Bloomberg is A Waste Of Oxygen Now He Wants To Hide Cigarettes

reply to post by XGodofWar


Could you maybe calm down with the insults? You seem to understand that nicotine is addictive, yet call smokers 'stupid morons'. So sorry I made a mistake when I was 15. Fk me and my life though, right? Maybe I WILL get cancer instead of dying from a heart attack at 40 like my father, thanks! You are so superior. Thank you for never making a mistake in life, because now I have someone to look up to.

How is hiding cigarettes going to help save smokers from themselves? You've obviously never been chemically addicted to anything. Do you think hiding them will somehow change our physically re-wired brain? LOL. As long as they're available to buy, they will be bought. That's why I'm not in full opposition to this nonsense, it does nothing.

This has nothing to do with current smokers, this is an attempt to prevent new smokers. The anti-smoking zealots want smokers to die off. They would rather a young parent DIE of cancer than support the use of 99% less-harmful tobacco products.

To me, that is unforgivable and pure evil. They need to be 100% truthful with kids and adults. They need to educate, not obfuscate. Then we are free to decide on our own what we put into our body. When/if the time comes that a nicotine addict wants to quit smoking, they need to be allowed the most effective method of quitting. Quitting smoking but not nicotine.

THAT is the solution to "saving the children". Let them decide on their own based on facts instead of fabrications. Let them make mistakes. Then when they want to quit, GIVE THEM AN OUT when there is one instead of saying "F YOU, DIE!"

reply to post by kykweer


kykweer

You just keep ducking the question don't you?

How does my smoking in my own private car, on a separate airplaine, in a separate train car, in a separate restaurant and in a separate bar affect you?????

If smokers can see non-smoking signs on the door and choose not to go in, why can't anti-smokers see a smoking allowed sign on the door and also choose not to go in???

You are quite obsessed with controlling the behavior of people you don't know, in places where you don't have to go, aren't you!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


hahaha, look i seriously believe you are just trolling, the economical impact of what you are suggesting just isn't feasible anymore.

I have clearly already said that, you smoking doesn't affect me i don't care because it's your choice. Just don't smoke next to me in a public place, or at least have the decency to ASK if you can smoke next to me, don't be spitefull

Why can't you think if the economical impact ir transport companies catering for smokers (that need to use their modes of transport ANYWAY). Why should they spend more money to keep smokers happy? and smokers WON'T stick to rules anyway.

Bar's on the other hand probably goes hand in hand with smoking, still sucks waking up and smelling like crap, but you have a choice to go.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


kykweer

reply to post by kykweer


Kykweer

So now your concern is for someone's else profits?

Are you now an expert on this topic as well?

Isn't it funny that the anti-smoker campaigner's insisted that ALL bars and restaurants, flights and train cars be non-smoking? They insisted that it had to be a "level-playing field" Why was that necessary?

Perhaps because they knew that there were already non-smoking establishments in existance and that people, in general, still preferred to patronize smoking facilities.

There was a man in Smith Fall's, Canada who opened a private club in a separate building. He had NO staff and you had to pay a fee to join. The Health Unit - despite the fact that smoking in this building did not harm anyone as no one had to enter the building, except private members who paid for the priviledge, closed down this club quicker than I can blink! They laid charges on the day before the club opened

www.cbc.ca...

This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court had ruled that Swingers were entitled to assemble peacefully in their own private club for the purpose of swinging.

I repeat - the anti-smoker campaign is NOT about health. Its about control

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


You can lead sheeple to water but you can't make 'em drink.

I think the the Non Smokers who have commented on this thread are the EXACT SAME KIND of people who have forced these laws upon us. AND you are right, it is all about control.

Now, if you threaten some of their vices you might see them being the first in line to kick the dying horse.

My point is that when they have No Rooster in the fight, people will gang up on everything they dislike, UNTIL it is something that affects them.

reply to post by Petriclivicus


What can I say - PURITANS - always just one more regulation from utopia!

Yes I agree - the people that are still commenting on this thread are volunteers for some anti-smoker organization. That is part of the campaign. Have volunteers who monitor web sites and write letters to the editor.

They are the ones who try to divert the discussion by talking about things like cigarette butt litter to enforce the image of smokers as "dirty' people. They are the ones who just "can't stand" the smell of tobacco smoke but say nothing about the smell of BO and farts that now dominate in bars and restaurants.

No matter what kind of good information you give them - now matter what studies you present - no matter what points you put forward, they will always respond "on message". They never ever have one good thing to say about smokers or tobacco.

Don't ever point out to them that smokers may die in their 70s but they will die just a few years later after spending some time in a nursing home, drooling in their diapers from Alzhiemer's, Parkinsons or MS. They will never admit that they have caused HARM to people

They are offended by the very sight of anything that looks like smoking (e-cigs) or at the sight of smokers enjoying themselves.

They think they are invincible. However, they are merely a social fad that people get quickly tired of very quickly. Their prohibition movements all end. Heck they succeeded in getting the Constitution of the United States amended to ban alcohol and lost it all within 10 years.

Their personalities are rigid and their demands are ever escalating, chaotic and hysterical Even in their success, they are sowing the seeds of their own failures.

Every time they rise to the top, they almost immediately fall as people recognise them more and more as psychotic control freaks.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


What is really funny is how they evade direct questions.
In addition to their failure to respond when you have posted some factual data.
That is just VERY FUNNY to me.

It exhibits their week a$$ position to start with.

Like I said, first in line to kick the dying horse.

reply to post by BanTv


your first source there is an actual research paper, which is what i was looking for...

as i said, snus is obviously going to eliminate any potential respiratory harm, because you're not breathing it....but it's still packed between your cheek and teeth.....so it will most likely still contribute to, at least, tooth decay.


i don't believe nicotine causes cancer...and the cancer argument is kinda silly anyway...it all comes down to exposure, and genetic predisposition.

i used to be a pack, or a pack and a half a day when i was working...now i'm maybe a pack every 2-3 days..and i didn't need to wind down use either...one day i'm working, the next day, i lose my job, and the day after that, i'm down to like 5-7 cigarettes a day.

reply to post by XGodofWar


What is wrong with you? it is not the role of government to legislate what you eat, drink, or smoke...those are personal choices. and that stupidity about "trying to help people too stupid to help themselves" is just that; stupidity.

what the hell makes you, or him, any more right, or your OPINIONS any more valid than anyone else?

i am sick death of the ignorant, arrogant, condescending, insulting attitude of people like you....people who believe that because they don't like something, that NOBODY should be allowed to have it, because somehow, while nobody was looking, you were granted supreme knowledge, that allows you to say confidently that you know better than everyone.

get over yourself, and stop defending stupidity.

bloomberg has MUCH MORE PRESSING ISSUES to deal with.....his city is still seriously messed up from sandy..maybe he should be more concerned with ACTUALLY helping people than pushing nanny-state garbage on people....in other words, he should do his damn job.

reply to post by kykweer


and the whole "second hand smoke will kill you" argument is bunk too...

it's based on a report from the EPA, done in, i believe, the 80's or 90's....and it said that second hand smoke MAY POSSIBLY have a SLIGHT impact on surrounding persons...

the anti-tobacco bunch took that to mean "oh look, smokers are trying to kill us", and so the myth was started that second hand smoke is just as dangerous, if not more so, than actually lighting one up yourself...

i can understand if you don't care for the smell, that's cool...but don't try to make it out like second hand is some massive health risk that's gonna kill you tomorrow..

reply to post by Daedalus


As far as Second hand smoke goes I am with you on that 100%.
It is absolutely BUNK.

Let me just tell you how full of Scitten that really is:
Once upon a time I had an employee fail a drug test and showed positive
for Marijuana. You will Not believe what he said. .. .
His response was " I am being wrongly accused. I Never did Smoke any of it. I was
with some people at their house and they did it and I was affected by the Second hand Smoke ".
So, I felt bad for the guy. I called the testing facility to go to bat for him.

They tell me " Pull your head out of your A$$ and stop being so Naive ". and I said " Huh? ".
They said it is MERELY IMPOSSIBLE to fail a test from second hand pot smoke. Furthermore the
test showed that he had a level of 424 nanograms in his system which meant that he either smoke
early in the morning before work OR smoked one on the way to the testing facility.

Talk about embarrassed. I was fit to be tied. I fired his butt right directly.

It was then that I knew the whole " Second Hand " smoke argument did NOT hold water.

reply to post by Petriclivicus


i mean, you CAN get a contact high from cannabis...but you hafta be around multiple users for it to be meaningful...and with levels that high....no, that's way beyond what you'd get from just being around cannabis..

reply to post by kykweer


At first, I didn't agree with Tired on the smoking on a plane thing, but then I understood what was being said. He isn't saying that existing airlines or trains should be FORCED to accommodate smokers. What's being said is that even if there was a billionaire smoker who wanted to start an airline for smokers, he wouldn't be ALLOWED to. That level of control I am against. If a restaurant owner wants to have a smoking section (hopefully with a little bit of ventilation), he should be allowed to make that choice. Non-smokers don't HAVE to spend money at places that allow smoking. What right does the gov have to control someones business in that manner? The private club is a good example. What next, if you smoke in your house you get it taken away? A line has to be drawn between somewhat reasonable and absurd. Forbidding a wealthy businessman from starting a smoking airlines, if he WANTS to take that risk, is absurd.

reply to post by BanTv


Bingo!

You hit the nail on the head.

Freedom is being able to do what you want without hurting others.

If you want to own a smoking business....people have the freedom to not visit your business.

Anything else is totalitarian rule.

With the ventilation systems that exist today, it is possible to keep the smoke even from the outside air.

reply to post by BanTv


Yes - you have it right - that is exactly what I was asking.

There was never a law against anybody wanting to operate a non-smoking bar, restaurant, movie theatre, transportation system, rental housing, apartment housing condo housing etc etc etc. Any owner of any private business was free to ban smoking from his property at any time.

In fact, there were many such businesses because there was a niche market catering to people who preferred a non-smoking environment.

Smoking bans are all about taking away choice and even if the private owner wants to cater to smokers, he is forbidden from doing so.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by kykweer

 

and the whole "second hand smoke will kill you" argument is bunk too...

it's based on a report from the EPA, done in, i believe, the 80's or 90's....and it said that second hand smoke MAY POSSIBLY have a SLIGHT impact on surrounding persons...

the anti-tobacco bunch took that to mean "oh look, smokers are trying to kill us", and so the myth was started that second hand smoke is just as dangerous, if not more so, than actually lighting one up yourself...

i can understand if you don't care for the smell, that's cool...but don't try to make it out like second hand is some massive health risk that's gonna kill you tomorrow..

So it still has an impact? Slightly more sever for children? Like I said, I really couldn't care less who smokes, but people used to smoke in the company of children for years. So that's why im fine with a general ban, just because SOME people were irresponsible, not ALL smokers.

So it's bad luck, but that could go for possibly every law ever made. It's not because everyone breaks them, but as a system we need to say, well if these people just won't listen, then EVERYONE isn't allowed to do it.

Originally posted by BanTv
reply to post by kykweer

 

At first, I didn't agree with Tired on the smoking on a plane thing, but then I understood what was being said. He isn't saying that existing airlines or trains should be FORCED to accommodate smokers. What's being said is that even if there was a billionaire smoker who wanted to start an airline for smokers, he wouldn't be ALLOWED to. That level of control I am against. If a restaurant owner wants to have a smoking section (hopefully with a little bit of ventilation), he should be allowed to make that choice. Non-smokers don't HAVE to spend money at places that allow smoking. What right does the gov have to control someones business in that manner? The private club is a good example. What next, if you smoke in your house you get it taken away? A line has to be drawn between somewhat reasonable and absurd. Forbidding a wealthy businessman from starting a smoking airlines, if he WANTS to take that risk, is absurd.

I agree with you 100%, I am just saying that in any service industry, the manager wants maximum capacity clients and you would alienate more non smokers than smokers, and few business people would actually go into an industry where losses will be imminent, and ironically it would probably be a charity organisation for smokers.

reply to post by Petriclivicus


First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

reply to post by BanTv


tiredofcontrolfreaks is a she