Smokers Unite!

[vraiblonde]

I wish you'd tell Azzy to take her silliness elsewhere. Why do you allow her to pollute every freakin' thread in the forums?

I took it as her being sarcastic. Because that's what the smoke-Nazis do say - that EVERY death is smoking related, regardless of whether someone smoked or not.

 

[ylexot]

<img src="http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/A/C/gone_fishing.jpg">http://forums.somd.com/search.php?searchid=3611789

That's pretty funny!

 

[Azzy]

I took it as her being sarcastic. Because that's what the smoke-Nazis do say - that EVERY death is smoking related, regardless of whether someone smoked or not.

Thanks, its good to know that there is one person around who doesnt have a stick in their ass

 

[PsyOps]

Then don't quote people if you're not really responding to that post.

Don't you tell me what to do

 

[PsyOps]

Then don't quote people if you're not really responding to that post.

I try to take things in their fullest context. Vrai has stated a lot of different things in this thread and I take all those things into consideration when something is posted.

 

[PsyOps]

Quite the leap from "sang in several venues that would put her in places filled with second-hand smoke"
to being "routinely exposed to second-hand smoke"
Did she sing in slezy bars?

My parents smoked in the house when I was a kid for decades. I had to breathe that crap in endlessly. I never smoked. If I get lung cancer I think it could be safe to say that my exposure to their smoke all those years contributed to my likelihood of getting lung cancer.

The problem with smokers is they are in constant denial about the facts and studies that assert these things so they can keep their habit alive without guilt.

 

[virgovictoria]

Okay. From what I remember when mapping someone's karyotype (chromosomal picture) down to the human genome project, the oncogene has been widely used to determine "fates" if you will, of a person - as in the form of cancer. Some/All :shrug: led to the stem cell research - where possibilities may/could/potentially be made to said oncogenes and other such factors when it is known, biochemically, through heredity and chromosomal and allelle (sp?) mapping the potential diseases one may incur in one's lifetime.

As someone stated before, there are those that are predisposed to developing lung cancer - even if they stay away from a cigarette all of their lives, first or second hand.

I will probably never get skin cancer, but the likelihood of dying from lung cancer is pretty high for me. Genetically predisposed on both sides.

I do not know what factors contribute to those who aren't predisposed, other than - don't be around it and be healthy otherwise.

I may have confused a little of this - it has been a while - but I did take some heavy genetics many years ago - and it was the knowledge known then.

 

[Pete]

I feel like sueing someone, I just don't know who yet.

 

[PsyOps]

Why is everyone having such a hard time understanding this question? It's perfectly clear to me.

And I'm trying to figure out why it is so hard for smokers to accept the fact the sucking smoke into your lungs is bad for you. Seems perfectly clear to me.

 

[virgovictoria]

And I'm trying to figure out why it is so hard for smokers to accept the fact the sucking smoke into your lungs is bad for you. Seems perfectly clear to me.

After that, you can try to figure out why it's so hard for folks to continue to overconsume drink and eat crap food when it's not doing your body that much good either.

 

[vraiblonde]

The problem with smokers is they are in constant denial about the facts and studies that assert these things so they can keep their habit alive without guilt.

No, but we do not trust "studies" that do not coincide with what we have personally experienced and know first-hand. We also do not buy into media hysteria (see the global warming debates).

Not that you're going to read this, but here you go:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

His references are easily checked (god bless Al Gore's internet!).

 

[vraiblonde]

According to this guy:
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact02.html
smoking is the "cause" of every single malady under the sun. Heck, if you didn't smoke, nobody would ever get sick or die at all.

 

[Toxick]

This is a most rediculous argument. Why should any of us have to be exposed to second-hand smoke just because you believe it's your RIGHT to smoke? Isn't it equally (if not more so) my right to not be exposed to it?

Frankly - no, that is not your right.

Nowhere in the Constitution is your right to "freedom from others' unpleasantness" guaranteed.



When you go out in public, smoke is just one of a plethora of unpleasant habits that you deal with.

I know that almost everytime I leave my doorstep, Some crank-faced jerkoff with his hat on sideways is going to be pounding his bass so loud that I vibrate in my own car.

(Not so much in SOMD, but other places I've lived) I have to deal with bums begging for change. I have to deal with Squeegee guys gunking up my window with their filthy rags, and demanding money for 'services rendered'.

I have to deal with loudmouth bafoons in movie theaters and their cellphones.

When using public transportation, I have to deal with BO, unbelievable stupidity, people I don't want to talk to striking up conversations, bad breath, people picking at their scabs, people scratching their genitals and sniffing their fingers, kids screaming and throwing things, teenagers screaming and throwing things, grown men screaming and throwing things, and people loudly complaining about all the smoke.

When I go out to eat, I have to watch the 500 pound guy jamming a turducken down his gob.


Frankly smoking is the least of my worries when I go out in public.



If you can't deal with other people and their habits, then stay in your smoke/noise/BO/people free home.

 

[PsyOps]

No, but we do not trust "studies" that do not coincide with what we have personally experienced and know first-hand. We also do not buy into media hysteria (see the global warming debates).

Not that you're going to read this, but here you go:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

His references are easily checked (god bless Al Gore's internet!).

I don't buy into hardly anything the media spits out. And I'm not 100% convinced that a smoker that has lung cancer was caused by their smoking. A friend of my mom had lung cancer, continued to smoke and still lives today, several years later. But your experiences out in the world are not comparable to those that see the patients come in with lung cancer, are able to look at the human body and study the damage that cigarettes cause.

I am 100% convinced that sucking smoke into your lungs (and all the related carcinogens) can’t possible be good for you and has to have ill-effects over time. I know… eating red meat (as an example) isn’t good for you either. But my eating red meat affects no one but me.

I tried to address your original point that smokers have rights. Your rights end when it infringes on my right to breathe smoke-free air and when your rudeness (as I’ve described earlier) becomes somewhat of a danger in the rest of our lives.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The problem with smokers is they are in constant denial about the facts and studies that assert these things so they can keep their habit alive without guilt.

And I'm trying to figure out why it is so hard for smokers to accept the fact the sucking smoke into your lungs is bad for you. Seems perfectly clear to me.

Funny, I fit in neither of those catagories. The problem with you, is you lump everyone into the same catagory. I smoke. I know it's bad. I'm not in denial, I've just expressed an honest curiosity on how the study was done becuase I like that kind of stuff.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I tried to address your original point that smokers have rights. Your rights end when it infringes on my right to breathe smoke-free air and when your rudeness (as I’ve described earlier) becomes somewhat of a danger in the rest of our lives.

This argument is dumb on both sides. I can turn it around and say "that your right to breathe smoke-free air infringes on my right to smoke, so that's where your right ends", and it's just as valid as your statement.

 

[vraiblonde]

Your rights end when it infringes on my right to breathe smoke-free air

So go stand somewhere else.

In fact, that's what they tell me when I object to gratuitous sex on primetime TV - if you don't like it, turn the channel, they say.

So, PsyOps, if you don't like the smoke, go somewhere where there *isn't* any. Because there are more places that are smoke-free than places that aren't. So you have lot more choices than I do.

 

[PsyOps]

Frankly - no, that is not your right.

Nowhere in the Constitution is your right to "freedom from others' unpleasantness" guaranteed.



When you go out in public, smoke is just one of a plethora of unpleasant habits that you deal with.

I know that almost everytime I leave my doorstep, Some crank-faced jerkoff with his hat on sideways is going to be pounding his bass so loud that I vibrate in my own car.

(Not so much in SOMD, but other places I've lived) I have to deal with bums begging for change. I have to deal with Squeegee guys gunking up my window with their filthy rags, and demanding money for 'services rendered'.

I have to deal with loudmouth bafoons in movie theaters and their cellphones.

When using public transportation, I have to deal with BO, unbelievable stupidity, people I don't want to talk to striking up conversations, bad breath, people picking at their scabs, people scratching their genitals and sniffing their fingers, kids screaming and throwing things, teenagers screaming and throwing things, grown men screaming and throwing things, and people loudly complaining about all the smoke.

When I go out to eat, I have to watch the 500 pound guy jamming a turducken down his gob.


Frankly smoking is the least of my worries when I go out in public.



If you can't deal with other people and their habits, then stay in your smoke/noise/BO/people free home.

So, where does it say in the Constitution it’s someone’s right to smoke? The Constitution doesn’t grant us our rights; it only outlines some of the rights that we have by nature and that these are the rights that our government will defend. These rights (outlined in the Constitution) existed long before our Constitution was written. There is your constitutional lesson for today.

Your “crank-faced jerkoff with his hat on sideways is going to be pounding his bass so loud that I vibrate in my own car” (and all the other examples you provided) don’t fly because they don’t cause you any ill-health except in your own stress. However, I do (as well as many others) suffer from cigarette smoke. My sinuses can’t handle it and it gives me headaches.

I’m not demanding any sort of right here or Constitutional amendment that would free me of the “plethora of unpleasant habits” I have to deal with. But while smokers are demanding it’s their right to smoke I will also demand that it is equally my right to not have your smoke in my face. Telling me to stay in some sort of “smoke/noise/BO/people free home” because I can’t deal with it wont fly either. Why don’t you stay in your smoke filled home if you can’t deal with me telling you I don’t want to breathe your crap? When I’m walking to Safeway and get behind someone smoking I will take a different path, but perhaps I ought to get in front of that person and start dumping my soda on the ground in front of them because I didn’t want anymore. How well received do think that would be? I have no doubt that person would want to pop me one.

In the end, all I ask for is a little common courtesy. But I know that isn’t going to happen. Smokers are going to smoke and make everyone around them smoke so they can keep their filthy addiction alive and then justify it as some sort of right.

 

[PsyOps]

So go stand somewhere else.

In fact, that's what they tell me when I object to gratuitous sex on primetime TV - if you don't like it, turn the channel, they say.

So, PsyOps, if you don't like the smoke, go somewhere where there *isn't* any. Because there are more places that are smoke-free than places that aren't. So you have lot more choices than I do.

Typically I do go somewhere else but there have been countless situations where I had no choice but be stuck around someone smoking. For example... coming out of the door of Target and someone is standing right by the door choking everyone that enters and exits. Are you going to tell me that one person's right to smoke is above all the hundreds that are not smoking? Isn't it logical that one person move than hundreds having to avoid that one person?

So...........YOU GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!

 

[PsyOps]

This argument is dumb on both sides. I can turn it around and say "that your right to breathe smoke-free air infringes on my right to smoke, so that's where your right ends", and it's just as valid as your statement.

The problem is, the air was not filled with that smoke until that one person introduced it. The condition of our air is naturally free of cigarette smoke in any one place.

Again I will use my soda argument... If I am drinking a soda and don't want anymore, can I dump the rest out right at your feet?