Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sorry dude...it was five packs a day. sorry you can't fathom it. u wanna call my mom and ask her too?
i'm perfectly healthy..my sisters as well...my mother who is 75 years old is amazing healthy... my dad who was never around is dead however...
also, we were talking about second hand smoke...not smoking...
It's important to note that not everyone who smokes gets cancer, even amongst heavy smokers it's like 20%, which is still pretty darn high, but obviously not even a majority (or close to it). So smoking in and of itself doesn't guarantee a lifetime of serious health issues (just like pretty much everything else in life). Now, how much healthier could someone have been if they hadn't smoked, well, that's another story.
After all, we have all heard stories about folks who live to 100 doing all the things that we are told are bad for us (smoke, eat fatty foods, drink, etc).
Yes, the designated smoking areas. I gather you may not have noticed, but part of the social conditioning involved over the past ten years has been to deliberately make such areas as unpleasant as possible..
You gather wrong. I'm well aware. However, going into the aesthetics of designated smoking areas seemed a bit outside the scope of a single post suggesting an alternative to a smoking ban.
Yes, the designated smoking areas. I gather you may not have noticed, but part of the social conditioning involved over the past ten years has been to deliberately make such areas as unpleasant as possible: ghettos. As Mayor Bloomberg said a year or so ago, his commitment is "to make smoking as difficult and expensive as possible."
Things like separately ventilated, comfortable, and attractive smoking lounges are thus completely unacceptable. Making the "designated areas" undesirable adds a little extra ooomph to the electro-shocks for conditioning the rats.
Only fitting in my opinion, since for years previously smokers have made all public areas as unpleasant as possible for non-smokers.
Regardless of the long term health effects, which I'm sure are worse then you try to portray, I don't want to be subjected to any second hand smoke, I hate the smell, it is unpleasant and it makes it hard for me to breath. You and other smokers have no right to subject the rest of us to that. It is no longer your right to go into any public area and subject everyone else to your stink bomb. Get used to it.
Only fitting in my opinion, since for years previously smokers have made all public areas as unpleasant as possible for non-smokers.
Regardless of the long term health effects, which I'm sure are worse then you try to portray, I don't want to be subjected to any second hand smoke, I hate the smell, it is unpleasant and it makes it hard for me to breath. You and other smokers have no right to subject the rest of us to that. It is no longer your right to go into any public area and subject everyone else to your stink bomb. Get used to it.
Hey, I hate the smell of folks who are heavily perfumed (there have been times in an elevator in an office building that I swear I was going to pass out), also hate the smell of diesel and even "regular" car exhaust (for example when I'm biking). One has to be careful about where one throws stones.
Don't get me wrong, I've never been a smoker and dislike it likely every bit as much as you do (dated a smoker once. once.) That said, I think the only issue is the health issue, everything else starts to slide off into civil liberties land and that's when we have to be very careful what we wish for.
It's important to note that not everyone who smokes gets cancer, even amongst heavy smokers it's like 20%, which is still pretty darn high, but obviously not even a majority (or close to it). So smoking in and of itself doesn't guarantee a lifetime of serious health issues (just like pretty much everything else in life). Now, how much healthier could someone have been if they hadn't smoked, well, that's another story.
After all, we have all heard stories about folks who live to 100 doing all the things that we are told are bad for us (smoke, eat fatty foods, drink, etc).
My husband just told me about a second of our friends who's been diagnosed with cancer of the larynx. First had his larynx removed, along with all of his teeth, due to smoking. I'm not sure what it will involve for the second friend (female). We're all in our early 50s, and I suppose this could be just the beginning of the ramifications for a lifetime of smoking. I've never been anti-smoking, other than recognizing that it's a cancer risk, but this is becoming pretty sobering.
Hey, I hate the smell of folks who are heavily perfumed (there have been times in an elevator in an office building that I swear I was going to pass out), also hate the smell of diesel and even "regular" car exhaust (for example when I'm biking). One has to be careful about where one throws stones.
Don't get me wrong, I've never been a smoker and dislike it likely every bit as much as you do (dated a smoker once. once.) That said, I think the only issue is the health issue, everything else starts to slide off into civil liberties land and that's when we have to be very careful what we wish for.
I have to agree that a line has to be drawn. We can't be legislating things just because someone doesn't like them (which is what CptnRn's post very clearly advocates). Not and still make ANY of the claims about being a free country that we're so proud of.
Now, if you WANT to live in a country where things that someone doesn't like are legislated against solely on that basis, there are plenty out there, I'm sure. You don't need to go trying to make the United States into one of them. Though there are plenty of people out there that seem to want to do that, forgetting in their zeal to make sure that they never run any risk of being offended by something someone else is doing that if they advocate that, they are subject to the same in their turn. I personally find that kind of self-righteousness and "I'm the center of the universe" attitude grossly offensive and if I thought that way would like to legislate against it. Come to think of it, it's precisely that kind of attitude that led some to be so offended and threatened by someone doing something they didn't approve of that they flew airplanes into buildings just to try to make that point.
It's all a matter of degree, but the attitude is the same.
I have to agree that a line has to be drawn. We can't be legislating things just because someone doesn't like them (which is what CptnRn's post very clearly advocates). Not and still make ANY of the claims about being a free country that we're so proud of.
Now, if you WANT to live in a country where things that someone doesn't like are legislated against solely on that basis, there are plenty out there, I'm sure. You don't need to go trying to make the United States into one of them. Though there are plenty of people out there that seem to want to do that, forgetting in their zeal to make sure that they never run any risk of being offended by something someone else is doing that if they advocate that, they are subject to the same in their turn. I personally find that kind of self-righteousness and "I'm the center of the universe" attitude grossly offensive and if I thought that way would like to legislate against it. Come to think of it, it's precisely that kind of attitude that led some to be so offended and threatened by someone doing something they didn't approve of that they flew airplanes into buildings just to try to make that point.
It's all a matter of degree, but the attitude is the same.
I wasn't going to post again but never until here have I ever been equated with terrorists because I take a stand...but that is where we are in this country. Really, that took some balls THL. My attitude, as you say, isn't remotely in the same category as a terrorist. That is some gall. Anyone who speaks out, makes a stand...we then become "suspects", or worse, equated with terrorists. That is some leap. The center of the universe attitude, and the me, me me, can be said about the smoker as well. Not everything that changes in this world leads to that scary, slippery slope some of you talk about that leads us to 1984. Also, it is not a matter of being "offended", or "threatened". You are way off base here with your inferences.
I have to agree that a line has to be drawn. We can't be legislating things just because someone doesn't like them (which is what CptnRn's post very clearly advocates). Not and still make ANY of the claims about being a free country that we're so proud of.
Now, if you WANT to live in a country where things that someone doesn't like are legislated against solely on that basis, there are plenty out there, I'm sure. You don't need to go trying to make the United States into one of them. Though there are plenty of people out there that seem to want to do that, forgetting in their zeal to make sure that they never run any risk of being offended by something someone else is doing that if they advocate that, they are subject to the same in their turn. I personally find that kind of self-righteousness and "I'm the center of the universe" attitude grossly offensive and if I thought that way would like to legislate against it. Come to think of it, it's precisely that kind of attitude that led some to be so offended and threatened by someone doing something they didn't approve of that they flew airplanes into buildings just to try to make that point.
It's all a matter of degree, but the attitude is the same.
Wow.......So let's look at the facts here. The Austin City Council, in response to drought conditions, enacted a smoking ban in Austin parks b/c that was the only legal way they could enforce burn bans....
And so far in this thread TexasHorseLady has said that this action makes the austin city council like Nazis, and the people effected by the smoking ban are like the victims of the World Trade Center....
You don't think that there is something inherently wrong with saying a smoking ban in Austin Parks is akin to the Holocaust and 9/11 rolled into one? Do you have any shame, THL? Even if you try to weasely say it's to a lesser degree, you really belive that those 3 events should share a sentence? They are comparable in your mind?
And yes, I got the weasel phrasing you threw in there. Sure, maybe it's to a lesser "degree" but the "attitudes" behind banning smoking because of wildfire risk (or for a health risk), is the same as eugenics and a holy jihad....yeah, that's the ticket.
So you don't agree with something the city council does, and then it becomes okay to say they have the same attitude as the fanatics that make up Al Qaeda? Some people on this board think smoking should be banned, and have given sound reasons why they support it, and rather than just disagreeing with them, you have to take it one step further and say they have the same "attitudes" as Nazis.....? Al Qaeda kills innocent people with planes...do you REALLY think that CaptRn and I have the same "attitude" as those people? Wow, it's one thing to call us "whiners" THL, but to say we have the same "attitude" as mass murderers...that's low even for you. That is the Glenn Beck school of arguing. "I don't need to support my reasons, or explain my feelings. You are either with me, or you are a Nazi."
For someone who claims to be a student of history THL, I really have to wonder about you......
I guess if you don't have a logical platform to make an argument, you have to compare everything to 9/11....
Next up, THL stubs her toe on the way to the kitchen, and compares it to the pogrom of the Jews in Warsaw. Then she explains why her truck running out of gas is the worse thing since the inquisition....you find MY attitude "grossly offensive" TexasHorseLady? You compare people who disagree with you to Nazis and terrorists. THAT'S offensive. For someone who claims to be a champion of personal liberty, you sure don't believe in rigourous debate, or loyal opposition. Nazis and Al Qaeda, wow.....what a horrible horrible thing to say..
I guess you all better hope that CaptRn and I don't get our pilot's license!! We don't like smoking and are willing to blow up buildings to make our points....
Hey, I hate the smell of folks who are heavily perfumed (there have been times in an elevator in an office building that I swear I was going to pass out),
Ever been in an elevator with someone who smokes? Doesn't smell very pleasant either. The only difference is that people don't generally spray their perfume on you. And you don't have to walk 20 feet out of your way to get to the entrance of a building because you don't want to walk through a crowd of people all spraying perfume. But smokers don't just stink themselves, they force those of us that don't to smell like smoke too. If someone were walking around spraying perfume everywhere near you, you'd probably be upset. Why is is OK for smokers to blow smoke everywhere?
I have to agree that a line has to be drawn. We can't be legislating things just because someone doesn't like them (which is what CptnRn's post very clearly advocates). Not and still make ANY of the claims about being a free country that we're so proud of.
Now, if you WANT to live in a country where things that someone doesn't like are legislated against solely on that basis, there are plenty out there, I'm sure. You don't need to go trying to make the United States into one of them. Though there are plenty of people out there that seem to want to do that, forgetting in their zeal to make sure that they never run any risk of being offended by something someone else is doing that if they advocate that, they are subject to the same in their turn. I personally find that kind of self-righteousness and "I'm the center of the universe" attitude grossly offensive and if I thought that way would like to legislate against it. Come to think of it, it's precisely that kind of attitude that led some to be so offended and threatened by someone doing something they didn't approve of that they flew airplanes into buildings just to try to make that point.
It's all a matter of degree, but the attitude is the same.
To make any comparison at all - of any degree - (especially one that says "it is precisely that kind of attitude") between those who think favorably about the proposed ban of outdoor smoking in parks (no matter what their reason for supporting it) with the terrorists who flew the planes into the Twin Towers is truly reprehensible! If you even have the capacity any more (and your post suggests that you don't), you really should be ashamed of youself!
Last edited by Paulmmm; 10-20-2011 at 08:08 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
