Anti - anti-smoking rant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GOLDCREST

A thought that springs to mind........
When I was young... Children who shouted ..threw themselves on the floor or stamped their feet and generally carried on in selfish pursuit of WHAT THEY WANTED.... would have been given a good clip round the ear and told to shut up they were spoiled.......maybe thats whats been lacking with these Vociferous minority groups...a good crack round the head when they were young................perhaps its still not too late!!!
And as to politicians climbing on band wagons.........................Well I think most of us know what they are...

---

Smokers shouldn't be held in this light, they are mostly adults (those that are 18 or above) and are often very nice polite people, in most cases. Sometimes they fail to follow the rules, and they might get punished, but they still have the right to be respected. Smoking is still a pleasure also, and this should be equally considered within the argument. Even though it is just "something they want", it's not really childish behavior. It's not even necessarily selfish, anymore than partaking in other pleasures. Anyway, I think you should be a little more respectful of smokers, or perhaps people in general.

Is there a fundamental conclusion that smoking should be allowed in bars, simply because bars are a smoking environment? I'm not sure, but I like the idea of having seperate sections. I would have just settled for adequate ventilation, but that never seemed to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeltz

One thing that concerns me greatly
.... if something is legal then its fine
....

---

+1 I am with you.
Some when the world has shifted to the current condition
that if it is not illegal it is OK from a personal responsibility
point of view that would stop a prudent man from doing
harm to himself. Alcohol and tobacco are one place where
'adults' can help shape the future without adding laws through
action and example.

I really dont feel like tying alot right now, so I'm gonna be terse--

1) There has never been a death proven to be related to second hand smoke. Its that simple. No, not one. Sorry.

2) It is not the govts business to legislate the heath of the people. Arguments relating to things like food safety don't apply, excepting things like the raw milk debate.

3) I think its likely much of the anti smoking rhetoric is funded by big pharma. The anti smoking craze began just when anti-smoking medicines started coming out, and it has progressed further and further since then, netting them more and more profit. Pressure from pharmaceutical companies would also help explain the gov't interest in smoking, and several other things.

4) The Media has jumped on because the get the kill-hype thing going. Anything that puts death in a headline will get their full attention. Look at the stupid hurricane they were just mewling about for an example.

5)This is another example of the whiny wheel getting the grease. You remember the fat girl in class with the glasses who always whined, complained and said things like "thats offensive!"? Yeah, shes in charge. Most of the people who make up this movement don't care about heath at all, they care about making others do what they think they should, and they get attention in the bargain, something that no one should be giving them in the first place.

Well, not as terse as I wanted, but it will do for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete_S

I really dont feel like tying alot right now, so I'm gonna be terse--

1) There has never been a death proven to be related to second hand smoke. Its that simple. No, not one. Sorry.

2) It is not the govts business to legislate the heath of the people. Arguments relating to things like food safety don't apply, excepting things like the raw milk debate.

3) I think its likely much of the anti smoking rhetoric is funded by big pharma. The anti smoking craze began just when anti-smoking medicines started coming out, and it has progressed further and further since then, netting them more and more profit. Pressure from pharmaceutical companies would also help explain the gov't interest in smoking, and several other things.

4) The Media has jumped on because the get the kill-hype thing going. Anything that puts death in a headline will get their full attention. Look at the stupid hurricane they were just mewling about for an example.

5)This is another example of the whiny wheel getting the grease. You remember the fat girl in class with the glasses who always whined, complained and said things like "thats offensive!"? Yeah, shes in charge. Most of the people who make up this movement don't care about heath at all, they care about making others do what they think they should, and they get attention in the bargain, something that no one should be giving them in the first place.

Well, not as terse as I wanted, but it will do for now.

---

Well played good Sir, I would only add how offensive I find it that a government that can't tend to its own business is so keen to run mine. They say they're concerned about my health, I say that kind of talk is worth doodly squat. The government doesn't give a damn about citizens, unless of course they happen to be big pharmacy lobbyists who buy and pay for this ridiculous legislation via kick backs and campaign contributions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete_S

I really dont feel like tying alot right now, so I'm gonna be terse--
.....snip....

---

Neither do I ....
Lets us go and ponder the differences between
goose quill pens and gold nibs on a modern pen.

Better yet we should sing the praise of a fine
shave soap or the availability of good badger
brushes should global warming prove to be more
or less than the pundits tell us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeltz

One thing that concerns me greatly is people of my niece’s age. She is 16 and most of her friends smoke their attitude is that if something is legal then its fine, after all it it was properly bad for you it wouldn't be legal right? They are well educated but still the message doesn't get home, its just more adults telling them to do as I say not as I do.

---

That's just bad parenting.
I don't smoke. My wife does not smoke, and my children will not smoke.
They grow up with the message that smoking kills.
If they ever feel like trying it, I will confront them with pictures of tumors in dissected lungs, I will ground them, and I will withold all allowance.

Of course this only works if the parents don't smoke. If they do, then the kids rightfully think that they're being hypocrites and the parents will lose all basis for disciplining them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete_S

I really dont feel like tying alot right now, so I'm gonna be terse--

1) There has never been a death proven to be related to second hand smoke. Its that simple. No, not one. Sorry.

---

Stink bombs are not deadly either, but if a large number of people started throwing them in public spaces, it would be made illegal as well.
You're basically arguing that since throwing stink bombs is not deadly, you should be allowed to do it.

Quote:

---

2) It is not the govts business to legislate the heath of the people. Arguments relating to things like food safety don't apply, excepting things like the raw milk debate.

---

You are basically saying it is not the government's business, except when it is. :)

Quote:

---

3) I think its likely much of the anti smoking rhetoric is funded by big pharma. The anti smoking craze began just when anti-smoking medicines started coming out, and it has progressed further and further since then, netting them more and more profit. Pressure from pharmaceutical companies would also help explain the gov't interest in smoking, and several other things.

---

No, it is mostly supported by non smokers who absolutely hate it when e.g. they are enjoying diner and the person next to them starts blowing smoke across the tables.

Quote:

---

4) The Media has jumped on because the get the kill-hype thing going. Anything that puts death in a headline will get their full attention. Look at the stupid hurricane they were just mewling about for an example.

---

There are millions of dollars in damage, the NY tunnels got flooded, cities got flooded and people had to evacuate.
Are you saying it is not a disaster? Should people not have done anything?
If the tunnels had been in use, everyone in there would have drowned.

Quote:

---

5)This is another example of the whiny wheel getting the grease. You remember the fat girl in class with the glasses who always whined, complained and said things like "thats offensive!"? Yeah, shes in charge. Most of the people who make up this movement don't care about heath at all, they care about making others do what they think they should, and they get attention in the bargain, something that no one should be giving them in the first place.

---

Most people in charge care about getting elected.
The majority of the people support a smoking ban. This is not just a small minority.
Now, in case of the US government, laws tend to be very draconian and without much room for being reasonable about things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Well played good Sir, I would only add how offensive I find it that a government that can't tend to its own business is so keen to run mine. They say they're concerned about my health, I say that kind of talk is worth doodly squat. The government doesn't give a damn about citizens, unless of course they happen to be big pharmacy lobbyists who buy and pay for this ridiculous legislation via kick backs and campaign contributions.

---

I doubt whether the government is interested in your health.
If smokers in general had been reasonable about it and not smoked in buses, restaurants, and other enclosed spaces around non smokers, there would never have been smoking laws to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

That's just bad parenting.
I don't smoke. My wife does not smoke, and my children will not smoke.
They grow up with the message that smoking kills.
If they ever feel like trying it, I will confront them with pictures of tumors in dissected lungs, I will ground them, and I will withold all allowance.

Of course this only works if the parents don't smoke. If they do, then the kids rightfully think that they're being hypocrites and the parents will lose all basis for disciplining them.

---

Well I would also like to thing the same that, due to my guidance, my children will not start smoking but I also know that we encourage our children to have enquiring minds and form their own opinions. So there is always the risk that they will presume me to be over reacting, the only benefit from having 2 relatives currently going through atrocious health problems from smoking is that perhaps my children will remember it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I doubt whether the government is interested in your health.
If smokers in general had been reasonable about it and not smoked in buses, restaurants, and other enclosed spaces around non smokers, there would never have been smoking laws to begin with.

---

I don't disagree that for a lot of years smokers operated pretty much with impunity not knowing or caring much if people around them objected to the smoke. Suddenly there were smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants, no smoking on airplanes or buses. OK, fine that seemed reasonable. Then there was no smoking in restaurants at all. Then public events outlawed smoking and many companies went tobacco free which meant you couldn't smoke on company time. Soon, many cities adopted ordinances outlawing smoking in public parks and on beaches (outside!) of course, when the legalize marijuana bunch wanted to have a rally, these bans were temporarily suspended. The point is that the rules have become increasingly intrusive on people's personal choice. If people don't want to smell pipes and cigars in the confines of an airplane, I get that. If people don't want smoke being blown in their faces while they're eating, I get that too. But when I can't smoke in a bar or while walking through a public park or beach (that my tax dollars help maintain) I think it's swung too far the other way. I think we could do far better with creating compromise where both sides could give a little. As it currently stands, smokers have taken a non-stop beating for the last 20 years or so and the anti tobacco movement has just gotten their way, by default, without much consideration of the smokers rights. I'm just saying there's got to be more middle ground than is being presented.