It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


NJ woman chides NYC smoker, gets stabbed with pen (smoking verses non smoking)

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:16 AM

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
reply to post by PrinceDreamer

Emotive huh ? I thought I was being logical.

I tell you this as a mortician. Forget the stories of people smoking and living full healthy lives. That is 1 in a million. If you smoke you will die younger, and it will not be a nice death. You are going to suffer. Not opinion, fact

Logical and unemotional enough for you ?

People die from Aspirin, should we ban all aspirin?
People die from traffic accidents, should we ban all cars?
People die from alcohol, should we ban all alcohol?
People die from horse riding, should we ban horse riding?
People die from skiing, should we ban skiing?

Lots of things kill people, we cant ban them all. Smoking is my personal choice, and if it kills me so be it, it is my right to choose and not your right to choose for me, and as a mortician be grateful, its keeping you in work.
You think you can dictate the lives of others, well you can't

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by atlasastro

"Hey pot" says the kettle,

"You're black."

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper

Originally posted by Jefferton
I am highly allergic to cigarette smoke. If I breath it in my breathing immediately becomes difficult. That might be the "cough cough" thing you find so annoying.

I find not breathing annoying. I guess it depends on your point of view.

But you have just as much ability to stand up and leave as the guy does have the ability to light up and smoke. No one is forcing you to stay in the given environment. You made that choice.....
Yeah and if the choice is to sit and stay where you choose, then why should someone be allowed to smoke? I would have said something to the pen jerk too, and took a face slashing, then laughed as this insane jerk stews in prison.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:25 AM
reply to post by onehuman

I would have stabbed her in the neck with the pen right in the jugular. When will people learn A) STFU and stay out of other peoples' business, B.) It's a free effing country, and Cigarettes are NOT illegal yet! and C.) if you don't like it, then MOVE!

The stupidity amongst humanity abounds!
edit on 21-4-2011 by ldyserenity because: spelling & add on

Sorry, upon closer inspection, It was on a subway, which I believe that smoking is banned on a subway on the actual train at least, he was wrong, I would not have ever lighted up on a bus or a train.
edit on 21-4-2011 by ldyserenity because: So I could add something

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:28 AM
reply to post by The Sword

Winston Churchill
George Patton
Douglas MacArthur
J.R.R. Tolkien
C.S Lewis
Albert Einstein
Max Planck
Many, many presidents, founding fathers, world class scientists, authors, doctors, etc, etc, etc...
Geez what a bunch of bottom feeders.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by onehuman

I would have stabbed her in the neck with the pen right in the jugular. When will people learn A) STFU and stay out of other peoples' business, B.) It's a free effing country, and Cigarettes are NOT illegal yet! and C.) if you don't like it, then MOVE!

The stupidity amongst humanity abounds!
edit on 21-4-2011 by ldyserenity because: spelling & add on
So you advocate attempted murder for exercising a constitutional right to speak freely? And while smoking may be legal I am quite sure it is ILLEGAL on a subway. How about if you (in general meaning smokers) want to smoke where there is a legal expectation of no smoking allowed, then why don't you just sit there and take your social consequence for yyour rude behavior, instead of going attempted murder on people?

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by atlasastro

Smoking is dumb and ugly. It is that simple. Science supports that.

Show me a scientific reports that proves smoking is ugly? Oh you mean its your opinion? As for dumb, it is my choice not yours, I derive pleasure from smoking, you don't smoke and therefore don't know the pleasure I get, yet you are stating something as fact, kinda makes you dumb

Smoke is harmful, period. Indoors our outdoors does not negate that. The difference is that outdoors increases diffussion of the smoke. The smoke still stinks, it still has all the cancer causing chemicals in it.

And it is this dissipation that ensures it is not harmful in an external environment, as to whether it stinks is irrelevant to the argument

Yes, when it is harmful, damn straight I have the right to challenge people. Your rights end where mine begin.

It is not harmful to you in an external environment, your argument is illogical. Nor do you determine where my rights end, that is in the hands of parliament not you. Although you like to be a fascist dictator it is only in your mind where it has any relevance.

I guess the right to have clean air inpinges on your freedom hey! You are right, self-rightuous attitudes are dumb and ugly. The funny thing about your comment is that you are some how excersizing your freedom when you have a smoke. You are not free, you are an addict satisfying a need. You are a slave to a habit. You are a dupe of the tabacoo giants that have specifically designed a product to ensnare you. So lets cut the crap about being free hey!

I am not a slave, I can control when I do or do not smoke, is it a habit yes, I haven't ever tried to say smoking wasn't. But I a free to choose whether to continue with that habit or not, Whether you like it or not is of no importance to me, to me you are just a nobody, a nothing. And I haven't been duped, I know full the risks of smoking, yet I choose to smoke anyway. And that is what people like you will never understand, personal freedom, the right to choose, it lies with the individual

Your analogy is B.S. and you know it. The automotive industry has endeavoured to clean enigine emissions, not to mention countries have instituted compulsory filters and targets for more efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels. Not to mention that many countries have introduced a carbon tax on fossil fuels to battle the very issues you raise here:

No it is not BS, Traffic fumes have a huge detrimental effect on the environment, or is global warming not happening? And how does taxing people more stop cars doing damage to the environment, nor does cleaning fuels lessen the damage. The big difference here is you want to drive your car and don't give a damn how it affects others or the world around you, yet calling me for smoking a cigarette which does no damage to the environment at all. Your just a hypocrite of the worst order

If your activity, that is an addiction, effects my freedom, I'll let you know. When smokers get that into their heads, you might not seem so dumb and ugly. Don't bother replying. You will just be blowing more smoke.

My smoking does not affect your freedom in any way, does my smoking put you in chains? does it lock you in prison? Does my smoking here in the UK prevent you doing anything there in Australia? NO just more pathetic dictatorial BS

You attitude to others is what is UGLY and DUMB, and the only thing that smells is your BS arguments, And I will reply to what I want, again it is my choice not yours. Stop being so moronic

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:47 AM
Wow theres some sensitive people out there, ouch i guess im really retarted and the righteous non smokers are geniuses, WOW somebody needs a hug or to get laid , wow im amazed by the language used againts me a poor undecucated retard eheheh wow.

Thanks for proving my point lol, get a life

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:00 AM
I was at a bar recently...actually no, I was outside the bar in the designated smoking area, when two women walked up and tried to make me stop. I let them have it. "Who the (bleep) do you think you are lady? Go to hell. If I felt the need to listen to some (bleep) tell me how to lead my life I might vote for a damn democrat!"

No more tolerance here. Step up to the plate and receive your just deserts.

*mods, I did my best to convey the actual quote without upsetting any tender earholes

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by lifeform11
i don't like b.o. it causes me great discomfort and makes me feel sick. where do we draw the line with this reasoning? pertrol smells give me headaches to.

You are not comparing like for like.

''Discomfort'' was probably a poor choice of word on my part, I'll admit. I was actually thinking of physical discomfort caused to people such as asthma sufferers, who can have their pre-existing illness exacerbated by inhaling smoke fumes.

I am a smoker and suffer with Asthma, smoking has not ever and doesn't now affect my asthma (unless I am sick with a cold like today, then it will exacerbate the problem). So not all asthma sufferers are equal. Just saying. Now Marijuana smoke will throw me right into a asthma attack, but I can still be in a closed up house where someone is smoking it just not right next to them. Once it mixes with air it's less harmful and won't throw me into an attack. The point is, it depends on how much smoke is in the area. and how close you are to it, at least in my experience,.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:06 AM
reply to post by onehuman

What I really dont get it IS why dont they just compromise? Put a sign on the door,"This is a smoking establishment," or This is a "Non Smoking establishment." Then water can seek its own level and the smokers wont bother the non smokers and visa versa. Is it really that tough to make it that simple? Or, this is a smoking flight and this one isn't. Book your preference.

I agree. As an off again on again smoker (hard to quit for good) it's tough. I'd personally rather not sit at a restaurant trying to eat in a cloud of smoke. As a smoker, I never smoked in restaurants. Though smoking rooms should be an option, it has been tried here before.

In Canada there is a large chain of coffee shops called "Tim Horton's" after an old hockey player (go figure). 'Back in the day' they were of course smoking establishments, selling coffee and all. Then, before any laws or regulations came into effect, they went non smoking.

Obviously this caused a backlash with the smoking customers not wanting to stand in the parking lot in the rain or snow. So to fix this, they tried meeting us half way. *SOME* Tim Horton's set up a glass walled room with separate ventilation for smokers.

Epic fail. Why? Well because even with separate ventilation the smell still comes into the restaurant. Yes, negative pressure would fix this, but come on, it's a coffee shop. Beyond that, the non smokers could still SEE us. And there's the thing.

It's not enough to have designated smoking areas. It's not enough to have separate ventilation systems. If they can still SEE us, a chunk of non smokers will still complain. They don't want us to smoke, at all, and even just SEEING us is too much for them to take.

I have heard of a loop hole that allows for smoking bars. Not a bar, essentially the backroom of any good cigar store, a smoking lounge that sells tobacco and only tobacco. I have yet to see a single 1 of these in operation myself.

Anyways back to the topic. While I in no way endorse this crazy mentally disturbed man slashing this woman in the face, i would like to know how exactly did she ask him?

Was it : "Excuse me sir there is no smoking on these trains please don't light that"

Or was it : "How DARE you smoke that near me you ignorant " whilst getting all 'up in my face'

Because for every #1, I've had about 10 #2 (yes I just said i had a #2 grow up)

Witnesses told the Daily News and the New York Post that an argument quickly escalated when Evelyn Seeger asked the man not to smoke.

Now I can read that and take it in one of two ways.

1. She asked and he got agitated and argumentative
2. She got agitated and argumentative in asking him not to smoke

Not that the this really makes any difference in the fact the guy NEEDS to be locked up, I would like a better picture of what exactly took place. My mom lived in NJ for awhile and I visted NJ and NY a few times, meeting some pretty insane and angry people in both states (as well as very nice people). Actually my first trip into New York city involved an argument with someone over a parking spot a la Seinfeld, which very quickly escalated to near violence. I had just spent a winter alone up in the Miramichi (eastern canadians will know) and I was not helping the situation at all, but if you are going to act like a prick to my mom, I don't play that. I keep it real.
edit on 21-4-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-4-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:28 AM
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that in this particular case, smoking would have prevented her cheek from being slashed with an ink pen. Might need to do a few more tests of these conditions in order to consider it scientifically proven, though.

What has had studies done on it though is that often times people will lash out and fight back when they have be pushed and pressured too much by a majority. Non-Smokers as a majority are pushing the Smokers into smaller areas with more dominating control over them. Lashing out is a natural reflex when it hits the tipping point. And everyone has different tipping points.

The problem here is a situation that I consider to be drunk with power. Not satisfied with just sections or even whole establishments that were non-smoking, the empowered decided that they had to have authority over the patrons and owners of other establishments that in most cases had already over accommodated demands by wasting space for segregation for the non-smokers.

Of course non-smoking areas were like trying to be in non-peed-in areas of a pool that had be peed in. Many times as a smoker, I had to sit in a non-smoking section. When I wanted a smoke, I had to get up and walk to the smoking section. Funny thing is perfect strangers there would invite me to sit at their table to enjoy one versus just standing around like an outcast. because they were sympathetic to the situation and had been in it themselves.

But everyone likes science, so here is some science. People either can or cannot process nicotine. The number who can not is a fairly small number. The ones that can not and try to smoke, usually smoke less than 7 cigarettes per day. The majority of people that are "harmed" by cigarette smoke experience the problem as a result of psychosomatic conditioning as they typically don't mind cigars or pipers and in many cases flavored cigarettes that give off a pleasant aroma such as cherry or apple. Many people that think they have asthma do not have asthma, they have panic attacks which are psychological in nature. And some people with asthma can and will smoke cigarettes on occasion.

And finally, smoking is a mild depressant. The people that smoke do so to reduce stress. Some to reduce stress but most to relieve the stresses of the nicotine addiction. Addiction withdrawal symptoms include anger and violence. By social ridicule, pressure and denial of self medication, the non-smokers are creating a dangerous situation unwittingly that is fully backed and endorsed by the establishment that is aware of that situation and is using it for their own means.

In short, the most harmful side effect of cigarettes on non-smokers is delusions of grandeur, which is the first step to megalomania.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:28 AM
(double post)
edit on 21-4-2011 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:29 AM
people make their own decisions. if smoking bother you, then you should be the one to leave. that woman deserved what she got. i don't know whats worse, the carcinogens in cigarettes that are killing you off, or the people who try to control you. we are all just puppets who don't control anything anyway.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:29 AM
people make their own decisions. if smoking bother you, then you should be the one to leave. that woman deserved what she got. i don't know whats worse, the carcinogens in cigarettes that are killing you off, or the people who try to control you. we are all just puppets who don't control anything anyway.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:40 AM
reply to post by HabaneroPepper

the smoker is choosing to engage in an action which he or she knows is harmful to themselves and those around them. the non smoker simply is non smoking, not harming anyone. So, when you put two people next to each other, one who is doing nothing to harm or annoy those around them, and one who is performing a conscious action which does annoy and harm those around them, who is wrong? why does it matter who owns the air? if I were walking around shooting a gun at random, you wouldn't protect my right to do so, just as I wouldn't belittle the requests of non-random-gun-shooters to not be shot. why do you get the right to choose what the people around you breath?

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:44 AM
reply to post by hotbakedtater

Yeah I fixed my original post, but yeah if someone goes out of their way to come up in my face out in the open where I can smoke...if they catch me on a bad day, I won't condone murder, but I still may Do It. LOL!

Anyway there is no more use in discussing as the offender was smoking whacky tobaccy.

But just so you know, Known smokers of tobacco die 85% of them die from smoking regular cigarettes... known deaths from marijuana 0%, second hand smoke cigarette cause approximately 45% of the people exposed, known death tolls of marijuana second-hand smoke (who know I don't even know if it's been studied) but I am willing to bet less than 1%.
This is the truth.

Also back to cigarettes, full on organic tobacco has none of these harmful chemicals. Government and tobacco companies pumped these toxins into them knowingly to fit their agenda of population reduction and control...if not they would just have left the damn thing nature gave us the freaking hell alone! I am going to start growing my own tobacco and rolling my own cigarettes anyway as the taxes are ridiculous to pay for all those poisons they knowingly add to the mainstream cigarettes.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by RicoMarston

I can hear the whammmmmmmmmmmbulance coming to pick you up lol, thanks for the nice exageration there buddy, if ya need a hug im sure someone wont mind somewhere eheheh...

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by clintdelicious

I dont want myself and my clothes to smell of smoke because someone lights up in front of me,

Do you have the ability to remove yourself from that location?

A simple yes or no will suffice?

( Its ok, we know the answer, go ahead and admit it)

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by RicoMarston

one who is doing nothing to harm or annoy those around them, and one who is performing a conscious action which does annoy and harm those around them,

Again, can the non-smoker remove themselves from said situation? odds are yes. The fact still remains people, that those whom do not smoke, can in 99% of all situations, get up and leave. So whats the problem. If a smoker wants to smoke, that his/her right. If the a non-smoker doesnt like it...leave. Not a difficult concept to grasp?

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in