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.
No matter what the issue at hand is ... the tactic is always the same ... pit one against the other .. and it is so easy to do.
The entire premise of the danger of second hand smoke is yet another example that if you tell someone something often enough, they'll believe it is true, even if it makes absolutely no sense at all. Some will argue that 2nd hand smoke is even MORE dangerous than first hand smoke .... and people believe that nonsense too. This is not unlike the wacky tactic used by the vaccine proponents who will insist that everyone needs to take their vaccines in order not to endanger others. But if the vaccine works, then how can an unvaccinated person be any threat to the vaccinated person? The vaccinated person is supposed to be protected by the vaccine, right? But ... but ... but ....
This is the same basic theme and tactic .... they want the idiots who will take anything they are told to take, to put pressure on, and demand that the others who refuse to take the poison are forced to take it to safeguard everyone else ... just like they want the non smokers to pressure the smokers, claiming harm from 2nd hand smoke. It's a total fraud ... and it's painfully obvious.
But nothing illustrates the idiocy of leftist authoritarian mentalities like the vaccine debate, and how twisted the logic in insisting that vaccines absolutely protect you from the disease, only to turn right around and claim that the unvaccinated people are a threat to the vaccinated ones. Reconciling that contradiction is impossible ..... and the same bloody brain dead lack of logic permeates the entire premise of the dangers of 2nd hand smoke. It's just a lame excuse for the authoritarian to claim the right to tell others what they can and cannot do.
Second hand smoke is a carcinogen, and there's no reputable information or research that disputes that. You can walk outside to smoke, but I can't leave a restaurant to eat, and the people who work in that bar or restaurant can't leave either. That's not leftist, or authoritarian--it's fact. You can smoke to your hearts content--you just can't do it indoors in public places where you can make me sick, or make the people who work there sick. That's not unreasonable. You choose to smoke--I don't, so why should my health be compromised by your dangerous addiction?
I know you're not. But with all the bans in place, and now Obama wanting to penalize smokers (isn't he a smoker as well) it is all about control.
I don't see it as control. It's your choice to smoke so you have to put up with the taxes. If you choose to quit, you would not have to put up with the taxes.
No matter what the issue at hand is ... the tactic is always the same ... pit one against the other .. and it is so easy to do.
The entire premise of the danger of second hand smoke is yet another example that if you tell someone something often enough, they'll believe it is true, even if it makes absolutely no sense at all. Some will argue that 2nd hand smoke is even MORE dangerous than first hand smoke .... and people believe that nonsense too. This is not unlike the wacky tactic used by the vaccine proponents who will insist that everyone needs to take their vaccines in order not to endanger others. But if the vaccine works, then how can an unvaccinated person be any threat to the vaccinated person? The vaccinated person is supposed to be protected by the vaccine, right? But ... but ... but ....
This is the same basic theme and tactic .... they want the idiots who will take anything they are told to take, to put pressure on, and demand that the others who refuse to take the poison are forced to take it to safeguard everyone else ... just like they want the non smokers to pressure the smokers, claiming harm from 2nd hand smoke. It's a total fraud ... and it's painfully obvious.
But nothing illustrates the idiocy of leftist authoritarian mentalities like the vaccine debate, and how twisted the logic in insisting that vaccines absolutely protect you from the disease, only to turn right around and claim that the unvaccinated people are a threat to the vaccinated ones. Reconciling that contradiction is impossible ..... and the same bloody brain dead lack of logic permeates the entire premise of the dangers of 2nd hand smoke. It's just a lame excuse for the authoritarian to claim the right to tell others what they can and cannot do.
This is the truth! I worked in Public Health in the '80s when those "studies" were released. No one (or very few people) now even know that those "studies" weren't even new: what happened was that old studies were 'cooked' or manipulated to show the desired results. It was all about raising the "sin tax" for smokers.
I know this is a little off-topic, but just had to chime in here for a moment to say this. . .
Oh, and I'm not a smoker, but I do have such sympathy for those who are addicted.
I doubt it. But the current sure does. Then the current meets the South Pacific and mixes going the other way. Evidently you don't know about ocean currents.
North of the equator currents tend to flow clockwise and back eddies flow counter clockwise. South of the equator it's the opposite.
This is elementary seaman ship in the 18th century.
Sooner or later the mix will be world wide in all oceans and seas.
Yes, but it will never happen so long as people in large majority fail to understand the relationship between disease and the healthcare establishment.
We've been brainwashed and trained to accept whatever the man in the white coat tells us as the indisputable truth .... the reality is, so has the man in the white coat ... he ALSO believes that what he tells you is the indisputable truth. But he is no more immune to believing lies than you are. He's actually undergone much more "training" than you have. And the nature of this "training" is what people must recognize.
Everyone understands that we train dogs to sit and stay and roll over. We train soldiers to kill and sacrifice their lives. We train animals to do all sorts of tasks that offer no benefit to them, yet they do it, because we've trained them to do it. This works in the same way with doctors and nurses and patients. They are trained to be the "authority" on health matters, and we are trained to trust them. But neither the patient or the doctor questions the doctor's "training" ... yet he's only doing what others trained him to do. Do we know these others who trained him? Do we blindly trust these others have properly and accurately trained the doctor we blindly trust?
The bottom line is, doctors are just people like everyone else ... there is no magical quality that they possess that no one else possesses. They are neither immune to being deceived or told inaccurate or false "facts", nor are they immune to considering their own self interests, going along to get along, because it is in their best interests to obey the rules.
I agree..... I can recall when tv adds for smokers had doctors stating they believed smoking was not bad for people.
Al Gore used to be seen in some of these same adds saying the same thing. Al used to grow a lot of tobacco, and probably still does.
Al does seem to have switched sides on the topic, but Al tends to go where the money is.
I think Al has a psychotic disorder, and is insane over money. To this type of psyco there can never be enough money.
("Six years after Vice President Al Gore's older sister died of lung cancer in 1984, he was still accepting campaign contributions from tobacco interests. Four years after she died, while campaigning for President in North Carolina, he boasted of his experiences in the tobacco fields and curing barns of his native Tennessee. ")
The issue about smoking is that second hand smoke impacts everyone AROUND you as well. I can make personal choices about not having risky sex, or watching my diet, but if there aren't regs about smoking in public places, it's pretty hard to stay away from second hand smoke. One smoker sitting near me in a restaurant impacts my health. No one is saying that smokers can't smoke--they just can't do it where it hurts other people. Why is a smokers rights more important than mine? It's an inconvenience to have to step outside to smoke at a restaurant, but I can't step outside to eat so I won't be exposed to second hand smoke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
Second hand smoke is a carcinogen, and there's no reputable information or research that disputes that. You can walk outside to smoke, but I can't leave a restaurant to eat, and the people who work in that bar or restaurant can't leave either. That's not leftist, or authoritarian--it's fact. You can smoke to your hearts content--you just can't do it indoors in public places where you can make me sick, or make the people who work there sick. That's not unreasonable. You choose to smoke--I don't, so why should my health be compromised by your dangerous addiction?
Well see, you've got the entire premise mixed up. For one, it's not about "smokers right" vs. "your rights" etc. etc. I can't stand the term "smokers rights" because there is no such thing. Smokers are not and can not be granted any special or specific rights simply because they smoke. Smokers have no more a right to pollute the air with their effluent than you have a right to breath the clean air you desire. That's right, I said that YOU do not by default, have any right to breath clean air, whenever or wherever you are. See, this is exclusively about "property rights", which have been trampled the last decade or so by the implementation of these draconian and intrusive regulations known as "smoking bans".... The government has trampled the private property rights { the property IS privately owned, the public is merely "invited" in } of business owners nationwide by stepping in and saying they can no longer allow their patrons to smoke, and in so doing, have effectively handicapped what is so great about this country, The Free Marketplace.
Bottom line is, you speak as if you have no choice in the matter to breath in that smokers 2nd hand smoke at the bar or diner you may be patronizing. This just isn't so. In The Free Marketplace, you have every choice of which bar or diner or whatever that you decide to patronize. If you know of a place that allows its patrons to smoke and you don't want to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke, the intelligent choice would simply be, don't go there, don't you think? The same goes for employees at these types of places. If they don't want to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke, the best course of action would be to not apply to such an establishment. That isn't good enough for you though, is it? Folks like yourself have stepped in and demanded that business owners conform to YOUR way of thinking and living, without exception, or pay steep fines leveled by the none other than local government. All this, for the prospect that you "might" decide to patronize that business. It's your way or the highway, right? Tell me again, who's claiming their rights are more important than others again? It certainly isn't smokers, that's for sure.
The issue about smoking is that second hand smoke impacts everyone AROUND you as well. I can make personal choices about not having risky sex, or watching my diet, but if there aren't regs about smoking in public places, it's pretty hard to stay away from second hand smoke. One smoker sitting near me in a restaurant impacts my health. No one is saying that smokers can't smoke--they just can't do it where it hurts other people. Why is a smokers rights more important than mine? It's an inconvenience to have to step outside to smoke at a restaurant, but I can't step outside to eat so I won't be exposed to second hand smoke.
Thanks for the screaming good laugh!
If you've ever read Fast-Food Nation by Eric Schlosser you'd be averse to putting any food into your mouth, as it's unlikely any food you put into your mouth today isn't contaminated in some way or another.
2nd hand smoke? Do you know how many people lived through heavy 2nd-hand smoke during the last century and remained unaffected by it?
I grew up in an 800 square foot home in MN, windows closed in winter due to the cold, and a father that smoked 4 packs of cigarettes everyday in that house, the wife, children breathing it all in! My mother died at 86, her lungs were never effected by it!
Go ahead! Keep putting that contaminated food into your mouth!!!
Huh? How is this even the same thing? I'm not calling for cigs to be illegal.
Most non-smokers are in favor of keeping cigarettes legal, that's understandable, smokers help keep their taxes lower!
Make them illegal, then the America's long-standing love of witch-hunting could effect them next!
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.
