A Message to the Anti-Smoking Nazis: My thoughts.

I think if you share a residency with a smoker, cleanliness like emptying ashtrays is something to be looked upon, but honestly, I dont see smoking as a problem really (heath issues aside, we all know whatsup). In Canada, there are no more public buidings or businesses that allow indoor smoking (that I know of). As a non smoker, I dont even think twice about it, but as a sane human (most of the time... ), I think the governent should not interfere with banning this activity in privately owned businesses. It doesnt make much sense. Ive stated this before though, it isnt an uncommon opinion.

 

Fast food: only unhealthy to people who eat it, thus not the same.
Old people smell: isn't produced intentionally, thus not the same.
Marijuana: isn't legal, so... not sure what point you're trying to make there.
Cheap vodka: probably should be banned as it often contains sediment which is far more harmful than the alcohol itself, but generally cannot be smelt unless you are pretty close to it (rather than, like, across the room from it).
Farting: same as old people smell - it'd be more unhealthy to never fart, and it's not avoidable.

And so on. It's embarrassing watching you try to find a parallel that will make what you do okay. I didn't think you needed me to approve. I'm not going to bother with the old "wah wah constitution" crap and the "wah wah I don't believe in passive smoking because I live in the 19th fucking century" crap, because you're stuck in that. It doesn't change a thing; there's plenty of stuff that you have the right and freedom to do which you can't do anywhere you want to.


And smoking is tolerated, just as drunkenness is tolerated. You get to smoke because people let you, because we respect your freedom to kill yourself over a number of years even though it's clearly stupid to do so. There's plenty of other things that you might find fun - arson, for example - which you're not allowed to do, and you could scream and thrash and shout about the constitution all you like and still go to jail if you did it. So don't bullshit yourself.

 

In the case of bars, it's more for the staff than the patrons, as I understand it. That, unfortunately, is the reason they've ended up not having smoking rooms or anything. Same with businesses really; they're saying no-one should have to put up with unhealthy conditions at work. If someone was around carcinogenic poisons as part of their job, they'd be required by law to have the necessary protective clothing, and exposure would be minimised wherever possible. Really, smokers are cut a hell of a lot of slack; if they were simply dumping the chemical contents of their cigarettes in a public place, rather than exhaling them, they'd be in a lot of shit.

 

I mean, if you are worried about the carcinogenic properties and pollution, target the corporation, not the user. I think.

 

All I'm tryin to say is that your logic is ridiculous. Mocking you, if you haven't noticed.

If smoking is "tolerated", then keep on tolerating it and stop bitching.

(Marijuana is illegal for personal use practically everywhere in the world, by the way)

 

I just about noticed. It's kinda hard to tell because you're so bad at it.

I do. I just want you to be aware that it's not your "right" like you seem to think it is. You've been talking about the law, citing what you regard as inconsistencies; fact is, the law's already inconsistent in favour of the smoker, even since the ban. Smoking is a privilege, sweetheart; if we cared about consistency in the law, the things wouldn't be allowed into the country.

This is not news to me, which is why I mentioned that it isn't legal. You were saying "oooh, shall we keep that illegal too?" like I was supposed to say "NOOOOOO", like I think it should be legalised and could only argue for that if smoking was... kept legal... sorry, you've lost me.

Why not target both? No-one has to smoke, after all.

 

i am a smoker.

everyone should smoke. Even the nonsmokers need to start smoking now.

 

in the 70s and 80s, doctors in the UK told mothers to lie their babies face down when the go to sleep. As a result, baby deaths in cribs skyrocketed. Please dont tell me you beleive everything the surgeon general and the news has to tell you. The same applies to this second hand smoke "threat". People are so afraid of cancer nowadays, they will scapegoat anything.

Here an article if you don't beleive me, you might trust this a bit more.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/06/29/surgeon-general-clouds-tobacco-smoke-issue/

 

So... what, I'm actually significantly less likely to get lung cancer if I inhale secondhand smoke?

At the risk of sounding prejudiced, I'm disinclined to consider a website called Homeland Stupidity a reputable or significant news source. It sounds like the kind of site that will trawl through all the news stories going to filter out anything that doesn't support its readership's existing prejudices.

If you read the article, it plays fast and loose with the quotes from Siegel and the Surgeon General. The SG says “Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion. Brief exposure can have immediate harmful effects on blood and blood vessels, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.”

Meanwhile Siegel's quotes say:

"the Surgeon General distorted the science to communicate to the public that brief exposure to secondhand smoke can increase heart disease and cancer risk", which then quickly becomes "[The] Surgeon General is publicly claiming that brief exposure to secondhand smoke increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer." No mention of "can" in the second quote.

Later:

"In his speech, Carmona spoke of the “scientific consensus” regarding secondhand smoke. Yet there is no such thing as scientific consensus. When someone says that phrase, they’re about to lie to you. Science does not work by consensus. It works by experiment. Either a hypothesis can be demonstrated to be true, or demonstrated to be false, or when neither is the case, more research is needed."

Statement in bold = complete and utter horseshit, and furthermore:

"Siegel doesn’t seem quite ready to come right out and say that the anti-tobacco groups are deliberately lying about it, "

So, my analysis: they quoted an anti-smoking guy - because hey, if an "anti-smoking" guy says it, they must be presenting a balanced argument - and have just inserted the quote into whatever argument they felt like making.

Seriously, if I used a quote like that in an essay, I'd get a big fat D-minus. That article is utter paranoid bullshit and doesn't prove a thing.

 

yeah that doesn't really hold any water with me either. even if it was true.. so one person said one thing that was wrong. doctors are not gods incapable of wrong doing. 2nd hand smoke... seems pretty obvious to me... just like breathing any other type of carcinogenic chemical in the air. maybe it wont kill you but it's definitely not good for you. 1+1 = 2