What the Real Reason for Anti-Smoking Could be

Dawnstar, I don't think smokers are a scapegoat, nor are they being blamed for the rise in global temperature. The truth is, smoking does cause cause Cancer; it may not be the only cause, but it is a major one.

By the way, non-smokers are not all hypocrites looking for any way possible to keep thier cars. I myself refuse to even own a car.

I live in NJ and they just passed the law to outlaw smoking in every public place----------EXCEPT the CASINO's why not the casino's ------THE ALL MIGHTY DOLLAR thats why. Taxingg the cig's is a way to provide new job's ---i can just envision the buracrates sitting there in their cushy offices and thinking of a way to bring down the un-employment rate ---lets tax the hell out of those smoking idiot's ,and use the revenue from the taxes to give my relatives a nice fuzzy job that we will create for them.


I'm a smoker 20 yrs--- just got back from the doctor for a rutine visit and the dr .gave me a chest exam ---he said everything was fine ,and was surprised when i told him i smoked-----eveyone i know smokes and not one of them has a problem ---grand pop smoked all his life and smoke camel's tooo non filter and he lived for 93 year's ..


It is all BS

I think maybe They're working their way towards legalizing pot. There is no breathalizer deal to see if someone is driving while high. It is difficult for cops to pull people over for smoking or control our behavior. If it is illegal to smoke anything at all in public and they can successfully get us to indulge our chosen vices only from home, then it will be easier for them to control the public use of pot.

I don't think they will make pot legal until they can accurately pin-point how much pot you've been using to judge how "out-of-control" you supposedly are.

Maybe I'm high right now...

Hello, i have posted before but not very often. The anti smoking lobby gets me cranky. The same as any other anti anything group. Yes, i choose, thats right, choose, to smoke.It is legal, considered normal behaviour, as reflected by the fact that plenty of health, legal & political professional people also choose to smoke cigarettes. Therefore i do not consider myself anti social. I am part of a large group of people. I smoke a pack of 8mgs per day & have done so for 18 years. I have suffered no ill effects although i cannot say the same for my wallet. I have 5 children, 3 at work, none of whom smoke. I do not smoke in my house nor in my car as the smell of tobacco gets in your clothes. When i go to the pub, i smoke. There are areas for non smokers. If they do not like it they are free to leave the premises or move away from me. If the bar staff do not like working around cigarettes, they are free to resign & seek other employment. That is the beauty of democracy, you are free to do what you please provided you do not hurt other people. Oh! you say, but you are hurting other people with passive smoking, because they chose not to move away from you or relocate to another premises. Please read the following article which i found some 12mths ago on a study done by WHO. That is not an insignificant organisation nor was it widely published for reasons best known to themselves. www.forces.org... No doctor can tell you with certainty that any disease that you have is smoking related. How can he ? How does he know ? It may increase your risk of certain diseases but many things cause cancer & so called smoking related diseases. I personally had a friend who had never had a cigarette in her mouth & did not frequent hotels. Died of cancer in her forties. How many by pass operations have i funded ? Does a person who chooses to play sport or drive a motor vehicle deserve medical treatment. they don,t have to do it. Get ready for the smokeless nicotine delivery system developed by the pharmaceutical companies. After all, that way they can dip their hand into the enormous profits of the tobacco companies & that would subsidise payments to the anti smoking lobby. Follow the money trail & if i,m having a quiet fag, keep away from me. Long live the freedom that i can still afford.

OK, here's a different take on it:

"They" want to ban smoking for the same reason that seat belts are now mandatory: "To save lives". This can also be translated as, "We know what is good for you and we need to protect you from yourselves."

Think about it, as the governments of the world continue to pass laws which are designed to 'protect us from ourselves', the populations become conditioned to this idea, they learn to accept that the government's job is to protect us even if we don't want them to....

I think I'll just stop here and see what others have to say on this theory.

Originally posted by Jaryn
"They" want to ban smoking for the same reason that seat belts are now mandatory: "To save lives". This can also be translated as, "We know what is good for you and we need to protect you from yourselves."

BINGO! They can't do the things their supposed to do, ie secure the border, but their very interested in controlling every aspect of your life...

Originally posted by Earlybird
BINGO! They can't do the things their supposed to do, ie secure the border, but their very interested in controlling every aspect of your life...

Sorry, I've never been very good at getting subtle cues of a poster's mindset, but I'm guessing that was intended as a sarcastic response?

If so:
Who says they actually want to secure the border? Also, nowhere did I even try to imply that any government is competent enough to control "every aspect or your life", although I did imply that many (if not all) may want to.

If not:
Disregard this post and accept my apology for missing your 'tone of voice'.

Originally posted by Jaryn


I think I'll just stop here and see what others have to say on this theory.

Well said Jaryn,

I can't believe someone else has this degree of righteous paranoia. I also think people who use tobacco are more apt to be meditative types and deeper thinkers (and therefore a bigger threat to the government?). I don't smoke personaly, but have been a tobacco user for a long time.

This is one of my favorite issues to debate and I am a smoker. Both my parents died from lung cancer. My father in his fifties, and mother in her sixties. As a child I did not like the smoke but I was used to it. I had asthma until I was about 7 when I fell in love with soccer which I played regularly up until college. A common gift to our parents was an ashtray that we made in art class, and I remember one time pitching in with my sisters to buy my parents a smokless ashtray that they hated and seldom used. I did not personally start smoking until my mid twenties, which is rare, but I fully understood the consequences when I started. If smoking shortens my lifespan, so be it. How long do you really need to figure out and fulfill your purpose in life anyways?

I understand the dangers of second-hand smoke so I try to be as courtious as possible when smoking around others, but what grinds my gears is banning smoking in all bars and all restaurants (and soon to be everywhere except on your own property). Let the business owners' decide whether or not to allow smoking, or at least allow a certain amount of businesses a permit that allows smoking. This way the consumer has the choice what establishment gets their business.

A question for the non-smokers. Would you guys be ok if there were both smoking and non-smoking bars to choose from? Why does it have to be an all or nothing solution with the all out bans?

Another part of this issue that hasn't been discussed yet is the litter problem, and that is one of the major reasons smoking is being banned in outside places now as well. Soon in Imperial Beach, California it will be illegal to walk down the sidewalk smoking a cigarette because of the butts piling up in the gutters. We used to have street sweepers that came by once a week and picked them all up, but I guess the budget won't allow it anymore, even though taxes account for most of the cost of cigarettes. What's next, you can't walk down the street with a pepsi because too many people are just tossing their cans into the bushes? It's just so rediculous. Smoking is legal. Littering is not. So if you smoke, please don't throw your butts on the ground. Be a courteous smoker and maybe we will be able to keep some of our rights.

Namasté,

StickyG

Originally posted by Jaryn
Sorry, I've never been very good at getting subtle cues of a poster's mindset, but I'm guessing that was intended as a sarcastic response?

Sorry Jaryn, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic at all. I agree with you totally.

If so:
Who says they actually want to secure the border? Also, nowhere did I even try to imply that any government is competent enough to control "every aspect or your life", although I did imply that many (if not all) may want to.

If not:
Disregard this post and accept my apology for missing your 'tone of voice'.

That they can want or not want to do their jobs is my point. It's not up to them, supposedly it's their duty. However the politicians seem to have all kinds of time to delve into things that are none of their business.

I do seem to have problems with my tone and apologize for the confusion.

This is a general post to everyone:

Smoking kills. Bend it every which way and mask it with all the nicest words in the dictionary, but you cannot escape the truth that smoking does kill. It kills its user and others around the user. If it doesn't kill you directly, it will give you the worst disease you can get, cancer.

I'm all for fullfilling the Bill of Rights and our freedoms as Americans, but smoking does not fit into that scenario. Smoking ciggarettes regularly is proven to harm, infect, and eventually destroy the human body. Last time I checked, suicide is not one of our American rights.

Moreover, second-hand smoking is proven to be lethal in many cases, especially prolonged exposure to kids and the elderly. People who don't smoke ciggarettes do not want your smoke to be down their throats. To all the smokers out there, aren't you worried about your kids? Second-hand smoke is constantly being exposed to them (if you are an unresponsible parent). This is dangerous to your family, as the chemicals in ciggarettes are known to boost and induce asthma especially in kids who have weaker and smaller lungs. Will you just ignore all of the facts and keep harming others because ciggarettes make you feel good?

If you still want to smoke and ignore all of the statistics, then go ahead. Just make sure that it does not infract on other people's liberties. Smoking is a personal right as long as you do not bother everyone around you while smoking (put a fish bowl over your head while you do it). Remember people, its FREEDOM not FREEDUMB.

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
Last time I checked, suicide is not one of our American rights.

Since you bring this up, why is suicide illegal?

I've always wondered that and could never come up with a good (logical) answer...

Blue soldier ---on the topic of second hand smoke and the general topic , when driving down the street are you wearing a particle mask so as you don't inhale the fumes generated by cars,trucks and buses---those fumes are much more toxic than cigs-----my point is all this hoopla about cigs and second hand smoke but no-one seems to realize driving to work no matter if it takes 15 min or 2 hrs to commute to work you are inhaling much more deadly toxic fumes than second hand smoke in resturant's or the local pub ,at least these buisenesses have smoke eaters.


By the way those diseal truck and buses create the most deadly toxic fumes by far---you no what i mean ,,that blueish black cloud you drive through every time you drive behind one of those big rigs---you hold your breath for a certain amount of time so you don't inhale that death cloud----

Yes its true , smoking did not kill us. Let me tell you about second hansd smoke. My parents smoked for 40 years or more and bought up 5 children. We as children where around 2 pack smokers everyday. Thats alot of smoke is it not. Not one of us got any problems from smoke nor did my parents. I have been smoking since I was 13 I am now 49 and still amazed that my lungs are clear and that I have no other problems except eye sight cause hey I am getting old. Now there is a gas that forms from radiation I believe its called RADON this piticular gas is in homes and should be tested for as the sourse for all the lung cancer deaths it produces. Much more than cigarettes. My freedom to smoke , my freedom of free speech , hey give me liberty or give me death. I am so tired of having to pay so much for my freedom its terrible.

Perturabo

my nephew has asthma pretty bad. when he was a baby, the doctor's first advice was to remove all the cigarette smoke from his life, or try to at least. so, my brother in law didn't smoke in the house, the nephew didn't visit my mom's house much and she didn't smoke in their house, ect. ect....still problems...it was the dust in the house, clean the house better, more often. okay, weekly house scrubbings from top to bottom, still no diference. it was him playing in the dirt outside, don't let him play in the dirt.....umm...ya!! needless to say, my nephew still has his problems, and my sister and brother in law have twisted and turned in every direction to adapt their lives to alleviate the problem....except one thing....no one told knew back then about the clorinated pool sitting in their back yard.

the point is, we are being attacked everyday by a wide range of cancer causing chemicals particles. why just smoking is being aimed as a culprit?
And, then bring up global warming the same government will question the integrity of the research and deny what is increasinly becomming all too clear and obvious! I would wager to bet that the research involving global warming is just as valid and accurate as that of second hand smoke if not more so. so, why isn't there equal acceptance within the government concerning the two?

as far as smokers being scapegoats.....still think I am right. listen to some of the rhetoric you hear on the daily news shows and talk radio. they are picking out the scapegoats left and right to blame all their problems on. cancer is killing more people, they've got to blame something, and well, whatever it is that gets the blame can't damage their precious economy too danged much!

Originally posted by Jaryn
Since you bring this up, why is suicide illegal?

I've always wondered that and could never come up with a good (logical) answer...

After a person commits suicide, there is nothing more that can be done for them. They are dead, but they often leave behind a shattered family. The most common symptom that family members of a suicide victim have are depression. Depression occurs in at least one of the family members almost 100% of the time. This can be short-term depression, but is usually long-term which feels like having a permenant scar on your heart.

There is also something called "Broken Heart Syndrome" which is caused by extreme stress, shock, or depression. Broken Heart Syndrome mimics a heart attack, in that the victim has all of the symptoms and feelings, but in most cases it is less dangerous. www.medicinenet.com...

Suicide is different from homocide in that the family is usually much more devestated. This is because in suicide, there is nobody to blame for the person's death besides the person himself. This usually leads to family members blaming themselves for mistreating them or internal arguments in the family in which people blame each other for what happened. Also, family members usually have no idea why the suicide occurred and this can lead to a mix of confusion and depression which adds even more stress and sadness.

Originally posted by airtrax007
... on the topic of second hand smoke and the general topic , when driving down the street are you wearing a particle mask so as you don't inhale the fumes generated by cars,trucks and buses---those fumes are much more toxic than cigs-----my point is all this hoopla about cigs and second hand smoke but no-one seems to realize driving to work no matter if it takes 15 min or 2 hrs to commute to work you are inhaling much more deadly toxic fumes than second hand smoke in resturant's or the local pub ,at least these buisenesses have smoke eaters.

I dont think so.

tc.bmjjournals.com...

from the website posted Conclusions: ETS is a major source of PM pollution, contributing to indoor PM concentrations up to 10-fold those emitted from an idling ecodiesel engine. Besides its educational usefulness, this knowledge should also be considered from an ecological perspective.

*Note- ETS stands for Environmental Tobacco Smoke and PM stands for Particulate Matter*

So, an entire diesel engine is no match for three little cigarette butts. Even if the statistics compared a single cigarette to an entire engine, the lone cigarette would still produce 3x as much toxic fumes as the diesel engine. A car exhaust may look like it is producing much more fumes, but most of it is harmless hydrocarbons. This is nothing compared to the carbon monoxide and tar found in cigarettes.

www.lungusa.org...

I'd also like to add that cars are used outside in the open air, meaning that the gases and fumes are well ventilated and thinned out. In contrast, people smoke in crowded bars and restaurants where the fumes are concentrated in a small area. This is why the new bill only affects smokers who smoke in enclosed spaces. Its ok to smoke outside.

Originally posted by zman
Yes its true , smoking did not kill us. Let me tell you about second hansd smoke. My parents smoked for 40 years or more and bought up 5 children. We as children where around 2 pack smokers everyday. Thats alot of smoke is it not. Not one of us got any problems from smoke nor did my parents. I have been smoking since I was 13 I am now 49 and still amazed that my lungs are clear...

I'm glad that you and your family are unaffected (seems strange to me...) and safe. The reason could be that you and your siblings were exposed to cigarette smoke at quite a young age. Your lungs could have adapted to the regular smoke. In Mexico, the drinking water and much of the food is toxic to tourists and usually gives nasty sicknesses like diarrhea. But, this only affects tourists because they are not used to the water. If you were born in Mexico and had regular exposure to the water, your body would adapt to it. Same thing with what happened to you.

But, this does not mean that cigarette smoke did not affect you. Do you have shortness of breath often? Asthma? Smell unpleasant? Get more cavities than normal people? Also, in the near future you may have a much higher chance of getting a heart related disease than other people. And heart disease is the leading cause of death among adults in America. I dont mean to sound unpleasant, but these are the facts.

My freedom to smoke , my freedom of free speech , hey give me liberty or give me death. I am so tired of having to pay so much for my freedom its terrible.

I agree with the Samuel Adams quote, but freedom has certain limits. You do not have the freedom to steal, to kill, or the freedom to infract on other people's freedoms. By smoking, you are directly infracting on other people's freedoms. What about them? Don't non-smokers like me have freedoms too?

Originally posted by dawnstar
...the point is, we are being attacked everyday by a wide range of cancer causing chemicals particles...

Of course we are, but none of these come even close to the quantity and quality of toxic fumes found in cigarettes.

And, then bring up global warming the same government will question the integrity of the research and deny what is increasinly becomming all too clear and obvious! I would wager to bet that the research involving global warming is just as valid and accurate as that of second hand smoke if not more so. so, why isn't there equal acceptance within the government concerning the two?

I suggest that you carefully look at the facts concerning global warning.
www.sourcewatch.org...

as far as smokers being scapegoats.....still think I am right. listen to some of the rhetoric you hear on the daily news shows and talk radio. they are picking out the scapegoats left and right to blame all their problems on.

Why shouldn't smoking be blamed? It is proven over and over again to be one of the leading causes of cancer.

cancer is killing more people, they've got to blame something, and well, whatever it is that gets the blame can't damage their precious economy too danged much!

By the government restricting smoking and passing bills to clear smoking out of public areas, they are taking money out of their own pockets. Bars and restaurants will also lose money because smokers will not be able to smoke on their property. Anti-Smoking bills are taking chunks out of the economy but also saving lives and improving health, so I guess you're wrong there too.

TheBlueSoldier - Thank you for the long response regarding why suicide is bad, but you never explained why it is illegal. Anyway, that is a debate for another topic.

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldierYou do not have the freedom to steal, to kill, or the freedom to infract on other people's freedoms. By smoking, you are directly infracting on other people's freedoms. What about them? Don't non-smokers like me have freedoms too? Don't non-smokers like me have freedoms too?

Yes, you have the freedom to not go to businesses that allow smoking on their premises, you (by your own logic: "infracting on other people's freedoms") don't have the right to infringe on another's freedom to smoke (or to commit suicide for that matter).

Smokers don't have the right to go into a 'non-smoking' establishment and demand to smoke, that is the proprietor's choice. Non-smokers don't have the right to walk into a smoking establishment and demand that everyone else not be allowed to smoke, again that's the proprietor's choice. Anti-smoking laws are simply a way for the rabid anti-smokers to force everyone everywhere to stop smoking, taking away the proprietor's right to choose.

Anyway, that's still not on original topic of this thread, nor the (partial hijacking) theory I proposed. I will go back to lurking for a while and let this thread go wherever it may without my interference.