| |
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by C716
on Sun Nov 16, 2003 12:27 am |
|
I agree with you guys on some points. But
Do any ANTI's have any objection to this idea? I'd love to know your comments, for/against - and if against, WHY??? You can't be that heavily brainwashed by organizations like tobaccofreekids and others, now can you?
Yes, I would be against. Here is why. MANY times while eating in a so called non-smoking section during the days when smoke magically stopped at an imaginary line in the room, I, MANY times witnessed smokers entering or leaving the restaurant and walking through the non-smoking section puffing away. The couple of times that I DID remind them of it, I got an F-YOU, for stating what was obvious............ and quite honesty , thier attitude was " 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
So far here in florida, Businesses have NOT lost out on businesses, and if non-smoking is across the board in ALL restuarants, then it is an even playing field. When I was small, I recall foks smoking while they did they grocery shopping............. They cant do it any longer and well, they still shop for food.
Red, I was thinking of some of the things you have brought up about drinking, and for the most part, as I have said. I agree. But, it is a double edged sword, those who are wiling to accept the "death toll basically use statistics to show how many businesses would fail if you banned alcohol. It IS the same arguement I hear about smoking & restuarants. Food for thought anyway.
On a side note. Oddly enough ( because he is on saturdays on my regular listening station) I was listening to the Cigar Dave show ( which hails here in Tampa). He is a nationally syndicated talk show host who started off basically touting the best made cigars, wines and cars. Now, he is a wannabe Rat Packer who has a decent following. He also now jumps on the band wagon and calls anyone who disagrees with him a Pleasure Police....... Well One show, he said that every year the American Heart Association and the National Cancer institute would call him every year asking for a donation of Cigars in which they could give out or raffle off at local charities to make money for thier cause. Bottom line is I called our branch of EACH of those organizations and asked if it were true, if it were, my donations would go away. They denied EVER asking for donations from him and wanted to know when this was broadcast. I gave them the info, they both called his show and wow,,, although he would not air a retraction, he did apologize to them..............
Cigar dave is NOW LIAR Dave in my book
Just shows that each side has its dark side that will do or say anything to get thier way. |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by Tom
on Sun Nov 16, 2003 2:47 pm |
|
Hey C,
You bring up some great memories. I've recently been grocery shopping where the people and salesperson smoke. It was at an outdoor farmers market in a city. It was beautiful, and I bought from the farmer who smoked. Sometimes, I see people smoke as they shop in the smaller convenience stores, you know the ones that have a few tables for coffee. They're great. Alhough, I don't buy groceries there, becasue of the high prices, I still love going in them for a coffee. |
|
|
Tom
Smokers Rights Activist
Joined: Aug 24, 2003
Posts: 961
Location: The Kingdom of New Jersey
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by C716
on Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:55 pm |
|
hahaha, the good old days are in the lungs of the breather I guess.
There is a fast store near me run by some turkish folks, and yeah, they smoke like ciggs are never going to be made, and its so funny watching them make sandwiches and such and the ciggs stil burn. Hey, can I have extra ash on that BLT?
Another point I feel I should bring up. Many times I have heard genuine concern about loss of revenue for waitstff if a restuarant goes smoekfree. Well you do have a choice, you CAN choose that a persons livleyhood is more important than a smoke. If you choose that a cigarrette is more important, then so be it, but certainly dont blame anyone but those who decide to actually ( on a short term basis most times) boycott the business.
I guess one more point. I see absolutely NO difference in the smoke that comes from a cigg, if it comes from the the filtered at least the person smoking has a filtered smoke, ( well kinda)............. but I dont,, the smoke is all the same. SO that is why I have my issues, the smoke doesnt magically change because it comes from another end, its the same stuf burning and same smoke. SO, in essance, I look at the term 2nd hand smoke,, the same way I think about the term "reverse discrimination".. it is SIMPLY discrimination and its simply smoke.
I really did not intend any of my points to sound smart A*s in any way, so if anyone thinks so,, just want to say thats not the way I intended.
The world is becomming an increasingly crowded place. people DO have to be aware of thier action & consquences. Smoking ( to most people in the US) is considered NOT publically acceptable and they just plain dont want it any longer, It HAS been rough for us because for more years than not, we ( non smokers) have had to put up with smoke and have NO recourse. This simply comes from the days when we just didnt know better. I see so many products out there showing people how to stop smoking.......... companies are4 making MILLIONS from those who can not successfully shake the habit, and honestly, that is sad. People spend a cr*pload of hard earned cash to put down this thing that others try and tell me is harmless. and ya know those companies are out there and been out there and aint going away. I have seen it first hand how bad my dad had it,, he could hardly breathe,, but GD,, he longed for those precious smokes....................almost till the end.
OK, Im off my soapbox.
Monday is JUST a few hours away |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:36 am |
|
>>>>People spend a cr*pload of hard earned cash to put down this thing that others try and tell me is harmless. and ya know those companies are out there and been out there and aint going away.
You're never going to hear me use that excuse in regards to the McDonald's business and alcohol businesses making millions off of people spending a cr@pload of hard earned cash on things that will (in terms of the respective business) make them fat and have the people turn around and file lawsuits on a decision that they made. The other business makes a product that makes innocent people die for real (when the "innocent people" wasn't actually drinking the alcohol in the first place), pedestrians included. The closest thing I know of (in regards to smoking killing pedestrians) are bar workers losing their lives only because of them enforcing a smoking ban.
A bar worker dying from doing his job is just about as sad as a pedestrian getting killed by a drunk driver. We wouldn't have pedestrians getting killed if alcoholics (some of which are anti-smokers) had enough common sense to not drink and drive. Likewise, we wouldn't have bar workers dying from enforcing a smoking ban if there wasn't a ban in the first place.
Tobacco companies make millions off a product like any other company. It's the person's decision (not anyone else's, antis for the product included) to actually buy the product. You seem to imply that tobacco companies keep making cigs only because millions keep wasting money on them. Like I never knew that before. Alcohol companies keep making alcoholic drinks because millions waste money on a product much worse than smoking. McDonalds is still in business because millions waste money on their unhealthy food. Nintendo is even still in business because millions of parents waste their hard-earned money on buying games for their kids.
If the number of people who die from alcohol un-necessarily (including drunk drivers...their deaths from too much alcohol counts as an un-necessary death) ever decreases dramatically, or if that number ever matches the annual number of smoker deaths per year, then I'll believe alcohol, when compared to smoking, is harmless.
I'm sure you'll say "But I don't drink, and I don't go to bars." Guess what? Neither do I. That doesn't mean I should ignore the fact a person's excessive drinking can possibly kill me on the streets, even if I'm just walking across the street. I have yet to hear a person getting killed by a heavy smoker on the streets, at least in terms of the person inhaling maybe 50 tons of secondhand smoke. If secondhand smoke WAS the same as the smoke in a smoker's body, we would have the number of smokers' deaths and nonsmokers' deaths all being equeal numbers. At least those nonsmokers who spend their whole lives around smokers.
BTW, if the end of a burning cig has the "same smoke," then how come nobody smokes cigs like that? Put the burning end of a cig close to your mouth, and inhale the smoke. You might pass out (from inhaling 2nd hand smoke in the same way smokers suck on the filter) or die as quickly as a drunk driver hitting a pedestrian.
Hearing about the "US antis" from the same person is like listening to a broken record. Too bad I'll never know your opinions on smokers in Japan (in particular) or smokers who are still living in smoker-friendly countries. Japan smokers live longer than U.S. smokers, and it's not like the average Japan smoker smokes for only 5 years of his/her whole life! I even heard of some smokers living up to 100 years old and still lighting up cigarettes. Those had to be Japan smokers.
Japanese people (smokers included) have a better diet plan than the average American (whether or not the American smokes). That's why Japan is home of the century-old people unlike the US. A smoker with a healthy diet will live a very long life unlike a smoker with an unhealthy diet...which includes wasting money on a food product that doesn't really prolong one's own life.
Since this IS a site seen around the world, and it deals with advocating smokers' rights worldwide, I guess the reason why "you guys" ain't fighting back in the smoker-friendly countries (or in Japan for that matter) is because those countries realize while smoking IS bad, they know antis will do the best they can to keep their propaganda going. Reading how people are wasting money on tobacco is a portion of propaganda. We ALL waste money on things, even things that ARE beneficial to one's health. Those countries believe in freedom too. The US doesn't.
I guess we never hear about the antis talking about Japanese smokers primarily because Japanese smokers tend to live longer than US smokers. I explained why this is the case in the post already. Since Japanese smokers live longer than US smokers (I'm talking about smokers who smoke til they die here) and since the Japanese in general live longer, that certainly defeats any claims of 2nd hand smoke killing a non-smoker. The Japanese wouldn't be beating the US in the average human life (and we all would eat healthier) if it IS true 2nd hand smoke can kill anyone, particularly century-old people in Japan. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 495
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by redliner1989
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 9:14 am |
|
Quote: Red, I was thinking of some of the things you have brought up about drinking, and for the most part, as I have said. I agree. But, it is a double edged sword, those who are wiling to accept the "death toll basically use statistics to show how many businesses would fail if you banned alcohol. It IS the same arguement I hear about smoking & restuarants. Food for thought anyway.
I don't argue this as an economic issue? I thought it was all about Health & Safety?
The risk of the product (a legal consumable product) is far less the risk then alcohol on the public.
I only argue that it IS THE PUBLIC that continues to set the standard for what is acceptable risk, and what is not. You absolutely do not get to have it both ways.
I have not read the entire post, so excuse me if this is pretty short. |
|
|
redliner1989
Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2003
Posts: 133
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by C716
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:21 am |
|
Jay, I know you may think I am a broken record, but reguardless of what you think, at least i have guts to say what I ( and many) non-smokers feel. Not being rude, but most non-smokers would have been treated with the same disrespect I dealt with when i first started posting. I am sure they simply could give a rats butt what you say ion here,, thats all.
As far as why people dont smoke the burning end of a cigg?? I REALLY dont have to answer that , do I??
Also, I will give you links to Japans anti-smoking trend as well. I see that the japanese are finding out that ciggs are NOT what they appear.
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/politics/0308/08smoking.html
Red, Yes, tobacco is a legal consumable product, so was Cocaine and Marjuana at one time. Alchohol Still is . Personaly I never adhere to the banning of a product, BUT, I dont think people take responsibilty when it come to the USE of a product. Much like automobiles, there ARE restrictions. No BAN on cars, just restrictions, I personally wouldnt want people driving the legal car whereever they feel like.
So, while your stetement about the legality DOES stand, i will give you that, BECAUSE of the publics desire to NOT have it an unrestricted product DOES weigh with both business owners and poloticians.
Have you ever noticed when someone is selling a home, they will always add in if it was owned by a non-smoker?? I have yet to see a home sale touting the Smoker friendly family lived here on the ad. Food for thought. |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 12:47 pm |
|
>>>>Jay, I know you may think I am a broken record, but reguardless of what you think, at least i have guts to say what I ( and many) non-smokers feel.
You're more than just a non-smoker. Regular non-smokers don't fight back (they respect smokers instead of fighting when they would make themselves look evil), and there are even non-smokers who actually support smokers' rights. Just because they don't smoke doesn't necessarily mean they treat smokers like sh!t. You're trying to fight back, you don't support smokers (outside of a non-smoking place you never go to), and while I know you're not evil-evil, you have evil thinking when it comes to smoking. And I'LL have the guts to attack your points all the time if I have something to say. Note I didn't say "attack you as a PERSON."
>>>>Not being rude, but most non-smokers would have been treated with the same disrespect I dealt with when i first started posting. I am sure they simply could give a rats butt what you say ion here,, thats all.
You mean they DON'T give a rat's butt on what I say. You wouldn't be the only anti-smoker on here if they actually cared about what I say like you do. If you don't give a rat's butt on what I say, why bother replying to every single post I make? Just to have a "friendly debate" you'll never win on a site that is more of on the pro-smoking side? Yeah, that is smart thinking on your part.
>>>>As far as why people dont smoke the burning end of a cigg?? I REALLY dont have to answer that , do I??
Well you said the burning end of the cig makes the same smoke as the smoke the smoker inhales, so YES, I expect an answer to your own ridiculous thought. We all know that's ridiculous unless you can prove you're right. Backing out of an opinion you said yourself is a nice way of not accepting one loss in this "friendly debate." I know why people don't smoke the burning end of a cig. That smoke has a lot more of the stuff than the smoke the smoker inhales. I probably WOULD die in an instant (instead of dying in 40-50 years of being a smoker in the "right way") if I smoked the burning end of a cig. I'd like to see you prove me wrong there. You're the one who said they're the same smoke, not me.
>>>Also, I will give you links to Japans anti-smoking trend as well. I see that the japanese are finding out that ciggs are NOT what they appear.
That doesn't mean Japanese won't have millions of smokers. The US knows what cigs are about, but millions of new people still start because the pleasure outweighs the risks. Just like alcoholics who think the pleasure of drinking outweighs the risks. And who ever said if you don't smoke, you'll live long? Nonsmokers can die young and I'm not just talking about getting hit by a drunk driver. Especially if that nonsmoker has other bad things in his/her lifestyle (like usage of hard drugs), or if that nonsmoker is in the middle of a robbery. Nobody can say "That will never happen to me!" If you think being in the middle of the wrong place at the wrong time will never happen to you in your life, you got vague thinking.
BTW, how come you never rebutted "Alcohol is worse than smoking?" Is it because I'm right and you agree, or it is because of the "I don't have time to reply to your whole post" excuse?
>>>Red, Yes, tobacco is a legal consumable product, so was Cocaine and Marjuana at one time.
Cocaine has always been the type of product that can kill someone a lot faster than cigs (or even after smoking crack only once....that's why it's called a "hard" drug). That's one difference you failed to mention. Cigs are not hard drugs, whether they're legal or not.
>>>>Personaly I never adhere to the banning of a product, BUT, I dont think people take responsibilty when it come to the USE of a product. Much like automobiles, there ARE restrictions. No BAN on cars, just restrictions,
Oh yeah, like you have to be a certain age just to have a license, and there are laws against driving while drinking. Now there are laws that might prohibit usage of cell phones in cars. Those restrictions are understandable, because if a 10 year-old tried driving with a license, if a drunk adult is behind a wheel, or if someone's driving while talking on a cell phone, their attention possibly won't be watching the road, and in all three cases, the loss of innocent lives are at stake.
I don't know how that compares with smoking bans in places. No lives are at stake when people smoke indoors, and I certainly never heard of an innocent person (from the old days of smoking in the US) entering a smokey supermarket and die only 10 minutes later from just inhaling secondhand smoke. That analogy with automobiles doesn't fly with smoking. It might work in terms of drug restrictions though.
>>>I personally wouldnt want people driving the legal car whereever they feel like.
Well if you mean people under 16 or people with a suspended/no license, I agree. I can't see you saying "I personally wouldn't want people lighting up in places whenever they feel like." If I had that same attitude, I'd just avoid places with smokers period. That doesn't mean I wouldn't go to a supermarket in the old days (not if I didn't have to). That means I'd either accept the fact people smoke in it, or I'd just don't go at all. Just like with the smoking bans. I either accept the fact it's a non-smoking place, or I don't bother going into it at all.
>>>>Have you ever noticed when someone is selling a home, they will always add in if it was owned by a non-smoker?? I have yet to see a home sale touting the Smoker friendly family lived here on the ad. Food for thought.
That doesn't mean smokers don't sell homes, and if it doesn't specifically say "Was owned by a non-smoker," should I assume a smoker owned it? That isn't food for thought. Besides, even if a non-smoker sold a home to a smoking family, that doesn't mean the family can't smoke in it. That home wouldn't be the non-smoker's home anymore. Likewise, a non-smoking family can keep a new home smoke-free since the smoker who sold the house no longer lives there. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 495
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by C716
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:53 pm |
|
Jay, you are angry at me or what I post and you dont need to be. Its only a post. I do disagree that you think non-smokers MOSTLY feel mutual admiration toward a smokers rights, they dont, or else these laws would not be passing as you yourself noticed they are.
Anyway. I am not going to rebuttal your anger fringing posts, it will only lead into the same old rhetoric.
To all others, when I made a statemtn about home selling. Allow me to clarify.
If you have two identical homes. BOTH are the same price and all thing being equal. BUT, one was owned by smokers and the other by NON-smokers.............. We KNOW which would sell faster. Even smokers would end to buy the non-smokers home. |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 2:04 pm |
|
C, C, C
It's the ANTI-smokers like you who got those laws passed! NOT the majority of non-smokers who don't have a problem with smokers!!!!!!!
The only thing that gets me angry is you disguising yourself as a non-smoker. If you WERE a non-smoker, you wouldn't be saying crap like "Tobacco companies make millions of off people who waste money on them, and that's sad." And other companies don't make millions off of selling products? Please! That's an ANTI-smoking comment, NOT a comment from the millions and millions of non-smokers who don't care about people who smoke. YOU obviously care, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to fight.
How come we didn't have smoking bans in the old days if the true non-smokers ARE responsible for the passing of those laws? That's because the anti-smoking hysteria didn't exist in the old days. Even with warnings on the pack in the 70's, no anti-smoker (let alone a non-smoker) busted his/her @$$ off to get smoking bans passed. Nobody didn't say "Hey, if smoking is dangerous to a smoker's health, maybe we should ban smoking in all indoor places" back then. They didn't start saying that until the anti-smoking bandwagon took off in full force with false stuff like "Secondhand smoke kills others" in the 90's in particular. How come secondhand smoke "didn't kill others" in the 70s despite tobacco warnings clearly labelled, but secondhand smoke started killing others 3 decades later? And with vague research on top of that! That's just about as funny as you calling yourself a non-smoker.
You don't want to respond to my actual post because you don't have the guts to admit I'm right on a lot of points, and anti-smokers like you are dead wrong.
Did I mention if you don't like my posts, I could care less if you ignore them? If I sound angry at you, you're darn right I'm angry. Like I said, I'm not angry at you as a person. I'm angry at your thinking (which isn't the TRUE mindset of a person who doesn't smoke but is NOT against smokers....the definition of a "nonsmoker.") Anti-smokers are the most despiciable people on planet Earth, other than people against my African-American race. The last time I checked, there's fewer anti-smokers than even non-smokers (let alone fewer antis than smokers themselves), which is good news. The anti-smokers are in their own minority. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 495
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Mon Nov 17, 2003 2:37 pm |
|
| If the two houses are identical, that doesn't change anything (including same prices). To me, it doesn't matter if you buy the house from a smoker or non-smoker. When you buy that house, that's YOUR house and you have every F-ing right to do what you want in the house. It doesn't matter if the previous owner smokes or not. The only people that WOULD care about who owns the house being sold ("Is the seller a smoker or not?") are anti-smokers. Why would anyone else with intelligent thinking give a d@#n about the house seller's smoking status? When the house is sold, that smoker/non-smoker who sold the house has to get out and find another place to live at. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 495
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
