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 Banned in Homes-California Adopts 'Hitler's Policy'

page: 19
34
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris

Missed you too!


I know you did, as did I. I waited all day for your post so I could come swooping in with a cig in hand, lit up to make it as annoying as possible.




Originally posted by Mynaeris
Nope what smokers will do when the final results come in and masses of people have died from second hand smoking. Will you cry and say "OMG I am so sorry" or just keep driving up Denial Lane?



When the final results come in? What results are you talking about? You mean those results of how much less there is 2nd hand smoke now because of the banning of smoking in public places and how smokers have to light up in designated areas?

Those results have been out now for quite some time..including the additional updated data on how the number of smokers have reduced which means even less 2nd hand smoke in those areas non smokers usually dont hang out in...the designated smoking area.

If we could measure the amount of 2nd hand smoke being breathed in by non smokers today and compare that to 20 years ago...I am willing to bet that the scale will tip to the "no reason to complain" side.


Cheers!!!!




posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Do you look down on everybody who doesn't participate in things you do? I mean now you're picking on vegetarians. Can others decide what to eat or not to eat? More meat for you to have with your smokes.



Excuse me, but it is quite clearly YOU (and your fellow anti-smokers) who are showing that you look down on (and feel morally superior to) people who participate in things that you don't approve of.

We aren't trying to get non-smokers to start smoking. We don't disrespect anyone for their choice not to smoke. All that we are doing is objecting to people trying to make us stop doing something we enjoy because they don't like it.

In other words, you're trying to control us - trying to dictate what we can and caon't do in the privacy of our own homes - and giving a lot of inadequate evidence and specious reasons for doing so, and we have a problem with that. Who are the bad guys here?

It would be the same as vegetarians trying to make it against the law for anyone to eat meat. And don't give me the "but someone eating meat in their home doesn't affect me" crap. If cigarette smoke odor goes from one apartment to the next, couldn't the odor of cooking meat offend and nauseate a vegetarian? Yes, it IS the same thing.

And, like I said in the other thread, a "normal" person will not have any health effects from a neighbor's cigarette smoke. Perhaps some people are especially sensitive to it, but that's their medical condition and not my responsibility. If we lived in a "small pets allowed" complex and my cat were making you sick because you're allergic, it would not be my responsibility to move or get rid of my cat. You have the allergy, it's your responsibility to take care of your own medical issues.



[edit on 1-2-2009 by Heike]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike

Great post as always Heike. A star for you.

But there's something to add in here. It's really not the anti-smokers' fault entirely. You see, some people just have this built-in weakness that forces them, usually through fear of rejection or fear of the unknown, to blindly follow along with whatever crowd happens to be walking in front pretending to be a leader at the time. We all (well, maybe excepting myself) have some societal need to be with the 'in' crowd. You can see it in school; it's the main reason so many children turn to illegal recreational drug use. The popular kids wanted them to try it. It is responsible for the success of Nike, a company who makes $20 shoes, but sells them for $200. The cool kids get a pair, so everyone else has to have a pair of Nikes. A cool kid likes to listen to Britney Spears, so everybody else starts to listen to her and she becomes a star overnight. I have seen this pattern happen over and over for my entire life.

Once in adult life, things get hard. There's a job instead of a school, and you actually have to perform. There's no more Mommy and Daddy to take care of the bills. Food comes from the grocery store with a price tag attached, not from the well-stocked cupboard we were used to. Everything is harder, and usually people are overwhelmed and feel helpless. They can't stand up to that sadist of a boss, because he'll fire them. They can't backtalk the cop with an attitude that pulls them over on the freeway, because he'll arrest them. They are now dealing with people they do not know everyday, and a lot of these people are different. Difference breeds fear, and so they become afraid.

Propaganda plays on this fear. That's why the Surgeon General's warning is on every pack of cigarettes. I know of no one who ever read it and said "Oh, my God, what am I doing?" But the non-smokers, the future army of those who for some reason want cigarette smoking restricted, see it every time they see a smoker. It reinforces this growing notion that cigarettes are harmful, until finally the word harmful has been replaced with poison. Poison kills people. They are afraid of death. Thus, they are afraid of the 'poison' cigarettes. In some cases, an individual can be so mentally weak as to convince themselves that the smell of tobacco is killing them, even leading to very real symptoms that originate from their heads, not from any outside triggering influence... and in rare cases, death, not from tobacco, but from the inner suggestion that tobacco kills. They are now martyrs in the army they have unwittingly enlisted in, forced to confront that fear they have been given in the gravest way by those who promised to alleviate it.

As for the others, the only way they can lash out at the things they see in their lives that they want to change, is to find a cause where they can safely combat 'evil' amongside thousands or millions of like-minded people. It's a release for their frustrations, and a way to safely socialize at the same time. It's been called the "Rebel Without a Cause" syndrome.

Our leaders know all about this human tendency. that's why our lives are more frequently damaged than aided by governmental policies; they want this syndrome to continue. So when something that some people think smells bad, like cigarettes, is attacked by the leaders, it takes little effort to assemble a full-fledged army of activists. This is their justification of their lives, this is their redemption from obscurity and mediocrity.

Years of propaganda, decades of faux research, endless streams of innuendo combine to create this belief that is almost akin to religious fervor. No facts, no data will ever be allowed to interfere with these beliefs. No, no, NO! they scream, WE WILL NOT BE SILENT! To accept the truth, that they are being duped by those they trusted all along, is to accept their lot in life, and that is something they dare not do.

The only way to stop this fervor is to continue to peck away at the lies, keep speaking the truth, until the tide turns in the favor fo the truth (or at least to another cause). Even when that happens, we must continue to speak facts and realities, lest the tide turn back to the lies of those in power. Some of these people, when exposed to enough facts, will begi to understand this, and every one that does will be one more of us and one less of them: a gain of two for one.

It's more than smoking. It's Global Warming, acid rain, evils of religion, problems with health care, the dangers of eating meat... and many more causes. It is overwhelming to fight the tide of popular opinion on all these fronts. Yet, I will continue, we will continue, because to do otherwise is to accept the lie. And in the end, acceptance of lies over truths is the worst type of enslavement and the most heinous form of insignificance.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
____ is a drug used by many people to calm their nerves, help them be sociable, and to feel good. ___ has an odor which is offensive to some people, and this odor is detectable on people who use it even hours later. ___ has been proven to have many negative health consequences for the person who uses it, especially those who use it daily and/or in excess, and often has negative effects on their family members. ____ is responsible for many deaths each year, and a number of those deaths are innocent bystanders who have never used ____ themselves, including children. Use of _____ by pregnant women will usually have a negative impact on the fetus, and in some cases these effects are quite serious. Chronic ___ users who are parents are often suspected or accused of abusing and neglecting their children, and there are always those who point to the dangers of having ___ around the house and using it in front of children, which may possibly make them more inclined to use ____ as adults.

Some people think that people who regularly use ___ are weak-willed or morally weak, and others characterize them as as sick or addicts. And yet, ___ continues to be a legal substance readily available not only at specific outlets dedicated to it, but at convenience stores and grocery stores (in many areas). Only children (minors) are prevented from buying it, although little is actually done to control the use of it by minors in spite of the health and safety dangers; only the sale to minors is controlled.

Who can fill in the blanks with the correct word?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
What this hints at to me is that the Illuminati now have so many of their people working in the legal system that they feel that can control the courts.

People really need to get familiar with www.thinkfree.ca... and freedom-school.com... these are significant sites for understanding how the legal system has been used as one of the foundations of Illuminati efforts and what we can do to reclaim our freedom. Most people tend to think that we are under the absolute control of a mafia. That may well be coming, but it isn't the case today. Today there are rules known almost entirely by the legal profession by which they rationalize and implement subjugation. But if one understands the rules of the legal system it is possible to gain some distance from it's influence. Rob : Menard has started the Freeman Societies to allow people to reclaim their independence from these false courts. www.worldfreemansociety.org...

Why a society? Because you fall into the trap in court of being a "ward of the court" and a member of the "legal society" and thereby subject to their rules. When you declare you are in a different society, strange but apparently true, you declare yourself to be subject to a different set of rules (statutes, regulations, acts). Those rules, the so called courts have no authority over and thereby no authority over you. Most "Courts" have nothing to do with law. They are administrative corporate entities that apply statutes, regulations, act against fictional corporate property known as the Strawman/fictional person/citizen aka YOUR NAME in capitol letters. You volunteer to "be" that fiction when you identify yourself with the fictional person in court "State your name for the record".

The point being that such "Laws" are NOT law at all but statutes, regulations, act that DO NOT REALLY APPLY TO You as a natural living human being. They are written and enforceable only to the fiction and you have the choice whether to be identified with that fiction or not. That is true of just about everything we have been lead to believe is "Law". That includes drivers licenses, parking tickets, speeding tickets, non smoking, etc.. We have much more freedom that we realize. "Government" serves only the purpose of providing function we choose to fund by donation. "Government" has no controlling influence over the living human beings. But "Government" has fabricated authority by rationalizing it through a specific society using corporate (fictional) entities. The legal system is far more twisted than imaginable but it is only unjust and imposing because we are dumbed down and don't understand it.

Strange but true, at the moment there is still an underlying ethics to the legal system. If we gain a significant enough understanding of the "system" almost all of "Government" become ineffective and we return to control.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


North Carolina, where I live, is home to RJR...but the House has just passed a bill to raise taxes on cigarettes from 60 something cent to a dollar a pack! It is to pay for health care for kids...but get this, some of the kids can be illegal citizens of legal immigrants! (Hey everybody, come to America...where the immigrants get treated better than the real citizens!) So, yeah, I am all for helping kids out, but wow...Someone ought to write a post about that. California has really got some balls, eh? They banned smoking on the entire premises at my job, but I can't leave my job site because I am a security guard. Not even for lunch. So what do I do? Smoke in the street? I can't imagine how people would take it if they tried some of that "Cali Crap" here. I feel sorry for all of ya'll who have to endure this.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I smoke, and own my own home. But I have a daughter with Asthma so I smoke outside rather then in the house. But if it wasnt for her I would smoke in my home. Its my Home, That I bought and paid for. If some government official wants to start paying me for my home, then I will stop smoking in it or around it.

The problem is this, that daily we breath in this crap from cars, and mills yet we dont complain. I have to say that breathing in Cigt. smoke isnt as bad as what is coming from a mill. Or even from your own car.

On the other hand just about 30 miles from me, The air base in Fayettville blows crap up. Now we know all that stuff going in the air isnt hurting us?? Yeah we know the government wouldnt bring harm to us breathing in all that smoke and stuff from what they blow up.

Then we have to look at the other side of this. My mom is 87 years old. She is still smoking and hasnt ever had cancer. Figuring that she has been smoking since she was 13 years old should tell you something. They also showed a 101 year old lady on the news she still smokes and no cancer. Maybe its due to what they eat? Maybe because my mom wouldnt eat all this store bought food?

There are so many other things out there that bring harm to us, my advice is to think about those things.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 



I would say alcohol. Smoking doesn't calm the nerves but does the exact opposite. People think it calms there nerves because they're getting their fix.

I used to smoke, drink and drug (heavily) and know the consequences and effects of them all.

Totally useless and nothing but a lie.If peole enjoy them so be it but they're only foolinng themselves. Nothing enjoyable about sucking poison into the body.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Revealation

Smoking doesn't calm the nerves but does the exact opposite.

Seems to be some debate on this subject. A quick fast search after reading your post turned up the same information, that nicotine acts as a stimulant. However, in my days, we were taught nicotine was a tranquilizer.

A little more searching turned up this:

Nicotine produces a sense of alertness, but nevertheless of calm. This seems to be due to inhibition of reflex nerve loops in the spinal cord, with the effect of causing muscular relaxation.
Source: www.answers.com...

Now this is what I have understood. I do know that smoking will raise blood pressure, and the effect seems to be limited, though drastic. In other words, a tiny amount of nicotine, as in a couple puffs from a cigarette, will result in a blood pressure rise, but that rise does not increase linearly with the amount of cigarettes smoked. Instead, it tends to have little to no additional effect after that initial rise. Perhaps it is that BP increase that is responsible for the stimulant definition?

I do know smoking definitely does not make me irritable or restless, as would be expected with a stimulant. I feel relaxed and peaceful after smoking; I feel stressed, and easily angered when I am unable to smoke (to the point of becoming belligerent and aggressive after a long enough period of denial). I find I fall asleep faster and sleep better when I have a smoke just before bed. That is not the action of a stimulant, but rather a tranquilizer (depressant).

Not trying to be argumentative here, but this does seem to be an area of the topic worth considering.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Un-enforceable bureaucratic nonsense. Keep on smoking..

[edit on 2-2-2009 by nacluv]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
Disclaimer: I only read the first page of this thread.

I think this is absolutely ridiculous. I am so sick and tired of these little rules non-smokers keep inciting. Smokers have been nothing but accommodating to non-smokers. You took away our section of the restaurants, you took away the bus, you get the ENTIRE airplane...and we have to smoke in a little glass room in the airport like we're some kind of zoo exhibit.

Now these fascist rules are being pushed into our living spaces? I know that some apartment places only rent to non-smokers...whatever. But for a whole city to make a law over ALL apartment complexes and condos?

Most of the time people OWN their condos!


This is democratic legislature, not a state-imposed ban. God, sometimes I wonder if any of you know how Democracy works. These laws are the result of tens of thousands of genuinely motivated citizens who want to see an improvement in their quality of life. Smokers didn't concede any sort of accommodation to non-smokers, seeing as they didn't have the right to be there in the first place. You don't have the right to do anything if you are at the same time affecting the well being of your neighbors. It's simple.



[edit on 2-2-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Why the hell don't these people just allow others to live their lives the way they want? We don't all need 24hr nursing!


The reason California is taking the forefront in this issue is because smokers are inconsiderate of others; irresponsible in disposing of their cigarette butts; and disrespectful of all posted 'No Smoking' signs.

California has determined that second hand smoke is "a toxic pollutant, no form of which is safe." The warning labels have been on cigarette packages for years. Have smokers complied? Hell, No!

There are billboards warning smokers all across the state warning smokers not to carelessly trash their cigarette butts on beaches, parks and streets. Have smokers complied? Hell, No! Smokers don't give a RA about ecology or pollution of the sea. Who cares if it damages the food system, as long as there is another cigarette to smoke, right?

There are 'No Smoking' signs posted at U of C and many other locations across the state where smokers continually light up. Have smokers complied? Obviously not!

Therefore because smokers are so inconsiderate, irresponsible and disrespectful, laws must be placed on the books to curtail their blatant disregard for everyone else on the planet.

Smoking in public is far more dangerous than drinking alcohol in public, and it conveys the wrong message to younger people. Smoking is not cool anymore. It is a filthy, disgusting and stinky habit.

Smokers had a number of years to adjust to the new reality, but they chose en masse not to comply. Smokers have no one to blame, but themselves.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by rancelot

You certainly use a lot of words. Wouldn't it be simpler to just say:

"You didn't do what I wanted you to do, so now I have to make you do it by law."

Would be a lot more efficient...

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Well, you didn't quote the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights, only the Declaration of Independence.

But let's go with that. You should be outraged! You have the right to live! How dare anyone have to die! We should just make disease illegal, and death illegal while we're at it.

Please, you surely realize how flimsy that argument is, lawyer or not.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

in my understanding this means that all of us have the right to life but not only life as in "survival" and having to suffer from smoke being blown into our faces. it includes happiness which i would say for me is odorless air. ie without tobacco smoke smell.

of course a smoker argues that for them happiness means smoky air. as long as they can make sure their smoke does not reach the non-smokers to make them "unhappy" and this take away their right to life & happiness i don't care what they smoke or when they do it.

and as long as there are laws against kids buying smokes and not being allowed to smoke i would also expect that their parents would be punished accordingly for making them breathe in the second hand smoke.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
I don't know, sounds to me like you are the one with heath concerns... perhaps you should pay extra for your health care. After all, I'm not the one of us who is using the services of the health care industry, nor do I have any medical indications that I will be doing so (DOT physical every 2 years). You, on the other hand, seem awfully worried about keeling over from the effects of breathing...


i obviously have health "concerns" but as opposed to many people of my age that are sick, obese or who knows what else and taking tons of daily medication just to be able to function, my yearly physical comes back with no issues whatsoever. in fact if all people would be as healthy as I am and using the healthcare system/insurace as little as i do i think healthcare would cost much less, hospitals would be far less crowded and dangerous (less patients = rested doctors = less mistakes, less bugs, etc, etc, etc) and we'd all live longer lives. hospitals (and any medication) should only be used for life threatening emergencies.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
You know what? There are bad smells everywhere. By your logic, funky toilet smells should be illegal. Simply smelling that someone had a cigarette is not going to destroy you.

This is almost as silly as vegetarians saying that they get sick from eating meat when the only reason that happens is because they've deprived themselves of it for so long that their bodies don't know what to do.

The air you breathe is much more toxic than a cigarette.


actually there are laws that will force a landlord to clean up if funky toilet smells come into my apartment. but except for this wonderful law in california i have not heard of any law forcing a landlord to clean up cigarette smoke smell.

once again - we'll never have clean air as long as we want to keep our industrial way of life. on the other hand smoking is a recreational drug and it's optional. it is not part of survival such as the chemical industry which makes medication or the plastic for your keyboard and monitor.

if you stop the industry to get clean air we'll first get a huge famine (remember fertilizers?) then mass riots, then mass death. with a "natural" way of life this planet can only sustain a few hundred million. so yea i'm willing to avoid living in some areas that have polluting industries knowing that i can still get food from the grocery store and upgrade my laptop in a couple of years.

do you understand the difference between need and want? between survival and recreation? that's the difference between the pollution created by industry vs smoking. stop the industry and you'll most likely see the "end of the world". stop smoking and you'll just have a bunch of angry people who need to find a better hobby and some nicotine patches.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
its more about separating people out and into different groups... smokers\overweights\drinkers all stuff that is legal they want to control even more. why yo ask its because like motorists who cant just stop driving because they need there car and get hammered all the time for more money these people will have to pay more and more ...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Well I am not sure about you folks, but I smell a way to make some money
. I open a "smoking bar" if you will, a bar where people will be able to enjoy smoking on their own time. Obviously they will have to pay to enter, I mean how am I suppose to make money? Heh. Along with that, I will have cigarettes for people to purchase in there, and charge an outstanding rate, for income of course. The biggest kicker is that a large portion of the money I make will go to towards the government so they will stay quiet, and I become rich, and the government gets what they want, people smoking cigarettes in a particular area so they can't "endanger anybody ever again"(I am saying this as sarcasticly as possible). Haha, I have no intention on actually doing this, but hey maybe one of you can make the most out of a crappy situation, and try this! I'm a glass half full kind of a guy
.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by nickendres]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret

in my understanding this means that all of us have the right to life but not only life as in "survival" and having to suffer from smoke being blown into our faces. it includes happiness which i would say for me is odorless air. ie without tobacco smoke smell.

There's a danger in interpretation, which is sorely evident in this quote. You claim the right to not only life as in survival, but in happiness during that survival. So now we have the right to survival, happiness, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Well, guess what? I'm not happy with my present job. So that means my rights have been violated because I don't have the kind of job I want.

I'm not happy with the truck I drive. My rights are being violated because I don't have enough money to buy a better truck.

I'm really not happy that the last bailout bill was passed. My rights are now being violated.

Sounds silly, doesn't it? There's a reason; read on.


of course a smoker argues that for them happiness means smoky air. as long as they can make sure their smoke does not reach the non-smokers to make them "unhappy" and this take away their right to life & happiness i don't care what they smoke or when they do it.

You see, a right cannot be fairly applied as long as someone else is required to take action to provide it. I have the right to free speech; I do not have the right to be heard. ATS can, for example, decide to kick me out at any time, because they are under no obligation to support my right to free speech. They pay for the server and the bandwidth; they wrote the site (or paid to have it written); they maintain the servers. It is therefore their site and I have no right to try and force them to alll,ow me to use their site, their investment and their hard work, to satisfy my freedom of speech.

I have the right to freedom of assembly. That doesn't mean I can get a bunch of my friends together and decide we want to meet at your house. We have the right to assemble, but not to force others to help us assemble.

And this can also be applied to this fictitious right to clean air. You do not have that right, because it would require someone else to furnish it for you. Someone would have to clean the air for you to have clean air, and your rights can require no one else to act as your servant. your claim to a right that requires me to make efforts to keep your air 'clean' is obviously a right which requires assistance from me to obtain and therefore cannot be a right at all.

I do not even have a right to a cigarette, because that would mean that someone would have to make the cigarette for me. But I might have the right to smoke one if I purchase it, because that requires no one else's involvement. You have the right to clean your air, but you do not have the right to force me to help you in that endeavor. You pay for the gas mask.



and as long as there are laws against kids buying smokes and not being allowed to smoke i would also expect that their parents would be punished accordingly for making them breathe in the second hand smoke.

Ah, so now your 'rights' appear to go inside my home and private life. Nice. How about this right?

Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Source: www.usconstitution.net...

Nasty little thing, that Constitution... always getting in the way of so many great ideas... But even besides that, since you know so well how to run a person's life, I'd like to see your life first. I mean, since you are so great at running lives and making decisions, you should be happy to prove to everyone how you have never made a bad decision and your life has worked out perfectly. No fights, no legal trouble (this includes traffic tickets!), never been in any kind of trouble, never a problem paying the bills, never gone unemployed, and, oh yes, I would assume you would want to brag about how your children have absolutely no health issues and never will.

In other words, live your own life and stop worrying about mine.


i obviously have health "concerns" but as opposed to many people of my age that are sick, obese or who knows what else and taking tons of daily medication just to be able to function, my yearly physical comes back with no issues whatsoever. in fact if all people would be as healthy as I am and using the healthcare system/insurace as little as i do i think healthcare would cost much less, hospitals would be far less crowded and dangerous (less patients = rested doctors = less mistakes, less bugs, etc, etc, etc) and we'd all live longer lives. hospitals (and any medication) should only be used for life threatening emergencies.

Whoops, we have an imperfection! Sorry, no cigar for you today (pun intended).

I have absolutely no health problems that require a doctor's assistance. I take no medicine. I accrue no medical bills. I ask for no one to assist me, no one to pay my way, no one to help me in any way. Both my children are as healthy as I am, both are excellent students and highly recognized for their charitableness and achievements in our community.

Sounds to me like you just want to run my life because you're tired of (unsuccessfully) trying to run your own.

No, thanks.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Revealation

Smoking doesn't calm the nerves but does the exact opposite.

Seems to be some debate on this subject. A quick fast search after reading your post turned up the same information, that nicotine acts as a stimulant. However, in my days, we were taught nicotine was a tranquilizer.

Now this is what I have understood. I do know that smoking will raise blood pressure, and the effect seems to be limited, though drastic. Perhaps it is that BP increase that is responsible for the stimulant definition?


Redneck,what's up my brother, how you been? The raise in pressure increase making the body work overtime is the reason for my post, though looking at my comment and how I'm going to agree with your next statement,It's gonna be a little contradicting.



I do know smoking definitely does not make me irritable or restless, as would be expected with a stimulant. I feel relaxed and peaceful after smoking; I feel stressed, and easily angered when I am unable to smoke (to the point of becoming belligerent and aggressive after a long enough period of denial). I find I fall asleep faster and sleep better when I have a smoke just before bed. That is not the action of a stimulant, but rather a tranquilizer (depressant).

Not trying to be argumentative here, but this does seem to be an area of the topic worth considering.


I agree. It's always good to get and analyze everything from all angles. After all there is never a clear cut answer.

Here's where it's contradicting (but makes sense, at least to me). I used to smoke and drink and sniff blo, weed trip, etc. You name it I probably did it. Was a wild NY youngbuck (God I hate this state). I believe that the irritation and restlesness comes from the withdrawal and the body's need to feed on the chemical. Once the bdy receives it it feels more relaxed.

Basically smoking isn't relaxing because it raises the bloodpressure wheras your body has to work overtime (stimulates) and the reason you feel more relaxed could be compared to a heroin addict detoxing with methodone. You need to slowly decrease the dosage so the body doesn't go into shock.That's why you feel relaxed when you get your dosage.
Not that I'm comparing you to a heroin addict but just using it as an example, so please don't take offence.


Don't think I'm being judgemental, because believe me, I'm extremely open minded and aint offended by anyones lifestyle. Besides it would just make me a hypocrite considering I smoked/partied since I was 12 .I definately understand the point of view and know first hand from experience.Guess that's what makes it intersting. Rather than listen to someone who has never experienced it state their opinions. At least i have experienced both ends of the spectrum.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
First, singled for smoking in public and now the home isn't safe. I smoke and so do many people I know. It's not like it is done to intentionally irritate people. I know the descrimination is intentional. I feel like Dennis Leary in Demolition Man. ---"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?" ---I take offense to the snide little eh-heh cough that some snobs tend to give. Guess what, it's outdoors, get over it. Quit breathing my smoke, you're wasting it and it costs too much.


Also, I hope you understand that I am well aware of the dangers of smoking. I chose to anyhow and that is my fault. I would like to quit, but it really is a gov't sanctioned drug addiction for the sake of tax money. I'm sure the state of California doesn't mind collecting on all of the tobacco revenue. The niccotine levels have been increased gradually over the years, making it harder to quit while smokers smoke more than ever before. Is it a bad habit (nail biting), or is it a drug addiction on par with most narcotic addictions? And they choose to make everyone believe that marijuana is "dangerous." Not like that.

[edit on 2/3/2009 by venom79x]

[edit on 2/3/2009 by venom79x]

[edit on 2/3/2009 by venom79x]



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join