One day we will. and there is nothing wrong with it.jord wrote:
Smog hurts my lungs, we should only produce and drive hybrids.
Perhaps, perhaps not.lowing wrote:
One day we will. and there is nothing wrong with it.jord wrote:
Smog hurts my lungs, we should only produce and drive hybrids.
Depends for what reasons, if the petrol run car is still legal and available for recreational use then sure there's nothing wrong with it.
You never mention it, you only talk from a point of I lived my life down the solid line.lowing wrote:
where have I said anything about banning anything? I said do what you want, keep it to yourself. As far as your analogy to soda. I don't give a fuck if you drink a case of coke a day. You are only fucking yourself up, and by doing so you are not harming anyone else. Drink up.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I hope they ban it, then maybe Cig prices would go down again. Crime would raise, you'd have junkies breaking into peoples houses to make money for their tobacco fix.
Lowings whole life is based on Gallants life from Highlights and he's never done anything wrong.
Lowing, Soda is horrible for people and children and addictive cause caffeine is one of the most addictive drugs out there, we should ban caffeine.
Regarding your assertion that I "have never done anything wrong". This is also incorrect. I have done plenty wrong, difference is, I accept it, I acknowledge it, I try to learn form it, and I do not blame others for it. Is it so bad to expect you to do the same?
Drinking soda effects everyone, medical expensense go up. People on planes crowding you cause they're too large for one seat(I think the airlines need to do the two seats rule).
But I'm all for the two bars/resturants split. Give the bar owners a choice on what they want, smoking inside or ban smoking. I don't understand why that isn't a fair choice and why the government has to be involved?
restaurants, lines, concerts etc....cpt.fass1 wrote:
Spot on stupid. We never had the right nor did we ever show up to your place of work or home and smoke. Most smokers I knew would only smoke in bars and in smoking sections. If you chose to sit there, it was your fault..lxcpikiman wrote:
this post is spot on!lowing wrote:
Not sure anyone said anything about criminalizing tobacco. All that is asked for is for you assholes that smoke to keep it to yourselves. Not really sure where you think you have the "right" to impose your fucked up habits on other people.
I want examples of our habits getting "Imposed" on you.
It is hardly "our fault", when there are no other options.
I fully support your right to smoke, as I said, separate but equal accommodations is the solution, then any non-smoker that chooses to enter a smoking restaurant may do so and has no complaint coming. any smoker that enters a non-smoking restaurant may do so with no complaint coming.
The proprietor may choose which he would want to cater to.
Exactly, it should be up to the owner. Logic and fairness often don't prevail though.
I have opened up to plenty I have done wrong, I paid for an abortion, I have failed at trying to run a business, I have siad I am not thsat great with saving money. etc....I have blamed no one for any of my mistakes.cpt.fass1 wrote:
You never mention it, you only talk from a point of I lived my life down the solid line.lowing wrote:
where have I said anything about banning anything? I said do what you want, keep it to yourself. As far as your analogy to soda. I don't give a fuck if you drink a case of coke a day. You are only fucking yourself up, and by doing so you are not harming anyone else. Drink up.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I hope they ban it, then maybe Cig prices would go down again. Crime would raise, you'd have junkies breaking into peoples houses to make money for their tobacco fix.
Lowings whole life is based on Gallants life from Highlights and he's never done anything wrong.
Lowing, Soda is horrible for people and children and addictive cause caffeine is one of the most addictive drugs out there, we should ban caffeine.
Regarding your assertion that I "have never done anything wrong". This is also incorrect. I have done plenty wrong, difference is, I accept it, I acknowledge it, I try to learn form it, and I do not blame others for it. Is it so bad to expect you to do the same?
Drinking soda effects everyone, medical expensense go up. People on planes crowding you cause they're too large for one seat(I think the airlines need to do the two seats rule).
But I'm all for the two bars/resturants split. Give the bar owners a choice on what they want, smoking inside or ban smoking. I don't understand why that isn't a fair choice and why the government has to be involved?
Please don't start with that health insurance bullshit, you can go anywhere with that, so lets just stick to the direct affects of the issues and not take it to airline seating shall we?
nope yer right, it is such an obvious and fair solution it is no wonder it will never be adopted by govt.jord wrote:
Exactly, it should be up to the owner. Logic and fairness often don't prevail though.
well it wasn't because there's no revune in it for the government. You leave it up to the business owner you can't fine them.lowing wrote:
nope yer right, it is such an obvious and fair solution it is no wonder it will never be adopted by govt.jord wrote:
Exactly, it should be up to the owner. Logic and fairness often don't prevail though.
plenty of revenue, it is called taxes taken in by satisfied paying customers, regardless as to which establishment they choose.cpt.fass1 wrote:
well it wasn't because there's no revune in it for the government. You leave it up to the business owner you can't fine them.lowing wrote:
nope yer right, it is such an obvious and fair solution it is no wonder it will never be adopted by govt.jord wrote:
Exactly, it should be up to the owner. Logic and fairness often don't prevail though.
Not really as much as fines. I think the smoking in an establishment around here is 500 to the violator and 1000 to the establishment which is way more money then they'd bring in with taxes. See when the government starts preaching about something being bad they're just look to make additional revune from it. Like the soda/fast food tax they want to instill.lowing wrote:
plenty of revenue, it is called taxes taken in by satisfied paying customers, regardless as to which establishment they choose.cpt.fass1 wrote:
well it wasn't because there's no revune in it for the government. You leave it up to the business owner you can't fine them.lowing wrote:
nope yer right, it is such an obvious and fair solution it is no wonder it will never be adopted by govt.
ya might be right. You are however straying from the point I was making, which was basically rude, inconsiderate smokers thinking their "right" to smoke where ever they want with no regard to those around them supersedes everyone elses "right", not be subjected to it.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Not really as much as fines. I think the smoking in an establishment around here is 500 to the violator and 1000 to the establishment which is way more money then they'd bring in with taxes. See when the government starts preaching about something being bad they're just look to make additional revune from it. Like the soda/fast food tax they want to instill.lowing wrote:
plenty of revenue, it is called taxes taken in by satisfied paying customers, regardless as to which establishment they choose.cpt.fass1 wrote:
well it wasn't because there's no revune in it for the government. You leave it up to the business owner you can't fine them.
That's been handled by the law. In lines that are outside, that's outside and doesn't have any worse effect then car exhaust. Also I really wonder how much smokings been blamed when it's not really the culprit?lowing wrote:
ya might be right. You are however straying from the point I was making, which was basically rude, inconsiderate smokers thinking their "right" to smoke where ever they want with no regard to those around them supersedes everyone elses "right", not be subjected to it.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Not really as much as fines. I think the smoking in an establishment around here is 500 to the violator and 1000 to the establishment which is way more money then they'd bring in with taxes. See when the government starts preaching about something being bad they're just look to make additional revenue from it. Like the soda/fast food tax they want to instill.lowing wrote:
plenty of revenue, it is called taxes taken in by satisfied paying customers, regardless as to which establishment they choose.
Alot of studies just assume cause and effect. Oh you smoke so it's the cigs that caused this, but it could have been the lead pant or radon. I'm not stupid and I know that smoking is bad for you, just don't really know how bad it is. Crusades in this world might be misdirecting it.
Lets say they did a study and found out that majority of Lung Cancer isn't directly effected by smoking and it was effected by Lead.. Would you still have the same stance because you don't like the smell?
Remember that they said that Pot caused cancer 100% of the time, but the study was a monkey shoved in a room that was constantly pumped throw with pot smoke for three days. The monkey died from Asphyxiation.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-08-23 10:31:38)
What about the rest?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Lets say they did a study and found out that majority of Lung Cancer isn't directly effected by smoking and it was effected by Lead.. Would you still have the same stance because you don't like the smell?
Lung cancer is just one, on a huge list of diseases and problems caused or enhanced by smoking.
My kind of death, lucky monkey.
Aussie anti-smoking campaigns are hella scary.DrunkFace wrote:
What about the rest?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Lets say they did a study and found out that majority of Lung Cancer isn't directly effected by smoking and it was effected by Lead.. Would you still have the same stance because you don't like the smell?
Lung cancer is just one, on a huge list of diseases and problems caused or enhanced by smoking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rSrrSTW0UU
What about them? I'm producing a question, what if this problem isn't causing the list of death they're saying it is?
Basically the two things that are guaranteed in your life is that you're going to pay taxes and die.
Also those ads are really disgusting and I don't feel like they should be aired. Why must someone try to take away the quality of life of someone else.
Basically the two things that are guaranteed in your life is that you're going to pay taxes and die.
Also those ads are really disgusting and I don't feel like they should be aired. Why must someone try to take away the quality of life of someone else.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-08-23 10:49:52)
I don't give a shit about the lung cancer argument more than the argument of not being subjected to the pungent, annoying, choking smoke that I do not want to smell or breathe..cpt.fass1 wrote:
That's been handled by the law. In lines that are outside, that's outside and doesn't have any worse effect then car exhaust. Also I really wonder how much smokings been blamed when it's not really the culprit?lowing wrote:
ya might be right. You are however straying from the point I was making, which was basically rude, inconsiderate smokers thinking their "right" to smoke where ever they want with no regard to those around them supersedes everyone elses "right", not be subjected to it.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Not really as much as fines. I think the smoking in an establishment around here is 500 to the violator and 1000 to the establishment which is way more money then they'd bring in with taxes. See when the government starts preaching about something being bad they're just look to make additional revenue from it. Like the soda/fast food tax they want to instill.
Alot of studies just assume cause and effect. Oh you smoke so it's the cigs that caused this, but it could have been the lead pant or radon. I'm not stupid and I know that smoking is bad for you, just don't really know how bad it is. Crusades in this world might be misdirecting it.
Lets say they did a study and found out that majority of Lung Cancer isn't directly effected by smoking and it was effected by Lead.. Would you still have the same stance because you don't like the smell?
Remember that they said that Pot caused cancer 100% of the time, but the study was a monkey shoved in a room that was constantly pumped throw with pot smoke for three days. The monkey died from Asphyxiation.
So it's the smell... Well yeah on the flip side, The Truth campaign ads are so bad that a study has actually showed that it pushes people towards smoking. The other disgusting ads on tv are actually worse then the smoke will ever be. You smell it for a second or for a min then it's gone, but you can't unsee something. Also I watch TV when I eat and don't want to be subject to that unless I want to watch surgery videos.
Again, I don't care about the "Truth Campaigns", or who decides to pick up smoking for whatever reason. It is obnoxious, and hinders the breathing of those of us that do not smoke. Why? Because when you inhale, you know and expect what is entering your lungs. When a non -smoker inhales, they expect fresh air to enter their lungs, they are not used to or expect cigarette smoke, and that causes choking or coughing.cpt.fass1 wrote:
So it's the smell... Well yeah on the flip side, The Truth campaign ads are so bad that a study has actually showed that it pushes people towards smoking. The other disgusting ads on tv are actually worse then the smoke will ever be. You smell it for a second or for a min then it's gone, but you can't unsee something. Also I watch TV when I eat and don't want to be subject to that unless I want to watch surgery videos.
You have no argument that justifies or rationalizes your "right" to subject anyone to that.. Hell, becauae non-smokers do not want to breathe in your smoke, for whatever reason they cite, or not, is reason enough to prevent you from subjecting someone to it. You can not justify it or rationalize it
Hey is smoking on stadiums allowed? I always smoked there but yesterday I was told by my buddies that its forbidden.
I'd like to add 'workplace' to your list. Nobody heeds distance rules from doorways and ventilation, nor does anybody want their tires slashed for reporting it after trying to ask nicely (for people to stop).lowing wrote:
restaurants, lines, concerts etc....cpt.fass1 wrote:
Spot on stupid. We never had the right nor did we ever show up to your place of work or home and smoke. Most smokers I knew would only smoke in bars and in smoking sections. If you chose to sit there, it was your fault..lxcpikiman wrote:
this post is spot on!
I want examples of our habits getting "Imposed" on you.
It is hardly "our fault", when there are no other options.
I fully support your right to smoke, as I said, separate but equal accommodations is the solution, then any non-smoker that chooses to enter a smoking restaurant may do so and has no complaint coming. any smoker that enters a non-smoking restaurant may do so with no complaint coming.
The proprietor may choose which he would want to cater to.
What about heart disease, isn't that irreversible to an extent?JohnG@lt wrote:
Too late for you? They say that even a heavy smoker will have the lungs of a non-smoker given ten years time to heal. This is why non-smokers bitching about the occasional whiff is nothing more than hot air.11 Bravo wrote:
i dont. except growing up i had to fly on planes and be in places filled with smoke. im sure that did some damage. so its too late for me. if its a public health hazard then one should have the right to ban it.JohnG@lt wrote:
So don't smoke, and feel free to preach to smokers as much as you want, but it's not your right to force me to quit.
usmarine I'm sure you're as fit as a fiddle.
You can use that same kind of argument against cell phones though. If you didn't want to hear them yakking, they have no right to force you to hear them yakking, etc... I don't care for the smell of cigarette smoke, but it's not the smoke that bothers me so much...it's the rude people smoking that bother me. Blame the cigarette or blame the person? I'd say blame the person.lowing wrote:
Again, I don't care about the "Truth Campaigns", or who decides to pick up smoking for whatever reason. It is obnoxious, and hinders the breathing of those of us that do not smoke. Why? Because when you inhale, you know and expect what is entering your lungs. When a non -smoker inhales, they expect fresh air to enter their lungs, they are not used to or expect cigarette smoke, and that causes choking or coughing.cpt.fass1 wrote:
So it's the smell... Well yeah on the flip side, The Truth campaign ads are so bad that a study has actually showed that it pushes people towards smoking. The other disgusting ads on tv are actually worse then the smoke will ever be. You smell it for a second or for a min then it's gone, but you can't unsee something. Also I watch TV when I eat and don't want to be subject to that unless I want to watch surgery videos.
You have no argument that justifies or rationalizes your "right" to subject anyone to that.. Hell, becauae non-smokers do not want to breathe in your smoke, for whatever reason they cite, or not, is reason enough to prevent you from subjecting someone to it. You can not justify it or rationalize it
Sure I can, I live in a city area where when you breath in your getting The Hudson smell, the wetlands smell, or depending on the weather the garbage and pee smell. I actually quit for 6 months before, then I had to drive past the meadowlands(giant stadium) without the dulled down smoker smell. Holy shit as soon as I saw a store I stoped and picked up a pack.lowing wrote:
Again, I don't care about the "Truth Campaigns", or who decides to pick up smoking for whatever reason. It is obnoxious, and hinders the breathing of those of us that do not smoke. Why? Because when you inhale, you know and expect what is entering your lungs. When a non -smoker inhales, they expect fresh air to enter their lungs, they are not used to or expect cigarette smoke, and that causes choking or coughing.cpt.fass1 wrote:
So it's the smell... Well yeah on the flip side, The Truth campaign ads are so bad that a study has actually showed that it pushes people towards smoking. The other disgusting ads on tv are actually worse then the smoke will ever be. You smell it for a second or for a min then it's gone, but you can't unsee something. Also I watch TV when I eat and don't want to be subject to that unless I want to watch surgery videos.
You have no argument that justifies or rationalizes your "right" to subject anyone to that.. Hell, becauae non-smokers do not want to breathe in your smoke, for whatever reason they cite, or not, is reason enough to prevent you from subjecting someone to it. You can not justify it or rationalize it
Cell phones have also only been in service for a few years and we don't know what type of damage they're creating.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-08-24 08:18:31)
I don't give a fuck if it is outside or not, fact is, if we are in a line outside and I happen to be standing anywhere behind you and the wind is blowing toward us. I get a face full of your fuckin cigarette smoke. I don't want ot breathe it, I don't want ot wear it, and I sure as hell don't want to smell it. This has nothing to do with a fear of dying from it.cpt.fass1 wrote:
That's been handled by the law. In lines that are outside, that's outside and doesn't have any worse effect then car exhaust. Also I really wonder how much smokings been blamed when it's not really the culprit?lowing wrote:
ya might be right. You are however straying from the point I was making, which was basically rude, inconsiderate smokers thinking their "right" to smoke where ever they want with no regard to those around them supersedes everyone elses "right", not be subjected to it.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Not really as much as fines. I think the smoking in an establishment around here is 500 to the violator and 1000 to the establishment which is way more money then they'd bring in with taxes. See when the government starts preaching about something being bad they're just look to make additional revenue from it. Like the soda/fast food tax they want to instill.
Alot of studies just assume cause and effect. Oh you smoke so it's the cigs that caused this, but it could have been the lead pant or radon. I'm not stupid and I know that smoking is bad for you, just don't really know how bad it is. Crusades in this world might be misdirecting it.
Lets say they did a study and found out that majority of Lung Cancer isn't directly effected by smoking and it was effected by Lead.. Would you still have the same stance because you don't like the smell?
Remember that they said that Pot caused cancer 100% of the time, but the study was a monkey shoved in a room that was constantly pumped throw with pot smoke for three days. The monkey died from Asphyxiation.