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.
But we already do. You have free reign of all places of business being smoke free. Outside.... different story.
Good, stay there and don't stink-up the places where normal people are getting the job done, while you are outside stoking your drug addiction. Smokers are stinking pariahs who befoul all places then enter. Get a clue, the pushback is only going to get more intense as society says "No" to the stench, the filth, the putridity in the workplace. Use your drug on your own time in your own stench-hole. Realize how foul and offensive you are, realize what a deterrent to a normal, healthy and comfortable workplace you are.
In other words, keep your filthy stench, to your filthy stinking selves.
It isn't complicated, it isn't difficult to understand, and it isn't an undo burden on the filthy-class - it is respecting the rights of others not to be fouled and assaulted with your filthy stench.
weed smells good when being smoked, what is it in cigs that makes them smell so vile?
I would suggest that it is the chemical crap they put in commercial cigarettes these days, which now accounts for up to 50% of the total content in most brands. The truth is, back in the 1960's, a cigarette was made of tobacco .... and it required roughly 2 lbs of tobacco to manufacture 1000 cigarettes. Today, .9 lb makes the same number of sticks. Not long ago, another ill-conceived idea became mandated to include a flame retardant be added to all cigarettes, so as to be less of a fire hazard. Of course, no one bothers to consider the health affects of inhaling flame retardant, along with the other chemicals and artificially created fillers that constitute 50% of the net content of today's cigarettes. This naturally leads me to question the sincerity of those anti-tobacco types who fein this deep concern for the health threats posed by tobacco. Maybe we might want to look at the chemical additives instead, and get rid of that crap .... and do so with our food too, which is similarly laced with all types of crap that few people can even pronounce.
As for the odor, I have non-smoking friends that find my cigarettes completely inoffensive, because I make my own, using very high grade, 100% pure, chemical free tobacco. Some even find the fragrance mildly pleasant, compared to commercial brands which they find unpleasant.
The underlying story here is that we as a society have so many issues that should be focused on and solved, but we instead become distracted, chasing the wrong ones. This can clearly be seen in the "lets ban tobacco" movement, who are also a part of the group that demands such asinine things as adding flame retardant in smoking products, when the likelihood is that it's the chemicals ADDED to the tobacco by big corporate manufacturers that is the real problem that should really be banned ... if health was truly the concern.
Good, stay there and don't stink-up the places where normal people are getting the job done, while you are outside stoking your drug addiction. Smokers are stinking pariahs who befoul all places then enter. Get a clue, the pushback is only going to get more intense as society says "No" to the stench, the filth, the putridity in the workplace. Use your drug on your own time in your own stench-hole. Realize how foul and offensive you are, realize what a deterrent to a normal, healthy and comfortable workplace you are.
In other words, keep your filthy stench, to your filthy stinking selves.
It isn't complicated, it isn't difficult to understand, and it isn't an undo burden on the filthy-class - it is respecting the rights of others not to be fouled and assaulted with your filthy stench.
Oh cut the hyperbole and personal attacks there Mr. Keyboard Warrior! I already told you I smoke outside, so as to respect the rights of non-smokers! Outside on the other hand is fair game, and given that there is adequate ventilation, you can pull up your big boy pants and avoid where smokers frequent! But no that isn't good enough for you whiny control freaks!
I would suggest that it is the chemical crap they put in commercial cigarettes these days, which now accounts for up to 50% of the total content in most brands. The truth is, back in the 1960's, a cigarette was made of tobacco .... and it required roughly 2 lbs of tobacco to manufacture 1000 cigarettes. Today, .9 lb makes the same number of sticks. Not long ago, another ill-conceived idea became mandated to include a flame retardant be added to all cigarettes, so as to be less of a fire hazard. Of course, no one bothers to consider the health affects of inhaling flame retardant, along with the other chemicals and artificially created fillers that constitute 50% of the net content of today's cigarettes. This naturally leads me to question the sincerity of those anti-tobacco types who fein this deep concern for the health threats posed by tobacco. Maybe we might want to look at the chemical additives instead, and get rid of that crap .... and do so with our food too, which is similarly laced with all types of crap that few people can even pronounce.
As for the odor, I have non-smoking friends that find my cigarettes completely inoffensive, because I make my own, using very high grade, 100% pure, chemical free tobacco. Some even find the fragrance mildly pleasant, compared to commercial brands which they find unpleasant.
The underlying story here is that we as a society have so many issues that should be focused on and solved, but we instead become distracted, chasing the wrong ones. This can clearly be seen in the "lets ban tobacco" movement, who are also a part of the group that demands such asinine things as adding flame retardant in smoking products, when the likelihood is that it's the chemicals ADDED to the tobacco by big corporate manufacturers that is the real problem that should really be banned ... if health was truly the concern.
I too roll my own. Better tasting, burns better, smells better, less additives, and a huge cost savings.
Brilliant, blow it away to be a problem for somebody else. However, about not creating the problem in the first place. How about respecting the rights of the overhwelming majority of people who are NOT addicts, in the first place.
How about being decent human being and member of society, for a change.
How on earth can you put a caption under your screen name "Live Free or Slay the Tyrant and THEN Live Free", and proceed to promote the opposite? What a hypocrite.
Just how much of a "majority" is required to dismiss the rights of the others, in your opinion? Is it 51% or higher?
I smoke, and I totally reject the insinuation that I am not a "decent human being". I believe TYRANTS are the problem, not smokers.
How on earth can you put a caption under your screen name "Live Free or Slay the Tyrant and THEN Live Free", and proceed to promote the opposite? What a hypocrite.
Just how much of a "majority" is required to dismiss the rights of the others, in your opinion? Is it 51% or higher?
I smoke, and I totally reject the insinuation that I am not a "decent human being". I believe TYRANTS are the problem, not smokers.
Indeed. Much more offensive and foul. Authoritarians are truly a silly bunch, aren't they? I liken them to a 5 year old having a tantrum when they don't get there way.
Oh cut the hyperbole and personal attacks there Mr. Keyboard Warrior! I already told you I smoke outside, so as to respect the rights of non-smokers! Outside on the other hand is fair game, and given that there is adequate ventilation, you can pull up your big boy pants and avoid where smokers frequent! But no that isn't good enough for you whiny control freaks!
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,731,507 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
How on earth can you put a caption under your screen name "Live Free or Slay the Tyrant and THEN Live Free", and proceed to promote the opposite? What a hypocrite.
Just how much of a "majority" is required to dismiss the rights of the others, in your opinion? Is it 51% or higher?
I smoke, and I totally reject the insinuation that I am not a "decent human being". I believe TYRANTS are the problem, not smokers.
i bet that tyrant would be against uncle joe opening up a bar that caters to smokers only. first they ***** about smoke now they ***** about smell of smoke..
i wonder if a company has come up with a cologne that smells like smoke, might be a hit.. barbecue steak cologne.. marlboro cologne. stinky tofu cologne, never know could be a hit...
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.
