cancer. The results were clear: among the 109 lung cancer cases for which usable data were obtained, only three were nonsmokers, a far lower proportion than among the population as a whole (about 3 percent, vs. 16 percent for the noncancer controls). The smokers were not necessarily "cancer prone," because when cancers other than lung cancer were looked at -- stomach cancer, for example-- smokers were found to be no more likely to succumb than nonsmokers. Schairer and Sch?niger's conclusion: smoking was very likely a major cause of lung cancer. The results were of the "highest" statistical significance, though the investigators did not have the mathematical tools to quantify that level of significance. A 1994 re-evaluation of Schairer and Sch?niger's study showed that the probability that the results could have come about by chance was less than one in 10 million.7The Significance of Nazi Tobacco-Use ResearchHow should we interpret such studies? How can we explain the fact that Nazi Germany was home to the world's foremost tobacco-cancer epidemiology and the world's strongest cancer prevention policy? Do we say that "pockets of innovation" existed in Nazi Germany, resistant to ideological influence?8 What if we find, on closer inspection, that Germany's anti-tobacco research flourished not in spite of the Nazis, but in large part because of the Nazis? And would it then be appropriate, from a moral point of view, to cite such research in scientific studies today?9I ask this last question partly because the two tobacco studies I have just discussed have, in fact, been repeatedly cited by postwar scientific researchers, though rarely with any mention of the social context within which they were carried out. There is never any mention, for example, of the fact that the founding director of Sch?niger and Schairer's Institute was Karl Astel, Rector of the University of Jena, a vicious racial hygienist, and an SS officer. One never hears that the grant application for the Institute was written by Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, chief organizer of Germany's system of forced labor and a man hanged after the war for crimes against humanity (most leaders of Nazi Germany's anti-tobacco movement were silenced in one way or another after 1945). No mention is ever made of the fact that funding for Astel's Institute, and therefore for Schairer and Sch?niger's study, came from a gift of 100,000 Reichsmarks from the F?hrer-- himself an ardent anti-smoking activist. It is clear to anyone who follows the money trail and the research interests that Schairer and Sch?niger's study would not have been undertaken had it not been for Hitler's anti-tobacco sentiments and those of his like-minded underlings. Hitler once even attributed the rise of German fascism to his quitting smoking: the young artist-architect had smoked a couple of packs a day until 1919, when he threw his cigarettes into the Danube and never reached for them again.Again, how should we interpret such Nazi-era papers? How should we judge the fact that Nazi ideology in this case (and there are others) appears not to have hindered research, but actually to have promoted it?In drawing attention to such questions, my intention is not to be provocative, or to argue that "something good" came from the Nazi regime. I have no desire to rescue the honor of the Nazi regime, or to "balance the historical record" for balance's sake. You cannot balance genocide with a few flashy studies or a dazzling V-2 engine. I should also say that I have little sympathy for those who argue that republishing the results of brutal Nazi medical experiments is a way to ensure that the victims of such experiments "did not die" in vain. They did die in vain, and a well-designed life jacket or Apollo spacecraft is no compensation.I raise the questions I do about Nazism and science because it is poor scholarship and perhaps even dangerous to caricature the Nazis as irrational or anti-science. What we have to look at more carefully is the relationship between science and ideology at this time. It is not the case, for example, that the papers on tobacco epidemiology I have mentioned were uninfluenced by Nazi ideology. The Reich's anti-tobacco program was motivated by Nazi ideals of bodily purity and racial hygiene: there was a kind of "homeopathic paranoia" pervading Nazi ideology that led many of its adherents to believe that tiny, corrosive elements were insinuating themselves into "the German body," sapping its strength, causing harm. Appreciating this helps us understand how Nazi science/ideologues could declare that tobacco tar, lead, mercury, asbestos -- and Jews -- all posed a threat to the Nordic race. It also may help us better understand why so many doctors were supporters of Hitler's regime.

[ockham]

To je tacno. Ali, opet imamo puno onih (kao harper i ockham) koji insistiraju na tome da je to "individualni izbor". Pa sad, ne moze i ovamo i onamo. Ili je izbor, ili nije. Inace se slazem s tobom, i sam sam propusio kao klinac. Ali, danas je to malo teze, jer je zabranjena prodaja cigareta onima ispod 18 i ovde se to i dosta dosledno sprovodi.

eto vidis kako se resava pitanje balavurdije koja pusi po veceima. posto je manje vise standard u nasoj/zapadnoj/savremenoj civilizaciji da su osobe mladje od 18 maloletne te stoga nisu potpuno svesne svojih izbora, onda je resenje ozbiljno sankcionisanje prodaje duvana, alkohola i inih narkotika deci.

Pusenja lule? ;-)

lula rula, al sam uveren da bi vecina radije izabrala da im neko u blizini pusi cigarete nego lulu, posebno napunjenu nekim jakim bozanstvenim duvanom za sladokusce.

[ockham]

Briljantno. Stvarno genijalno.

dakle, nema potreba za imbecilnim hajlovima, posebno ako i ne razumes napisano. javna mesta na kojima nisi iskljucivo svojom voljom su i radno mesto, javni saobracaj, administrativne zgrade itd.nemam nista protiv postojanja kafana u kojima se ljudima prosipaju govna na glavu, al jednostavno ne zelim da obitavam na takvim mestima, kao sto rado izbegavam mesta na kojima su povecani izgledi da neko povraca po meni bez obzira bilo to zdravo ili ne. je l jasno?

[Nicol]

sad kad smo dotakli dno rasprave s argumentum ad hitlerum, jos nam ostaje istrazivanje uzbudljivog podrucja osobnih diskvalifikacija i uvreda....

[panta rhei]

nemam nista protiv postojanja kafana u kojima se ljudima prosipaju govna na glavu, al jednostavno ne zelim da obitavam na takvim mestima, kao sto rado izbegavam mesta na kojima su povecani izgledi da neko povraca po meni bez obzira bilo to zdravo ili ne. je l jasno?

ovo je sustina cele price. zameni za 'ljudima prosipaju govna na glavi' sa 'se pusi' i to je to. zamisli sada situaciju gde se u svim kafanama ljudima prosipaju govna na glavi pa ti moras da se boris za to da bar u nekoj to ne rade, kako bi i ti imao izbora. jos te neko ubedjuje kako je njegovo pravo da u svim kafanama moze da prosipa govna a ti nemoj da ides u kafane ako ti se ne svidja.tako da nemam nista protiv postojanja kafana u kojima se pusi, al jednostavno ne zelim da obitavam na takvim mestima.

[ockham]

ovo je sustina cele price. zameni za 'ljudima prosipaju govna na glavi' sa 'se pusi' i to je to. zamisli sada situaciju gde se u svim kafanama ljudima prosipaju govna na glavi pa ti moras da se boris za to da bar u nekoj to ne rade, kako bi i ti imao izbora. jos te neko ubedjuje kako je njegovo pravo da u svim kafanama moze da prosipa govna a ti nemoj da ides u kafane ako ti se ne svidja.tako da nemam nista protiv postojanja kafana u kojima se pusi, al jednostavno ne zelim da obitavam na takvim mestima.

nisam siguran da sam shvatio tvoju ponetu. ako hoces da kazes da imam pravo na kafanu u kojoj se fekalije ne izrucuju na glave gostiju, to nije sustina. verovatno se necu boriti niti to moram, jer ne mislim da mi je to pravo ikako zagarantovano - ako drugi to vole, volja im. radije cu sedeti u svom domu ili domu prijatelja nesklonih takvim aktivnostima dok se neki dovitljivi ugostitelj ne doseti da zabrani prosipanje govana u svom lokalu.

[Mil@n]

Evo ocigledan primer i potvrda onoga sto sam pricao o tretiranju pusaca od nekih nepusaca.

A kako pušači tretiraju mene? Da li se neko pita kako se ja osećam dok stojim u kafiću a on mi purnja taj ogavni smrad po sred face? Zbog takvih nemam želju da idem na takva mesta. Jebem ti izlazak kad se vratim kući kontaminiran od glave do pete. Da li ikog od tih zavisnika uopšte zanima kako to utiče na ljude okolo, dali nekome smeta, i koliko mu smeta? Ne, što samo govori u prilog tome dokle idu sa svojim egoizmom zanemarjući ljude oko sebe radi konzumiranja svog poremećaja. A pušenje, osim što pruža užitak konzumentu nema ama baš nijednu korisnu konsekvencu što jasno govori u prilog tome da je u pitanju jedna devijacija i klasična linija manjeg otpora svakog konzumenta koji nema problem da troši pare, da negativno utiče na svoje zdravlje, na svoje svakodnevno okruženje (stan kuća, zavese zidovi, odvratne pepeljare pune pikavaca i pepela koje leti na sve strane i tako dalje), samo zato da se eto, smire kad su nervozni, ili da sruče po jednu uz kafu, uf što je to do jaja, jel. Msm, neka puši ko i šta hoće, ne zanima me. Samo što dalje od onih kojima to smeta na bilo koji način, to je elementarna kultura ponašanja. Doduše, pošto to nije zakonski legalizovano mi kojima to smeta možemo da se oslonimo samo na vaspitanje pušača, i nadam se da će se i zakonski to svesti na meru, naravno, što manju, prostorno i količinski Edited April 26, 2009 by Glas RazumaN

[panta rhei]

nisam siguran da sam shvatio tvoju ponetu. ako hoces da kazes da imam pravo na kafanu u kojoj se fekalije ne izrucuju na glave gostiju, to nije sustina. verovatno se necu boriti niti to moram, jer ne mislim da mi je to pravo ikako zagarantovano - ako drugi to vole, volja im. radije cu sedeti u svom domu ili domu prijatelja nesklonih takvim aktivnostima dok se neki dovitljivi ugostitelj ne doseti da zabrani prosipanje govana u svom lokalu.

nisam bas siguran u to, ali ako ti kazes nema razloga da ti ne verujem. moja poenta je u pitanju sta je 'starije', ako tako smem da se izrazim. da li je 'starije' pravo na pusenje ili na ne pusenje. u tom kontekstu da li pusenje treba da se zabranjuje ili dozvoljava. licno smatram da smo svi mi u pocetku nepusaci pa u jednom momentu postajemo, neki od nas, pusaci. tako da prvo, svuda, bez izuzetaka, mora da bude nepusacko pa tek onda da se na nekim mestima dozvoli pusenje, a ne obrnuto.tako da je pravo pitanje gde sme da se pusi a ne gde da se zabrani.edit: zar nije 'prirodnije' da se svuda ne prosipaju pa da se onda ceka da se neki dovitljivi doseti da u svom lokalu dozvoli? Edited April 26, 2009 by pajapatak

[Аврам Гојић]

A pušenje, osim što pruža užitak konzumentu nema ama baš nijednu korisnu konsekvencu što jasno govori u prilog tome da je u pitanju jedna devijacija

kao i 99% ljudskih aktivnosti! dole homoseksualizam, padobranstvo, igranje igrica! korist je jedino merilo!

[Evi]

Na korak ste od protestantizma, treba raditi samo korisne stvari, šta je starije - kokoška ili jaje... Ovo postaje teološka rasprava. Baš me zanima kako su debate o zabrani pušenja izgledale u evropskim državama, da li su bile makar delom ovako biserne?