my rant on the latest US Senate anti smoking campaign

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by richard, Jun 12, 2009.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    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, Jun 12, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard

    thanatoid Guest

    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, Jun 12, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.
    Centre Parting, Jun 12, 2009
    #3
  4. richard

    rjdriver Guest

    "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.
    rjdriver, Jun 12, 2009
    #4
  5. 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, Jun 12, 2009
    #5
  6. richard

    XS11E Guest

    "Centre Parting" <> wrote:


    Have you ever heard of "snipping?"


    --
    XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project:
    http://improve-usenet.org
    XS11E, Jun 12, 2009
    #6
  7. richard

    richard Guest

    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, Jun 12, 2009
    #7
  8. 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 ....
    wisdomkiller & pain, Jun 12, 2009
    #8
  9. richard

    Evan Platt Guest

    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.
    Evan Platt, Jun 12, 2009
    #9
  10. richard

    Buffalo Guest

    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 :)
    Buffalo, Jun 12, 2009
    #10
  11. richard

    Jordon Guest

    Centre Parting wrote:

    > 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 ?


    While I really hate to say anything that could be conceived as
    agreeing with richard, I'd like to know your thoughts about
    a business that wants to be able to choose to cater to a certain
    clientele. A cigar bar for instance. Shouldn't it be acceptable
    to put a sign on the door that says if you don't like the smoke,
    don't open the door (and this includes applicants)?

    Or do you feel that you should have the right to go into a cigar
    bar and not have to deal with the smoke?

    I am not a smoker. Regulations go too far.

    --
    Jordon
    Jordon, Jun 12, 2009
    #11
  12. richard

    Jordon Guest

    Lookout wrote:

    >> While I really hate to say anything that could be conceived as
    >> agreeing with richard, I'd like to know your thoughts about
    >> a business that wants to be able to choose to cater to a certain
    >> clientele. A cigar bar for instance. Shouldn't it be acceptable
    >> to put a sign on the door that says if you don't like the smoke,
    >> don't open the door (and this includes applicants)?

    >
    > Completely legal in most states.


    Not where I'm at (Washington State). No business can allow
    smoking, either inside or outside within 25 feet of a door,
    window or vent, unless it's in an area that no employee is
    required by the business to enter (and it's more than 25
    feet of a door, window or vent). Bars with areas outside
    can't even allow smoking outside if it's within 25 feet of
    a door, window or vent.

    Not only that, but if you're feeble enough to require in home
    health care (and you're stupid enough to smoke) you can't smoke
    in your own home.

    --
    Jordon
    Jordon, Jun 12, 2009
    #12
  13. richard

    zvn[]teq[7] Guest

    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.
    >
    > 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.<snip>


    Yeah well if you light up a cig near me in a restaurant, I have to smell
    nasty ass smoke while I eat my dinner, but if you just have a couple
    drinks/beers nearby, you don't emanate a nasty odor. Unless of course
    you're French and haven't bathed in a week..............
    zvn[]teq[7], Jun 13, 2009
    #13
  14. Lookout wrote:
    > On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:06:12 +0100, "Centre Parting"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> 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 ?

    >
    > One more time...sonographers DON'T look at hearts. Echo techs do. You
    > don't know what you're talking about.


    Terminology aside, I have no reason to doubt her word regarding observable
    valvular anomolies.
    Yours I most definitely do.


    >
    >>> (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, Jun 13, 2009
    #14
  15. richard

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:44:31 +0100, "Centre Parting"
    <> wrote:

    >Terminology aside, I have no reason to doubt her word regarding observable
    >valvular anomolies.
    >Yours I most definitely do.


    Can you trim maybe some of the 130+ lines you didn't need to quote?

    Thanks.
    --
    To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
    Evan Platt, Jun 13, 2009
    #15
  16. Evan Platt wrote:
    > On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:44:31 +0100, "Centre Parting"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Terminology aside, I have no reason to doubt her word regarding
    >> observable valvular anomolies.
    >> Yours I most definitely do.

    >
    > Can you trim maybe some of the 130+ lines you didn't need to quote?


    Get a decent newsreader.

    Trimming is for the anal.

    If it gets beyond 3 pages, I might think about trimming.
    I can't remember the last time I cut a post.
    And quite right too.

    Hehe.

    >
    > Thanks.
    Centre Parting, Jun 13, 2009
    #16
  17. richard

    Mara Guest

    On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:49:01 -0400, "zvn[]teq[7]" <>
    wrote:

    <snip>

    >Yeah well if you light up a cig near me in a restaurant, I have to smell
    >nasty ass smoke while I eat my dinner, but if you just have a couple
    >drinks/beers nearby, you don't emanate a nasty odor. Unless of course
    >you're French and haven't bathed in a week..............


    I'm going to have to take an exception here. In some, even most cases, drinks
    don't smell bad, but beer breath is one of the most horrible smells on the
    planet, IMHO. Makes me gag just thinking about it.

    --
    The little birds sang sweet amid the scene of death and destruction.
    -- Elisha Hunt Rhodes, 2nd R.I., May 4, 1864
    Mara, Jun 13, 2009
    #17
  18. richard

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:21:45 +0100, "Centre Parting"
    <> wrote:

    >Get a decent newsreader.
    >
    >Trimming is for the anal.


    What does 'trimming' have to do with a decent newsreader?

    >If it gets beyond 3 pages, I might think about trimming.


    140 lines is well beyond 3 pages.
    --
    To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
    Evan Platt, Jun 13, 2009
    #18
  19. Evan Platt wrote:
    > On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:21:45 +0100, "Centre Parting"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Get a decent newsreader.
    >>
    >> Trimming is for the anal.

    >
    > What does 'trimming' have to do with a decent newsreader?
    >
    >> If it gets beyond 3 pages, I might think about trimming.

    >
    > 140 lines is well beyond 3 pages.


    My mistake. 6 pages.
    Centre Parting, Jun 13, 2009
    #19
  20. Centre Parting wrote:

    > Evan Platt wrote:
    >> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:21:45 +0100, "Centre Parting"

    ....
    >>> If it gets beyond 3 pages, I might think about trimming.

    >>
    >> 140 lines is well beyond 3 pages.

    >
    > My mistake. 6 pages.


    May we send you bills for new mouses due to worn-out scrollwheels, or
    (cheap) keyboards with stuck spacebars from overusage?
    Now E.O.D and into the bitbucket you go.
    wisdomkiller & pain, Jun 13, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. G. Orme
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    504
    G. Orme
    Mar 6, 2004
  2. Jim Nicholson

    Senate Coverage at CSPAN2

    Jim Nicholson, Feb 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    602
    @}-}-------Rosee
    Feb 26, 2004
  3. T.N.O.

    spam increasing? <rant></rant>

    T.N.O., Nov 19, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    460
    T.N.O.
    Nov 21, 2003
  4. XPD

    /rant CRAP ADSL /rant

    XPD, Apr 25, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    590
    Enkidu
    Apr 27, 2007
  5. richard

    The latest anti smoking campaign

    richard, Jul 12, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    895
    Walter Bushell
    Aug 11, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page