It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smoking Bans - Where will it end?

page: 28
33
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaPAs long as you don't force me to breath your smoke I don't care if you smoke or not.


then quit driving, your fumes offend me. and they are a PROVEN lethal poison.




posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
When I told an asthmatic to try to smoke a cigarette, I wasn't being rude. I was being kind and advising him that many many asthmatics smoke lightly and are convinced that 1 or 2 cigarettes a day are as effective as Big Pharma drugs. Further, smoking 1 or 2 cigarettes per day have NEVER been linked with any adverse health impacts

You weren't being rude, you were being ignorant, because you thought that the cases you know are exactly the same as other people's cases, when there are many reasons for being asthmatic.

My problem with your attitude is not that you are rude, is that you act as if you are the only one to know the truth and everybody that thinks otherwise is lying or is deluded.

That's not being rude, that's being blind to the knowledge that surrounds you, and it makes you the type of person that is easily used by dictatorships to keep other people under control, doing the work of the dictator without understanding what they are doing.

PS: before you say any thing about it, I lived in a dictatorship and knew several people like that. One of them told the police that my father was reading a forbidden book, so the police went to my father's workplace to arrest him, just because someone told them that.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
then quit driving, your fumes offend me. and they are a PROVEN lethal poison.

I don't drive.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

so since every asthma sufferer has been advised that they are supposed to avoid tobacco smoke at all costs - it is possible that THIS very person does not know whether tobacco will help or not?

I suggested he TRY it because he probably hasn't. It is up to each person to know whether exposure helps him or not.

In any event, asthmatics - no matter how badly they suffer - have no right to demand control over everyone else's lives, actions and properties.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

I think I am perfectly aware of my words. And I am battling the tyranny of public health and getting the jack-boot of puritan zealots off my neck

one of them came on this site and dared to brag that the end-game was inevitable and confirmed that this has never been about health.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

The principal is the same whether you personally drive or not. It is absurd to worry about the smoke generated by 19 grams of dried herbs when cars are so plentiful and spewing 1000s of times the volume of the very same contaminants.

More appropriately, I have as much right to smoke a cigarette in my own home as anyone else to light a candle.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Why don't you strengthen both your respiratory system and your immune system. Have a smoke and be as healthy as a smoker!

That's one of the most stupid things you wrote in this thread.

Having a smoke can kill someone that has asthma, it doesn't "strengthens the respiratory system".

That type of ignorance is the most dangerous, it's the type of ignorance that turns a common person into someone that doesn't mind that other people die or live a much worse life than they could.


He was being humorous, you know what laughter is?


No he was completely serious, have you not been following the same thread we have?

**edit** You think just cause the dude doesn't have a sense of humor about people wanting to force him to breath their smoke that he doesn't have any sense of humor at all?

I know you guys think the same thing about us who are arguing against your point of view, but the irony and hypocrisy that is coming out of you guys from my view point is unreal. I smoked for almost 20 years, and I honestly thought like y'all for all 20 of them. I was gonna smoke when and where I wanted and I didn't care who had anything to say about it. Having a kid and quitting really changed my mind though. I couldn't care less if you guys smoke, I really couldn't but I will not change my mind that I don't think you should be able to smoke in apartments and condos where other people have to suffer the consequences of your decision. You wanna smoke till you puke in your own house and car and on the street I will support your decision. When it comes to subjecting your kids to it though, I still want to kick you in the balls because whether or not you believe smoking is good for you I think it is selfish to subject kids to that. It isn't fair they have to go to school smelling like smoke or sit in their home and breath it in. I am not saying you guys do that but I watch my cousin and her husband smoke in their house with 3 kids, one of whom has very bad asthma (which is only bad when she is with her parents, when she stays with non smoking family members it's a non issue) and it makes me sick. I watched my grandma die of emphysema, in the end she had to be on oxygen 24 hours a day and she still didn't give up smoking; It was really sad to see. I just think it is a gross habit and I can't tell you how happy I am to be a non smoker.
edit on 1/29/2015 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)


**second edit**While I think your position that smoking is actually good for you and prolongs your life is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read, if you proved it to me and said I would live another 10 years if I went back to smoking I would tell you no thanks I'll take my chances. My life is that much better as a non smoker, that I would rather die sooner as a non smoker then live longer as a smoker.
edit on 1/29/2015 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
so since every asthma sufferer has been advised that they are supposed to avoid tobacco smoke at all costs - it is possible that THIS very person does not know whether tobacco will help or not?

It is possible.


I suggested he TRY it because he probably hasn't. It is up to each person to know whether exposure helps him or not.
Yes, it is up to each person to know what helps and what makes them worse, but you didn't suggest he tried it to see if it helped, you said:

Why don't you strengthen both your respiratory system and your immune system. Have a smoke and be as healthy as a smoker!

To me, that looks like you were telling him that he needed to smoke to stop being an asthmatic, you were not suggesting, you were telling him what he should do, like a control freak.



In any event, asthmatics - no matter how badly they suffer - have no right to demand control over everyone else's lives, actions and properties.

No, we haven't, that's why I never said something like that, but why do you act as if smokers have the right to force asthmatics to breath their smoke? Why is your pleasure in smoking more important than my health?



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
I think I am perfectly aware of my words. And I am battling the tyranny of public health and getting the jack-boot of puritan zealots off my neck

I'm sure you are, but I don't think that you are aware of the way you are acting and how those words sound to other people.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
The principal is the same whether you personally drive or not.

It's not the same when people tell me to stop driving because I am polluting the air, as I do not do that.


It is absurd to worry about the smoke generated by 19 grams of dried herbs when cars are so plentiful and spewing 1000s of times the volume of the very same contaminants.

There you go again, it's not absurd when your health is on the line. Try to imagine that you were born with some kind of disease that made your life hard to live and that something that some people do (talking to loud, for example) would make your life worse and even put it in danger, what would you do? Would you consider absurd to want people talking too loud to stay away from you, even if other things make loud noises? Would you accept other people's rights to talk loud more important than your health (and possibly your life)?

It's only absurd when you see other people's needs as irrelevant, as if they were second rate persons, the same way some non-smokers talk about smokers.


More appropriately, I have as much right to smoke a cigarette in my own home as anyone else to light a candle.

You do, I have said that before, but that's not what you say when you say that smoke doesn't affect asthmatic people, I only want to be as healthy as possible, to see if I can live long enough to me give what remains of my family the best life I can.

Is that much to ask?



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

If you think anti-smoking is a fad that will "melt away in less than 5 years" you are being delusional or dishonest. Smoking is finished. We are in a Post-smoke era.

Governments and insurance companies that fund health-care are in a mop-up phase of phasing smoke out all together. Along the same lines, if you believe that smoking is somehow not bad for your health you have never quit - not even briefly. You also are suspicious of science in a way that must make your day-to-day difficult.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

If I had a disease that make my life difficult because of loud noises, I would have only two choices. 1. isolate myself with ear phones or 2. going into treatment for my disease by exposing myself to first soft noises, and then ever increasing noises until I could stand loud noises again.

Here is what I would not do: Usurp government power to ban everyone, everywhere in the world from making loud noises because it affects me!

It has been proven, by the experience of the last 70 years, that smoking bans have not helped ANY asthmatics. If anything the problem has worsened. So as the example I gave with noise, it is clear that trying to isolate yourself from anything that MAY aggravate your asthma isn't working.

The only thing left to try is to expose yourself to ever-increasing amounts of smoke in order to strengthen your respiratory system.

I do not think that asthmatics are irrelevant. I am simply point out that your strategy of controlling the behavior and lives of every single person around you, just isn't working.

my.clevelandclinic.org...

/hic_Understanding_Asthma_Triggers

as you can plainly see from this link- tobacco smoke is just one trigger for asthma (and it isn't even the most common one)

An asthmatic who is not triggered by tobacco smoke, need not concern themselves and try to "avoid" tobacco smoke at all.

It is only a small minority of asthmatics whose attacks are triggered by tobacco smoke.

The theory of exposing yourself to ever-increasing doses of whatever irritate triggers your asthma is a very very well established medical treatment for asthma

www.webmd.com...

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

Funny - that is just what the Puritans were saying right before Alcohol Prohibition was banned.

As for denying smokers health care in order to control their behavior....I will not trade my liberty for security.

Health care is provided as an insurance in the event of illness or accident

People existed and survived without health care for millenia. I guess I can do it too.

www.patheos.com...

1. Prohibition created disrespect for the law.
2. Prohibition eroded respect for religion. (substitute public health and science here)
3. Prohibition created organized crime.
4. Prohibition permanently corrupted law enforcement, the court system, and politics
5. Prohibition overburdened police, courts, and the penal system.
6. Prohibition harmed people financially, emotionally, and morally.
7. Prohibition caused physical harm.
8. Prohibition changed the drinking habits of our country — for the worse. (substitute smoking and consider how the teen smoking rate is starting to rise)
9. Prohibition made cigarette smoking a national habit.
10. Prohibition prevented the treatment of drinking problems.
11. Prohibition caused “immorality.”
12. Prohibition was phenomenally expensive.

He would wants to know the future, should look to the past!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I sure hope you don't approve of the war on drugs.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
If I had a disease that make my life difficult because of loud noises, I would have only two choices. 1. isolate myself with ear phones or 2. going into treatment for my disease by exposing myself to first soft noises, and then ever increasing noises until I could stand loud noises again.

For the comparison to be the same option 2 wouldn't work in that case, in the same way exposing myself to the things that make me worse do not "train" my lungs to breath better in the presence of smoke, it doesn't work that way.


Here is what I would not do: Usurp government power to ban everyone, everywhere in the world from making loud noises because it affects me!

I am against any kind of banning, I would only like to get respect from the smokers.


It has been proven, by the experience of the last 70 years, that smoking bans have not helped ANY asthmatics. If anything the problem has worsened. So as the example I gave with noise, it is clear that trying to isolate yourself from anything that MAY aggravate your asthma isn't working.

The fact(?) that there are more asthmatics now doesn't mean that cigarette smoke doesn't affect us, it does. I'm sure that some other things in our environments affect us, but that doesn't change the fact that smoke does affect some of us.


The only thing left to try is to expose yourself to ever-increasing amounts of smoke in order to strengthen your respiratory system.

Doesn't work that way, trust me, I have been doing this since I was 5 years old, so after almost 47 years I know what I'm talking about. You do not.


I do not think that asthmatics are irrelevant. I am simply point out that your strategy of controlling the behavior and lives of every single person around you, just isn't working.

That's not "my strategy", as I don't control anybody's behaviour, the most I do is to ask them not to smoke.


as you can plainly see from this link- tobacco smoke is just one trigger for asthma (and it isn't even the most common one)

I know that, for a loooong time.



An asthmatic who is not triggered by tobacco smoke, need not concern themselves and try to "avoid" tobacco smoke at all.

Obviously, that's why I do not concern myself with things that do not affect me.



It is only a small minority of asthmatics whose attacks are triggered by tobacco smoke.

Although a minority they are also human beings.


The theory of exposing yourself to ever-increasing doses of whatever irritate triggers your asthma is a very very well established medical treatment for asthma

www.webmd.com...

In some cases. Do you remember that I said that I know that tobacco smoke is good for allergies?

In cases where the person is affected by the smoke it doesn't help breathing smoke, it's the same thing as your head being sensitive to hammer hits, being hit on the head with a hammer doesn't make it more resistant to being hit by a hammer.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Leonidas
1. Prohibition created disrespect for the law.

THERE IS NO TOBACCO PROHIBITION!

None of your arguments apply. It's especially ridiculous to suggest that the statement “prohibition overburdened police, courts, and the penal system" is pertinent. The police aren't involved in regulating tobacco consumption and obviously no one is going to jail.

You can buy tobacco anytime of day (unlike alcohol) and consume it in more places and with less regulation than alcohol and no one in their right mind would claim we have alcohol prohibition.



originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
consider how the teen smoking rate is starting to rise.

Teen smoking is at a 22 year low.
Link.



originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
as you can plainly see from this link- tobacco smoke is just one trigger for asthma.

So now you’re linking research that shows that tobacco smoke does trigger asthma? And yet you still insist on smoking wherever you feel like?



originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Leonidas
Here is what I would not do: Usurp government power to ban everyone, everywhere in the world from making loud noises because it affects me!

That’s a Straw Man you’ve been throwing out the entire thread. No one is suggesting that everyone should be banned from smoking everywhere in the world. Just where it intrudes into others’ personal space. The same way an irritable tobacco addict would complain about someone making loud noises in their personal space.

Forget the hypothetical of loud noises being threatening to your health. If someone in the apartment next to you was constantly making noise that bothered you, you would do everything in your power to stop it. I can be almost certain of that. I've lived with and worked with and around smokers for years. They tend to be very intolerant of any irritations in their personal space.

edit on 30-1-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Thanks I've learnt a lot from your input. My conclusions are that about 20 years back, when people smoked as a appetite suppressant, and about the time, of Mung beans, and blossoming vegetarianism. The environmental health concern movement got going. But this would be disastrous to the established producers of the crap foods. As it would take serious money to start a "smoke and mirror campaign " (forgive the pun) So the big pharmaceutical companies, came to the party knowing that, that if smoking was stopped and people continued eating the same rubbish, they would stand to make a hellava lot of cash. So it was decided to blame smoking and tobacco for all diseases, on this earth. Diabetes medication, blood pressure pills, anti statins. They have had a field day. In countries where the state would pay, it was even better. They skewed the stats to suit the campaign, and vilified smokers, to the point that they were standing outside in the rain in fact dehumanised.

They miscalculated, they needed smokers to vilify,but the smoking population went down but the sickness rates just kept going up. I think we are witnessing a type of cartel that's had it worked out for a long time. Which has infiltrated the medical profession to such a degree its unreliable.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
In countries where the state would pay, it was even better. They skewed the stats to suit the campaign, and vilified smokers, to the point that they were standing outside in the rain in fact dehumanised.

That's not true, in Portugal the Social Security pays a large percentage of most medications and 100% of some medications (for diabetes and cancer, for example), and we don't have any vilifying of smokers.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: anonentity
In countries where the state would pay, it was even better. They skewed the stats to suit the campaign, and vilified smokers, to the point that they were standing outside in the rain in fact dehumanised.

That's not true, in Portugal the Social Security pays a large percentage of most medications and 100% of some medications (for diabetes and cancer, for example), and we don't have any vilifying of smokers.


That's what I meant, but the taxpayer will foot the bill. The Big Pharmaceuticals get massive amounts of money from social medicine. If it was left to cash strapped individuals they wouldn't bother.
Then hats off to Portugal, for not vilifying the smokers ,it's a great place with nice people.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
It'll end when we ask to take a crap in the gulags.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join