The Benefits of Smoking

I find it funny that the same people who would lynch someone for smoking tobacco have no problem with somebody smoking pot.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No, the only thing I care about is that it isn't illegal to do. I have no cares about the restrictions placed on its usage. Just like any vice, there are restrictions placed on it for various reasons. Alcohol has similar restrictions. To be honest, per square foot, you can drink alcohol in less places than you are allowed to smoke cigarettes since you aren't allowed to drink outdoors within city limits.

I've already told you many times that your decision to be comfortable shouldn't come at the expense of my comfort. No one is forcing you to smoke cigarettes, so if you make that decision, you have to accept the consequences of it. Smoking outdoors is one of them now. The positive reasons for that decision (public health) FAR outweigh the negative ones (your comfort), so those laws aren't going to change anytime soon.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
I find it funny that the same people who would lynch someone for smoking tobacco have no problem with somebody smoking pot.

I don't care if someone smokes cigarettes OR pot. Just don't do it around me.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
I find it funny that the same people who would lynch someone for smoking tobacco have no problem with somebody smoking pot.

People who smoke pot already smoke in private since it is illegal and too many prying eyes could lead to authoritative trouble.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Your empathy is nearly tear-jerking.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Your empathy is nearly tear-jerking.

So you're going to tell me you don't just hand the Darwin award to someone who needs a cigarette so badly, he'd risk freezing to death? If our distinguished OP is so "tired of control freaks" as he always claims, why is he not tired of a substance that causes someone to override the survival instinct?

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Just noting that the attitude is incompatible with any claims to paternalistic shepherding.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Just noting that the attitude is incompatible with any claims to paternalistic shepherding.

Maybe I'd have felt empathy if I'd been presented the story in a different light. As it is, the OP brings it here to try and lay the guilt on the evil, evil people that don't want smoke blown in their faces indoors. If anything, I'm not empathetic for TiredOfControlFreaks, because he presents himself like Fred Flintstone in a 1950s cigarette commercial.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I've had enough...

3 pages of proselytizing smoking has come to an abrupt halt after reading this;

We need protection from the weather and we need places to socialize.

Then put the damn cigarette out and get in the house.



I've read a few "out there", kindest way I can put it, comments on this thread...

That far exceeds the limit of my patience.




& I smoke about 30 a day!

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

You know, that is a valid concern but, in Boston anyway, they had just forced everybody to install smoke eaters before they banned smoking. In truth, proper ventilation solves the problem better than smoke eaters and also wisps away farts and myriad other air pollutants.

There are even people who want to ban smoking outdoors. Ironically, these are frequently the people whom you see jogging behind a diesel 18 wheeler.

As a friend of mine used to say when someone would ask "mind if I smoke?", he would retort "no, mind if I fart?"

We're very close to a lung cancer cure, I'd say within the next 20 to 40 years or maybe even faster.

Because the new drug does sound extremely promising, in a sense that it "teaches" your own body's immune system to detect the cancerous tumors and destroys them. The article mentions that the tumors develops this "Cloak" around it so our body's immune system cannot see them, and this new drug teaches our immune system to recognize these tumors and destroy them. It's like removing that invisible cloak they got on.

It's interesting, certainly not a 100% cure as of yet, but with news like that, it's damn close. With tweaks and improvements, and hoping that it does not get suppressed, this may be it.

So when the cure is 100% ready, time to smoke to your heart's content... lol

A cure for lung cancer?

originally posted by: greencmp
There are even people who want to ban smoking outdoors. Ironically, these are frequently the people whom you see jogging behind a diesel 18 wheeler.

Yes, I'm sure joggers purposely jog behind tractor-trailers because they think it's an integral part of the jogging experience. I'm sure they choose to inhale pollutants in a city because it makes them mellow, cures Alzheimer's, and puts hair on their chest. And I'm sure, on the flip side of that, that smoking is an unavoidable process of the technological world that we live in. Smokers have to smoke so that we can transport goods and people across the nation.

Poor analogy.

even as a smoker myself, i think it's fair to say the disadvantages outweigh any advantages, what with the expense, the smell, the nicotine stains, the social stigma and the endless 'bad press' etc etc. doesn't stop me doing it however. but i'm under no illusions as to how repellent a lot of people find the habit. (lights a cig)

originally posted by: greencmp
You know, that is a valid concern but, in Boston anyway, they had just forced everybody to install smoke eaters before they banned smoking. In truth, proper ventilation solves the problem better than smoke eaters and also wisps away farts and myriad other air pollutants.

Guess what is an even MORE efficient solution than smoke eaters and ventilation?

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Let me guess, putting every smoker in a concentration camp?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Let me guess, putting every smoker in a concentration camp?

I clarified the post you're quoting. But of course that's what you'd think.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

No my story was about an old man of about 68. I do not know why he was in a home or whether he had Alzeimers or not.

Just like never-smokers can get lung cancer, smokers can get Alziemer's. Its a matter of risks and genetics. Just like they noticed that heavy smokers get lung cancer at a frequency higher than never smokers, they noticed that non-smokers get a host of neurological diseases at a rate higher than smokers get it.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: peck420

I know that you have been reading about how toxic nicotene is. The fact is that the toxicity of nicotene is based on a guess done by a couple of pharmacists more than 200 years ago.

There is updated data on that issue now...

Tired of Control Freaks

Really? Do you know you can make a very effective and deadly poison with nothing more than tobacco and water? You couldn't do that unless it was incredibly poisonous i would imagine.

Also worth noting that it's mutations on your body that cause Cancer and every 15 cigarettes you smoke will cause a mutation. Still as long as i'm not having to inhale your second hand smoke it's not a problem.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I am sorry but you are wrong - just plain wrong. I am a human being. I need protection from the weather regardless of what I am doing.

Just because anti-smokers are trying to harass and force smokers to quit by "losing" a few to hypothermia. There are solutions other than dying of exposure.

Further, forcing smokers into the street on a night out exposes them to criminal behavior. Smokers have been raped, robbed and shot.

Are you really suggesting that members of society may lose their rights under the constitution if they behave in an unapproved manner. Even murderers have the right to protection under the constitution (right to protections from illegal search and seizure, right to a trial by a jury of their peers etc). Are you suggesting the smoking is such bad behavior that it cannot be tolerated to the point where if they die of hypothermia, then its all good?

Its the law that is forcing smokers to take these risks and it is the law that is wrong.

In Ontario, even smoking shelters, located outside, unattached to any building, a place where non-smokers need never go are mandated by law to have only 2 walls and a roof. Now why can't smoking shelters be separate buildings with heat?

All of this is wrong on so many levels.

Thankfully - the public really doesn't agree with anti-smokers

www.express.co.uk...

Instead more than 80 per cent of those questioned, excluding ‘don’t knows’, believe it should be down to individuals to make their own lifestyle choices without official interference from Government. Supporters of Ukip were most likely to resent Whitehall meddling in their daily lives, the pollsters found. Mark Littlewood, director general of free market think-tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, which commissioned the ComRes survey, said: “These results should be a wake-up call to politicians across the spectrum. “It is clear that the majority of the British public think the nanny state has gone too far and want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. “Interestingly, Ukip voters clearly favour personal freedoms and lower sin taxes to the greatest extent, which should provide food for thought for the traditional Westminster parties. This is a clear sign that the Government needs to row back on its constant interventions into people’s lives.”

Tired of Control Freaks

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Dont kid yourself I stopped smoking 8 months ago after 2o something years. I feel a lot better..

purp..:-)