miguy1957
Expert Expediter
Last edited:
Stop Smoking Now!!!
- Thread starter copdsux
- Start date
nightcreacher
Veteran Expediter
As I have stated,I've been a non smoker since 1988.If I go to a resturant and there isnt a non smoking area,I dont stay there.I dont blame the smokers,it's the resturant,and, I know I dont like the smell of smoke,so, I just leave.I don't preach that others should quit,it was good for me,might not be good for them.
Last edited:
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
But my question was "what is the difference"?? If something you're doing while you're standing beside me at a parade, for example, makes me ill, what is the difference??
I agree that folks have the right to breathe clean air, (and the many pollutants that the Government is ignoring, while focusing on evil tobacco, is another thread), and it seems we could compromise on the issue by allowing business owners and their patrons to choose between a smoking or nonsmoking environment, BUT the Government has made the choice for everyone instead. (Except themselves, of course: with typical hypocrisy, Senators & Congresspeople can smoke in their taxpayer funded offices)
When we've all accepted their "right" to do this, what's next? Should folks be required to show proof of their nondiabetic status before being served dessert? Demonstrate an acceptable cholesterol level before getting a porterhouse?
When we've all accepted their "right" to do this, what's next? Should folks be required to show proof of their nondiabetic status before being served dessert? Demonstrate an acceptable cholesterol level before getting a porterhouse?
nightcreacher
Veteran Expediter
Ok wait,cholesterol,its not always what you eat,I am a steak eater,3 times a day sometimes,my cholesterol is fine.If a smoker wants to kill themseves thats ok too,just dont do it around me,not in my home,not in my car not in my truck,and not where I'm eating my $30.00 dinner or lunch.I agree that folks have the right to breathe clean air, (and the many pollutants that the Government is ignoring, while focusing on evil tobacco, is another thread), and it seems we could compromise on the issue by allowing business owners and their patrons to choose between a smoking or nonsmoking environment, BUT the Government has made the choice for everyone instead. (Except themselves, of course: with typical hypocrisy, Senators & Congresspeople can smoke in their taxpayer funded offices)
When we've all accepted their "right" to do this, what's next? Should folks be required to show proof of their nondiabetic status before being served dessert? Demonstrate an acceptable cholesterol level before getting a porterhouse?
greg334
Veteran Expediter
DD,
I'll tell you the difference. we can't discriminate against the person who has TB or some other form of airborne virus as we can with others who choose a habit that is legal. Medical conditions are off limits, even if the person purposely infects others, there is really little that we can say or do about it because we are deemed insensitive to their condition. The government has to get involved when there are some cases that the will flourish in our population.
Even drug addicts get a break for their behavior where this one issue is so aggressively pursued and many people want to control it to the point that your home or car is now off limits. You can't have one behavior governed while ignoring the rest, people want to make it out as one is so bad while the others are ok.
Steve, it is the point that the government is deciding what is acceptable and what is not.
I'll tell you the difference. we can't discriminate against the person who has TB or some other form of airborne virus as we can with others who choose a habit that is legal. Medical conditions are off limits, even if the person purposely infects others, there is really little that we can say or do about it because we are deemed insensitive to their condition. The government has to get involved when there are some cases that the will flourish in our population.
Even drug addicts get a break for their behavior where this one issue is so aggressively pursued and many people want to control it to the point that your home or car is now off limits. You can't have one behavior governed while ignoring the rest, people want to make it out as one is so bad while the others are ok.
Steve, it is the point that the government is deciding what is acceptable and what is not.
nightcreacher
Veteran Expediter
Yes the government is deciding,but only because the people are asking for this.Way back when,there were more smokers than non smokers,but its the other way now,so the smokers are loosing.
It's true that nonsmokers have become the majority, and perhaps one day, there will be no smokers anymore.
The people have demanded a lot of things from our Government, like solutions to real problems in education, taxation, health care - those issues are simply debated endlessly, with no resolution in sight. But the Government is quick to 'attack' issues where the opponents have the least ability (ie: money) to fight back. The classic method of a cowardly bully.
The people have demanded a lot of things from our Government, like solutions to real problems in education, taxation, health care - those issues are simply debated endlessly, with no resolution in sight. But the Government is quick to 'attack' issues where the opponents have the least ability (ie: money) to fight back. The classic method of a cowardly bully.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Steve,
The percentage of population that had/has the habit was never a majority. I simply don't want government telling me I can not do something with my property, it was my right and no one seems to get what I am saying here.
I looked at the main fighters on this issue and if you look closely it is not about health, it is about money. The lawsuits and settlements are not about punishing companies, it is about money. Just like the other issues, what oil is pop corn made with, transfats and all the other do good stuff being jams down our throats, it has to do with money.
It amazes me that at the turn of the 20th century, we didn't have the population dying at record rates, these habits were with us then. We survived rather well, with the advances in medicine, we are still living long lives. What my point is, is this; this is a person thing, not a it takes a village to protect a child thing. If protecting kids is one thing, I can point to a lot of things that can be done to protect kids, but if it is a personal choice thing of going to a place that serves food while other partake of things that are not acceptable to many, don't go.
The percentage of population that had/has the habit was never a majority. I simply don't want government telling me I can not do something with my property, it was my right and no one seems to get what I am saying here.
I looked at the main fighters on this issue and if you look closely it is not about health, it is about money. The lawsuits and settlements are not about punishing companies, it is about money. Just like the other issues, what oil is pop corn made with, transfats and all the other do good stuff being jams down our throats, it has to do with money.
It amazes me that at the turn of the 20th century, we didn't have the population dying at record rates, these habits were with us then. We survived rather well, with the advances in medicine, we are still living long lives. What my point is, is this; this is a person thing, not a it takes a village to protect a child thing. If protecting kids is one thing, I can point to a lot of things that can be done to protect kids, but if it is a personal choice thing of going to a place that serves food while other partake of things that are not acceptable to many, don't go.
Well, in ohio it was the people who voted to ban smoking. Not government. BIG difference.
Also, why shouldnt the position be, if its a smoke free business, respect it or stay home.
I enjoy going out to diner and not having to smell the stench of burning stogies.
For far to long did the silent majority put up with the vocal minority vice.
Hey, ya want to kill yourself by smoking, go ahead. just dont screw up my lungs while you
are screwing up yours.
Also, why shouldnt the position be, if its a smoke free business, respect it or stay home.
I enjoy going out to diner and not having to smell the stench of burning stogies.
For far to long did the silent majority put up with the vocal minority vice.
Hey, ya want to kill yourself by smoking, go ahead. just dont screw up my lungs while you
are screwing up yours.
nightcreacher
Veteran Expediter
I totally agree with you Greg,my grand father smoked 'til he died at age of 95,but my mother died at 55,she had cancer,he died of old age.Since the lady won her lawsuit for spilling coffee at mcDonalds,this country has been suit happy.People taking the tobacco companies to court,side of pack say hazardous to your health,someone hoding a gun making you smoke.Our government sucks,but its still better than anyone elses,we just have to take it back,VOTE EVERYONE IN OFFICE OUT.might take few years, but thats what needs to be done
Can any of you explain to me why this health related thread turned into a vehement disagreement over "my rights versus your rights"? BTW, the doctor told me this morning that I would be here for another week to ten days. This is turning into a rather long lay-over!!!
Mike
Mike
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Mike because we are passionate to make sure that everyone understands the danger of the habit and to make sure to understand that by ridiculing people is not the right thing to do to help them.
Having people demand action and governments put restriction on what people can do opens that door for others to look down upon them and leads to other things, like telling fat people they are fat because they eat the wrong food, does that make sense?
I really wish you well by the way.
nightcreacher
Veteran Expediter
im fat cause i eat lots of food,some wrong some good,but some eat to live,i live to eat
when i was in high school,they were always telling me i was fat,put me on diets,i would jump out the back widow,run to the px and get snacks before they would close,i was 5'10" 180 lbs and could dead lift 600 lbs,i also played middle guard on foot ball team,they call that middle line backer now,but now 45 years later,my eating habits are the same,and yes im fat.but i can keep a lady warm on a winters night.
when i was in high school,they were always telling me i was fat,put me on diets,i would jump out the back widow,run to the px and get snacks before they would close,i was 5'10" 180 lbs and could dead lift 600 lbs,i also played middle guard on foot ball team,they call that middle line backer now,but now 45 years later,my eating habits are the same,and yes im fat.but i can keep a lady warm on a winters night.
miguy1957
Expert Expediter
Dang, I sure wouldnt have thought that a bunch of Truck Drivers, would be so in favor of goverment contol over a personal choice such as smoking. All this Liberal you must conform and Run your business the way the Goverment says BS. Has got me wondering shouldnt all these Anti Freedom people move to another country that controls more of your personal choices?? I for one like having the choice to smoke or not smoke, to go somewhere that allows it or not, to be able to have a drink or not, and to choose any number of things we in this country can choose for ourselves that people in other countries dont have that option.... I dont see why anyone would want to slam one group to cater to another. Why do a lot of people want to contol what other people do.
________
Live sex
________
Live sex
Last edited:
Hmmmmmmmm, ya got a point thar!!!!
Bring back slavery, and why can women vote anyway, oh and whats the fuss about porn,
can spouse abuse really be that wrong, oh and murder that one kills me and and and and and and........................................................
Sorry, what you may like to do could be your own business unless its against the law.
tobacco products are known killers, they cost the public millions each year in lost production, millions in health care and heartache and sorrow.
while you may want to put a bullet in your mouth sometime, it doesnt mean suicide
should be made legal.
morals and ethics. despicable!!!!!!!
miguy1957
Expert Expediter
How in the world can compare having a smoking section in a bar or resturant to slavery, spouse abuse and muder?? Im Having trouble following your line of thinking. The last I heard smoking wasnt a felony, unethical or moaraly wrong. Its LEGAL just like having a beer. Like Ive said before isnt nice to have the right to be able to go to or not go to a place that has a Smoking section??
OH and does it really matter if Suicide is legal or not? If you do it what are they going to do?? lock up your dead body???
Keep letting other people take your rights away and pretty soon Slavery will be back .........and guess where the working man or woman will be in that system..........
________
couple Webcams
Last edited:
The problem is people think smoking is a right. It's not a right, it's a privilege just like driving a car and lots of other things. Any rule restricting smoking isn't taking away anyone's rights, it's limiting where they are allowed to exercise their privilege to engage in a particular activity.
It's called fake outrage, and it's all the rage. People tend to have a mob mentality in most issues, and when they see a crack in a weakness they pile on, usually elevating the response far beyond what is appropriate. It makes them feel superior.
The fake outrage over Don Imus' bad joke about nappy headed ho's was hot and heavy, for about 3 days. It was all forgotten just about as fast as it exploded. Don Imus is back on the air. But people saw a weakness and an opportunity to rip someone to shreds in a shark-like feeding frenzy.
The fake outrage over Michael Vick killing dogs as a part of dog fighting was elevated to the level of Michael Vick using live children instead of the plastic ducks at the shooting gallery at the fair. The fake outrage was on the level of Michael Vick being the anti-Christ, because it was easy to have that level of fake outrage, not to mention the fact that it was easy to let your inner racist self emerge in the safety of the the prophylactic of dog fighting fake outrage.
There are many things that people should be outraged about, many that are far worse than the ills of smoking and what may or may not be done to innocent lungs from second hand smoking. Second hand smoking is, by and large, akin to lower back pain - you can't prove it any more than you can disprove it, but because it sounds good and falls into the category of the "crack in the weakness", people jump all over it and are way our-of-whack disproportionally outraged by it. All intelligence goes out the window. I'm not saying second hand smoke isn't bad, it is, but let's get a grip on reality and put it into the proper perspective.
Someone of the other side of a restaurant can smell smoke, therefore the damage to their lungs from second hand smoke is immediate, total, and devastatingly irreversible, far more devastating, in fact, than to the smoker's lungs. It's stupid but it's a crack in the weakness that allows the fake outrage to let people feel superior by being oh, so outraged, and therefor be in control of how others act.
People want to claim that 10,000, 20,000, or even 40,000 people die each year from second hand smoke, but the facts from the CDC and the Mayo Clinic both agree that it is less than 3000, and both state that even that number is likely highly inflated, that most who die from second hand smoke would die prematurely anyway due to some other defect that second hand smoke merely exposed and exacerbated. In other words, second hand smoke does not kill otherwise healthy people. Normal everyday environmental car exhaust gets inhaled and does more lung damage than second hand smoke does. The inhaled PPM of a whiff of second hand smoke detected in the non-smoking section of a restaurant isn't even in the same ballpark as what a smoker experiences, so get real with the fake outrage of the notion that just because you can smell smoke that you're going to drop dead 12 years premature like a smoker will.
Here's a good example of how emotional fake outrage tosses good intelligence and common sense out the window...
"tobacco products are known killers, they cost the public millions each year in lost production, millions in health care and heartache and sorrow."
So are cars, but where's the over-the-top fake outrage every time someone gets into a car and turns the key? Smoking prematurely kills about 440,000 people in the US each year, and automobiles kill about 42,000, but automobiles injure 3.2 million people each year, far more than are treated annually for smoking-related illnesses, and the resulting loss in production, health care, heartache and sorrow makes all smoking-related issues a non-issue in comparison.
But no one is going to go wild with fake outrage over cars, because if they do, it will allow them to be controlled, rather than them controlling others. We have allowed the government to dictate that we must wear seatbelts, for our safety (excuse me, for the children), yet it doesn't really have all that much of an impact on deaths and injuries. What will, though, is the requirement that every vehicle occupant, without exception, wear a helmet, in addition to the seatbelt. If it's all about our safety, why aren't we required to wear helmets? Where's the fake outrage? For that matter, where's the real outrage? If you're oh, so concerned about your health and safety, why aren't you wearing a helmet when you drive? It's because this isn't about health, it's about telling others what to do. Period.
It's all about control, telling others what to do, and mob rule mentality. If you go someplace and find cigarette smoke, and you don't like it - leave. It's as simple as that. All the other issues are meaningless.