Attention citizens! You will enforce this no-smoking law!

reply to post by SG-17


SG-17

I have just as much a right to be offended as you do! You have not consititional right to eat meat, burn candles, burn wood, wear perfume

This isn't a straw man argument but thank you very much for trying to dismiss it as one. You reveal yourself as a shill for anti-tobacco when you attack the poster instead of the argument.

Go ahead - try to prove that any of the things I mentioned do NOT put carcinogens and contaminants in the air.

burningissues.org...

Are you the only one who can be intolerant and whiny? Why should you be able to tell smokers not to "assault you" but I can't tell wood burners and candle burners the very same thing?

Tired of Control Freaks.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I never said that they don't. Don't try to put words into my mouth. I said that cigarette has much higher concentrations of carcinogens, especially in enclosed areas like restaurants (smoking/non-smoking areas are just pretend lines), other businesses, homes, and vehicles.


Plus your argument is a strawman. The examples you provided have no comparison to cigarette smoke, with perhaps the exception of car exhaust.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I have never been a smoker. I hate the smell the smoke and the ashes and butts are disgusting. Having said that I am not enforcing anything much less this. First time I get hit in the mouth or worse. Who is going to pay my doctor bills. When I try to defend myself who is going to pay my lawyer fees. A lot of people get more than a little upset over their smokes. Anyone thinking that this is going to be absent of confrontations is in a fools paradise. These people ar drug addicts and addicts can get pretty nasty. The cops may not have time to enforce laws that they are creating. However they will have to make time to clean up the after effects.

I didn't read any of the replies I just wanted to state my view as a smoker of 25 years. I have no problem at all not smoking in public. I purchased a e-cig about 2 years ago that I carry when I go out. So as far as not smoking cigs in public I got no issues. I don't even smoke inside my own home because years ago when my parents came to visit and stayed the night my mother said something about the stale smell smoke was bothering her. Since then only outside my house is permitted. And, you had better not throw a butt down anywhere on my 200 acres of land. I don't and expect others to put it out and pocket it till you can dispose of it properly.

Many smokers feel they fall outside of being outside of something as simple as just being respectful of others because they are a smokers. I know people don't like it and I don't light up in crowds even if its permitted. I carry cig butts to trash and will not just flick them where ever. They are trash just like anything else. But, thats just me I suppose. If I choose to tempt cancer I personally feel I should keep it away from others who do not want to take that chance.

Btw....I love smoking lol and have since I was a kid. Have no plans on quitting in the near future.

reply to post by SG-17


Obviously SG-17 - like all intolerent whiners who like to control their neighbours lives - you failed to examine the link I provided

AVERAGED EMISSIONS OF FINE PARTICLES IN GRAMS PER HOUR: Mary J. Rozenberg, Burning Issues/ Clean Air Revival, Inc., 12/1/98

Fireplace Soft wood=59 grams/hour.
Fireplace Hard wood=30 grams/hour
1993 and older Diesel truck & bus=70 grams/hr
1994 and newer 14 ton Diesel truck=36 grams/hour
Single simulated (synthetic) log= 8 grams to 40 grams/per log
Non Certified Stove4 = 15.6 grams/hour
Certified Stove4 = 8.2 grams/hour (or 196.8 grams/day)
Pellet Stove 2.4 grams/hour (or 57.6 grams/day)
Auto-catalytic=.66 grams/hour (Driving 3 hours =1.92 grams)
Auto non catalytic=3.5 grams/hour
Auto smoking =6 grams/hour
(30)Cigarette =.4 grams/hour
Oil furnace=.02 grams/hour
Gas or Propane Furnace=.001grams/hour

Notice this - 1 fireplace in a restaurant puts out the very same contaminants at 59 grams/hour. thirty cigarettes being smoking in the same restaurant puts out only 0.4 grams per hour. The fireplace is vented outdoors and contaminates the whole neighbourhood - the smokers don't!

Would you like to compare candles and cigarette smoke?

Lets ask the asthmatics how they feel about perfume?

NO NO - SG-17 - you claim the right to not feel offended by a smell and to be free of "assault"! Well so do I!

You want to control my life then you must be equally prepared to be controlled by me!

Tired of Control Freaks

In a ham fisted, round about way, all you people who are getting uptight with each other have hit upon the real reason behind all this.
It's to create divisions, to make us see only what separates us as people, rather than what unites us.

In a very small way, this is mind control, and very subtle.

reply to post by SprocketUK


SprocketUK

You hit it right on the head! The anti-smoking movement is financed by Big Pharma and WHO is its enforcer! The purpose of the anti-smoking movement is control. Carefully make note of the fact that the very same propaganda is now being used against other groups (fatties, drinkers, smellers etc).

So lets all work at making sure that we never offend our neighbours or put them at risk of a "tantamount assault". Lets ban everything that may give offense to anyone!

We will all get up at a specified time in the morning, we will all exercise at 1.5 hours per day, we will all eat a vegetarian diet, we will all walk or drive an electric car, we will give up fragances, candles, fires for the sake of ambiance or fun, no more wood burning stoves, fireplace, no candles, no air fresheners.

And most of all, like every waitress/waiter or bar owner in the country, we are now unacknowledged enforcement officers, who must, without fail, rat out our neighbours and force them into compliance.

Differences will NOT be tolerated, our lives will be colourless and joyless but we will all be 'safe" from slightly elevated "risks" of disease. Won't it all be worth it? Why oh why won't anyone think of the children. No sacrifice is too great, if even one life is saved?

"Brother, do you not know that your body belongs to the state?"

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Provide a link from a reputable website and maybe I will consider it.


I dare you to show me someone who carries around a lit fireplace with them wherever they go. Your "examples" are moot. You can't.

Natural wood burning does not put out even close to the same amount of chemical carcinogens as a cigarette does. Humans have sat around campfires for hundreds of thousands of years.

Lets ask an asthmatic, I AM AN ASTHMATIC. Cigarette smoke is by far the most irritating substance on that little list of yours, hell natural smoke is even soothing, especially cannabis. If people would just smoke pure tobacco this wouldn't even be an issue. The problem is with all of the additives that cigarette companies put in their tobacco to fluff it out and keep people buying more.

reply to post by SG-17


SG-17

So you are an asthmatic. SO WHAT! Why do I have to live as if I had your disease? What gives you the right to demand not be be "assaulted' if I don't have the same right?

You say the problem is with tobacco smoke but not other kind of smoke. What a schlemial you are? Smoke is smoke. It is the by-product of the combustion of any kind of organic. It all has the same metals, the same polyaromatic hydrocarbons, the same benzenes, the same formaldehyde, the same nitrosamines if the organic on fire has the same nicotene content (ie cooking eggplants and tomatoes).

What you are falling for and what you believe is the propaganda that anti-smokers have developed to hype the hysteria.

Did you know that at one time, we were told that smoking (and exposure to SHS) CAUSED asthma? That lie went out the window when the asthma rate went up 800 % since the 1960s, almost in lock step as the smoking rate in the population went down.

Did you know that the sole source of solensol is from tobacco and that many asthmatics find that they can forego medication if they just smoke when they feel an attack coming in. For a millenia, man burned organics in their homes to cook food and for heat. For millenia, our homes were filled with smoke and we all breathed it in. Our respiratory systems developed and evolved in the presence of smoke.

When we turned from the direct burning of organics to electricity and gas to heat our homes and cook our food, the respiratory systems of our children were not challenged. As a result, they became hypersensitive and we now have an epidemic of disable people dependent on Big Pharma to breath.

When I was a child, there was maybe only 1 kid in the neighbourhood who had asthma and life-threatening allergens were virtually unknown. Now since the anti-smokers had their way, everyone has asthma and allergies

There are thousands of contaminants that provoke the hypersensitive respitory systems of asthmatics including pollen and the most prevelent of all cockroach poop. How will eradicating just one make such a huge difference.

So would asthma and asthma attacks cease to exist if smoking were eradicated? The history of the last 50 years or so indicates that it would get worse.

And why does your being an asthmatic mean I can't enjoy a day in the park or at the beach or give up my consitutional right to peaceful assembly. If smokers can't assemble in public buildings, parks, beaches etc, then they lost their right to peaceful assembly.

Just where did you get the notion that you are more important than me? What other diseases should the public be changing their life style for? Many people are allergic to fragances - why would you, of all people, not support the ban on fragances? Are people with fragance allergies less important then you?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Oh please, you wouldn't lose your right to assembly. You don't need to smoke, it doesn't keep you from flopping over dead. It is a choice, something you could stop if you actually put what you have of a mind to it. You don't need to smoke to get to work, you don't need to smoke to heat your home, you don't need to smoke to cook your food. Stop with your self entitled BS, smokers have no special rights. I can't go around on the sidewalk pushing people over with consequences, you can't go around smoking in public without consequences.

reply to post by SG-17


SG-17

You obviously don't understand the concept of peaceful assembly! Peaceful assembly is not just the right to assemble in public. It is the right to assemble for a purpose. The supreme court has rules that swingers may assemble publically in a club in order to have sex with strangers. But smokers are not allowed to assemble with each other?

No I won't drop dead from not smoking. But I have chosen to smoke. It adds colour and life to MY life. If you can interfere with my pleasure and lifestyle to this point, then buddy - I have just as much right to interfere with yours!!!!

Because of anti-smoking propaganda, I am now being denied jobs and places to live. Just google it if you don't believe me.

You anti-smokers talk about smokers being slaves to the tobacco companies. But, you are absolutely right, I can quit smoking anytime I want. But you can't even breathe without paying money to Big Pharma for your asthma medication. So who is the slave now?

So tell me - with all the billions of dollars that have been spent by anti-smoking to get 1 part of the population to hate another part to the point where there is intolerance and hatred with the citizenry more than happy to rat out their friends and neighbours.

Tell me how the world is a much better place and how much has been accomplished!1

Smoking is far better for my health than fascism!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Do you realize how small of a number of asthmatics actually have severe enough asthma to require medicine? Compare that to the small number of tobacco smokers who actually smoke pure tobacco instead of the chemical-laden death sticks that Big Tobacco produces.

It isn't bigotry and hatred, it is an appreciation for common courtesy. People can still smoke in their homes (though they shouldn't if they have children) and on private property. "But aren't businesses private property?" Yes, but because they are businesses they have to have licenses and they have to follow the laws and rules that are required of them to have their license.

reply to post by SG-17


Mate you are on wrong side of fence ..tell me how smoking on Times Square will make damage to non smokers ?

When I was a smoker, I carried a portable ashtray in my pocket that would hold my butts and ashes and fold closed for storage. I wanted to make sure folks had one less thing to rag me about.

reply to post by xavi1000


It can get pretty crowded. Not to mention to huge amount of smokers who have a sense of self-entitlement so they just throw their butts on the ground instead of properly disposing of them.

reply to post by SG-17


SG-17

So now you want to talk about common courtesy? Since when is the government in the business of enforcing common courtesy? Is that why police have guns - to enforce common courtesy? What is next - death sentence for those who refuse to give up their seat on the bus to pregnant woman?

In the 1960s and 1970s - when anti-smokers demanded the courtesy of no-smoking in public buildings and places where people HAD to go in order to conduct their business - smokers politely complied with hardly a complaint. Now we have smoking bans that outlaw smoking in parks and sidewalks

In the 1980s, when anti-smoker demanded the courtesy of no-smoking on flights of less than 2 hours and that places of public entertainment should be non-smoking - smokers politely complied. Even though these places were not publically owned - we agreed to share for the comfort of non-smokers.

In the 1990s, when anti-smokers demanded the courtesy of no-smoking non-smoking sections in privately owned restaurants and bars - smokers politely complied.

Now in the 2000s, smokers are being denied jobs and places to live. We can't smoke in our own cars and homes. We can't smoke outdoors. There are colleges and universities with 25 acre properties who can't find a corner for smokers to smoke in. We are subject to rape and assault as we are ordered into back allies to stand beside dumpsters. We are charged exorbitant taxes for the cost of health care and then denied health care.

This isn't about courtesy - this is about coersion. We are being FORCED to give up smoking and to live the way someone else thinks we should live.

So don't talk to me about courtesy - I know discrimination, intolerance and hatred when I see it! Anti-smokers forgo any right to courtesy when anti-smoker policies came into play.

So how come ventilation works to prevent coal minors who would be dead in half an hour because of poisonous mine gases but not in bar where people are smoking?

And please answer the question - what makes you so all fired important that you feel you have the right to intrude on your neighbours? Are you the only one or are people who suffer from fragrance allergies just as important? Why should I have to put up with the smell of cooking meat if I am a vegetarian? Don't I have the same right to be offended as you do?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Again with the strawmen (in regards to the "smell of cooking meat").

If you would have read my posts you would have seen that I said that people have the right to smoke in their homes and on non-business private property where the owner allows it. Colleges and universities are private property, they can ban walking around with a cup of soda if they want to. Don't complain because they are providing you with an education and simply want to keep their campuses clean.

As for health care, smokers deserve to be charged more for health care since you are poisoning yourselves. While not every medical condition you may acquire will be because of your smoking, it doesn't help your immune system at all to smoke.

To all and sundry

Please be advised that I will no longer be pressured to be a collaborator in the anti-smoking plan of intolerence, hatred, seclusion and discrimination.

I will throw my cigarette butts on the ground because I am denied a place to sit with safety equipment like an ashtry so that I can indulge my personal preference in comfort like a human being and a net contributor to society. This is no worse than all the non-smokers who throw tons of trash all over the plant. They should remove the log from their own eye before trying to remove the mote from mine.

I will no longer have sympathy for people with disorders who try to inflict the consequences of their disorders on me. I will not be subjected to emotional blackmail by sick people who think its ok to steal my money to pay for their health care and who support denying me the very same health care.

I will answer back to any anti-smoker who tries to convince me that smoking is unhealthy. Had SG-17 been exposed to cigarette smoke in his childhood, he may well have never become disabled with asthma. There has been NO decrease in the disease burden of the population in the past 50 years even though smoking rates have gone from 60 % of the population down to 20 % and absolutely no benefit from anti-smoking campaigns, especially not the ones that take the rights away from legal property owners.

I will give courtesy only when courtesy is given to me. I will go to bars and restaurants that provide me with a safe and comfortable smoking environment and will boycott all others (especially tim horton's). I will not support any charity involved in anti-smoking so as to avoid financing my own destruction.

I will boycott all businesses who boycott smokers.

I will disobey unjust laws that fail to respect my constitutional rights.

I demand my own rights to intolerence and protection from the government so as to get as many people to feel the same intolerence and discrimination that smokers have felt - beware fatties, drinkers, smellers, bbq's, wood burners, candle burners etc. I am just as important as SG-17 and have the same right to "courtesy" as he does!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by SG-17


SG-17

There is no straw man argument when it comes to the smell of cooking meat. You are mistaken. Read over this thread again and count the number of people who support smoking bans simply because they "don't like the smell".

I don't like the smell of cooking meat. Why should I have to go into a restaurant to pay good money for my vegetarian meal and have to tolerate that smell? Ban it! Eat meat in your own home!!!

As for your argument that you don't support the ban of smoking in homes - sorry buddy - if you support banning smoking in a park or outside, I don't believe you. If the smell of smoke was coming from another apartment into a hallway where you have to walk - then I believe you would totally attack your neighbour.

As for colleges and universities being private property - wrong again - they are public institutions. They are supported by tax dollars. The students pay rent to live in their little rooms. Those rooms are their private homes. Yet you support them not being able to smoke in their private homes???? And why shouldn't colleges and universities provide some comfortable smoking area for smokers. After all, smokers acceded without complaint to not smoking in the classrooms for the comfort of their non-smoking pees. It was common courtesy. Then smokers agreed not to smoke anywhere in the buildings, again as a courtesy for their non-smoking peers. Isn't a little courtesy due to smokers? What would the problem be with setting aside small sheltered areas with comfortable seating and ashtrays?

Are you saying that courtesy is only for the non-smoker and not for the sub-human evil smokers?

Tired of Control Freaks.

SG-17

Ok - lets pretend that I agree that smokers should be charged more for universal health care because they incur more costs (its not really universal then is it)

If you add up all the taxes that smokers pay plus you will find that smokers use about 1 dollar for every 5 that they actually pay - so in fact - smokers are subsiding health care. In particular pay attention to the program that provides health care for children provided solely by tax dollars on cigarettes (come on - if you love children, buy a carton)

Then shouldn't smokers also be able to claim their pensions sooner because they don't live as long. And shouldn't the cost of caring for old age be refunded to smokers because they don't live as long.

If non-smokers can demand that smokers pay more for their health care - then shouldn't I be able to demand that drinkers, fatties,drug addicts do the same? What about the money for the care of athetic injuries? people who right motocycles and indulge in risky sports? What about the big one? Why should you be allowed to have more than 1 child if I gotta pay the health care? Why do I gotta pay for sexually transmitted disease for people who choose to have sex with more than 1 partner?

Doesn't my contribution to health care allow me to control every aspect of your life?

Or how about, if I take back all my cigarette taxes and the current funds I pay to health every year (about $8,000 / year and take responsibility for my own health care? Screw you and your asthma and your kids. If I have to put up with your intolerence, hatred and discrimination, why should I care if you have health care?

Don't you agree that what is good for the gander is good for the goose?

Tired of Control Freaks.