Thread: Anti - anti-smoking rant

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

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.

I do not disagree with you there.

That is partly to blame on the fact that political compromise is simply not the US way (no offense).
So you end up with anti smoking laws that are indeed fairly insane and draconian.
I mean I am very anti-smoking, but even I think your laws miss their mark by a wide margin.

Originally Posted by Pete_S

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

Originally Posted by Pete_S

You're ignoring the fact that the majority of the smoking bans are rooted in claims that second hand smoke is deadly and and thus the choice of the smoker regarding their own health is negated.

BBC News - A World Health Organization study in 192 countries states that second hand smoke causes 600,000 dearths world wide annually.

The problem with the "proof" idea is that you can not say that had these specific people not been exposed to smoke they would still be alive, because they were and are now dead. Personally I think the comparative analysis provides compelling proof and I take the view that the WHO are not a bunch of propagandists publishing falsified studies.

IMO those that take the attitude that their 2nd hand smoke is harmless to others are just choosing to believe what is comfortable to them.

I am prepared to consider the possibility that my opinion is wrong and that 2nd hand smoke is fine, in which case the impact on smokers has been at a social and convenience level. However, if one considers the possibility that it is right the impact on non smokers is on a medical level. So which is more important?

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.

Originally Posted by niftyshaving

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.

There is much wisdom in what you say...