| |
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by C716
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:19 pm |
|
If the majority of non-smokers had no issues with smoking in public places:
Laws would not be passed to restrict smoking.
This board would not be here.
Tobacco lobbyists would not have to work so hard
You guys would not be so passionate about your habit.
There would not have to be so many studies on the dangers of smoking.
TRUTH ads would be unheard of.
Smoking would still be allowed in hospitals.
Joe the Camel would be alive and well.
AND, you would not be so mad at one poster who simply tries to offer WHY there are other views. |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by Jay
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:59 pm |
|
If the majority of non smokers had issues with smoking in public places as early as the same time the first warnings came out:
Smoking bans would've been existence as early as the 70's.
The price of smoking would've went up by a LOT, and I'm sure packs would be as high as 10 bucks each right now.
The US would've actually enforced the minor smoking laws instead of waiting until people like you come along.
The majority of smokers obviously didn't have issues with smoking back then, although the dangers of smoking WERE out at that time. How come they have issues with it now instead of then?
-More flawed smoking research is out. Who ever heard of using rats as a way of experimenting the effects of second hand smoke? Not to mention coming up with dangers for heavy smokers. All smokers don't smoke heavily.
-More people like you (not the non smokers) are using the flawed research to come up with actual smoking bans. Not to mention some more freaks like you trying to raise the legal age to 21, like that's actually going to stop more people from starting.
But the real Q is: If non-smokers had issues with smoking for decades, how come it took them 30 years to take action when evidence on smoking dangers was out since the 60's actually? I know the answer why.
It's because of people like you making excuses to fit your needs without giving a darn about the real intelligent people (smokers and nonsmokers alike) in society. If anti-smoking was never born, we wouldn't have stupid bans in the first place. And your post proved me right. You don't give a darn about my actual thoughts. You just keep posting what YOU wanna hear, and that ain't gonna fly.
BTW, this site wouldn't exist if we smokers weren't fighting for freedom against bogus people like you. This site advocates smokers' rights worldwide. It doesn't advocate YOUR rights worldwide. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 479
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by redliner1989
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:17 pm |
|
Quote: " what are they gonna do"............ well, we did it, we voted that we didnt want to deal with it. The reason WHY I wouldnt be for it is simple. ENFORCEMENT. thats all
C
The above is what all the bad feelings are about. You don't like it, so you get enough people to vote against it and create a law?
That is the problem, Law is more precious then that, at least it is supposed to be. Someone asked, in a different discussion group, the question.
"Will our Constitution fall?"
I am not so sure it will last. The greatest document EVER greated to organize a government is so easily dismissed.
I know what you are saying about the rude behavior that some smokers exhibited. I have been in a restaraunt when a friend of mine exhibited the same kind. I LET HIM (The Smoker) have it!
Consider this though, we smokers go through far worse EVERY DAY. Imagine watching TV and being called a "butthead". Women on TV saying they won't kiss us (although I've had much better women then any i've seen say that). Over the noon hour today, I saw a commercial that showed a dad, smoking a cigerette, playing with his Son, and this commercial pretty much implied he was a child abuser!!!!!!
Just yesterday, I am standing across the parking lot from the doors of the Theater, waiting for my Son. No one is within 100 ft of me, and an older gentleman walks all that way, just to tell me I'M KILLING MYSELF. I tried to respond kindly, but when he kept it up, then noticed my Son walking toward me, he couldn't help but say "and your killing him too".
Sorry "C", at that point I called the man a freak and asked him why he liked being considered a Nazi? I dismissed the loser and took my Son home.
Why am I treated this way "C"?
I have been a volunteer Soccor Coach for 10 years.
I have been a volunteer Baseball Coach for 22 years (I have sent 8 boys to major college scholorships, 16 to small school scholorship).
I founded a college foundation for children of fallen Firefighters.
I am a former Deputy Sheriff.
My three kids were/are all honor students. None have even gotten a speeding tickit.
I donate at least 10 hours a month to habitat for humanity.
I was able to introduce a young girl, sick with cancer, to her favorite Country Music Star (no small task).
My Grandfather was nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor, My Father was wounded at Normandy, two uncles served as POW's in WWII, one survived the Battan Death March, another uncle never made it back from Korea. I have 2 brothers that were on the front lines in Vietnam, one of which became a firefighter who didn't survive the last one he went to. I was lucky to have served my Country during a time of peace, but my Son is stationed in Kuwait after 4 months protecting this Constitution in Iraq.
But I am a jerk because I SMOKE?
GIVE ME A DANG BREAK
Lastly, I must say that, from what I have read of yours, I think you are a fairly likeable guy. I think we would probably make great neighbors.
Honestly, I would have probably quit smoking years ago, but all this propaganda by the anti-smokers really does bring out the Rebel in me. I really hate even thinking that I MUST be like others. Life is simply just too short. |
|
|
redliner1989
Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2003
Posts: 133
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:25 pm |
|
>>>Laws would not be passed to restrict smoking.
>>>This board would not be here.
I rebutted these two already. Although I forgot to mention those laws are based on flawed research over recent years, combined with complaints from anti-smokers who have a selfish attitude towards businesses ("We don't care if you lose money from bans. We just want a smoke-free society! Since secondhand smoke kills, that should be enough to adopt smoking bans in places!") Well, even if it took 3 decades to realize secondhand smoke kills, where were you with this BS when everyone in the US learned cigs are dangerous to one's health? Nobody never said "Let's prohibit smoking!" back then.
>>>>Tobacco lobbyists would not have to work so hard
Well, I'm sure there will always be foolish ex-smokers filing lawsuits against the tobacco companies despite knowing that smoking can give them lung cancer and emphysema. Unless these old-timer ex-smokers never learned how to read the warnings on cig packs and not keep up with the news on the dangers of smoking over the past 3 decades.
>>>You guys would not be so passionate about your habit.
I'm always going to be passionate about my habit, even if people like you never existed in society. I love smoking, and if anyone has a problem with that, they can kiss my you know what.
>>>>There would not have to be so many studies on the dangers of smoking.
I can't imagine someone not studying the effects of smoking in an anti-smoking free world. Researchers need to get paid some kind of way, even if that means coming up with vague conclusions on the smoking research. Or vague info on research like "Sugar doesn't cause cavities according to researchers." The false health research isn't limited to smoking. I heard about the sugar comment in '94, and I don't believe it. If sugar doesn't cause cavities for real, why would I have to brush my teeth? That's common sense on sugar DOES cause cavities, just like secondhand smoke does NOT kill.
>>>>TRUTH ads would be unheard of.
That's absolutely right on TRUTH ads not being in existence. The funny part though is TRUTH was never in existence in the early days of when everyone first learned about smoking being bad.
>>>>Smoking would still be allowed in hospitals.
Not to mention smoking still being allowed in all places you would go into, including supermarkets, in the seats of indoor/outdoor sport arenas, and shopping malls.
>>>>Joe the Camel would be alive and well.
If that is your way of saying "We would still have outdoor cig ads and still have cig ads on radio and TV with Joe Camel," you're right about that.
>>>>AND, you would not be so mad at one poster who simply tries to offer WHY there are other views.
You're not offering other views. You're offering YOUR views only, and not all "non-smokers" think like you, my non-smoking uncle included. He's a non-smoker with a non-selfish attitude towards smokers. You're a non-smoker with the opposite attitude. Which makes you more than just a non-smoker, but an anti-smoker.
You forgot another thing if non-smokers didn't have issues with smoking.
Cig packs would still be as low as 75 cents each. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 479
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by C716
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:52 pm |
|
Well, apparently i struck a nerve.
Red, shame on anyone making you feel nad for what YOU want to do. As I said from the begining, that is NOT what I intend. I LOVED my father, I didnt want him to smoke.. but he did.. I didnt think any less of him.
Jay, I have repeatedly said I dont wish to see ciggs banned, Overtaxed or outlawed, BUT, I dont think you see that part.,
Americans are maiking a collective choice to restrict where smoking is allowed.
Americans are LEGALLY voting to restrict smoking in certain forums.
Americans are weighing the risks and deciding they dont want that.
The VAST MAJORITY of Americans do NOT smoke and DO care where smoking is permitted.
I wil never believe that the same smoke folks readily admit is bad for the smoker, is NOT harmful to the non smoker, that logic simply evades me.
No, I dont speak for ALL non-smokers just as you hardly speak for all smokers, so thats a mute point to bring up.
I appreciate the ability to chat on this forum, I really do, but, I really dont think we will ever see eye to eye and its no big deal. You guys think of tobacco as Mana from the heavens and I see it as the reason my Father's two plus years on Earth were living Hell. If that makes me a Nazi, so be it |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:45 pm |
|
>>>>No, I dont speak for ALL non-smokers just as you hardly speak for all smokers, so thats a mute point to bring up.
I'm not the only smoker on here OR anywhere else on the internet that thinks 2nd hand smoke does not kill. I'm not the only person on here who disagrees with some of your "beliefs" as well (Like "I tasted smoke in my food, and I shouldn't." Like that smoke is gonna kill you if you eat it. If I could eat food my mother provided while she smoked, I'm surprised I'm 25 and still living. I should've died at 10 if 2nd hand smoke DOES kill and/or I ate too much smoke in my food over those years. *laughing my black A off*).
I certainly don't see anyone else defending you on here at least. While neither of us can speak for everyone in our respective group, I can name some real smokers off of the net who would agree with my beliefs. Especially if this "debate" happened on a particular pro-smoking board with a larger audience than this one. There ain't millions of pro-smoking sites for nothing. It sure is funny pro-smoking on the net is twice as big as anti-smoking if smokers are in the minority. If there's a site similar to forces.org (but focuses on downplaying smokers like you do), I'd love to see it. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 479
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by redliner1989
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:51 pm |
|
Quote: Americans are maiking a collective choice to restrict where smoking is allowed.
Americans are LEGALLY voting to restrict smoking in certain forums.
Americans are weighing the risks and deciding they dont want that.
The VAST MAJORITY of Americans do NOT smoke and DO care where smoking is permitted.
OH, I GET IT! Those not willing to take the RISK to front the money, to make the self sacrifice, to work 100 plus hours a week, to open, maintain, staff and PAY FOR the restaraunt or bar, get to tell the people WHO TAKE THE RISK, how to run the restaraunt!!!!
What part of the Constitution allows that?
Please be specific.
As I said before, this is a simple mockery of the Tenents contained in that document.
Look, if the Government went into your home, found a six pack of Budweiser in your fridge, and took your car on the chance that you could kill a little girl riding down the street, would you have a problem with that?
YOU SHOULD, AND IT WOULD BE ME BACKING YOU!!!!!!!
It is the same thing you want placed on me, or more appropriately, the Restaurant owner.
Why push our Country closer to Stalinist Russia, and further from Valley Forge. Havn't enough men died to protect "Self Determination"?
I will guarentee only one thing, the more we rely on the government to make our daily simple decisions, the fewer men will offer their bodies to defend the process.
80% don't smoke? Maybe. I know 2 non-smokers that support this frivolous use of the system, and 100's that don't.
In Lincoln they asked the "anti's" why they blocked a vote on this, the leader said "because it wouldn't pass". At least there is one honest "anti" out there. |
|
|
redliner1989
Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2003
Posts: 133
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by C716
on Tue Nov 18, 2003 8:33 am |
|
Jay (laughing my wht a*s off)smoke was a definative time bomb, there are thousands of variables, KNOW that. I think you are telling me that all the second hand smoke you've ingested is GOOD for you??
OH, I GET IT! Those not willing to take the RISK to front the money, to make the self sacrifice, to work 100 plus hours a week, to open, maintain, staff and PAY FOR the restaraunt or bar, get to tell the people WHO TAKE THE RISK, how to run the restaraunt!!!!
Red, this is an assumption that MOST business owner WANT Pro-smoke restuarants. that simply is NOT true. I always have to use Florida as an example, but they had the RIGHT to vote just like anyone else, and they voted and passed non-smoking. Also jst because a person owns a business does not mean they get to choose what laws to enforce.......... Hell,, Im glad employees must wash thier hamds before going back to work, I certainly wouldnt want to infringe on thier RIGHT to walk around with fecal digits. ( thats a joke guy)
I am not saying or have ever said stop smoking. BUT, dont make ME smoke, and you DO with second hand smoke, and no matter where you pull YOUR stats from, I could pull some which show the contrary. and you simply do NOT have the right to make me smoke.
I guess a simple quetion I should ask is, what is the difference between the smoke YOU inhale from a cigg and what I breathe coming FROM your cigg? NONE. I brethe the same smoke you do, BUT, you seem to think its ok that I do. No its not
oh, and as far as no one else coming to my rescue here,, god guys, as Y'all so eliquently reminded me so many times, This is a smokers board, most non-smokers have no desire to bpart of it or convince adults that smoking is bad, Yeah, I am playing the devils advocate,, Big deal.
and for that matter, I am also being constantly told how alone I am yet,, there are only about 4 who challenge me on here................. not exactly overwhelming numbrs guys. |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by redliner1989
on Wed Nov 19, 2003 12:11 pm |
|
Quote: Red, this is an assumption that MOST business owner WANT Pro-smoke restuarants. that simply is NOT true. I always have to use Florida as an example, but they had the RIGHT to vote just like anyone else, and they voted and passed non-smoking. Also jst because a person owns a business does not mean they get to choose what laws to enforce.......... Hell,, Im glad employees must wash thier hamds before going back to work, I certainly wouldnt want to infringe on thier RIGHT to walk around with fecal digits. ( thats a joke guy)
C,
You simply do not get it. Whether the Restaraunt owners had the right to vote or not, has no place TO BEGIN WITH, as to whether or not the GOVERNMENT may authorize such a vote.
I know nothing about you, but lets, for example purposes, say you are a midget. Enough people think that midgets should not be allowed to work as tax preparers, they garner enough petition signatures to place the "midget initiative" on the ballot, then start an ad campaign that makes the general public "beleive" that midget tax preparers have cost Floridians Billions of dollars.
The item should never have been allowed on the ballot in the first place since it, the ballot initiative violate the constitution in the first place. This is clearly an abuse of the system and these kinds of initiatives are invalidated thousands of times a year.
Because the "midgets" had the right to vote makes no difference, the discrimination that is incured by the midgets still exists. |
|
|
redliner1989
Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2003
Posts: 133
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
