Thread: Anti Smoking Laws

I smoke because I love the taste. I love it after work when I get out to just be able to kick back while driving and have a smoke.

When I didn't smoke I hated people who blew smoke out around me, so I would never do that. I try to put the cigarette away from people, or sometimes avoid people not to be rude. The laws are fine. If you need to smoke just go outside, away from people.

i was under the impression, that in most countries with nationalised health care, the tax on cigarrettes more than covers expected health care costs. i might be wrong though, can anyone confirm this for their country?

still i rather like the idea of being able to go to a bar without having to get my trenchcoat/velvet skirt drycleaned to remove the stink. other than that, i don't care who wants to injure themselves or damage their own property. shortening one's life doesn't sound like an entirely bad thing anyway.

however i do smoke occasionally though, by myself on my own property. though i prefer catnip to tobacco or waccybaccy to be honest, even if it has no/minimal psychoactive effect, the ritual itself is pleasant.

Originally Posted by Hominus

I thought you were my homie!!![/b]

Lol. We're still homies. We just disagree on a few things.

Maybe YOU should do some reading. It is prolonged smoke inhalation that hurts you. Not a little bit.[/b]

What if I want to go to a bar every night? Shouldn't I be allowed to do that without damaging my lungs AND my liver? Non-smokers visit bars as much as smokers. If I'm in a smokey bar most days out of the week, I'd be negatively affected by the smoke. If I go to a bar once a month and stay a few hours? Then you're more likely to be right and I probably wouldn't suffer a damn bit except while I was there.

There is no evidence of global warming. NONE. Just because the earth is heating up doesnt mean its because of cars and other stuff. For all we know it could just be the earth following its normal cycle of heating up and cooling down. What do you think melted the ice of the latest ice age. I base my logic on geological functions that are proven, not by what Al Gore (hippie liberal douchebag) says. [/b]

Thing is, dude, global warming just means the globe is, well, warming. WHY it's warming is a question that can't be answered 100% accurately, like you're saying, but we do know that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the planet's overall temperatures. We also know that vehicles, many factories, and other human creations, as well as natural things, emit those gasses. While the earth may be warming because that's the way it works, that doesn't mean humans didn't have anything to do with it, when we've been pumping CO2 all around it at a rate the earth couldn't compensate for.

Fact is, the earth's warming up. What are all the reasons for it? Probably a lot more than we think about on a regular basis. Besides, it's the scientists who talk about global warming who are also the ones who point out that the earth has cycles of warming and cooling. It's not as though you're making some amazing argument against the science of global warming. The earth is warming up and that's probably going to be a problem for us humans. There's no point in continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere when we KNOW that if it does anything to the situation, it probably makes it worse. Does it necessarily make it worse? Maybe not... maybe it's at the point where it's just going to keep getting warmer and warmer regardless of what we do to slow it, but the more CO2 that is in the atmosphere, the more time it will take the planet to recover from it. And the planet will recover, we have no doubt of that... it's the human recovery that scientists are worried about.

George Bush says there were nukes in Iraq ON THE NEWS. False[/b]

Some conservative you are... I thought all you weirdos were supposed to believe everything Bush said as though it were Divine. j/k. I haven't liked Bush since he first came through. Oh, and I don't watch the news.. I read scientific journals and discuss things with educated persons, listen to the radio every once in a while, and try to formulate my own opinions.

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE NEWS. It is full of lies, misconceptions, and anything that is popular at the time and not on credibility. [/b]

Duh. That's part of the reason I don't watch it. The news also doesn't give enough information to make people any wiser. In fact, it's laughable when I think that some people might expect that of the television, news, whatever.

I never said i know what second hand smoke can do, and neither do you[/b]

Actually, you said that there is no evidence that second hand smoke does ANYTHING bad to people. In that, you're wrong, and there is evidence easily accessible.

About tsunamis, carcinogens, and the sun. Kiss my ass. I simply cover both sides of an argument that cannot be proven by either side, including global warming. You'd probably tell me that UFO's do exist and they put probes in peoples asses.[/b]

I'd rather not kiss your ass.. I think you pull too much out of it. (haha, I made a funny). You're not actually covering both sides of controversial arguments though... you're arguing things that obviously have proof for them, on both sides. It's not so black and white, which I think you know and is the reason you argue like you do. Problem is, you're talking about things as though they have NO evidence when they obviously do.

What, you haven't been anally probed by the aliens? I think you're lying! Maybe you ARE one of the aliens!

Anyhow, you'd sound a lot more credible if you actually pointed to some of the evidence on either side of an argument you're making instead of saying that one side has no evidence when they obviously do.

"I read scientific articles and have discussions with educated people"
smart ass

Just playin.


Heres my view on global warming. If you have half a brain you will be able to understand it.

The oxygen in the up. atmos. depleats after a while and more uv rays heat up the earth. This melts the polar ice caps, and it partially floods the world. All that melting eventually builds up more oxygen in the O zone (evaporating water =oxygen) The earth constantly loose O zone, then builds it up again. Now that just makes sense.

About W.

Everybody is allowed a few mistakes!!!

Im not that much of a die hard conservative.

Im going to the Alabama football game.

ROLL TIDE!!!!!!!!!& #33;!!!!!!!!!& #33;!!

i smoke rocks

Originally Posted by Leo

So, really, since smokers are intent on killing themselves anyway, I think we should make Smoking a Capital Offense and round up all smokers and summarily execute them. Hang them on the spot. A rope is a lot cheaper than hospital care.

[/b]

So, because people put their own lives at risk then we should hang them?

I guess we need to also kill people who drink, people who walk into the street, people who drive, people who eat fast food, people who do anything and everything.

But of course there will be a few survivors. Mostly the ones that don't do anything. The people who are hermits living in their houses. People who post in forums looking for people to moan and bitch at online all day, everyday never getting up to see day light.

You shall be one of the survivors.

Unless you can prove second hand smoke causes global warming, get back on track

I’ll try to communicate some tid bits of information related to your posts.


About the smell and the cancer…
Does anyone remember the original studies on second hand smoke? The one they placed rats in a cigarette smoke environment for a long period of time.

If you would apply that to humans, It would be like placing people for 10 years of their life in fog dense smoke, non stop! A fireman is not exposed to that much in his life. Yeah, it did scientifically prove second hand smoke causes cancer though. Now prove to me that candy causes cavities, quick, you have one year!

A link about the second hand smoke scientific tests (Yah, just for fun)
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

Do you even remember when cigarette smoke smelled good, You don‘t? Is your memory failing you? Well, before that 87 ish study came out, people actually did not mind, they liked it. After though, they decided it stank. Though Pipe and Cigar smell was still considered a very good scent. You were just brainwashed at detecting it more intently and brainwashed at considering it offensive. Suddenly, we’ve all become experts at detecting 1 particle per million of the stuff. We should all be perfume consultants.

Now, in those day’s, some people had heard of studies in the 60’s that proved smoking was bad for you. These people did not like the smell of it then nor do they do now. If you are one of those, shut up. I know.

I had a conversation with this co-worker who the day before told me I stank. We were outside and there was this guy smoking a pipe. This “friend” tells me, “Oh, I just love the smell of pipe!”. I’m like WTF. It’s as harmful as cigarette (Yeah, they do inhale). I told him He said, yes but at least it smells good! I told him he would complain about it as much if the studies and the propaganda include pipe. He did not believe me. If I stank of BO, would you tell me? I asked. No, that would be impolite. He said. So I said WTF is the difference? When people stink, you tell them or you don’t.

OK, there are exceptions. I too worked for a chain smoking boss, who’s secretary was stuck with him all day in a small office. All of us liked the smelly office (Non smoker then, pre 87). But it was hell for her. She was in it 9-5. Not good.

Bars:
For the those of you who complain about bars, Why did you not got to smoke free bars. They exist. Why would you force ALL bars to abide by your sense of ethics. If 1% of your population smokes than at least have 1% of the bars allow smoking, no?


Health Care:

Tax paid for heath care in Canada 8$ per pack
Average smoker smokes 1 pack/day
Average starting age 17 (We’re stupid and it’s legal so we get hooked)
Average dying age of smoker: 70 (Yeah, we die the same time as everyone. Though it will likely be lung cancer instead of prostate cancer) Oh but I know this guy who died of cancer at 35! Yeah I know a lot of people who died early of non smoking related issues.
So, (70 - 17) * 365 * 8$ = 154 760.00$ in contributions (Heck, we pay to your health care + our regular taxes, excluded for these calculations)
Actual hospital cost (Not the charged cost, don’t get confused) of dying from lung cancer (It’s quick, 1 week, 2 at most) 14 days * 100 = 1400$
Actual Cost of chimo (60$/treatement, 3-6 treatments) Yah, they still use the cheap stuff invented in the 60’s. If you want the good stuff, it’s 8000$/shot out of your pockets :360$

Total burden on health care 360 + 1400 = 1760 (same as everyone else). Let’s say 5000 to be fair. 3% of money invested from cig taxes alone. Lets not forget that smokers work and pay regular taxes too.

Now, these hospital costs are not accurate but I’d bet fair money it’s close. I’m talking cost here, not prices including profits. A hospital should not work for profit. It should amass enough money to pay operational costs and buy current equipment and meds.

So, without smokers, the Canadian health care system is lost. That system sucks anyway, you pay enormous amounts of taxes, get charged enormous amounts of money for current medicine/practices. If you don’t pay, you get the same health care you’d get in 1960.


OK, so these were the 4 major issues.

Stink, Cancer, Bars, Health Care Cost, oh, I forgot global warming

So, let’s simplify the facts.

Smoking causes cancer. But smoker don’t care as they are addicted by a product that was socially acceptable in the past.
Second hand smoke causes cancer (But how much is required) (Chlorine kills, yet we drink it)
It is socially correct now to associate cigarette smoke with stink.
It is socially correct to tell someone they stink if it is of cigarette.
It is my right to smoke
It is your right to have clean air

All these fact are not new.

Now, where to we draw the line. Do you support rebuking people all the way back home because you find their action repulsive? Even when they do their best not to offend you? I mean, do you support each and every law posted in the poll? At which law would you stop and say wait, that’s way too much.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions, don’t you know?

you can't smoke in a freakin bar in MA. that is sickening.

Originally Posted by icuurd12b42

Do you even remember when cigarette smoke smelled good, You don‘t? Is your memory failing you?[/b]

No and no. Before I even knew anything about second hand smoking, nicotine-effects and what-not I found the smell repulsive. Made me nauseus and turned my stomach, and that was before anyone had a chance to do any "brainwashing" in either direction. (If people today think it smells bad just because of changed opinions then I bet people before thought it smelled good because of the opinions then, that it was cool, or whatever the right word is, to smoke.

I do not smoke. I didn't vote either.
You are talking about "We". What Country are you talking about? Every country has it's own regulations about smoking. I'm assuming the USA, but I don't know it's regulations so my vote will stay null.

Originally Posted by TweaK

I do not smoke. I didn't vote either.
You are talking about "We". What Country are you talking about? Every country has it's own regulations about smoking. I'm assuming the USA, but I don't know it's regulations so my vote will stay null.
[/b]

We as a social entity.

You are from the Netherlands right? Now, guess my country

It does not matter which country. They all copy on one another with less or more zeal. Gradually though, the law gets updated or is added to or cities add bylaws (A bylaw cannot circumvent a federal law). so in the end, it all becomes unilateral. And that is the problem. Gradual loss of freedom. My way or the high way. You agree with it until it affects you. You don't mind until there is no where to run.

Originally Posted by icuurd12b42

We as a social entity.

You are from the Netherlands right? Now, guess my country

It does not matter which country. They all copy on one another with less or more zeal. Gradually though, the law gets updated or is added to or cities add bylaws (A bylaw cannot circumvent a federal law). so in the end, it all becomes unilateral. And that is the problem. Gradual loss of freedom. My way or the high way. You agree with it until it affects you. You don't mind until there is no where to run.
[/b]

CANADA. OH SNAP. If you say "Guess my country", be sure not to have it in Location.
Anyways, countries here in Europe tend to vary with smoking laws

But yeah, I do agree with you to some extent. Freedom is gradually decreased, which of course sucks, but in this case I do not mind. Also, smoking is scientifically proven to be bad for your health and the people around you that do not smoke; they still "smoke" (again, to some extent) while you smoke. I do somewhat agree with not being able to smoke in restaurants and that kind of stuff. Then again, it is a form of freedom loss. What can I say? This law has not affected me, and is only in my advantage, but I'm sure in the future there will be laws that will prevent me from doing my thing (to some extent. God, I love saying that )

Originally Posted by TweaK

CANADA. OH SNAP. If you say "Guess my country", be sure not to have it in Location.
Anyways, countries here in Europe tend to vary with smoking laws
[/b]

Tha't why I said it.

Originally Posted by TweaK

But yeah, I do agree with you to some extent. Freedom is gradually decreased, which of course sucks, but in this case I do not mind. Also, smoking is scientifically proven to be bad for your health and the people around you that do not smoke; they still "smoke" (again, to some extent) while you smoke. I do somewhat agree with not being able to smoke in restaurants and that kind of stuff. Then again, it is a form of freedom loss. What can I say? This law has not affected me, and is only in my advantage, but I'm sure in the future there will be laws that will prevent me from doing my thing (to some extent. God, I love saying that )
[/b]

That really sums up the point of this thread.

Haha alright then. ;P

(Before I begin: I used to smoke so in no way do I judge the smoker or think I'm better than them, that would make me a hypocrite. I only have a problem with the idea of smoking itself which even the smoker unadmittedly has no control over so keep that in mind throughout the overall tone of this and please don't get defensive but instead try and listen)

Icuurd (and anyone), saying that strict smoking laws are impairing our god-given freedoms and being a grave injustice for us all, is flat out wrong. Of course on any other choice/freedom being limited I would have to agree with you, but not in this case. Smoking cannot AT ALL be compared to other freedoms we possess on the simple fact that other freedoms have purpose or meaning and smoking, does NOT. NOT... A... ONE.

As I said before (in case you missed it, here it is again): "Smoking itself is irrational, pointless, and stupid therefore any law limiting it would seem equally irrational, pointless, and stupid to a smoker..."


By the way, smoking being irrational, pointless, and stupid is unfortunately NOT an opinion, it's a fact.


Here, let me explain...

1.) The Smoker's "Buzz":
The smoker's "buzz" stops after the first few cigarettes leaving behind only the horrid psychological withdrawal pangs between cigarettes...aka "nic fits".

In other words, smoking gives you no release of any kind. None what-so-ever. Essentially, that means it's pointless and in turn making it irrational.

(Aside: Why then, do we rational beings decide to smoke in the first place? because we enjoy it? That can't possibly be, when it's been proven it does nothing for you after the first few cigarettes. I'm sure we all tend to think we are intelligent, dominant human beings determining our paths through life, right? Ask yourself then why you NEED it exactly? Unfortunately, the answer to that is: because you are addicted. Addicted to a useless poison none-the-less. Why then do you continue?)



2.)The Benefits of Smoking:
---



3.)Why we Continue Smoking:
We all start smoking for stupid reasons, usually social pressures or social occasions, but, once we feel we are becoming hooked, why do we carry on smoking? All smokers know in their heart of hearts that they are fools. They know that they had no need to smoke before they became hooked. Most of them can remember that their first cigarette tasted awful and that they had to work hard in order to become hooked. The most annoying part is that they sense that non-smokers are not missing anything and that they are laughing at them.

However, smokers are intelligent, rational human beings. They know that they are taking enormous health risks and that they spend a fortune on cigarettes in their lifetime. Therefore it is necessary for them to have a rational explanation to justify their habit. Those reasons are a dime a dozen...

Unfortunately, the actual reason why smokers continue to smoke is a subtle combination of two factors... Nicotine addiction and brainwashing.

.
.
.

I truly wish I were wrong and there were some great hidden benefit to smoking that you get, that way I could stand alongside you agreeing that the laws are trying to limit your god-given freedoms and I could leave you fritter away your life and money on cigarettes all you want.

The irony that smokers fail to see is, your freedoms were taken away by the cigarette industry the moment you decided to pick up the cigarette in the first place and the laws are here to help you see that. What do you do for a group of people who can't choose the obvious right way due to brainwashing? In my opinion (and public opinion for that matter) they need to be pulled kicking and screaming out of their filthy habit.

I mean, after all, its not the non-smoker who suffers with the 'smokers cough', cancer, or an empty pocket book (average smoker spends $80,000 in their lifetime on cigarettes). Smokers get the short end of the stick on all counts the moment they start and with the laws changing its getting shorter and shorter and only a matter of time before smokers start to catch on... As I did...

I only see the laws for the reality that they are- a step in the right direction.

Remember: We weren't born with a cigarette in our mouths, someone put it there (with over 4000 different addictive chemicals per cig, mind you). Therefore, in no way is smoking god-given...

I think you failed to see the relativity of the situation and the effect of having dominion over your life by domineering others that do not share your point of view.

Laws diminish freedom and protect others.
Strict laws remove freedom and blind others.

Strict laws are born from logical laws which are made by people who are offended. No ifs or buts.

When you decide a law is too strict is relative to your reality.

Unilateral laws are made by binary people who have no idea of the diversity of desires of a general population and only have empathy for their kind. People who want uniformity by restricting/stopping others from doing what they would not do.

The fact that smoking is bad for you is not the issue here. The fact that we have people addicted is. The fact that laws prevent people from creating a place for smokers to meet is.

Consider that there is nothing in this life that is truly a necessity apart from keeping the human body alive. Everything else is an indulgence, irrational, pointless, and stupid but we do it anyway. So choose your addiction carefully. One day someone will not like seeing you indulge in something they would not do and pass a law against it.

Who knows, maybe some day some country out there will outlaw bubble gum… oh, wait!

Originally Posted by icuurd12b42

I think you failed to see the relativity of the situation and the effect of having dominion over your life by domineering others that do not share your point of view.

Laws diminish freedom and protect others.
Strict laws remove freedom and blind others.

Strict laws are born from logical laws which are made by people who are offended. No ifs or buts.

When you decide a law is too strict is relative to your reality.

Unilateral laws are made by binary people who have no idea of the diversity of desires of a general population and only have empathy for their kind. People who want uniformity by restricting/stopping others from doing what they would not do.

The fact that smoking is bad for you is not the issue here. The fact that we have people addicted is. The fact that laws prevent people from creating a place for smokers to meet is.

Consider that there is nothing in this life that is truly a necessity apart from keeping the human body alive. Everything else is an indulgence, irrational, pointless, and stupid but we do it anyway. So choose your addiction carefully. One day someone will not like seeing you indulge in something they would not do and pass a law against it.

Who knows, maybe some day some country out there will outlaw bubble gum… oh, wait!
[/b]

Actually, I fully and wholly understand the point that you were trying to purport. However, the point itself failed to make sense when you try to defend something as inane and asinine as smoking as some sort of valuable and harmless thing. Of course if other unnecessary things like chewing bubblegum were outlawed I'd agree with you 150% but smoking isn't chewing bubblegum (which remains completely harmless). So, again, your point fails to get through.

As soon as something puts someones life in danger or at risk it is in the public's best interest to protect those people, albeit the smoker or non-smoker. In this case both parties are at risk and both parties benefit by the laws. Only a smoker would complain about the laws because they fail to see the innate value of those laws and the ridiculousness in their action, as I've said many times before. It's like people being stuck in quicksand and not knowing you are slowly sinking at the same time complaining when someone throws you a rope. I'm sorry to say it but it is in this case where your rational is flawed, its ok though. I was tricked and in the same boat not long ago.

If only your eyes were open to the brainwashing you were subjected to, that anger would be redirected where its really needed...towards the tobacco companies. The tobacco companies threw you into that quicksand that the laws are trying to pull you out of. If you really look at it objectively they have you hook, line, and sinker (a slave at best) defending something completely meaningless for FREE. Thats the product of their billions of dollars at work, nothing more. Honestly, thats the real travesty! If you really like fighting battles that matter and arguing things that matter then please do yourself a favor and pour that passion into reading the book I mentioned earlier.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Actually, I fully and wholly understand the point that you were trying to purport. However, the point itself failed to make sense when you try to defend something as innane and asinine as smoking as some sort of valuable and harmless thing.
[/b]

If you understood what I am trying to convey then you would not have written the underlined text. Smoking is stupid and inane. That is not what I am defending (I AM NOT DEFENDING SMOKING as being harmless or valuable. Why are you putting words in my mouth). I am trying to defend stupid inane smokers’ right to have their own establishment where they would be free to meet without having people shove the law up their asses.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Of course if unnecessary things like chewing bubblegum were outlawed I'd agree with you 100% but smoking isn't chewing bubblegum, which is fortunately harmless to all.
[/b]

I suggest you take a trip to Singapore. You can bring some gum with you but if you give some to the people who live there, you will be fined of thrown in jail.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

As soon as something puts someones life in danger or at risk it is in public interest to protect those people, albeit the smoker or non-smoker. In this case both parties are at risk and both parties benefit by the laws. Only a smoker would complain about the laws because they fail to see the innate value of those laws and the ridiculousness in their action, as I've said many times before.
[/b]

How are we putting others’ lives in danger? That was already fixed when we were put outside. We did not complain then. It made sense. I am complaining about being forced to smoke in the rain. About the dismantling of designated areas. About not being allowed to hide from view if it is under a overhang or an umbrella. About gradually being forced to drive home to have a cigarette. About hospitalised patients walking 300 m in the rain in their hospital gowns with their IV bottles in hand so they can have relief from their addiction. I am talking about the immediate and warning about the future.
…
I am complaining about reaching old age and be stuck in a retirement home while having young healthy nurses forcing me to eat healthy while I’m f’ing dying!

Originally Posted by SolSkye

If only your eyes were open to the brainwashing you were subjected to that anger would be redirected where its really needed...towards the tobacco companies. If you look at it objectively they have you hook, line and sinker defending something completely meaningless. Honestly, thats the real travesty! Do yourself a favor and pour that passion into reading the book I mentioned earlier.
[/b]

What brainwashing are you talking about? I am Canadian. There has not been smoking propaganda here since the late 70’s. There is only anti-smoking propaganda here (and it is ok).

Again, here you go saying that I promote smoking like I was the Marlboro Man and assume I‘m all pro smoke. A poor uninformed victim of the tobacco company.

And I don’t think it’s meaningless to defend people who seek shelter from the rain even if they are smokers. WTF man. You are just proving that people think smokers are sub humans.

The travesty here is that such a product was ever made and sold and addicted so many people.
The second travesty is people treating those who are addicted like dogs and brushing them under the carpet thinking that resolves the issue.

Anyway, this is turning into a smoke is bad debate which is blinding folks from the fact that the resent laws here are way above and beyond necessity.

Quoting takes up too much space so I'll summarize how I understood each response...



1.)icuurd12b42: "I'm not defending smoking, but what about smokers' rights?"

I believe you are selectively letting in or hanging on information I've written while leaving out other very important, very valid points I made. You don't have to out-right say smoking is harmless to infer as such. By keeping laws as they were previously you are indirectly supporting the smoker's right to spread their poison to someone who doesn't have a choice about breathing in your poisonous gases or not. Thus inferring it's not a big deal, or, in other words, harmless.

I hate to keep using analogies but generally they are understood fairly easily so, let's think of the movie, the Matrix. Many people were so blinded by that system they would do anything to defend it all the while being used like batteries. In your case you are also like a battery, slowly being drained of life, energy, and money to keep this meaningless system intact. Sometimes indirectly draining non-smokers with that lifestyle. And yet you fight for your 'right' to remain in shackles and perhaps pull people down with you? There's something weird about that, that you must feel deep down...

Whether smokers like it or not things are changing worldwide. That isn't going to change because the facts and rational behind smoking won't change. The only thing now is whether or not you want to step up to the plate as millions have and make the change within yourself.

Trust me its super easy... No withdrawal pangs... NOTHING... What could you possibly be afraid of?...Actually being able to quit? Trust me, just read the book...


2.)icuurd12b42: "These new laws are really inconvenient for me, forcing me to do absurd things. Also other countries are even stricter. Why can't I choose to die young?"

Singapore isn't exactly a world model on law enforcement last time I checked (Thank God) and carries no relevance to how the rest of the world would hold itself after its finally rid the world of smoking.

By making the laws stricter they are doing you a favor (by making you smoke less and spend less money) and yet you see it as an inconvenience. Why is that?

No body is forcing you to go outside in the rain, in the end you still make the choice to light up or not. Is it really that hard to hold out? We do it all the time on a long plane ride, or a business meeting. I don' ever remember getting up during a movie at the movie theater to smoke a cigarette. That's because its not a necessity. We say it is, we make excuses up the wazoo on why we absolutely NEED a cigarette RIGHT NOW but that doesn't make the need a reality. That my friend is the brainwashing...



3.)icuurd12b42: "What brainwashing? I haven't seen anything... By the way, we are being maltreated"

Well, every advertising man knows well the power of suggestion over the subconscious mind. From our earliest years our subconscious minds are bombarded daily with information telling us that cigarettes relax us and give us confidence and courage and that the most precious thing on earth is a cigarette. You think I exaggerate?

Whenever you see a cartoon or film or play in which people are about to be executed or shot, what is their last request? That's right, a cigarette. The impact of this does not register on our conscious minds, but the subconscious mind has time to absorb it.

I don't have time to get into more detail now maybe later but...

If there is no product placement going on and no brainwashing then why do tobacco companies spend over $200,000,000 to do so?

more later

smoking rocks. all the cool kids do it. and i suggest that you do.

honestly... this super sensitive P.C. crap really annoys me.

if someone wants to smoke... it's their business.
if a business wants to allow patrons to smoke... it's their business.
if you want to be a whining bitch about someone else's vices... it's your business... just understand that, by making that your business, you automatically label yourself as a stupid hooker who has nothing better to do with your spare time.

***

also i will defend people and their right to choose to the death... be it smoking or driving SUVs that get 5 miles to the gallon.

learn your place... because it's certainly has no room in my life.

Originally Posted by jacobo

smoking rocks. all the cool kids do it. and i suggest that you do.

honestly... this super sensitive P.C. crap really annoys me.

if someone wants to smoke... it's their business.
if a business wants to allow patrons to smoke... it's their business.
if you want to be a whining bitch about someone else's vices... it's your business... just understand that, by making that your business, you automatically label yourself as a stupid hooker who has nothing better to do with your spare time.

***

also i will defend people and their right to choose to the death... be it smoking or driving SUVs that get 5 miles to the gallon.

learn your place... because it's certainly has no room in my life.
[/b]

Thats good, because I don't socialize with imbeciles anyway...

Well, only long enough to let them know they are one

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Quoting takes up too much space so I'll summarize how I understood each response...
1.)icuurd12b42: "I'm not defending smoking, but what about smokers' rights?"

I believe you are selectively letting in or hanging on information I've written while leaving out other very important, very valid points I made. You don't have to out-right say smoking is harmless to infer as such. By keeping laws as they were previously you are indirectly supporting the smoker's right to spread their poison to someone who doesn't have a choice about breathing in your poisonous gases or not. Thus infering it's not a big deal, or, in other words, harmless.
[/b]

Again, I must remind you that at this point in time, where I live, and this is important, smokers have to smoke far away from non smokers thus your relentless effort to establish the point that smoking is harmful, though being true, is invalid.

You are trying to counteract my opinion with non sequitur facts.

You are starting to sound more and more like a BAC reciting bible quotes. There is not point arguing with such people. They only see black and white… binaries…

You failed to understand that we know the facts, that we accommodated and have been very polite about abiding to the situation. You failed to see that I understand your point as you imagine I want to got right in a non smoking environment and light up.

No, I want to have a smoke outside, away from people. I want to shelter myself from the rain under a overhang or an umbrella.

I want hospitals to re-establish the smoking zone, away from non smokers instead of having them thrown outside the hospital grounds.

I would enjoy at least one smoking bar.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

2.)icuurd12b42: "These new laws are really inconvienent for me, forcing me to do absurd things. Also other countries are even stricter. Why can't I choose to die young?"
[/b]

You little sh_t. Your are putting words in my mouth again. Now I know you are a BAC. This is my last reply to you.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Singapore isn't exactly a world model on law enforcement last time I checked (Thank God) and carries no relavance to how the rest of the world would hold itself after its finally rid the world of smoking.
[/b]

I’ve been there 20 years ago. Nice place. They do provide smoking aquariums. Everyone complied to use it except this stupid American woman who almost got arrested for refusing, stating that she was an American and that she had rights..

Originally Posted by SolSkye

By making the laws stricter they are doing you a favor (by making you smoke less and spend less money) and yet you see it as an inconvienence. Why is that?
[/b]

Because I am old and wise. I know I was young and stupid. What are you?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

No body is forcing you to go outside in the rain, in the end you still make the choice to light up or not. Is it really that hard to hold out? We do it all the time on a long plane ride, or a business meeting. I don' ever remember getting up during a movie at the movie theater to smoke a cigarette. Thats because its not a necessity. We say it is, we make excuses up the wazzoo on why we absolutely NEED a cigarette RIGHT NOW but that doesn't make the need a reality. That my friend is the brainwashing...
[/b]

Man, you must have quite after 2 months of smoking. Congrats.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

3.)icuurd12b42: "What brainwashing? I haven't seen anything... By the way, we are being maltreated"
[/b]

Again, not my quote! Just your interpretation of what I said.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Well, every advertising man knows well the power of suggestion over the subconscious mind. From our earliest years our subconscious minds are bombarded daily with information telling us that cigarettes relax us and give us confidence and courage and that the most precious thing on earth is a cigarette. You think I exaggerate?
[/b]

Again, I don’t live in the US. From what you wrote, I pretty sure you do. That’s the down fall of living in a consumer mind set society.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Whenever you see a cartoon or film or play in which people are about to be executed or shot, what is their last request? Thats right, a cigarette. The impact of this does not register on our conscious minds, but the subconscious mind has time to absorb it.
[/b]

Well, if I face a firing squad, I’ll ask for a hooker. But I’ll settle for a cigarette if that can’t be provided.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I don't have time to get into more detail now maybe later but...

If there is no product placement going on and no brainwashing then why do tobacco companies spend over $200,000,000 to do so?

more later
[/b]

Basically you are saying that I’ve been brainwashed into smoking.
Basically, I am telling you that society has no empathy for those brainwashed people.

Anyway, I don’t think you are old enough to have grasped the situation in it’s entirety. I’ve reiterated it a few times and you failed to get it. Just quit is your answer. You offer no resolve for the meantime. You don’t live where I live. Your point of view if pertinent to your environment. You probably haven’t seen the hospital patients walking to the sidewalk, IV in hand, to have a smoke. You have no idea.

I am no fool. I’m not gonna walk to a 60 year old man and tell him to quit. Are you crazy? Might as well ask a teenager to stop masturbating….

Come back to me it a decade or two. You’ll be closer to my age then.

This is my last post to you in this thread. You may keep posting though, to stir the pot. I have said all I could to you.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Thats good, because I don't socialize with imbeciles anyway...

Well, only long enough to let them know they are one
[/b]

if you've ever done a drug or taken a risk... you are a hypocrite.

get off that high horse so you can be heard.

jacobo, my standpoint doesn't change and no one asked you to join this conversation excreting your bile. A mongoloid trying to poke at me will recieve nothing but pity.

icuurd12b42, I wasn't intending on putting words in your mouth so there is no need to get terse. I stated that quoting takes up too much space so I will post it how I understood it, I see nothing wrong with that.

Actually, I smoked for 6years. Pretty heavily, I might add, at 30-40 a day. Well, not heavy compared to the author of that book who went from 100 a day to 0. The ONLY thing I was hoping for throughout these numerous posts of mine was that someone would at least try and read that book I mentioned. If one could guarantee that you would stop smoking regardless of how many or how long you smoked with no problems why not at least try? Then you wouldn't complain about the laws because they don't apply to you anymore... it's quite simple.

I don't think my posts were off-topic at all. Aside from trying to get people to read the book, I was trying to tell you that one shouldn't be surprised with the laws against smoking because smoking is a market geared to dealing out highly addictive, useless, death giving sticks. There is no positive value or reason behind smoking that makes any rational sense so if people are stripped of that right to smoke it would only seem natural, no?

Perfect Example: How else could we handle huge problems of selfishness like, the global warming problem then to make super strict laws/regulations with zero tolerance that fine countries, companies, and individuals who don't follow these new standards. Of course those affected will complain about rights being infringed upon until they are blue in the face or the end of the world (which is one thing that is certain if we continually cater to stupidity all the time). Stupidity and ignorance are perfectly fine as long as they don't affect others then that choice to be stupid will be stripped away...Plain and simple.

Try to think of the greater good, not just yourself. Think of all the people that would be saved of getting caught in the same trap as you because it will become an even more unattractive addiction.

You talked down to me as if I'm a child when you know nothing about me or where I've been in my worldly travels (Now in Japan). I've given you nothing but respect so more likely then not my life experiences have some merit and perhaps you should listen more carefully before jumping to conclusions and getting all irate.

Here you don't even need to go to a bookstore...
(Go to this page and click the book option and take the challenge, I dare you...You can even get the canadian version of the book which isn't sold in america)
http://www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com/

Heres the page for the book to make it even more simple...
http://www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com/options.htm

I'm not sure if my opinion applies much (I'm 14, and obviously [I hope it's obvious anyway] have not smoked) but I think anti-smoking laws have not gone too far, not at all. I think the laws should continue to be made, until smoking is illegal. Both of my parents smoke, and both of them regret it. Yet, both continue to smoke. Cigarettes are addictive, they are a waste of money, and there is not a single benifit to smoking.
I say ban it outright.