Comments on: Defending Tobacco

By: Bawrence

Bawrence — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:35:48 +0000

Something like a leper colony for smokers would be win/win, according to one respondent here. If the nicotine in cigarettes increases productivity (despite the frequent breaks) as he asserted, then concentrating all that productivity in one place should work miracles. What are you people waiting for?

By: Bawrence

Bawrence — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:32:10 +0000

Have I made any mention of banning smoking areas? Clearly one of us is fucking nuts.

By: Majikjon

Majikjon — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:09:55 +0000

Smokers introduce this so-called “hazard” into “the environment” that is specifically designed and set aside for them and NO ONE is forcing you to go into.

So yes, insisting that they stop smoking IN THAT ENVIRONMENT, just because you don’t approve of their habit, is persecution.

By: Bawrence

Bawrence — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:32:28 +0000

Smokers introduce the hazard to the environment, but they’re the ones persecuted? They may make you look cool, but you still sound like pussies.

By: schmwarf

schmwarf — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:51:52 +0000

When did smokers gain the ability to deny nonsmokers access to anywhere, especially when smokers are producing the pollutant?

You’re rewording previous postings. But to answer your question, it all depends who was there first. (notwithstanding smoke free zones due to business policies and government laws).

If I’m sitting on a park bench by myself smoking a cigar then all things being equal, I don’t see the need to move from my spot. If someone sits next to me and says “you stink and you are polluting my lungs so please move” I would find that offensive.

On the other hand..

If I sit next to someone who is already on a park bench by themselves and a light up a cigar then all things being equal, what I’m doing is rude and offensive and that person has a right to tell me to leave.

but smokers can expel known carcinogens without consequence?

Again with the hypocrisy. If you walk and/or ride a bicycle to get from A to B then I retract that statement. This is getting a bit tired and I’m having less fun on that item.

Regulated? Be careful what you wish for. The following comment digresses to another subject but those who expect governments to step in mandate them to rule and not govern.

By: Majikjon

Majikjon — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:37:24 +0000

When did smokers gain the ability to deny nonsmokers access to anywhere, especially when smokers are producing the pollutant?

Clearly, smokers do NOT have the “ability” to deny non-smokers the right to ANYthing, as evidenced by the number of total smoking bans that have already been enacted around the country.

In any case, the obvious slip side of this question is, “When did non-smokers gain the RIGHT to deny SMOKERS access to anywhere?”

Why do you believe so firmly that your side should have the right and ability to castigate, demonize, and limit the rights of the other side, with no apologies or room for compromise?

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that NO ONE is forcing you to go into a smoking bar or restaurant if you don’t want to? Why do you keep insisting on calling it “poison”, when poison is determined by the dosage? Why do you insist that EVERYone who smokes is “addicted”? This seems to flow from your belief that every smoker secretly WANTS to quit, but they just can’t because of their “addiction”.

Why do you insist that there is no such thing as a considerate smoker?

To me, this is similar to insisting that there’s no such thing as an honest Jew, or Black man who doesn’t want to rape all the white folks’ daughters.

By: Bawrence

Bawrence — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:02:22 +0000

When did smokers gain the ability to deny nonsmokers access to anywhere, especially when smokers are producing the pollutant? Smoke in your own home, if you don’t have children to poison, but if you place yourself in contact with people who don’t share your addiction you really should be more considerate and if you refuse to be considerate you should be regulated. Dog owners have to pick up after their pets or risk getting fined but smokers can expel known carcinogens without consequense? I don’t think so.

By: timB

timB — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:45:24 +0000

Nonsmokers don’t have to breathe secondhand smoke. If they don’t like a restaurant, bar, or any private business that allows smoking they don’t have to go. Certainly nonsmokers have a right to smoke-free environments in their homes and city/state owned buildings. But it’s when they start telling others that they don’t have the right to smoke in their own homes and businesses that the government oversteps its bounds.

By: Bawrence

Bawrence — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:35:03 +0000

Why should nonsmokers breathe your secondhand smoke? Perhaps there should be something along the lines of a leper colony for smokers, to limit exposure almost exclusively to others who are unclean.

By: skzb

skzb — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:13:45 +0000

scmwarf: Oh, no; this is great. When it stops being fun, I’ll just stop posting. If it gets to be a real problem, I’ll ask people to drop it. You’re fine.