|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by cricket
on Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:16 pm |
|
| FOR GOD'S SAKE PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A GUY WHO WANTS TO GO INTO A BAR, ORDER A BEER AND LIGHT UP A GDDM CIGARETTE! THIRTY YEARS AGO WE HAD LOTS BETTER SHIIT TO WORRY ABOUT!! WE'RE WASTING OUR LIVES SPEWING OUT NITPICKING CRAP OVER TRIFLE MATTERS! JUST WHAT THE HELL IS LIFE SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT IN THIS DAY AND AGE? JEEEEEEEEEESUS! WHEN ARE WE GONNA WAGE WAR AGAINST CALIFORNIA? WHERE'S MY RIFLE? |
|
|
cricket
Toker
Joined: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 103
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by Darkseid
on Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:19 am |
|
About time you got yer a$$ back here.  |
|
|
Darkseid
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 1307
Location: Peoples Republik of oHEILo
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by cricket
on Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:35 pm |
|
| Thank you! And where, prithee, are the other billion smokers on this planet? They're outside standing 15 meters from the entrance; only so much one cricket can do. Ask Pinocchio! |
|
|
cricket
Toker
Joined: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 103
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by BWilliams
on Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:53 pm |
|
| Glad to see you back Cricket, and doing your part! |
|
|
BWilliams
Site Owner
Joined: Jun 05, 2003
Posts: 1070
Location: New York City
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by gilster
on Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:56 pm |
|
CRICKET
Crick...Crick
Ya' know, a lot of crickets is a racket  |
|
|
gilster
Smokers Rights Activist
Joined: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 771
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by ladyteal
on Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:23 pm |
|
The standard Anti repsonse to "smokers rights" is "your rights end where mine begin". I just tell them that it works both ways: THEIR rights end where MINE begin.
Lynda is right about back-door prohibition. The antis will not do outright prohibition. As a matter of fact, one state, I think Wisconsin or Minnesota, actually proposed a law to prohibit the sale of tobacco. The ACS or ALS, or one of those alphabet soup orgs, firmly quashed that proposal. I don't have a link, but I'm sure one can google it.
Why do you suppose the antis don't want prohibition on tobacco? My guesses are that 1)they lose all that money from the pharmas; 2)they know that prohibition will cause big black market problems(as it already has in Canada. Don't have a link for that either, but illegal cigs are being pumped big time into that country); 3)they all know how well "prohibition" worked in the 20's. |
|
|
ladyteal
Newbie
Joined: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 28
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by patdaly
on Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:11 pm |
|
cricket wrote: FOR GOD'S SAKE PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A GUY WHO WANTS TO GO INTO A BAR, ORDER A BEER AND LIGHT UP A GDDM CIGARETTE! THIRTY YEARS AGO WE HAD LOTS BETTER SHIIT TO WORRY ABOUT!! WE'RE WASTING OUR LIVES SPEWING OUT NITPICKING CRAP OVER TRIFLE MATTERS! JUST WHAT THE HELL IS LIFE SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT IN THIS DAY AND AGE? JEEEEEEEEEESUS! WHEN ARE WE GONNA WAGE WAR AGAINST CALIFORNIA? WHERE'S MY RIFLE?
Not to worry, I'll loan you one of mine.
You gotta help us take Illinois after we are done with Cali though.
Fair enough?
BTW, glad to meet you fellow minuteman, names Pat and I'm ready to light em up........ |
|
|
patdaly
Smoker
Joined: Jan 02, 2005
Posts: 198
Location: Streator Illinois
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by JoshNJ
on Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:56 pm |
|
BWilliams wrote: Put simply: Smoking is a legal hobby. Any citizen in a free country has the RIGHT to enjoy any personal legal hobby.
Smoking is of course a legal activity, or hobby as you put it. However, it should be noted that just because it is legal does not mean it is a right. More specifically, a right to be enjoyed anytime and anywhere. I don't believe smoking will become illegal, and I feel these smoking bans are simply expanding the limits of where smoking is permitted. It's not fair to everyone, but it does not change the legality of smoking. Therefore, no right is being infringed with a smoking ban.
I don't think it's necessary to point to examples but there are a bunch of legal activities that are accompanied with restrictions. Be it drinking and driving or urinating in public, there are rules on what a person can do and where they can do it.
ladyteal wrote: The standard Anti repsonse to "smokers rights" is "your rights end where mine begin". I just tell them that it works both ways: THEIR rights end where MINE begin.
I think that was the right thing to say, but I'm sure it didn't end the argument. Needless to say, nobody holds different rights that cross an imaginary barrier or "stop" at your door. Some people just like to talk high and mighty and obviously this person didn't fully understand what they were arguing about with you. Everyone shares the same rights (at least according to the latest version of U.S. laws) so I think the next time someone says my rights end where their's begin, I'd just ask them, "So where do your rights end?" and see how long it takes them to make a witty response:) |
|
|
JoshNJ
Smoker
Joined: Apr 12, 2006
Posts: 146
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by naptownKrabbi
on Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:50 pm |
|
Quote: I don't think it's necessary to point to examples but there are a bunch of legal activities that are accompanied with restrictions. Be it drinking and driving or urinating
Last time I was in NY...NJ...and Maryland...I could drink in a bar...drive on the congested highways...and had a dedicated indoor space devoted to my renal secretions...doesn't really matter any more as I don't spend my money where I can't smoke...
Quote: I think the next time someone says my rights end where their's begin, I'd just ask them, "So where do your rights end?" and see how long it takes them to make a witty response:)
Since they haven't an ounce of intelligence nor originality they're mostly quick say "my nose."
That's when I make a subtle but noticeable glance at their stomach...and say...yeah...my senses are often offended as well but I don't believe legislation should be based on my humble opinion of what I deem attractive...
If they're stupid enough to say "my health" I take advantage of my knowledgeable, factual education on the lies that they've lapped up like hungry inbred terriers...then smile
good to see ya cricket! |
|
|
naptownKrabbi
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 353
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by VirgilK
on Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:53 pm |
|
About smokers rights. I believe it's just a way to be specific about who's rights are being talked about. It's just about rights and being specific.
Now about Owners. I believe the Supreme Court said it very well.
A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's
((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business
does not become public property because the public is invited in.
So, by that same reasoning. A restaurant or bar is not public property.
We need to support small business and stop regulating them out of
business."
I believe this would cover an owners right to refuse service at their discresion. Smoking, Non-Smoking or both.
Now as for smoking being the cause of cancer or heart disease. This is a report on a study that was before the EPA got into the fraud business.
Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
Bear in mind, this report was made before the EPA forced the inclusion of Cigarette Smoke to the Carcinogenic tables, with only their fraudulent report as proof.
Introduction
So far, most of the money given to the cancer industry has been spent looking for a cure for cancer. But it seems that cancer is a disease which has no cure. Traditionally, with solid tumours, cut it out has been the only real option - and it still is. Given that, wouldn't it be better to concentrate more on preventing it?
Oxford's cancer expert, Sir Richard Doll, writing in The American Journal of Public Health , said that increasing cancer mortality "can be accounted for in all industrialized countries by the spread of cigarette smoking." Unfortunately, this statement tends to be believed, despite the evidence against it.
If smoking were a cause of any cancer, lung cancer is the most likely one. It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 - despite his own published data from that study which showed that people who inhaled cigarette smoke had less lung cancer than those who didn't!
The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:
· tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;
· that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;
· that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
· that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;
· and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.
Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little says:
"Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself".
See the full article on link in the heading.
I |
|
|
VirgilK
Newbie
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
Posts: 6
Location: Fairdale, Ky.
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
