Smoking

[Pooeypants]

When people smoke near me I feel like wanting to take that ciggie and shove it up where their sun don't shine.

[Lora]

Mmmm.. Dr Pepper and Hotdogs

[Samildanach]

you are kidding me you dont actually eat that stuff? There is a good reason they are called hotdogs you know... :)

[Lora]

Shut up! That's just a dirty rumour. Don't try and spoil them for me. Mmmmm hot dogs :)

[Pooeypants]

Are you implying that it's made of penis? Dog's penis? The hotdog sell spunks all over of them? In the Mayonaise?

[Samildanach]

lolol...there is always one who has to push it further......

[Lora]

You're making me upset :( why would you say such a mean thing about the food I cherish so much?

[Pooeypants]

Because this is a thread about smoking and ranting about smoking.

Now what has that got to do with the price of onions on a thursday?

[Samildanach]

Hotdogs are the shape of a cigarette and probably just as bad for you.

[Pooeypants]

I love having mustard with my hotdog. The proper strong stuff, not the weasly French crap!

[Samildanach]

Yah english mustard....Im a fan of jalapenos and that chilli sauce.....with a good kebab
and you really dont have to remind me about where the meat from those things comes from but I do try to pick a respectable kebab shop if I have to have one.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gr8fuldaniel said:
Is this where the saying; "My rights begin and end at the tip of my nose", gets "cloudy"?

I say:
While that is a cute saying, no, I don't think it does.

Who owns the property where smoking is in question?

Private or business ownership by an individual, than the individual has the right to make it a smoking or non-smoking establishment.

Public ownership for public use, than it is up to vote.

The government has NO, I repeat NO, ability to regulate property rights to business owners in the sense of their personal rights. They can prevent them from polluting what is under their land (water sources), they can prevent them from polluting above their land(smokestacks, hazardous wastes) because they cannot be confined to their land AND because they are in significant amounts to do mass damage to other individuals, but they cannot remove the mans right to smoke on his own land. If it is his land, he has the right to tell guests, patrons, visitors that "his" establishment, or dwelling, is either a smoking, or non-smoking establishment.

People still don't understand that the reason there aren't a lot of non-smoking bars and restraunts, is because non-smokers won't patronize based specifically on a smoking policy. If they did, there would be a LOT more than there are.

If non-smokers want non-smoking establishments to patronize, they should form groups in their local areas, and discuss the possibilities with business owners they are interested in. As a block of people, they would have much more effect than an individual who is bitching. But since they don't know how to get what they want the right way, they try to take away the rights of all who don't agree with them , by trying to get un-constitutional laws passed.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: G. Adams I don't smoke cigarettes, but I occaisionally have cigars and a coffee, especially when I have to read through the journals. It's relaxing, I end up doing more work because I don't get bored so quick that I end up daydreaming, and it usually means me doing less re-reading as I'm more calm and focused. My mouth however does taste minging, and it usually requires me having a sandwich and some mints to get rid of it. To the younger members, don't smoke fags or machine rolled cigars, they have over a 1000 added chemicals, none of which are particularly safe. Instead, choose premium cigars and cannabis, the thinking mens poisons.

I'll forego the cannabis, thank you (I gave that stuff up when I was 11), and stick to a nice pipe full of black cavendish.

[Milton Bradley]

Today, while watching surfing on the boob tube, it hit me.


As long as people are allowed to engage in risky behavior such as skiing, skate boarding, riding motorcycles, bungi jumping, rock climbing, etc..., there is absolutely no legitimate reson to punish, or tax smokers for engaging in their risky behavior of choice. All risky behavior costs somebody money if the person participating in the behavior is injured, and seeks medical attention.


Since many of the people who need to be rescued in the above scenarios will put other people at risk, such as the rescuers, I see this anti smoking crusade as just another reason to invade poeples private lives, and personal freedoms.


Sure, public smoking may be restricted eventually, and perhaps rightly so, but to force unfair "sin" taxes on smokers is nothing short of criminal.

[tinybear]

Study: Cigarette Smoke May Harm Fertility

By EMMA ROSS

GENEVA (AP) - New research suggests that exposure to other people's cigarette smoke may damage a woman's fertility, especially if she needs the help of an infertility clinic to get pregnant.

It has long been known that smokers have reduced fertility, but the effect of secondhand smoke on the ability to get pregnant is unknown.

A preliminary study, published this week in the European medical journal Human Reproduction, found that among 225 women seeking fertility treatment, there was no meaningful difference in the pregnancy rate between smokers and nonsmokers who lived with a smoker, but that both groups of women had less than half the success rate of those nonsmokers who were not exposed to smoke at home.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...83.htm&sc=1500

[Cephus]

Quote by: Milton Bradley As long as people are allowed to engage in risky behavior such as skiing, skate boarding, riding motorcycles, bungi jumping, rock climbing, etc..., there is absolutely no legitimate reson to punish, or tax smokers for engaging in their risky behavior of choice. All risky behavior costs somebody money if the person participating in the behavior is injured, and seeks medical attention.

I've got no problem with people smoking or engaging in risky behavior so long as they:

a) don't do it around me or affect me in any way with their stupidity; and

b) they PAY FOR THEIR STUPIDITY OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS!

No, I don't think it's the job of the taxpayer to shell out for these idiots who have lung cancer and smoked for 50 years and now can't afford health insurance or hospital bills. They did it to themselves, they deserve the consequences.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Cephus I've got no problem with people smoking or engaging in risky behavior so long as they: a) don't do it around me or affect me in any way with their stupidity; and b) they PAY FOR THEIR STUPIDITY OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS! No, I don't think it's the job of the taxpayer to shell out for these idiots who have lung cancer and smoked for 50 years and now can't afford health insurance or hospital bills. They did it to themselves, they deserve the consequences.

How is the smoker any different from the extreme sports participant that injurs themselves, who cannot work, and cannot afford health insurance, and hospital bills?

[Cephus]

Quote by: Milton Bradley How is the smoker any different from the extreme sports participant that injurs themselves, who cannot work, and cannot afford health insurance, and hospital bills?

I never said that ALL of them shouldn't bear the same responsibility for their actions, did I? Now granted, falling off the side of a mountain is going to really ruin your day and anyone who is going to do that certainly should have their own health and disability insurance before they go climbing, but climbing a mountain, as risky as it might be, isn't inherently damaging to your health. It's only dangerous if you fall off. Smoking is *ALWAYS* bad for you. Every cigarette you have is ruining your lungs and increasing your risk of serious medical conditions.

You can climb 1000 mountains and never injure yourself, but you cannot smoke 1000 packs of cigarettes and remain healthy.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Who owns the property where smoking is in question? Private or business ownership by an individual, than the individual has the right to make it a smoking or non-smoking establishment. Public ownership for public use, than it is up to vote. The government has NO, I repeat NO, ability to regulate property rights to business owners in the sense of their personal rights.

So it depends on who owns the property. That gives them the right to injure me? That removes my right to breathe oxygen. We all need oxygen, nobody needs cigarette smoke. Even if they think they do. The decieved get the right to tresspass into my body with poisons? That doesnt seem fair at all!
Today I dont have any choice whether I smoke or not. My mother smokes and I am living with her. I hate that. If there ever should be any personal rights, the right to breathe should be very high on the list. I never say anything to mom about her smokes anymore, she knows how I feel. She thinks she isnt really smoking, that she isnt inhaling. Its a lie. One of the many lies of addiction. How can she believe she isnt inhaling the smoke when I am 30 feet away, and I am inhaling that shit?
I hate the lies of addiction.

I gave up smokes shortly after they outlawed them in coffee shops and bars, here in California.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gr8fuldaniel said:
So it depends on who owns the property.

I say:
Yes.

Gr8fuldaniel said:
That gives them the right to injure me?

I say:
Nobody has a right to injure another, in any way other than self defense. You neglect to ADMIT that you enter a smoking establishment (owned by a private owner) of your own free will. YOU GIVE THEM THE RIGHT to injure you, when you WILLFULLY ENTER A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT. You can also take that right away, and prevent it from EVER happening again, by NOT ENTERING A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL.

Gr8fuldaniel said:
That removes my right to breathe oxygen.

I say:
No, it removes a right you never had to begin with, which many think they HAVE! The right to go into someone elses property, and DICTATE RULES for THEM to live by ON THIER OWN PROPERTY.

You don't have a right to have clean air in every place you stand. If that were the case, there would be no refineries, mines, or any other place where airborne particulates cause lung damage. Instead, they force companies to provide a WAY for workers to work in an acceptable manner in a hostile enviroment, by wearing a breathing apparatus to cleanse the air. You have the right to wear a breathing apparatus into a coffeeshop, bar, night-club as long as you provide it yourself. Why the difference between mines, refineries and bars? If a worker is worried about lung contamination, they can VOLUNTARILY wear air filters over their mouths and nose, OR, they could lobby as a group to get their boss to supply them with the apparatus. Since it would cost him A LOT LESS BUSINESS, I am sure he would rather comply with this option, than REMOVING THE RIGHTS OF SMOKERS.

Gr8fuldaniel, look at it as any other right in the Constitution. It all revolves around the rights of property, and property owners have the right to open a business to cater to certain types of people, as long as it isn't based on race.

Look at the sex issue: Gyms around the country cater to either "women or men" ONLY, which is a business based on sexual prefrence.

Look at the classist issue: Country clubs exist that only cater to the rich that can afford to be a member.

Look at how almost every commercial entity tries to corner the market on their personal intrest. Here are some examples....
Leather Limited: offers only leather products.
Victorias secret: offers only sensual products.
Golf specialty stores: offers only to golfers needs.
ETC...ETC...ETC...

Why should smokers who wish to open a business, not be allowed to cater to ONLY SMOKERS, and non-smokers who wish to open a business be not allowed to cater to ONLY NON-SMOKERS????????

THIS IS ABOUT THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL, AND HIS POWER OVER HIS OWN PROPERTY, not a health issue.

The government has no power to regulate a person from harming themselves through personal choice, except in suicide, which is technically constitutionally illegal.