«

Once again a bill has been passed, this time by the Senate, that would
try to regulate the tobacco industry. Hopefully this effort will go in
vain like it's many predecessors.

The US Surgeon General's office has always been highly outspoken
against spoken, as are a vast number of doctors. One recent visit to a
doctor made the claim that my problem would go away if I quit smoking.
Why is it that smokers always get attacked like this? What about the
ten times more abusers of alcohol? Of course, you know about
"prohibition" and how well that went over right? The problem is, the
brewers outweigh the tobacco people by ten times easily.

A handfull of stewardesses filed a lawsuit claiming, with no
scientific evidence, that second hand smoke caused them to acquire
cancer. While it is still only a claim, no one has been able to
determine with any facts if second hand smoke is in fact a reality.
No one. Yet smokers get bashed around while alcoholics can do as they
damn well please.

I may not be allowed to smoke in a restauraunt but I can sure as hell
get stoned drunk. I can go to any baseball stadium in this country and
get drunk, but I'll get my ass kicked out for lighting up.

Every day on tv, you see commercials for various alcoholic products.
But no tobacco. Yet alcohol kills 100 times more people than any
smoker ever has.

Every state in the country has laws about driving a vehicle while
drunk. Not a one, so far, has any law preventing one from smoking
while driving.

In the USA, it is a federal law that truckers who are caught DUI will
lose their CDL for one year. Period. No exceptions.

If the US Congress would ban brewers from advertising, I would be
tickled pink. If states, or even cities, would pass laws banning the
sale of alcohol at sporting events, I'd love it. But you know that
ain't gonna happen because the brewery lobbyists get paid damn good to
see that it doesn't.

Hopefully the House will see this thing gets killed, again.

richard <> wrote in
news::

> Once again a bill has been passed, this time by the Senate,
> that would try to regulate the tobacco industry. Hopefully
> this effort will go in vain like it's many predecessors.

<SNIP>

I didn't bother reading yr. post, but I will say that even
though I am not a smoker, the current insanity of anti-smoking
laws is making life not just ridiculous but also more unpleasant
than it already is.

Countless restaurants and cafes went out of business all over
the world when no-smoking laws were passed AND enforced (in many
places they are not enforced), while breathing the air in any
city you care to name with more than 500,000 inhabitants is
probably at least as harmful as smoking 10 cigs a day.

Not to mention the basic absurdity of the fact that while MOST
people DON:T smoke, most people that go to restaurants,
nightclubs, and discos DO smoke, and so do most of the people
that work in them. Talk about not making sense.

Besides, it's your life and your body and you should be able to
do what you want to. If they want you to sign a disclaimer that
if you get a smoking-related disease, you absolve the government
and all insurance companies from all blame and action, fine. But
if you want to smoke, smoke.

Besides, in spite of the impressive figures thrown around (ever
read "How to lie with statistics" - a MOST interesting little
book, I wish I had kept it) I remain unconvinced that smoking is
what causes most of the cases of lung cancer etc. There are
people who get lung cancer who have lived in the woods all their
life and never went near a cafe or a cigarette machine, and
there are people who smoked 3 packs a day all their life and
died happily at 95. I personally believe it's all genetics, and
everyday I am proven right by a another discovery of some
genetic factor responsible for whatever. If diabetes was NOT
genetically determined, I would be dead. Etc.

More people die from car accidents every single day than from
smoking (OK, I may be off by a some percentage, the point
remains valid) and no one is taking car manufacturers to court
for murder. Interesting.

An owner of a 20-seat cafe goes out of business while crack is
made ten blocks away from his house, sold 3 blocks from his
cafe, and no one does anything about that. (OK, I like to
exaggerate. The point is valid.)

Truly wonderful protectors of the people the governments are.

I await the day when the word "freedom" loses whatever meaning
it ever had and disappears from dictionaries - assuming there
are any books allowed by the government by that time.

--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

thanatoid wrote:
> richard <> wrote in
> news::
>
>> Once again a bill has been passed, this time by the Senate,
>> that would try to regulate the tobacco industry. Hopefully
>> this effort will go in vain like it's many predecessors.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> I didn't bother reading yr. post, but I will say that even
> though I am not a smoker, the current insanity of anti-smoking
> laws is making life not just ridiculous but also more unpleasant
> than it already is.
>
> Countless restaurants and cafes went out of business all over
> the world when no-smoking laws were passed AND enforced (in many
> places they are not enforced), while breathing the air in any
> city you care to name with more than 500,000 inhabitants is
> probably at least as harmful as smoking 10 cigs a day.

Yeah right.

>
> Not to mention the basic absurdity of the fact that while MOST
> people DON:T smoke, most people that go to restaurants,
> nightclubs, and discos DO smoke, and so do most of the people
> that work in them.

What rubbish.
And even if it were true, what about the rights of those who wish to be able
to breathe air unpolluted by the choking, carcinogenic product of the
inconsiderate ?
The boot's been on the wrong foot for far too long.


Talk about not making sense.
>
> Besides, it's your life and your body and you should be able to
> do what you want to.

A bit like saying heroin addicts shouldn't be helped with their addiction.
Most smokers hate being coerced, but appreciate any help with giving up.

If they want you to sign a disclaimer that
> if you get a smoking-related disease, you absolve the government
> and all insurance companies from all blame and action, fine. But
> if you want to smoke, smoke.

But they ARE free to smoke!
Where is it suggested that smoking be made illegal ?

>
> Besides, in spite of the impressive figures thrown around (ever
> read "How to lie with statistics" - a MOST interesting little
> book, I wish I had kept it) I remain unconvinced that smoking is
> what causes most of the cases of lung cancer etc. There are
> people who get lung cancer who have lived in the woods all their
> life and never went near a cafe or a cigarette machine, and
> there are people who smoked 3 packs a day all their life and
> died happily at 95.

They're the very luck, very tiny minority at one extreme of a very fat
bell-curve.
A friend of mine works at a hospital and can tell smokers just from watching
their hearts beat on an ultra-sound scanner.


I personally believe it's all genetics, and
> everyday I am proven right by a another discovery of some
> genetic factor responsible for whatever. If diabetes was NOT
> genetically determined, I would be dead. Etc.

Your self-delusion is nothing short of breath-taking.


>
> More people die from car accidents every single day than from
> smoking (OK, I may be off by a some percentage, the point
> remains valid) and no one is taking car manufacturers to court
> for murder. Interesting.

Yeah, but cars are useful.


>
> An owner of a 20-seat cafe goes out of business while crack is
> made ten blocks away from his house, sold 3 blocks from his
> cafe, and no one does anything about that. (OK, I like to
> exaggerate. The point is valid.)
>
> Truly wonderful protectors of the people the governments are.
>
> I await the day when the word "freedom" loses whatever meaning
> it ever had and disappears from dictionaries - assuming there
> are any books allowed by the government by that time.

Anti-smoking measures aren't aimed so much at benefitting nicotine addicts,
as protecting the long-suffering victims of smokers.
Sadly, this doesn't extend to the children of smokers - who are still more
likely to become nicotine addicts and die earlier deaths than those of
non-smokers.

Don't harp on about the 'rights' of smokers to make the air of those around
them disgusting, unbreathable and dangerous.
Next you'll be whinging that we can't stone adulterous women to death.

"richard" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Once again a bill has been passed, this time by the Senate, that would
> try to regulate the tobacco industry. Hopefully this effort will go in
> vain like it's many predecessors.
>
> The US Surgeon General's office has always been highly outspoken
> against spoken, as are a vast number of doctors. One recent visit to a
> doctor made the claim that my problem would go away if I quit smoking.
> Why is it that smokers always get attacked like this? What about the
> ten times more abusers of alcohol? Of course, you know about
> "prohibition" and how well that went over right? The problem is, the
> brewers outweigh the tobacco people by ten times easily.
>
> A handfull of stewardesses filed a lawsuit claiming, with no
> scientific evidence, that second hand smoke caused them to acquire
> cancer. While it is still only a claim, no one has been able to
> determine with any facts if second hand smoke is in fact a reality.
> No one. Yet smokers get bashed around while alcoholics can do as they
> damn well please.
>
> I may not be allowed to smoke in a restauraunt but I can sure as hell
> get stoned drunk. I can go to any baseball stadium in this country and
> get drunk, but I'll get my ass kicked out for lighting up.
>
> Every day on tv, you see commercials for various alcoholic products.
> But no tobacco. Yet alcohol kills 100 times more people than any
> smoker ever has.
>
> Every state in the country has laws about driving a vehicle while
> drunk. Not a one, so far, has any law preventing one from smoking
> while driving.
>
> In the USA, it is a federal law that truckers who are caught DUI will
> lose their CDL for one year. Period. No exceptions.
>
> If the US Congress would ban brewers from advertising, I would be
> tickled pink. If states, or even cities, would pass laws banning the
> sale of alcohol at sporting events, I'd love it. But you know that
> ain't gonna happen because the brewery lobbyists get paid damn good to
> see that it doesn't.
>
> Hopefully the House will see this thing gets killed, again.
>
>

I agree with your assement that it has become very difficult to be a smoker
in this country. You are treated prety much like a leper.

But your analogy with alcohol is faulty. Most people who drink alcoholic
beverages do so without becoming adicted. Most peolpe who smoke, do become
adicted. Sure, we have all met that rare person who smokes two or three
cigaretts a day, and is not adicted, but that is the exception. 99% of
smokers are hooked and therefore smoke to dangerous excess.

If the government were consistent, by all the rules of the FDA and the CPSC,
cigaretts should not be allowed on the market at all. At best, they should
be by doctors prescription. It is the only product the regulatory agencies
allow to be sold over the counter that is harmful when used as intended.

Lookout wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:37:01 +0100, "Centre Parting"
> <> wrote:
>
>> thanatoid wrote:
>>> richard <> wrote in
>>> news::
>>>
>>>> Once again a bill has been passed, this time by the Senate,
>>>> that would try to regulate the tobacco industry. Hopefully
>>>> this effort will go in vain like it's many predecessors.
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> I didn't bother reading yr. post, but I will say that even
>>> though I am not a smoker, the current insanity of anti-smoking
>>> laws is making life not just ridiculous but also more unpleasant
>>> than it already is.
>>>
>>> Countless restaurants and cafes went out of business all over
>>> the world when no-smoking laws were passed AND enforced (in many
>>> places they are not enforced), while breathing the air in any
>>> city you care to name with more than 500,000 inhabitants is
>>> probably at least as harmful as smoking 10 cigs a day.
>>
>> Yeah right.
>>
>>>
>>> Not to mention the basic absurdity of the fact that while MOST
>>> people DON:T smoke, most people that go to restaurants,
>>> nightclubs, and discos DO smoke, and so do most of the people
>>> that work in them.
>>
>> What rubbish.
>> And even if it were true, what about the rights of those who wish to
>> be able to breathe air unpolluted by the choking, carcinogenic
>> product of the inconsiderate ?
>> The boot's been on the wrong foot for far too long.
>>
>>
>> Talk about not making sense.
>>>
>>> Besides, it's your life and your body and you should be able to
>>> do what you want to.
>>
>> A bit like saying heroin addicts shouldn't be helped with their
>> addiction. Most smokers hate being coerced, but appreciate any help
>> with giving up.
>>
>> If they want you to sign a disclaimer that
>>> if you get a smoking-related disease, you absolve the government
>>> and all insurance companies from all blame and action, fine. But
>>> if you want to smoke, smoke.
>>
>> But they ARE free to smoke!
>> Where is it suggested that smoking be made illegal ?
>>
>>>
>>> Besides, in spite of the impressive figures thrown around (ever
>>> read "How to lie with statistics" - a MOST interesting little
>>> book, I wish I had kept it) I remain unconvinced that smoking is
>>> what causes most of the cases of lung cancer etc. There are
>>> people who get lung cancer who have lived in the woods all their
>>> life and never went near a cafe or a cigarette machine, and
>>> there are people who smoked 3 packs a day all their life and
>>> died happily at 95.
>>
>> They're the very luck, very tiny minority at one extreme of a very
>> fat bell-curve.
>> A friend of mine works at a hospital and can tell smokers just from
>> watching their hearts beat on an ultra-sound scanner.
>>
>>
>> I personally believe it's all genetics, and
>>> everyday I am proven right by a another discovery of some
>>> genetic factor responsible for whatever. If diabetes was NOT
>>> genetically determined, I would be dead. Etc.
>>
>> Your self-delusion is nothing short of breath-taking.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> More people die from car accidents every single day than from
>>> smoking (OK, I may be off by a some percentage, the point
>>> remains valid) and no one is taking car manufacturers to court
>>> for murder. Interesting.
>>
>> Yeah, but cars are useful.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> An owner of a 20-seat cafe goes out of business while crack is
>>> made ten blocks away from his house, sold 3 blocks from his
>>> cafe, and no one does anything about that. (OK, I like to
>>> exaggerate. The point is valid.)
>>>
>>> Truly wonderful protectors of the people the governments are.
>>>
>>> I await the day when the word "freedom" loses whatever meaning
>>> it ever had and disappears from dictionaries - assuming there
>>> are any books allowed by the government by that time.
>>
>> Anti-smoking measures aren't aimed so much at benefitting nicotine
>> addicts, as protecting the long-suffering victims of smokers.
>> Sadly, this doesn't extend to the children of smokers - who are
>> still more likely to become nicotine addicts and die earlier deaths
>> than those of non-smokers.
>>
>> Don't harp on about the 'rights' of smokers to make the air of those
>> around them disgusting, unbreathable and dangerous.
>> Next you'll be whinging that we can't stone adulterous women to
>> death.
>>
> I'm an ultrasound tech. No he can't.

Why would *she* be lying ?

And given your position on smoking, why wouldn't you be lying about being an
"ultrasound tech" .... and even if you actually were, about whether the
effect of nicotine addiction on valvular operation was observable by those
whose job it is to screen for heart defects on a day-in day-out basis, hmm ?


> (by the way..sonographers don't watch a heart beat..they watch blood
> flow in the vessels. An Echo Tech watches the heart..and they can't
> tell either.)

"Centre Parting" <> wrote:


Have you ever heard of "snipping?"


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:40:04 +0100, "Brian Cryer" <not.here@localhost>
wrote:

>"richard" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> Once again a bill has been passed, this time by the Senate, that would
>> try to regulate the tobacco industry. Hopefully this effort will go in
>> vain like it's many predecessors.
>
>I'm in the UK so it doesn't matter to me what happens in the US, nor do I
>know any details about this bill. However, I do hope that common sense would
>prevail and that steps are taken to encourage people to quit smoking and not
>start in the first place.
>
>> The US Surgeon General's office has always been highly outspoken
>> against spoken, as are a vast number of doctors. One recent visit to a
>> doctor made the claim that my problem would go away if I quit smoking.
>> Why is it that smokers always get attacked like this? What about the
>> ten times more abusers of alcohol? Of course, you know about
>> "prohibition" and how well that went over right? The problem is, the
>> brewers outweigh the tobacco people by ten times easily.
>
>Whilst quitting smoking may well help with any health problems you may have,
>if your doctor things it will make your problem go away then its probably
>time to change doctors. Smoking doesn't do your health any good, but you may
>already have caused damage to your health that won't simply go away should
>you quit.
>
>Don't get me wrong, do quit. Quitting will help improve your health in
>general, but it may not be a cure to your specific health problem.
>
>> A handfull of stewardesses filed a lawsuit claiming, with no
>> scientific evidence, that second hand smoke caused them to acquire
>> cancer. While it is still only a claim, no one has been able to
>> determine with any facts if second hand smoke is in fact a reality.
>> No one. Yet smokers get bashed around while alcoholics can do as they
>> damn well please.
>
>Er, try google. Sorry, but second hand smoking is a very real problem.
>Smelly in the short term, can even kill in the long term.
>
>> I may not be allowed to smoke in a restauraunt but I can sure as hell
>> get stoned drunk. I can go to any baseball stadium in this country and
>> get drunk, but I'll get my ass kicked out for lighting up.
>
>And if you cause problems to others when you are drunk then expect to be
>thrown out of the restaurant or picked up the police.
>
>> Every day on tv, you see commercials for various alcoholic products.
>> But no tobacco. Yet alcohol kills 100 times more people than any
>> smoker ever has.
>
>Please check your facts. The first two hits on google for me gave slightly
>different figures (one was quoting US firgures the other UK so there is
>bound to be some discrepancy), but the picture is clear: Deaths caused by
>smoking out weight deaths through alcohol by at least 5 to 1.
>
>Smoking kills far more people than alcohol - in both the US and UK - and
>will continue to be so until governments are successful in reducing the
>number of people who take up the unhealthy and smelly habit of smoking.


The so called facts on smoking deaths is erroneous.
One does not have to be a smoker to die of lung cancer.
As there are different types of lung cancer. All the stats I've seen
so far point to global figures which is a trick used by alarmists
because the numbers are higher. When you account for the entire global
population, that number is a very low percentage.

I'm just sick and tired of the fact that way to many times, smokers
are attacked needlessly without any foundation of scientific proof.
I occasionally cough severly sometimes and someone near me will
inadvertently say, "Well if you didn't smoke......".
I reply with, "Does a 10 year old kid cough because he smokes? Do you
cough because you smoke?"

Now that I've seen a couple of news items on this bill, it apparently
is giving the government the authority to regulate what can be added
to a tobacco product. So maybe it won't be all that bad of a thing.

richard wrote:

> Once again a bill has been passed, this time by the Senate, that would
> try to regulate the tobacco industry. Hopefully this effort will go in
> vain like it's many predecessors.
>
Hey. Here in Europe government first sold off the tobacco monopoles and then
began making anti-tobacco laws

> The US Surgeon General's office has always been highly outspoken
> against spoken, as are a vast number of doctors. One recent visit to a
> doctor made the claim that my problem would go away if I quit smoking.

Depends upon the problem. Well, mine might also go away with losing some
(read plenty of) pounds

> Why is it that smokers always get attacked like this? What about the
> ten times more abusers of alcohol? Of course, you know about
> "prohibition" and how well that went over right? The problem is, the
> brewers outweigh the tobacco people by ten times easily.
>
Anyone may (try to) brew *something* in his cellar, while refining tobacco
is a different business ...

> A handfull of stewardesses filed a lawsuit claiming, with no
> scientific evidence, that second hand smoke caused them to acquire
> cancer. While it is still only a claim, no one has been able to
> determine with any facts if second hand smoke is in fact a reality.
> No one. Yet smokers get bashed around while alcoholics can do as they
> damn well please.
>
You probably don't mean (flight) stewardesses, because most flights are non-
smoking only. You are talking about waitresses?
There is just this little difference: a alcohol addict only does harm to
himself (except he's getting aggressive, drives or beats family members) and
to his liver.
A smoker pollutes the air - in the office, the subway, the elevator and
elsewhere. Therefore he is a threat to others who are forced to breathe that
air. And, cold cigarette ash smells bad as well.

> I may not be allowed to smoke in a restauraunt but I can sure as hell
> get stoned drunk. I can go to any baseball stadium in this country and
> get drunk, but I'll get my ass kicked out for lighting up.
>
Getting drunk is your choice as long as you don't vomit at others or beat
them. Lighting cigarettes may not only be air pollution, but as well a fire
risk.

> Every day on tv, you see commercials for various alcoholic products.
> But no tobacco. Yet alcohol kills 100 times more people than any
> smoker ever has.
>
You can't stop people from killing themselves. In the end, they may end up
without any health insurance, stoned under a bridge ...

> Every state in the country has laws about driving a vehicle while
> drunk. Not a one, so far, has any law preventing one from smoking
> while driving.
>
Because a car is more a private room, so smoking there doesn't do harm to
others except your passengers (they have freedom to urge you to quit
smoking, or get out of the car) while driving drunk is a threat to others.

> In the USA, it is a federal law that truckers who are caught DUI will
> lose their CDL for one year. Period. No exceptions.
>
That's good so.

> If the US Congress would ban brewers from advertising, I would be
> tickled pink. If states, or even cities, would pass laws banning the
> sale of alcohol at sporting events, I'd love it. But you know that
> ain't gonna happen because the brewery lobbyists get paid damn good to
> see that it doesn't.
>
Some government officials might possess brewery shares :-/
But then, you've got me longing for a beer right now ....

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:32:14 -0400, richard <>
wrote:

>The so called facts on smoking deaths is erroneous.
>One does not have to be a smoker to die of lung cancer.

Really? Wow.. Damn you are one smart person!
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.

Centre Parting wrote:
[snip]
> Don't harp on about the 'rights' of smokers to make the air of those
> around them disgusting, unbreathable and dangerous.
> Next you'll be whinging that we can't stone adulterous women to death.

What? When did that become against the law?
Buffalo