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.
If the mortality of smokeless tobacco users is less than that of smokers, then that makes it all right to encourage use of smokeless tobacco? If only one smokeless tobacco user dies for every ten smokers who die, that is a good thing? I think not.
I am actually quite glad you said that. It shows that you're a zealot. You used a hypothetical scenario where tobacco morality is reduced by 90% by switching tobacco products, you said that it still wouldn't be worth it. You said earlier that smoking kills 430,000 people a year. So, hypothetically reducing that done to 43,000 wouldn't be a good thing? Yeah, I don't think we have too much left to debate.
This type of thinking has caused countless problems in the world. This type of thinking of is what allowed AIDS to spread as far as it did because people like you didn't want to "encourage" sodomy, prostitution, and IV drug use by doing things like giving out condoms and setting up needle exchanges.
But like I said, there is really isn't too much left for me to say to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
So why not just have designated smoking hotels and restaurants next to nonsmoking ones. That would make everyone happy. And if people choose to intermix then that is their decision.
You don't understand. If there was a smoking hotel right next to a non-smoking one small amounts of cigarette smoke would escape through the cracks in the building, drift over, and KILL everyone inside the hotel.
So why not just have designated smoking hotels and restaurants next to nonsmoking ones. That would make everyone happy. And if people choose to intermix then that is their decision.
Natalie, there are many different types of people involved in the antismoking movement for many different reasons. Unfortunately the fanatics and the profiteers seem to have the main reins of power in it at the moment and your solution does nothing to advance their goals. As Lady Elaine Murphy wrote me after I'd written her to protest the smoking ban in Wales:
You and many others have completely missed the point about smoking and health. The aim is reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it. We know that legislation which discourages all public smoking will have the better impact on public understanding and perception of smoking as an unacceptable habit. Hence fewer people will smoke, hence health overall will improve.
That was in 2006, back before the antismoking movement as a whole went public about their Denormalization agenda. Most people thought any reference to that kind of thing was just sort of crazy back then: they really believed the goal was just about making comfortable provisions for people who objected to being around smoke.
Today that background motivation is far more open: You even have Bloomberg bragging about New York's commitment to "make smoking as difficult and expensive as possible."
Sooo.... great idea, but you're unlikely to find much support for it: too much money, power, and fanaticism on the other side unfortunately.
Blaming suicide on smoking policies is pretty sleazy.
Some other of those deaths seem to be random crimes.
Some of them? That would imply at least two or three if I understand English correctly. The only one that I see that would possibly fit the "random crime" category was the nurse who suffered multiple stab wounds when forced outside to smoke. Although it's a stretch to imagine a "random stabber" who first takes a cigarette from the victim and stamps it out on the ground just out of random boredom before beginning the stabbing.
Care to name a couple of the others that you felt were random crimes?
In terms of sleaziness and smoking policies, I guess you'd be happier if such "collateral damage" didn't get mentioned, eh? The dirty end of the stick is best kept out of sight.
Natalie, there are many different types of people involved in the antismoking movement for many different reasons. Unfortunately the fanatics and the profiteers seem to have the main reins of power in it at the moment and your solution does nothing to advance their goals. As Lady Elaine Murphy wrote me after I'd written her to protest the smoking ban in Wales:
You and many others have completely missed the point about smoking and health. The aim is reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it. We know that legislation which discourages all public smoking will have the better impact on public understanding and perception of smoking as an unacceptable habit. Hence fewer people will smoke, hence health overall will improve.
That was in 2006, back before the antismoking movement as a whole went public about their Denormalization agenda. Most people thought any reference to that kind of thing was just sort of crazy back then: they really believed the goal was just about making comfortable provisions for people who objected to being around smoke.
Today that background motivation is far more open: You even have Bloomberg bragging about New York's commitment to "make smoking as difficult and expensive as possible."
Sooo.... great idea, but you're unlikely to find much support for it: too much money, power, and fanaticism on the other side unfortunately.
So who exactly profits from people not smoking? And what do the anti-smoking establishment have to gain.
I must say that my overall health did improve when I quit smoking. I had a horrible cough that I was embarrassed about and couldn't control. It went away after a few days of not smoking. I was so thankful. I knew right then and there that I needed to quit for my health.
You know what, I have not missed the point.....no one is trying to dismiss public acceptability. They are trying to make the public aware of the hazards.
So who exactly profits from people not smoking? And what do the anti-smoking establishment have to gain.
I must say that my overall health did improve when I quit smoking. I had a horrible cough that I was embarrassed about and couldn't control. It went away after a few days of not smoking. I was so thankful. I knew right then and there that I needed to quit for my health.
You know what, I have not missed the point.....no one is trying to dismiss public acceptability. They are trying to make the public aware of the hazards.
Who profits? The smokeless tobacco companies, the e-cig companies, and Big Pharma. Of the three Big Pharma is probably raking in the greatest profits although I haven't researched it so all I've got to go on is my general impression. They're often portrayed as the major player behind the bans, but I doubt they pump anywhere near the hundreds of millions of dollars into them that come from the MSA tax on smokers. At one point in the early 2000s close to $900,000,000 per year was given to "Tobacco Control" efforts from the MSA. When NJ was CUTTING its input to "just" $14,000,000 in 2002 or 2003 the head of the antismoking effort there told the press, "That's it. Everything stops. There is no more money." As I observed at the time, when a supposedly "activist movement" calls fourteen million dollars "no money" there's something very rotten in the barrel.
Re your experience of quitting: glad you're feeling better, and if you look over my writings on the net you'll find that I never discourage anyone from quitting or try to claim that smoking isn't bad for a person's health: my beef is with the social engineering and the lies about secondary smoke exposure. Trying to make the public aware of the hazards of smoking is fine, and the surveys they've done have consistently shown that the public is quite fully aware of those hazards -- actually I believe the surveys have shown that people generally OVERbelieve in them!
Giving people the truth is what's important: and that's where the antismoking movement has consistently fallen short ever since the 1975 Godber conference where the focus changed to creating the image that smokers were harming those around them.
So who exactly profits from people not smoking? And what do the anti-smoking establishment have to gain.
I must say that my overall health did improve when I quit smoking. I had a horrible cough that I was embarrassed about and couldn't control. It went away after a few days of not smoking. I was so thankful. I knew right then and there that I needed to quit for my health.
You know what, I have not missed the point.....no one is trying to dismiss public acceptability. They are trying to make the public aware of the hazards.
Drug companies for one. They are also one of the largest private contributors to anti-smoking groups and put out a lot of funding for tobacco research. They make a lot of money from smoking cession products and that's one of the reasons why anti-smoking groups always push "consult your doctor" or Quitlines, even though statistically speaking the best methods of quitting are cold turkey and weaning yourself off of cigarettes, so "consulting your doctor" is actually less useful than just going "I'm done with this".
I should also note that a lot of scientists and doctors involved in Tobacco Control also have direct ties to pharmaceutical companies such as working as consultants. Keep in mind that working as a consultant in the capacity that they do is more or less are part-time that adds another $30,000 or so into their pocket.
Plus, the whole Tobacco Control movement is no longer just individual scientists and doctors concerned about the health risks of smoking as it was originally. There are whole branches of health departments and universities devoted entirely to tobacco control and anti-smoking organizations as well. Cigarettes taxes and the Master Settlement Agreement provide much of the funding for both government and private organizations.
I guess none of these people will ever fly again because there's no smoking on planes.
About 20 percent of the population is chemically sensitive.
I'd go for banning perfumes, too.
I guess none of these people will ever fly again because there's no smoking on planes.
About 20 percent of the population is chemically sensitive.
I'd go for banning perfumes, too.
Yeah, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, which is better known as "hypochondria". It's funny how MCS suffers start complaining of headaches and nausea when distilled water is dropped onto their skin and they are told it has chlorine in it.
Some of them? That would imply at least two or three if I understand English correctly. The only one that I see that would possibly fit the "random crime" category was the nurse who suffered multiple stab wounds when forced outside to smoke. Although it's a stretch to imagine a "random stabber" who first takes a cigarette from the victim and stamps it out on the ground just out of random boredom before beginning the stabbing.
Care to name a couple of the others that you felt were random crimes?
In terms of sleaziness and smoking policies, I guess you'd be happier if such "collateral damage" didn't get mentioned, eh? The dirty end of the stick is best kept out of sight.
The post with all those examples of "crime against smokers" is gone. Good riddance; it was a massive copyright violation. If I had posted that, I'd be banned in 2 seconds.
The nurse's stabbing was one that is a random crime. I seriously doubt that someone was so angered by a person smoking that they would stab them. That is a flight of fantasy. The kids that got into the fights about cigarettes (I think a couple of examples) are also random acts of violence. Kids fight. They fight about lots of things. They don't know what they're doing, how fast things can deteriorate. Maybe you haven't raised kids, and I'd bet you're not invited to high schools to give talks about the pros of smoking. I can't remember any others. However, to blame smoking bans for an increase in crime is specious, at best.
I don't like to talk about suicide with people who have no background in mental health. I have found that it is impossible to discuss the issue with them. But again, blaming suicide on non-smoking policies is more than a stretch, it's disgusting.
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.
