quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver


Anyone who has picked up body parts after a road accident would feel similar about cars.

And what about all those non-smokers who are so worried about second hand smoke....getting behind the wheel of a car and driving after drinking in a non-smoking establishment, and causing a DWI fatality?  i wonder what the stats are on DWI deaths caused by drinking non-smokers versus second hand smoke deaths.  Or are smoking drinkers the only ones who cause those? 

Maybe i'll have to research that one sometime. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl

Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have
actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and
offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose
customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local
bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously
negligible, such as outdoor public parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be
answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment
of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding
every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend
or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married
or divorced, and so on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Better than banning smoking might be to ban tobacco profits. Make Big Puffer operate at a break-even margin and wean governments from the profits by dedicating the taxes to treatment and cessation therapy, not general revenue. No more blood money for the murdering bastards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Better than banning smoking might be to ban tobacco profits. Make Big Puffer operate at a break-even margin and wean governments from the profits by dedicating the taxes to treatment and cessation therapy, not general revenue. No more blood money for the murdering bastards.

What about murdering junk food manufacturers. What about murdering car manufacturers for making cars that go too fast and alcohol manufacturers, since speed and alcohol are the main cause of road accidents which actually tend to kill and maim other people than the users. As I said, the list is potentially endless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

Third, and probably most importantly, if one or two people die from the result of using a product, that product is pulled from the shelves and banned.  Why not tobacco??  TAXES.  Government cares only about the tax revenue, not our health.  In this issue government talks from both sides of its face.  State and Federal tax revenues are so large that they would do anything BUT ban tobacco regardless of death rates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

OK you non-smokers, I understand, but part of this is for you. Just read the whole post.

I just been to my last show last night because there will be no more smoking in bars in Ohio. The time before that it was a $2 reentry fee, so I gotta pay $2 to get back in after a cigarette ? After a joint I can understand, not that I like it.

Now this is bullshit, I sat there and watched the lasers and other light show devices show up in the smoke, and no they did not use fog generators. This was your typical smoke filled room. It was great. So the non-smokers have won. Kudos. But....

You THINK you won ? Let me tell you what you won, you like  being at this bar and hearing this band, are you all agog about doing it in a smoke free environment ? WRONG !

This place is going to be out of business in a year. We might come and see our favorite band, but we will not walk in the door until they play and we will be gone as soon as they are done. I blew about $90 last night and if I couldn't smoke there I would be gone. Actually unfortunately in the future I will probably stay home and not even pay the ten bucks at the door. What's more I got the biggest car of our little bunch that goes to these things so there's five warm bodies that will NOT BE THERE.

People are like puppies, they pay attention to whatever is put in front of them. Smoking was such a big issue, NOW non-smokers, now that you have won are you going to step up to the plate and spend the money we smokers no longer spend to help the economy ? Or is it OK with you for damnear every small business in the country to fold up ? You prefer to send your money overseas ? Well, it is going to get to the point where there is nobody here to take your money except the government, hmmm, it seems that this is what they wanted.

OK, you non-smokers might've had the best intentions, a child could wander into a bar, catch a whiff of second hand smoke and die of cancer, so you did good thinking about the children. Now that you have trampled the Constitution and made things worse in that venture I would like to direct your attention to a much more serious problem. Remember we need to think about the children here. OK the children.

Have you heard of thimerosal ? It is a presevative used in vaccines given to babies. People who work for the company (Ely Lilly) sit on the board of the CDC, but that should be OK right ? This is just part of the cooperation between industry and covernment.

Fact is they are dumping huge amounts of thimerosal into newborn babies. Thimerosal contains a high percentage of mercury, which is known to cause autism. K N O W N, not suspected.

If you are a non-smoker would you rather inhale smoke or take this stuff ? The smoke might not be good for you, but the thimerosal is laden with mercury. I would take the smoke. And the poor little babies they poison with this stuff have no say in the matter whatsoever. Do you trust your newborn babies to people who would poison them ? Yes you do. You have taken away the rights of millions of business owner across the country in the name of (whatever).

Let me tell you about thimerosal. In 1990  they added Thermopolis D and Hepatitis B vaccines to the vaccinations. They eliminated DPT, but they tripled the dose of mercury, which IIRC is not good for you. In the 70s we had 1 in about 25,000 autistic kids, in the 80s it was 1 in 2,500, as of 2004 it's about 1 in 250.

Are 1 in 250 going to die from smoking, and did that cripple their brain for life ? I think not. Why aren't ALL children autistic you may ask. I will answer. For one, you have people who die of lung cancer without ever having smoked anything. I know, err knew one. Nice guy.

Dr. Mark Geier seems to have figured it out, and don't look for this on TV. Dr. Amy Holmes had a bunch of kids. One is autistic. Here comes the surprise.

The autistic kid had a very low level of mercury in their hair and tissue samples, the normal kids had alot more. Dr. Holmes who might well be a great doctor seems to have missed something. Dr. Geier explains it thusly : (not a quote)

Some people exposed to this poisonous agent are less affected and the mercury basically stays in the blood to be eventually excreted in the skin, hair, sweat whatever. In the ones who become autistic it is absorbed into the cells of the nervous system. Therefore it does not show up in the tissue or hair samples.

The FDA licenses vaccines and the CDC monitors the safety, and you won't find a meeting without reps from the drug companies, those who make the poison, voting. He commented that it might actually be illegal (conflict of interest), but nobody seems to have anything to say about it. They have done such a good job buying the government that they also charge US Citizens about eight times as much for their poison.

What's more learning disorders are up, and I think they could very well be a lesser reaction to the poison. We are getting to the point where more and more people will be idiots. Don't take this board and assume everything is OK, millions of kids will never use a computer or be productive member of society. And "our" stooopopid Judeo-Chistian (supposedly) beliefs will prevent us from putting them out of their misery. They will be a drag on the taxpayer for their whole lives.

Animals sometimes eat their young, and this is right and good. Humans cannot do that because of their extreme potential, so it is our duty to assure that each human reaches his or her potential, not burdened with a neurological disorder. AT THE VERY LEAST NOT TO CAUSE THE DISORDER !

How many kids out there who are not classified as autistic have adverse mental effects from thimerosal ? How many will become sociopaths ? If you see the big picture you know they don't want us too smart.

So all you non-smoker who have won the issue, and are going to close down about half of the small businesses in Ohio, take note. I think this is a much bigger issue. Why haven't I heard much about it. This is a way more serious issue, or what, you want to make your kid autistic ?

Dr. Geier also makes the point that the rising autism rate is not being investigated at all, and states that it is because they already know the reason.

If we could mobilize the people on an issue like this like they got mobilized on the tobacco issue we could prevail and get this poison taken out of the shots given to our most innocent Citizens.

Are the non-smokers up for that ? Or is it that all they care is everything smells nice ?

T

quote:


 i have a theory as to why smoking became an issue to begin with.  Most smokers are polite, law-abiding P/pl.  Since the constituency was feeling more and more anxious about crime, the economy and other matters they could not control, they latched on to smoking as a means of regaining a sense of control over the conduct of O/others.  Gives them peace of mind, of a false sort.
 
i fail to see the difference between non-smoking crusaders and any other single-issue voters, or for that matter, the religious right.  Each has an agenda as to how i should run MY life or conduct MY business. 
 
candystripper

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

Second, how in the world can we consider it acceptable for government to dictate what LEGAL activity can be allowed in our private business?  Health???  We can chow down on all the sugarlard confections at Krispy Kreme we want as long as we don't smoke?  How is that looking out for our health?

quote:

ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl

In short, i expressed the opinion that i felt business owners should have the say in whether or not their establishment is smoking or non-smoking.
i agreed that although second hand smoke can cause death, not everyone dies from its exposure.
And most recently, i wondered how many non smokers who drank were responsible for DWI deaths (kind of like the 'holier than thou' thing).