The anti-smoking conspiracy.

Originally posted by Prophet-Ezekiel
There is no link too 2nd hand smoking causing ciggarette cancer, and if there is I want a FULL background check of that family tree, prior health problems, etc. Peace.

Well, I'll submit the following link:
www.ocat.org...
Canadian Court and Tribunal Findings that Secondhand Tobacco Smoke is Harmful to Health

It describes recent decisions in Ontario with regard to second-hand smoke and its effects. You wanna kid yourself, it's up to you.

An edit to say, Further....

Originally posted by doctormcauley
I'm Ontario, we can't smoke at work, or anywhere. So I do.I say take your life in our own hands and light up a smoke... wherever you want to. No one can stop you. You are a Citizen of The Republic.

No, you live in Ontario, which is not a Republic by any means, it is a Parliamentary Democracy. And I really hope you get popped for your rather blithe selfishness...you're quite fortunate that it's only an anti-smoking law.

Just incidently, how many os in the word Goof?

[edit on 5-3-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]

Originally posted by mattguy404
If you're a smoker and feel discriminated against, so you should. There's no sugarcoating that...

Well here in the US we have laws against discrimination. There's no sugarcoating that!

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
And I really hope you get popped for your rather blithe selfishness...

Selfishness is a crude concept. Aren't you being selfish by wanting your needs put in front of ours? Well then that makes me selfish again, cause I want my needs in front of yours. But then your selfish because your needs are again at the top of the list...

I prefer the term "considerate". And I am a considerate smoker, I do my best not to smoke around non-smokers. But with all the "new laws" that makes it harder and harder to do. I have to smoke outside, and non-smokers have to walk near the areas I am supposed to smoke in. If I move, well that is a no-no cause that area is not for smokers.

Now if you will excuse me I need to get a drink from the "Smokers Only" water fountain, and take my place at the back of the bus.

Originally posted by adigregorio

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
And I really hope you get popped for your rather blithe selfishness...

Selfishness is a crude concept. Aren't you being selfish by wanting your needs put in front of ours? Well then that makes me selfish again, cause I want my needs in front of yours. But then your selfish because your needs are again at the top of the list...

You're arguing with the wrong person here...I quit 3 years ago after smoking for 30 years. There is a difference between being a considerate smoker, and being in somebody's face...purposely...that's what I'm saying. And as to my wants and needs being selfish, defense against a stinking, unhealthy habit is not being selfish. It is simply good manners not to inflict an unpleasantness upon others...some people insist upon boorish behaviour, and that's why there are now laws.

It's all very simple...just try and make your mother proud.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
...some people insist upon boorish behaviour, and that's why there are now laws.

Actually, I feel the laws are on the books because the Federal Governess wants to tell me what my morals should be. I am not sure about Canada though.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
It's all very simple...just try and make your mother proud.

My mother smokes And she follows my example of being considerate to others. And whether or not others are considerate is up to them. I have no right telling them how to act, just as I expect the same treatment.

Unfortunately, when "others" can't make people do what the "others" want, they resort to getting the government(s) to step in. That is akin to having your brother fight because you can not.

I have the right to smoke, and the "others" have the right to not be near me when I do. Is it fair that the "others" have to go away from me because I am smoking, or is it fair that I have to go away to have a smoke? They are one in the same, both unfair. People should choose what they want to do, they should not have the Federal Governess tell them what they want to do.

Originally posted by adigregorio
I have the right to smoke, and the "others" have the right to not be near me when I do.

I watched my father die of lung cancer...I'm really glad I'd already quit. I'm in treatment for prostate cancer...again, happy I'd already quit. One friend quit upon learning of his kidney cancer, another is going on the patch since they found cancer on his tongue. Still another, he still smokes cuz it's all through him and he's on borrowed time anyway.

Smoking causes cancer, and cancer really sucks. You wanna argue an erosion of your civil rights, why not tackle the Patriot Act, instead, and quit sweating the small stuff?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


To quote what I posted on another thread...

When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now, if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then their answer based upon current evidence should have be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect. Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone uses the word "cause."
-------
Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer...
-------
You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die", but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**
-------
When we look at the data over a longer period, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8 (see Appendix A). That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker. It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk. Statistics that are understandable and make sense to the general public, what a concept!
-------
6. Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.3
7. Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer.
8. A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
9. No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
10. In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.23

Source

I am of the philosophy that quitting smoking causes lung cancer

Whatever gets you through the night.

Like I said, though, you're going to bat for the wrong set of rights.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


"Right" and "Wrong" are in the eye of the beholder. So is "Good" and "Bad". So while the rights (not in the right/wrong sense of the word) I am going to "bat" for are in your opinion "wrong". That does not make them so.

No other human on this planet is better, or worse, than me. So what makes me think that their perception of "right" and "wrong" is better, or worse.

I do not subscribe to "right" and "wrong", or "good" and "bad". Things just are. Smoking is smoking, murder is murder, human is human. Nothing more nothing less.

Originally posted by adigregorio
I do not subscribe to "right" and "wrong", or "good" and "bad". Things just are. Smoking is smoking, murder is murder, human is human. Nothing more nothing less.

Sounds to my like a proscription for "The Zen of Denial."
Smoking is dumb, it causes cancer, emphysema, arterial aneurisms, heart disease, just a whole host of stuff, and you know that very well. Tell me it's your choice to make and you'll do as you wish, and I can respect that. You say that you are a considerate smoker...if you're not inflicting yourself on others, then I can respect you...even if you do smell.

But don't tell me that good and bad does not apply here.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Smoking is dumb...

Ahh so smoking has a brain? And it is using it in a way to deem it dumb?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
if you're not inflicting yourself on others, then I can respect you...

Well I try not to with my cigarettes, but when I DRIVE my vehicle it emits a ton of smoke others have to endure. Same as when I MOW my lawn.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
even if you do smell.

That wasn't very nice! Of course, resulting to an insult is usually the norm here when one feels they are loosing an argument.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
But don't tell me that good and bad does not apply here.

Alright I won't tell you that if you can show me a definition of "good", or "bad", that EVERYONE agrees is true. Good luck, I have been looking for close to 10 years now and have yet to find an instance of it.

And I don't mean "healthy"/"unhealthy" I mean "good" and "bad".

Well, as soon as the NWO and global health care takes over you'll be given a choice. You can eat unhealthy food and smoke all you want, but you'll be placed very far down on the urgent care list if you end up with heart disease or cancer. Fair is fair. If you can afford expensive insurance and private medical care, then you won't have anything to worry about. Not like you worry a lot, anyway.

As it is now, the argument is not about people stopping you from doing whatever you want with your body. It's about engaging in an activity that will expose other people to stuff they'd rather not be exposed to. In the U.S., people used to love to chew tobacco and spit. A lot more than they do now. Then people in larger cities decided that they didn't want to stomp around in some other guy's greasy mucus, so they passed anti-spitting laws. And they worked pretty good, too.

So, yeah, I guess if you want to call a bunch of people who don't want to be subjected to somebody's reeking tobacco smoke or green spit and passing laws to help avoid that a "conspiracy," then I guess there is a conspiracy. Or you could just call it "democracy."

Originally posted by adigregorio

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Smoking is dumb...

Ahh so smoking has a brain? And it is using it in a way to deem it dumb?

You know, fill your boots, here...do what you want and when you get sick of it, try the patch...it might take a couple of tries, but it's the best way to go. Also, look for generic brands...lot's cheaper.

I got into this discussion because a fellow Ontarioan-istan-ite...whatever, was posting how he didn't give a rat's ass about what other people thought...to wit:
"I smoke everywhere, in the mall, at the store and there isn't a goddamn thing anyone is gonna do about it... Smoke or don't smoke, just know that there ain't a goddamn thing anyone can do about stopping you unless you let them. "

That's my issue...it's an ignorant attitude, and I still hope he gets popped. You do what you want...it's another country.

Originally posted by Nohup
So, yeah, I guess if you want to call a bunch of people who don't want to be subjected to somebody's reeking tobacco smoke or green spit and passing laws to help avoid that a "conspiracy," then I guess there is a conspiracy. Or you could just call it "democracy."

What about all of the VEHICLES that emit SMOKE! I don't see a big movement banning that! What about Volcanoes? Fireplaces? Planes? Power Plants? Of course, that smoke doesn't "reek" so it's okay.

Bah!

I loved the episode of Johnny Carson when Bette Davis was his guest. Johnny had just quit smoking and told Bette that studies had proven that each cigarette you smoke takes 2 to 5 minutes off your life.

Bette without missing a beat replied, "Well then, someone ought to call my doctor and tell him that I died 80 years ago!".

The truth is, there have been many people who have smoked until the day they died of old age. There have also been people who never smoked a day in their lives and were not around smokers who have died from lung cancer and emphysema.

Now I agree that nicotine is a powerful drug and also smoking heavily smells pretty bad on both person and their dwelling. However I am in agreement with a few on here who have pointed out that perfumes/colognes stink as well and if you are ever in a restaurant or on an airplane and/or another confined space- this perfume issue is far worse and can cause appetite loss as well. So can hair products, skin creams, after shave et all.

What is most important to remember is that smokers rights were being violated and used to push through legislation. Nobody cared because smoking had become passe as well as a perceived health threat. It was taken to extremes in many cities and towns which it is now illegal to smoke in public!!!! But hey, drink all you want!

This is all one big hypocrisy after another which creates another right to be lost in the publics interest. There was a time when doctors advised and encouraged people to smoke!

I am going to what I want and will continue and as long as I don't hurt anybody- leave me alone! I will hold to my way of life until FEMA arrives to escort me into an internment camp- being this is close to happening, I should quit smoking as I would not fancy being in a camp while suffering nicotine withdrawals!

[edit on 5-3-2008 by dk3000]

Two smoking threads in one day......woohoo, I get to spout my mouth off twice. So here goes, and this is something I didn't mention in the other thread. I can sort of understand banning smoking in restaraunts, who wants to smell smoke while they are eating, even I, as a smoker don't want to? That being said why bars? Come on people bars are our "sin taverns", this is the place we go to commit our sins; smoking, drinking, hooking up with skanky men and women, meeting our lovers because we are cheating on our spouses, meet up with co-workers to complain about our bosses, etc, etc. Why are non smokers trying to change the bad things we do in the very places we sought shelter to do said bad things?

I can say in all honesty that I would rather smell cigarette smoke in a bar then the smell of 50 sweaty, perfume/cologne ridden people on the dance floor, that smell all congealed together with a hint of barf from the poor sap in the corner who can't handle his booze.

I will say here what I said in another thread, thankfully the bars in my neck of the woods are catering to the smokers (since the smoking ban took effect Jan 1, 2008) by creating smoking patios where we have heaters, tables, chairs, waitstaff, and the music pumped outside via groovy Bose stereo speakers. I can't wait till this spring and summer when I am sitting outside smoking to my hearts content in fresh air with all the luxeries of the bar and laughing at the uptight NON SMOKERS stuck inside smelling the couger perfume and the sweaty fat guy downing cheeseburgers because they are on two for one special.

Gotta be careful though, those NON SMOKERS are gonna get mad that the SMOKERS are outside soaking up all the precious "fresh" air and that's not fair, stick their butts back inside and let the NON SMOKERS enjoy all the perks of the bar and fresh air outside. Crap, you can't win for losing. But thankfully FOR NOW, the bar owners were smart enough to cater to us for fear of losing business as we can just go across the state line and smoke freely if they didn't. It's funny because I live in a very rich, snooty part of town and on any given night you will find the same amount if not more people outside on the smoking patios than in the actual bar.


I'm going to have a smoke now......

reply to post by Rasobasi420


I look forward to the day when the healthy living advocates outlaw watching porn. All the bible thumpers and other hypocritical types will have a field day. My point is, smokers will always continue to smoke regardless of whatever one sided laws our governments come up with. They can't really outlaw watching porn though, can they? Maybe then I may quit smoking, nah....the internet will shut down before that happens.

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
I can sort of understand banning smoking in restaraunts, who wants to smell smoke while they are eating, even I, as a smoker don't want to? That being said why bars? ...

I agree that there ought to be bars where you can smoke, and others where you can't, and let the market sort it out. And patios...nice summer night, few drinks, listening to the band, smoking...makes me wanna start up again.

Before I quit, though, one of the worst smoke Nazis at work quipped that having a no-smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no-peeing section in a swimming pool. I couldn't argue that one bit.

Its because vampires want to take over the world, but they cant drink the blood of smokers. Smokers are immune.

On a more serious note: Smoking is officially known to enhance concentration and prevent alzheimers, parkinsons and dozens of other diseases related to becoming more senile. There could very well be a conspiracy here...if not against smoking then against free-choice.

Originally posted by adigregorio
What about all of the VEHICLES that emit SMOKE! I don't see a big movement banning that! What about Volcanoes? Fireplaces? Planes? Power Plants? Of course, that smoke doesn't "reek" so it's okay.

There are emissions laws. More all the time. Smoking is a choice, though, not an unfortunate byproduct of something necessary, like a car or a plane. And people are working to reduce the smoke of those things. Tobacco smoking is not a natural phenomenon like a volcano or forest fire.

But like I said, nobody's stopping you from smoking. Puff all you want. They're just stopping you from smoking wherever you feel like it. Nobody's stopping you from masturbating, either. But there's no good reason to expose other people to it, is there?