Thread: Anti - anti-smoking rant

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bruno

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

No, I'm saying that its not the govts business to interfere with a choice that can be legally made by a member of the populace regarding their own health. If I want to eat fried chicken till I get a heart attack thats my business, too.

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

No, its not. Most people dont really care enough about smoking to donate the gobs of money being thrown into anti-smoking propaganda, and they dont have the pull to make things like these bans happen. The only explanation is that someone is profiting by it. I'd wondered who was funding these bans for a long time until I looked into it more deeply. A cash rich and influential movement like this just doesn't pop out of the blue.

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

And any people hang gliding would have been killed too . You're not in the US, so you probably don't understand the amount of media attention and hype that was given to this storm. They were acting like it was so dangerous that even looking at it wrong would kill you. Of course you need to take simple precautions when dealing with a hurricane, but exaggerating the danger of it for ratings is a bad thing. People who went through this storm will be less likely to give the respect a really dangerous storm deserves. I'm pretty sure many less people were killed in that area than would have been killed during that time period normally.

All the damage they're going on about is now mainly inconvenience. So yes, I am saying that it isn't a disaster. The media is trying to save face b/c there has been some blowback about the hype. I've been through at least 6 to 12 maybe hurricanes and tropical storms, so I'm familiar with their aftermath. Andrew is the only recent hurricane that comes to mind that was a disaster on its own. Katrina was a more of a disaster of incompetence...

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

True enough about the draconian part, I think thats rooted in what I said before about people wanting to make others do what they want. But I disagree with a majority of people wanting bans. If there was enough demand for a businesses such as a bar to disallow smoking they would do so on their own. Most don't unless forced to by a govt imposed smoking ban, then they do it kicking and screaming about the money they're losing.