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.
Stress is easy to manage. Just take your favorite benzodiazepine.
(And for the reading-comprehension-impaired, I was talking about smokers, which personally, I feel the world could use a lot fewer, though it happens by Darwinism). JMHO, No flames please.
How funny that you would complain about healthcare costs then say "just take your favorite benzodiazepine" to manage stress. I'm sure you don't see the irony. Maybe you're just experiencing withdrawal...an excuse for wishing ANYONE would die. Unbelievable!
Comparing car exhaust to cigarette smoke is ridiculous. Most modern day cars hardly pollute at all. Cigarette smoke, on the other hand, has not become any safer to breathe than it was 40 years ago.
No, I don't miss the days before the bans. I'm thankful I live in a state that was ahead of the curve when it came to banning indoor smoking in public places.
Every topic, without fail!!! How does one have such a loose grip on reality regarding everything?
Automobile exhaust is OK ... but that cigarette smoke is dangerous stuff?
How's about we do a test ... I'll sit in my car with a friend, and we'll BOTH smoke cigarettes ... you sit in yours alone, and run a hose from your safe, non polluting exhaust pipe into the cabin, and will give it about 30 minutes.
I predict there would be a definitive conclusion to the debate about which is more dangerous to breath ... and the intellectual gene pool would get a Darwinian boost at the same time.
Are you kidding? They always find a way. Gays are as big of a threat in their small minds as Communists, Muslims, and President Obama.
Rationally speaking, AIDS (homosexuals being the primary vector for the spread of that deadly disease), Communism, Muslims and Obama are way more dangerous to one's health than tobacco. Communism alone killed over 70 Million people in the 20th century.
Every topic, without fail!!! How does one have such a loose grip on reality regarding everything?
Automobile exhaust is OK ... but that cigarette smoke is dangerous stuff?
How's about we do a test ... I'll sit in my car with a friend, and we'll BOTH smoke cigarettes ... you sit in yours alone, and run a hose from your safe, non polluting exhaust pipe into the cabin, and will give it about 30 minutes.
I predict there would be a definitive conclusion to the debate about which is more dangerous to breath ... and the intellectual gene pool would get a Darwinian boost at the same time.
I'm betting you and your buddy smoking cigarettes will live to tell about your experiment. The other... well not so lucky.
So what you sayig is it should be handled like auto emmmissons. By lowerig it toal allowed and testing those who smoke? Or perhaps handled like drug and alcohol by random testing for habit.Faeit.people do not want to be in close confinement with smokers and their habit and have the majority to make it law .
Every topic, without fail!!! How does one have such a loose grip on reality regarding everything?
Automobile exhaust is OK ... but that cigarette smoke is dangerous stuff?
How's about we do a test ... I'll sit in my car with a friend, and we'll BOTH smoke cigarettes ... you sit in yours alone, and run a hose from your safe, non polluting exhaust pipe into the cabin, and will give it about 30 minutes.
I predict there would be a definitive conclusion to the debate about which is more dangerous to breath ... and the intellectual gene pool would get a Darwinian boost at the same time.
That is the silly thing about this argument. It is impossible (in terms of practical exposure) to reach dangerous levels of SHS. In most cases (breaking down each chemical that is found in burning a cigarette), the average amount of cigarettes needed to be burning in order to reach those levels would be in the thousands and we are talking about a 10x10x10 room with no ventilation.
This issue, like so many other "political" ones is not one of a honest objection or concern, but that of a groups agenda to demand conformity to their position. We haven't evolved as a society, we are the same manipulative types marketing to the backwards folk who buy into the garbage.
I miss that era in a big way. People seemed less uptight. Not to mention that there was far less obesity (obviously)
I'm a smoker, and though the bans are inconvenient at times, that's not my main objection to them.
It's the authoritarian nature of such bans that should concern everyone ... including non-smokers, if they could only manage to think past their own noses for a second (pun intended). The precedent set by the acceptance of such creeping tyranny is a far greater danger than second hand smoke ever was or could be, though carefully disguised, the path to hell is always paved with "good intentions".
But to many people born in the 1980's, those in their 30's and younger, have no frame of reference to compare to times when such authoritarianism was universally rejected, and America's essence was the mortal enemy of such authoritarian style thinking. Without that contrast, much of the population believe this New American is normal, when the reality is, it's outrageously abnormal as well as fundamentally Anti-American. But like all such ideological shifts, incrementalism is the key tactic because it's so effective, and goes unnoticed by the majority. And the social engineers behind these shifts understand how they can rely on those very masses to assist in stifling the voices of the more aware minority, through pre-programed rejection and marginalizing the warnings as irrational conspiracy theories. The slow boiling of the frog analogy applies here.
To illustrate this point, the very first anti-smoking campaign in history was initiated in 1930's Nazi Germany ... a fact many people may be unaware of. (this also shares a place with water fluoridation which first began in Nazi German concentration camps).
A much more overt example for which many more people have the necessary contrast would be the out of control security efforts going on with the Homeland Security and the TSA. There are more people who remember the pre-TSA world of flying, and if you would have dared to predict back in the 1980's or 1990's that we'd be subjected to the groping invasive pat downs and hysteria of airline security we have today .. you'd have been laughed out of the room and called a conspiracy nut. No one would have believed these things could ever happen in America.
But even this more obvious and overt level of authoritarianism is dismissed by too many ... and the automatic retort from sheep (who have aspirations to become herders themselves) is always the same inane response ... don't like it ... don't fly. But incrementalism will have it's way, and just as warned, we now see these same invasive measures reaching outside the airports to other areas, including roadside checkpoints, Sports Stadiums and Shopping malls. So I suppose in the final analysis, that "don't like it, don't fly" response will eventually have to be changed to "don't like it, too freaking bad, slave".
Of course, the liberal leftist will laugh at such examples and comparisons to Nazi like authoritarianism because they are predisposed and programmed to respond in that manner, while having an authoritarian mindset themselves, makes them the perfect group to advance this authoritarian agenda. Too many others make the mistake of dismissing these things as insignificant, isolated and unconnected, while also considering the leftist promoters as just an annoyance, rather than the dangerous to threat to freedom that they truly represent.
Once "conditioned" by the slow, incremental steps of initiating the psychological acceptance of what appears on the surface, insignificant items like seat belt laws, smoking bans, and other minor intrusions into private lives, society is then sufficiently prepared for a roll out of more overt forms of authoritarian control which would have otherwise been met with public shock and outrage. But properly indoctrinated, the public response ranges from apathy to enthusiastic support. Those social engineers understand the methods and very predictable results of such psychological manipulation, while the masses are totally unaware, easily led, like lambs to their own slaughter.
This is what has been occurring over the past 2-3 decades, and accelerated greatly over the past 10 years, post 911.
I for one prefer the smell of tobacco smoke over the stench of tyranny and Nazi like authoritarianism, while the fragrance of "Homeland" is just too close to Adolf's "Fatherland" for you smoke free noses out there to miss.
I'm a smoker, and though the bans are inconvenient at times, that's not my main objection to them.
It's the authoritarian nature of such bans that should concern everyone ... including non-smokers, if they could only manage to think past their own noses for a second (pun intended). The precedent set by the acceptance of such creeping tyranny is a far greater danger than second hand smoke ever was or could be, though carefully disguised, the path to hell is always paved with "good intentions".
But to many people born in the 1980's, those in their 30's and younger, have no frame of reference to compare to times when such authoritarianism was universally rejected, and America's essence was the mortal enemy of such authoritarian style thinking. Without that contrast, much of the population believe this New American is normal, when the reality is, it's outrageously abnormal as well as fundamentally Anti-American. But like all such ideological shifts, incrementalism is the key tactic because it's so effective, and goes unnoticed by the majority. And the social engineers behind these shifts understand how they can rely on those very masses to assist in stifling the voices of the more aware minority, through pre-programed rejection and marginalizing the warnings as irrational conspiracy theories. The slow boiling of the frog analogy applies here.
To illustrate this point, the very first anti-smoking campaign in history was initiated in 1930's Nazi Germany ... a fact many people may be unaware of. (this also shares a place with water fluoridation which first began in Nazi German concentration camps).
A much more overt example for which many more people have the necessary contrast would be the out of control security efforts going on with the Homeland Security and the TSA. There are more people who remember the pre-TSA world of flying, and if you would have dared to predict back in the 1980's or 1990's that we'd be subjected to the groping invasive pat downs and hysteria of airline security we have today .. you'd have been laughed out of the room and called a conspiracy nut. No one would have believed these things could ever happen in America.
But even this more obvious and overt level of authoritarianism is dismissed by too many ... and the automatic retort from sheep (who have aspirations to become herders themselves) is always the same inane response ... don't like it ... don't fly. But incrementalism will have it's way, and just as warned, we now see these same invasive measures reaching outside the airports to other areas, including roadside checkpoints, Sports Stadiums and Shopping malls. So I suppose in the final analysis, that "don't like it, don't fly" response will eventually have to be changed to "don't like it, too freaking bad, slave".
Of course, the liberal leftist will laugh at such examples and comparisons to Nazi like authoritarianism because they predisposed and programmed to respond in that manner, while having an authoritarian mindset themselves makes them the perfect group to advance this authoritarian agenda. Too many others make the mistake of dismissing these things as insignificant, isolated and unconnected, while also considering the leftist promoters as just an annoyance, rather than the dangerous to threat to freedom that they truly represent.
Once "conditioned" by the slow, incremental steps of initiating the psychological acceptance of what appears on the surface, insignificant items like seat belt laws, smoking bans, and other minor intrusions into private lives, society is then sufficiently prepared for a roll out of more overt forms of authoritarian control which would have otherwise been met with public shock and outrage. But properly indoctrinated, the public response ranges from apathy to enthusiastic support. Those social engineers understand the methods and very predictable results of such psychological manipulation, while the masses are totally unaware, easily led, like lambs to their own slaughter.
This is what has been occurring over the past 2-3 decades, and accelerated greatly over the past 10 years, post 911.
I for one prefer the smell of tobacco smoke over the stench of tyranny and Nazi like authoritarianism, while the fragrance of "Homeland" is just too close to Adolf's "Fatherland" for you smoke free noses out there to miss.
That is the problem with most people these days. They are so spoiled with their freedoms, what they expect, etc... that they do not consider their demands on others are actually infringements. They aren't responsible enough to be free people which is why they slowly erode the freedoms of others and ultimately that of their own.
You can enslave an entire people this way slowly over time and do so without too many violent objections. You just let people infringe on each other until their own self interests have restricted the bulk of society. Then you step in, proclaim yourself their dictator (or ruling faction) and kill anyone who objects (which most won't with any veracity as they have conditioned themselves to accept such infringements).
Let me be quite clear here. I have no objection to people smoking.
I object to having to smell or inhale it and to having the smell linger on my clothes.
Live and let live is my motto. But, just as smokers should be allowed to enjoy their 'vice'. I - and non-smokers - should have the same right not to have to smell it. And therein lies the problem. How do you maintain two sets of conflicting rights?
Let me be quite clear here. I have no objection to people smoking.
I object to having to smell or inhale it and to having the smell linger on my clothes.
Live and let live is my motto. But, just as smokers should be allowed to enjoy their 'vice'. I - and non-smokers - should have the same right not to have to smell it. And therein lies the problem. How do you maintain two sets of conflicting rights?
Easy. allow buss owners to decide to allow it or not. Then both smokers and non smokers can decide for themselves if they want to drink there.
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.
