Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?

x-no-archive: yes

cal wrote:
> not so
> much higher premiums, but put a surtax on fast food for example.

So when I get a salad and a fruit cup at McDonalds, there should be a
premium on that?

Will the gov't subsidize my running shoes? (pretty please with sugar on
top?)

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:05:53 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:

>Oh, I didn't realize you smoked, I thought you were into this topic on
>general libertarian principles. Didn't intend to slap you in the last
>post, if it came across that way.

I didn't see it as a slap at all. I understand that many people see smoking
as a filthy and vile habit. Actually I see it that way myself every time I
drop an ash, or hot cherry, on my clothes.

It was the primary factor in my mother's death also. At least her continued
smoking was. She quit for six months about 14 years ago after a horrible
asthma attack. If she had stuck to it, chances are she would never have
degraded as far as she did.

So I'm no fan of the habit. I'm just not ready to quit right now. And when
I do quit, I will never hassle anyone who still smokes.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 04:24:38 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:

>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>news:vc63l2t87elohk02l6k5t34o0pih797q85@news.easy news.com...
>>
>> So, should fat or lazy people pay higher premiums?
>
>obesity is catching up to smoking as a leading cause of disease and death in
>north america, more in some regions than others. there's no question in my
>mind that we need strong education and disincentive campaigns to try to stem
>this trend. once we know that everyone is aware of the risk, sure. not so
>much higher premiums, but put a surtax on fast food for example.

Education? As if people don't already know that eating high fat foods is
bad for your health? I have a better idea. Find those who don't know and
shoot them. It will improve the gene pool.

Why only fast food? There are plenty of items at the super market that are
just as bad for you. So you'd have to place an extra tax on high fat items
at the store also.

This is getting complicated. Why don't we all just have two-way television
links in our living rooms so government regulators can oversee morning
calisthenics and our eating habits? In you want a 1984 style government,
then just go full bore for it.

Or maybe just dump public health care and let people be responsible for
their own health. That solves the problem completely.

>> Yeah, the children of smokers issue has come up in America before. If such
>> do-gooders get their way we are going to have a completely jack-booted
>> police force in no time, complete with a Non-Smother Youth indoctrinated
>> to turn in their parents.
>
>people should really just know better than treat kids like this, without all
>the police-state theatrics.

Treat them how? With the exception of asthmatic children, or those with
some terrible heart condition, second-hand smoke poses no danger to
children.

I smoke around Buddha all the time. Of course I also run air cleaners, and
when in the car I crack open the window while smoking.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 04:51:09 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:

>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>news:d973l2pfbqr5uot1n8jflm9qlkk2odmuvg@news.easy news.com...
>>
>> But since smokers die an average of eight years earlier then non-smokers,
>> they effectively cut off their need for any health care earlier than
>> non-smokers.
>
>well, that's true enough for those who do.

And for those who don't... what makes you so sure their eventual death is
smoking related?

>> Curious... firefighters also die an average of eight years early, also due
>> to smoke inhalation. Since the firefighters freely chose their line of
>> work, shouldn't they also be taxed higher?
>
>ethically? i'd say no, in recognition of the heroic service they provide.

Ethics hell. This is taxation - there are no ethics, there must be absolute
equity. If you want to recognize their heroic service, give them a medal.

BTW, what about a firefighter who is also a smoker?

>> Injuries in contact sports are not part of the cost of doing life. They
>> are
>> inordinately dangerous activities in which the participants intentionally
>> choose to engage.
>
>but injuries are comparatively infrequent, easier to treat, and of shorter
>duration. it's not a social problem on anywhere near the same scale, and
>besides, it's offset by the health and social benefits of the activity.

No offsets. We are talking about equity here. Maybe we need to go person by
person with the Orwell model to really do this right.

>> Get their demographic down how? The percentage of smokers in the U.S. has
>> remained relatively constant over the past couple of decades, despite ad
>> campaigns telling kids not to smoke.
>
>then i guess we're doing a better job. i don't know why your percentages
>aren't going down, or even if they aren't going down. canada and the US
>usually aren't far apart in things like this.
>
>> Apparently no one has informed the ad
>> agencies that telling kids not to do something actually prompts them to do
>> it.

What is the rate of decline in Canada? Are you sure the rate of decline in
teen smoking isn't due more to the higher cost of cigarettes than to any
educational campaigns?

>we do in-class presentations at school where we show the kids the black lung
>photos, etc., from an early age. we not only do anti-smoking ads, we ban
>tobacco advertising. we force the vendors to print the black lung photos
>prominently on the cigarette packs. store owners are prohibited from selling
>tobacco to minors, legislation which was toothless at one time but is now
>quite toothy. the size of the fine can put a small corner store operator out
>of business.

I saw the black lung stuff when I was a kid. I even took home the little
artificial lung gadget that you could stick a cigarette in and smoke it -
eventually showing the great different between the smoking lung and its
sealed off partner. Kids laugh at stuff like that. Especially teens who
think they will live forever.

Printing the black lung photos on cigarette packs does nothing but
illustrate the governments very, very low opinion of the citizens IQ's.

As for vendors, the laws are quite strict in America as well. Vendors do
fear losing their licenses. However, the smoking age is 18, so high school
seniors can buy smokes for their younger friends.

>> This has been made even worse by TheTruth.com commercials, which are
>> full of half-truths and outright lies that any kid can look up on the net.
>
>you can find support for any point of view on the net.

Yes you can, as well as on television and in "scientific" studies. All you
have to do is follow the money.

>> And again, what is it with climbing Scottish mountains in jeans and a
>> tee-shirt? Rob Roy McGregor did it in a kilt, why can't I do it in jeans?
>
>dunno. thistle and brambles maybe, or just all that foggy dew.
>i guess the only way to find out is to try it.

OH, so you're just going to leave me on my own with this one. Okay. But I'm
going to be smoking while climbing. That is until the air gets too thin and
I pass out.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 05:00:45 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:

>"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:4551A6F4.7080000@comcast.net...
>>
>> So when I get a salad and a fruit cup at McDonalds, there should be a
>> premium on that?
>
>you're asking me to word the legislation, when i can't even run for office
>in your legislatures.
>
>but <sigh> ok. you catch me on yet another sleepless night, so wot the hell.
>
>no, not on salads and froot cups.
>yes, on the burgers and fries and super-size cokes & milkshakes.
>yes, on the jumbo banana split.
>the distinctions seem easy enough to make.
>if not, get some input from nutritionists.

Why don't you just leave it up to the people to get advice from
nutritionists if they choose to do so? You aren't their mother.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 05:23:28 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:

>"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:4551AE44.8070401@comcast.net...
>>
>> I'd rather see the gov't just back off and let people live their lives how
>> they see fit. It's inevitably fuzzy when you get into the details, but at
>> some point gov't control becomes too much of a good thing, if you will,
>> IMO.
>
>you're a small-govt type and i tend to be more of a big-govt type. in this
>we're probably irreconcilable in views.

You seem far more than a big government type. You seem more to be a
parental government type.

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:t8g3l296mc3kaiujv316fl454iil3hbu17@news.easyn ews.com...
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 05:00:45 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:4551A6F4.7080000@comcast.net...
>>>
>>> So when I get a salad and a fruit cup at McDonalds, there should be a
>>> premium on that?
>>
>>you're asking me to word the legislation, when i can't even run for office
>>in your legislatures.
>>
>>but <sigh> ok. you catch me on yet another sleepless night, so wot the
>>hell.
>>
>>no, not on salads and froot cups.
>>yes, on the burgers and fries and super-size cokes & milkshakes.
>>yes, on the jumbo banana split.
>>the distinctions seem easy enough to make.
>>if not, get some input from nutritionists.
>
> Why don't you just leave it up to the people to get advice from
> nutritionists if they choose to do so? You aren't their mother.

of course. if i'm not responsible for their health care, i don't care what
they eat. but this grew out of the premise that i am, remember?

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:uif3l21s0btm2mljnkeulm55rumhbbnl4h@news.easyn ews.com...
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 04:51:09 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:
>
>>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>>news:d973l2pfbqr5uot1n8jflm9qlkk2odmuvg@news.eas ynews.com...
>>>
>>> But since smokers die an average of eight years earlier then
>>> non-smokers, they effectively cut off their need for any health care
>>> earlier than non-smokers.
>>
>>well, that's true enough for those who do.
>
> And for those who don't... what makes you so sure their eventual death is
> smoking related?
>
>>> Curious... firefighters also die an average of eight years early, also
>>> due to smoke inhalation. Since the firefighters freely chose their line
>>> of work, shouldn't they also be taxed higher?
>>
>>ethically? i'd say no, in recognition of the heroic service they provide.
>
> Ethics hell. This is taxation - there are no ethics, there must be
> absolute equity. If you want to recognize their heroic service, give them
> a medal.

i don't think it's fair, but have it your way.

> BTW, what about a firefighter who is also a smoker?

i guess it would depend on cause of death. the estate could be taxed
retroactively. where cause of death is moot, give benefit of doubt.

hey, this is cool. we're saving our governments months of useless debate.

>>> Injuries in contact sports are not part of the cost of doing life. They
>>> are inordinately dangerous activities in which the participants
>>> intentionally choose to engage.
>>
>>but injuries are comparatively infrequent, easier to treat, and of shorter
>>duration. it's not a social problem on anywhere near the same scale, and
>>besides, it's offset by the health and social benefits of the activity.
>
> No offsets. We are talking about equity here. Maybe we need to go person
> by person with the Orwell model to really do this right.

you take a very hard line, i must say. now i'm not sure i want you in my
cabinet when i take over.

>>> Get their demographic down how? The percentage of smokers in the U.S.
>>> has remained relatively constant over the past couple of decades,
>>> despite ad campaigns telling kids not to smoke.
>>
>>then i guess we're doing a better job. i don't know why your percentages
>>aren't going down, or even if they aren't going down. canada and the US
>>usually aren't far apart in things like this.
>>
>>> Apparently no one has informed the ad
>>> agencies that telling kids not to do something actually prompts them to
>>> do it.
>
> What is the rate of decline in Canada? Are you sure the rate of decline in
> teen smoking isn't due more to the higher cost of cigarettes than to any
> educational campaigns?

i posted the rate of decline a few days ago. it's probably due to both. i'm
sure raising the cost of tobacco products is a good disincentive, and it
also fills the health-care gap as previously noted. but there's no reason to
believe that kids can't respond to the medical facts when they're put in
front of them, and that's what the educational campaigns are about. sure,
they have countervailing reasons to start smoking anyway, and too many of
them still do. but fewer than used to.

> Printing the black lung photos on cigarette packs does nothing but
> illustrate the governments very, very low opinion of the citizens IQ's.

i wonder why. some of them even take the trouble to stick tinfoil over the
pictures, or buy a little specially-made shell to put the pack in so they
don't have to look. smoker's accessories, dontcha know.

but it's you who assumes stupidity in a population if you think they can't
understand and respond to education in the form of facts that are put in
front of them.

> As for vendors, the laws are quite strict in America as well. Vendors do
> fear losing their licenses. However, the smoking age is 18, so high school
> seniors can buy smokes for their younger friends.

of course they do. but not as many are asking as used to.

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:lie3l21pj4ibmqdj3ru5lo9n6ktgo71q4d@news.easyn ews.com...
> So I'm no fan of the habit. I'm just not ready to quit right now. And when
> I do quit, I will never hassle anyone who still smokes.

if tax and social pressures lead you to quit sooner, they will have done
their job. and they probably will, even though you'll never admit it.
meanwhile, let's wish our governments the joy of the extra revenue. better
highways, better lung machines, all that good stuff.

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:10:28 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:

> "CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
> news:gb1uk2pfio9fv8ng7c3fida5fs1psqo930@news.easyn ews.com...
>
>> Ah, you are an ex-smoker. End of discussion. It's like trying to have a
>> reasonable discussion of Judaism with Osama bin Laden.
>
> Ah, well this should stir the pot then, I AM a smoker and I agree with
> the laws as they are. It is as simple as smoking outside. I do and I
> have no problem with it. That said, if they try to take outside from me
> or attempt to make them illegal I will only tolerate so much and will
> declare war.

Hey Rhi,

You obviously do not live in Wisconsin. Trying to grab a smoke in 20 below
temps with a 15 mph wind while it's raining ice is a bit of a challenge.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 08:37:55 +0000, CyberDroog wrote:

> On 6 Nov 2006 11:24:17 -0800, Icnh@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> It's so ridiculous...cigarettes are terrible things, though I
>>occasionally smoke them myself... I'm paticularly angry with them
>>because someone I like, who smoked, is dying of lung cancer... However,
>>despite that, what people chose to do is there own buissness... There
>>needs to be as much freedom as possible... limiting and restricting what
>>people chose to with there own bodies, whether it involves alcohol,
>>drugs, cigarettes, abortion, sex etc... is NOT right...
>
> Christopher Reeve's wife died if lung cancer and she never smoked.
> Frankly I think cancer risk is primarily a factor of one's DNA. Sure
> there are things which can marginally boost the risk. But is that enough
> to reason to fret about it? I would be willing to bet that worry kills
> more people than cancer.

The CDC statistics clearly state that second hand smoke isn't responsible
for lung cancer cases (CONTRIBUTES to 3000 cases in the US a year, which
is statistically negligible).

Smoking is being banned because it annoys people and it allows politicians
to appear to be doing something.

I'm working on my campaign to ban hip-hip and country music.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:41:48 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:

>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>news:t8g3l296mc3kaiujv316fl454iil3hbu17@news.easy news.com...
>>
>> Why don't you just leave it up to the people to get advice from
>> nutritionists if they choose to do so? You aren't their mother.
>
>of course. if i'm not responsible for their health care, i don't care what
>they eat. but this grew out of the premise that i am, remember?

Yes, I do remember. And since you aren't their mother, you need to get
together with everyone else who isn't their mother and vote to change that
premise.

"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote in message
newsan.2006.11.08.16.51.58.355618@you.now...
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:10:28 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:
>
> > "CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
> > news:gb1uk2pfio9fv8ng7c3fida5fs1psqo930@news.easyn ews.com...
> >
> >> Ah, you are an ex-smoker. End of discussion. It's like trying to have a
> >> reasonable discussion of Judaism with Osama bin Laden.
> >
> > Ah, well this should stir the pot then, I AM a smoker and I agree with
> > the laws as they are. It is as simple as smoking outside. I do and I
> > have no problem with it. That said, if they try to take outside from me
> > or attempt to make them illegal I will only tolerate so much and will
> > declare war.
>
> Hey Rhi,
>
> You obviously do not live in Wisconsin. Trying to grab a smoke in 20 below
> temps with a 15 mph wind while it's raining ice is a bit of a challenge.

No. I live in CANADA. I smoke outside in 30 sometimes 40 below temps with
a 20 mph wind while it's raining ice and yeah it's a challenge and it often
just really sucks, but I do it anyway, so I don't impose *my* choice to
smoke on non-smoker's, most especially my sons. :-)

--
Rhi

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:43:53 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:

>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>news:uif3l21s0btm2mljnkeulm55rumhbbnl4h@news.easy news.com...
>
>> BTW, what about a firefighter who is also a smoker?
>
>i guess it would depend on cause of death. the estate could be taxed
>retroactively. where cause of death is moot, give benefit of doubt.

There would never be any doubt. Smoking will *always* exacerbate the
ill-health effects on a firefighter.

Retroactively tax the estate? And take food from the mouths of his
children? That seems heartless.

>hey, this is cool. we're saving our governments months of useless debate.

Useless debate is like Doritoes to politicians... they'll make more.
Can you still eat Doritoes in Canada, or have they been taxed out of the
market yet?

>> No offsets. We are talking about equity here. Maybe we need to go person
>> by person with the Orwell model to really do this right.
>
>you take a very hard line, i must say. now i'm not sure i want you in my
>cabinet when i take over.

I'm a hard-liner?! You're the hard-liner! Well I'm not so sure I even want
to be in your cabinet. I might just plan a coup.

>> What is the rate of decline in Canada? Are you sure the rate of decline in
>> teen smoking isn't due more to the higher cost of cigarettes than to any
>> educational campaigns?
>
>i posted the rate of decline a few days ago. it's probably due to both. i'm
>sure raising the cost of tobacco products is a good disincentive, and it
>also fills the health-care gap as previously noted. but there's no reason to
>believe that kids can't respond to the medical facts when they're put in
>front of them, and that's what the educational campaigns are about. sure,
>they have countervailing reasons to start smoking anyway, and too many of
>them still do. but fewer than used to.

I'm still incredulous when it comes to the idea of people actually not
knowing that smoking is bad for you. Are you speaking of people that have
recently moved out of caves?

>> Printing the black lung photos on cigarette packs does nothing but
>> illustrate the governments very, very low opinion of the citizens IQ's.
>
>i wonder why. some of them even take the trouble to stick tinfoil over the
>pictures, or buy a little specially-made shell to put the pack in so they
>don't have to look. smoker's accessories, dontcha know.

Obviously they know it's bad for their health. Why torture a person, who
has the toughest addiction known to man, with gruesome images? That is
classically Orwellian.

>but it's you who assumes stupidity in a population if you think they can't
>understand and respond to education in the form of facts that are put in
>front of them.

No, I'm assuming, correctly, that they already know the facts. The fact
that smoking is bad for you is common knowledge. People hear it all over
the place, they see warnings about it on the packs of cigarettes, they see
it all the time on television, etc. There is no need for any special
education on the subject.

>> As for vendors, the laws are quite strict in America as well. Vendors do
>> fear losing their licenses. However, the smoking age is 18, so high school
>> seniors can buy smokes for their younger friends.
>
>of course they do. but not as many are asking as used to.

Plenty of them do in America. Smoking is still a popular fad for teens.
Thankfully it is just a fad in some cases. Not all of them stick with it.

What exactly do Canadian teens do to be rebellious and cool?

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:09:27 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:


> "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote in message
> newsan.2006.11.08.16.51.58.355618@you.now...
>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:10:28 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:
>>
>> > "CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>> > news:gb1uk2pfio9fv8ng7c3fida5fs1psqo930@news.easyn ews.com...
>> >
>> >> Ah, you are an ex-smoker. End of discussion. It's like trying to
>> >> have a reasonable discussion of Judaism with Osama bin Laden.
>> >
>> > Ah, well this should stir the pot then, I AM a smoker and I agree
>> > with the laws as they are. It is as simple as smoking outside. I do
>> > and I have no problem with it. That said, if they try to take
>> > outside from me or attempt to make them illegal I will only tolerate
>> > so much and will declare war.
>>
>> Hey Rhi,
>>
>> You obviously do not live in Wisconsin. Trying to grab a smoke in 20
>> below temps with a 15 mph wind while it's raining ice is a bit of a
>> challenge.
>
> No. I live in CANADA. I smoke outside in 30 sometimes 40 below temps
> with a 20 mph wind while it's raining ice and yeah it's a challenge and
> it often just really sucks, but I do it anyway, so I don't impose *my*
> choice to smoke on non-smoker's, most especially my sons. :-)

Fair enough.

I would like to see if the number of pneumonia cases have increased in
smoking ban areas.

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:t363l2t4e0084vp01vr3miflr44vjc0bud@news.easyn ews.com...
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:10:28 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
> >news:gb1uk2pfio9fv8ng7c3fida5fs1psqo930@news.easy news.com...
> >
> >> Ah, you are an ex-smoker. End of discussion. It's like trying to have a
> >> reasonable discussion of Judaism with Osama bin Laden.
> >
> >Ah, well this should stir the pot then, I AM a smoker and I agree with
the
> >laws as they are. It is as simple as smoking outside. I do and I have
no
> >problem with it. That said, if they try to take outside from me or
attempt
> >to make them illegal I will only tolerate so much and will declare war.
>
> They are trying it in many places, and some have succeeded. There are some
> locations in the U.S. where your neighbor can turn you in for smoking
> outside on your own property.

Okay, in that case, this is grade A bullshit. If I am willing to compromise
on all the rules they have laid out for me without complaint, there has to
be some compromise on their side as well. I'm a tax payer too. Outside on
*my* own property should NOT be subject to the law. There is no way that
the smoke from a cigarette on your front porch is contributing anything to
the air that vehicles and factories aren't already putting there. If they
try to take that from me there will be bloodshed. Fair is fair.

> My response to that would be to patiently wait until my neighbor fires up
> his grill and then go over and break his knees with a baseball bat.

Absolutely. Well, minus the bat in the knee part, but you bet I'd raise
hell. Smoke is smoke. If a neighbour with smoke billowing out of a
barbeque can rat out a neighbour who is smoking a cigarette on his own damn
lawn there is a lot wrong with that picture and smoker's need to fight that.
We all pay taxes. There has to be "some" compromise from the non-smoking
side.

--
Rhi

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:21:58 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:

>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>news:lie3l21pj4ibmqdj3ru5lo9n6ktgo71q4d@news.easy news.com...
>> So I'm no fan of the habit. I'm just not ready to quit right now. And when
>> I do quit, I will never hassle anyone who still smokes.
>
>if tax and social pressures lead you to quit sooner, they will have done
>their job. and they probably will, even though you'll never admit it.
>meanwhile, let's wish our governments the joy of the extra revenue. better
>highways, better lung machines, all that good stuff.

No, there will be no tax or social pressures that will ever cause me to
quit. Not even prohibition would cause me to quit. And my AR-15 would take
out at least a few of the jackbooted thugs who showed up to tell me any
different.

Come to think of it, the cause of my death would then not be from smoking,
but from lead poisoning...

As for taxes, Wisconsin hasn't gone nuts with them yet. Besides, I roll my
own smokes. That is tax Class J tobacco (i.e. virtually no tax at all.)
It's much cheaper and a *much* higher quality compared to tax Class A
packaged smokes.

I pay about $14-15 a carton this way, compared to $40 a carton for premium
packaged brands.

Well, usually... since my mother's death about three weeks ago, I just
haven't been able to stand still long enough to crank out smokes. So I have
been paying for Camel Wide Lights at $35 a carton.

But I'm slowly getting back to cranking here and there. I have two cans of
Arango Sportsman vanilla tobacco. The stuff is exquisite. We don't even
bother with potpourri when I'm smoking them. The whole house smells like
vanilla.

Who knows, maybe they will find that vanilla inhibits the formation of lung
cancer...

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:51:58 -0600, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:10:28 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:
>
>> Ah, well this should stir the pot then, I AM a smoker and I agree with
>> the laws as they are. It is as simple as smoking outside. I do and I
>> have no problem with it. That said, if they try to take outside from me
>> or attempt to make them illegal I will only tolerate so much and will
>> declare war.
>
>Hey Rhi,
>
>You obviously do not live in Wisconsin. Trying to grab a smoke in 20 below
>temps with a 15 mph wind while it's raining ice is a bit of a challenge.

Yet if forced by circumstances, we'll do it... Why exactly did God create
nicotine? Just to screw with us?

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:57:06 -0600, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:

>The CDC statistics clearly state that second hand smoke isn't responsible
>for lung cancer cases (CONTRIBUTES to 3000 cases in the US a year, which
>is statistically negligible).
>
>Smoking is being banned because it annoys people and it allows politicians
>to appear to be doing something.
>
>I'm working on my campaign to ban hip-hip and country music.

I want to ban do-gooderism.

Just a reminder for all the do-gooders out there. Doing unto others as you
would have them do unto you should only be with their *consent*...

Hmm, what else annoys me.

Car horns. They are used too often and always for the wrong reason (the
only legal reason to use a car horn in Wisconsin is when passing another
vehicle.) Let's ban them.

8000 watt sub-woofers in cars. Let's ban them.

Women who douse themselves with a gallon of perfume. Let's ban it.

People who walk up with twenty items to a lane clearly marked 10 items or
less. Let's break their legs, then ban them from shopping.

People who let their dogs crap all over the place. Let's ban dogs.

People who have loud conversations on cell phones in restaurants. Let's ban
cell phones in restaurants. Or at least order the idiots to get a higher
quality phone so they don't have to shout.

People who talk in theaters. That is already illegal (disorderly conduct in
Wisconsin.) Let's just kill them. A few public examples and there will be
no need for a ban. Sorry to sound extreme, but these dolts are the reason I
rarely go to the movies anymore.

There are lots of things that annoy me. And damn it, I shouldn't have to
just deal with it civilly as a normal part of living on a planet with 6
billion other people. Someone has to pay!

"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote in message
newsan.2006.11.08.18.20.00.596919@you.now...
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:09:27 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:

> > "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote in message
> > newsan.2006.11.08.16.51.58.355618@you.now...
> >> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:10:28 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:
> >>
> >> > "CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:gb1uk2pfio9fv8ng7c3fida5fs1psqo930@news.easyn ews.com...
> >> >
> >> >> Ah, you are an ex-smoker. End of discussion. It's like trying to
> >> >> have a reasonable discussion of Judaism with Osama bin Laden.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, well this should stir the pot then, I AM a smoker and I agree
> >> > with the laws as they are. It is as simple as smoking outside. I do
> >> > and I have no problem with it. That said, if they try to take
> >> > outside from me or attempt to make them illegal I will only tolerate
> >> > so much and will declare war.
> >>
> >> Hey Rhi,
> >>
> >> You obviously do not live in Wisconsin. Trying to grab a smoke in 20
> >> below temps with a 15 mph wind while it's raining ice is a bit of a
> >> challenge.
> >
> > No. I live in CANADA. I smoke outside in 30 sometimes 40 below temps
> > with a 20 mph wind while it's raining ice and yeah it's a challenge and
> > it often just really sucks, but I do it anyway, so I don't impose *my*
> > choice to smoke on non-smoker's, most especially my sons. :-)
>
> Fair enough.
>
> I would like to see if the number of pneumonia cases have increased in
> smoking ban areas.

It's funny you would say this. I was at my family doctor's last week for a
check up and after glancing in his files he made note of the fact that I
haven't had a cold or the flu (no, I don't get flu shots) in over TEN years.
He said my immune system must be extraordinary. Ha! Can you imagine, a
smoker! A light smoker, but still, he was impressed.

I have read though that increased illness is one of the reasons some
smoker's end up quitting for good. So there might be something to your
pneumonia question.

The only thing that bothers me about this subject is the fact that I have
compromised. I have done everything expected of me without complaining
(most of the time) and yet the other side has to keep on pushing and
pushing, a little farther each time, with no regard for the fact that we pay
taxes too and we vote and we are entitled to *some* rights as long as they
don't infringe on the rights of others. If a smoker is willing to go
outside to smoke that should be good enough.

--
Rhi

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:3m84l2hqi0hr006ofm5kuqfp94ppmpsmse@news.easyn ews.com...
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:51:58 -0600, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:10:28 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, well this should stir the pot then, I AM a smoker and I agree with
> >> the laws as they are. It is as simple as smoking outside. I do and I
> >> have no problem with it. That said, if they try to take outside from
me
> >> or attempt to make them illegal I will only tolerate so much and will
> >> declare war.
> >
> >Hey Rhi,
> >
> >You obviously do not live in Wisconsin. Trying to grab a smoke in 20
below
> >temps with a 15 mph wind while it's raining ice is a bit of a challenge.
>
> Yet if forced by circumstances, we'll do it... Why exactly did God create
> nicotine? Just to screw with us?

Yeah, then he created cannabis and peyote to make up for it. <g>

--
Rhi

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:51:55 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:


> "CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
> news:3m84l2hqi0hr006ofm5kuqfp94ppmpsmse@news.easyn ews.com...
>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:51:58 -0600, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:10:28 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ah, well this should stir the pot then, I AM a smoker and I agree
>> >> with the laws as they are. It is as simple as smoking outside. I
>> >> do and I have no problem with it. That said, if they try to take
>> >> outside from
> me
>> >> or attempt to make them illegal I will only tolerate so much and
>> >> will declare war.
>> >
>> >Hey Rhi,
>> >
>> >You obviously do not live in Wisconsin. Trying to grab a smoke in 20
> below
>> >temps with a 15 mph wind while it's raining ice is a bit of a
>> >challenge.
>>
>> Yet if forced by circumstances, we'll do it... Why exactly did God
>> create nicotine? Just to screw with us?
>
> Yeah, then he created cannabis and peyote to make up for it. <g>

Have you read the study about cannabis preventing lung cancer? I don't
remember the details but it says some cannabinoids bond to the avioli
(SP?) in a way that prevents the carcinogens in cigarettes from being
absorbed by the lungs.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:50:50 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:

> "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote in message
> newsan.2006.11.08.18.20.00.596919@you.now...
>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:09:27 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:
>
>> > "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote in message
>> > newsan.2006.11.08.16.51.58.355618@you.now...
>> >> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:10:28 -0500, Rhiannon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:gb1uk2pfio9fv8ng7c3fida5fs1psqo930@news.easyn ews.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >> Ah, you are an ex-smoker. End of discussion. It's like trying to
>> >> >> have a reasonable discussion of Judaism with Osama bin Laden.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah, well this should stir the pot then, I AM a smoker and I agree
>> >> > with the laws as they are. It is as simple as smoking outside. I do
>> >> > and I have no problem with it. That said, if they try to take
>> >> > outside from me or attempt to make them illegal I will only tolerate
>> >> > so much and will declare war.
>> >>
>> >> Hey Rhi,
>> >>
>> >> You obviously do not live in Wisconsin. Trying to grab a smoke in 20
>> >> below temps with a 15 mph wind while it's raining ice is a bit of a
>> >> challenge.
>> >
>> > No. I live in CANADA. I smoke outside in 30 sometimes 40 below temps
>> > with a 20 mph wind while it's raining ice and yeah it's a challenge and
>> > it often just really sucks, but I do it anyway, so I don't impose *my*
>> > choice to smoke on non-smoker's, most especially my sons. :-)
>>
>> Fair enough.
>>
>> I would like to see if the number of pneumonia cases have increased in
>> smoking ban areas.
>
> It's funny you would say this. I was at my family doctor's last week for a
> check up and after glancing in his files he made note of the fact that I
> haven't had a cold or the flu (no, I don't get flu shots) in over TEN years.
> He said my immune system must be extraordinary. Ha! Can you imagine, a
> smoker! A light smoker, but still, he was impressed.
>
> I have read though that increased illness is one of the reasons some
> smoker's end up quitting for good. So there might be something to your
> pneumonia question.
>
> The only thing that bothers me about this subject is the fact that I have
> compromised. I have done everything expected of me without complaining
> (most of the time) and yet the other side has to keep on pushing and
> pushing, a little farther each time, with no regard for the fact that we pay
> taxes too and we vote and we are entitled to *some* rights as long as they
> don't infringe on the rights of others. If a smoker is willing to go
> outside to smoke that should be good enough.

Yea, I know. Smokers are the devil, just like drunk drivers... though on
any given Saturday night 60%+ of all the cars on the road are being
operated by someone who's been drinking.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:47:57 +0000, CyberDroog wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:57:06 -0600, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>
>>The CDC statistics clearly state that second hand smoke isn't
>>responsible for lung cancer cases (CONTRIBUTES to 3000 cases in the US a
>>year, which is statistically negligible).
>>
>>Smoking is being banned because it annoys people and it allows
>>politicians to appear to be doing something.
>>
>>I'm working on my campaign to ban hip-hip and country music.
>
> I want to ban do-gooderism.
>
> Just a reminder for all the do-gooders out there. Doing unto others as
> you would have them do unto you should only be with their *consent*...
>
> Hmm, what else annoys me.
>
> Car horns. They are used too often and always for the wrong reason (the
> only legal reason to use a car horn in Wisconsin is when passing another
> vehicle.) Let's ban them.
>
> 8000 watt sub-woofers in cars. Let's ban them.
>
> Women who douse themselves with a gallon of perfume. Let's ban it.
>
> People who walk up with twenty items to a lane clearly marked 10 items
> or less. Let's break their legs, then ban them from shopping.
>
> People who let their dogs crap all over the place. Let's ban dogs.
>
> People who have loud conversations on cell phones in restaurants. Let's
> ban cell phones in restaurants. Or at least order the idiots to get a
> higher quality phone so they don't have to shout.
>
> People who talk in theaters. That is already illegal (disorderly conduct
> in Wisconsin.) Let's just kill them. A few public examples and there
> will be no need for a ban. Sorry to sound extreme, but these dolts are
> the reason I rarely go to the movies anymore.
>
> There are lots of things that annoy me. And damn it, I shouldn't have to
> just deal with it civilly as a normal part of living on a planet with 6
> billion other people. Someone has to pay!

I'll add morons who listen to their voice-mail with their speaker phone.
Why do I need to listen to your messages?

....and the idiots who push the elevator button on every floor the elevator
stops on. The next ass the crushes me in the doors needs to die.

....and people who stand too fucking close to me... this isn't Hong Kong.

....and people who take up two parking spaces so their precious car doesn't
get scratched which makes me want to kick their headlights in.

....and people who can't get out of their damn car without bumping mine
with their door!!!!!

You can't win.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:09:27 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.com>
wrote:

>No. I live in CANADA. I smoke outside in 30 sometimes 40 below temps with
>a 20 mph wind while it's raining ice and yeah it's a challenge and it often
>just really sucks, but I do it anyway, so I don't impose *my* choice to
>smoke on non-smoker's, most especially my sons. :-)

Wow, that is big of you! My sister and brother-in-law are that way also.
They started it because their son developed asthma as a baby. He no longer
suffers from asthma, but they continue to smoke outside, even in winter.

But the fact is, for healthy children, second-hand smoke is not going to do
any damage. It doesn't promote health either, but it isn't going to injure
them.

Actually as a child it served a purpose. Even when upstairs in my room,
when I caught the odor of tobacco I knew my mom had come home. And that was
just the odor on her clothes; she hadn't even lit up in the house yet. It
was comforting to me. That is a vivid emotional memory to this day.

But I am actually considering smoking out on the balcony when bearable, or
in one of the bathrooms during inclimate weather (the bathroom fans exhaust
outside.)

But the hardest part is right now. Giving up smoking while on the computer
seems unbearable. Giving up smoking while sitting and rocking to music also
seems unbearable.

In all other situations, I think the change would be doable.

CyberDroog wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 04:51:09 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:
>
> >"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
> >news:d973l2pfbqr5uot1n8jflm9qlkk2odmuvg@news.easy news.com...
> >>
> >> But since smokers die an average of eight years earlier then non-smokers,
> >> they effectively cut off their need for any health care earlier than
> >> non-smokers.
> >
> >well, that's true enough for those who do.
>
> And for those who don't... what makes you so sure their eventual death is
> smoking related?

I'm sure I read somewhere that 50% of people who smoke die of a smoking
related illness.

> >> And again, what is it with climbing Scottish mountains in jeans and a
> >> tee-shirt? Rob Roy McGregor did it in a kilt, why can't I do it in jeans?
> >
> >dunno. thistle and brambles maybe, or just all that foggy dew.
> >i guess the only way to find out is to try it.
>
> OH, so you're just going to leave me on my own with this one. Okay. But I'm
> going to be smoking while climbing. That is until the air gets too thin and
> I pass out.

I reckon hypothermia would do for you before the smoking would. Unless,
of course, you were unfortunate enough to come across a wild haggis...

Oh, and smoking on top of the mountains is fine but just try it in a
pub. Or any other public space that is more than 50% enclosed. Don't
get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree with the smoking ban, it's good to
be able to go into a pub and actually breathe for a change, but it can
get a bit farcical at times.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:20:02 -0600, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:

>I would like to see if the number of pneumonia cases have increased in
>smoking ban areas.

I've often wondered about that as well. Promoting health by sticking 20% of
the population outdoors in freezing temperatures that weaken the immune
system?

Must be a new definition of sound medical advice...

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:d973l2pfbqr5uot1n8jflm9qlkk2odmuvg@news.easyn ews.com...
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 19:39:27 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:
>
> >"BoredToTears" <beejayceee1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:1162932253.606750.60770@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Smokers *are* the public and contribute, via tobacco duty, vastly more
> >> than non-smokers to the UK's NHS.
> >
> >that's true, and with the tax rising all the time, it may someday
approach
> >the point where it pays for their additional requirements for chronic
care
> >and palliation.
>
> But since smokers die an average of eight years earlier then non-smokers,
> they effectively cut off their need for any health care earlier than
> non-smokers.
>
> Curious... firefighters also die an average of eight years early, also due
> to smoke inhalation. Since the firefighters freely chose their line of
> work, shouldn't they also be taxed higher?
>
> >> Heaven forfend that those who take part in contact sports, drive or are
> >> passengers in cars, walk up a flight of stairs, stand on a chair to
> >> change a light bulb, wander up a Scottish mountain in jeans and a
> >> t-shirt, scratch their arse with the wrang hand and
> >> "by-no-fault-of-their-own" hurt themselves are penalised for stupidity.
> >
> >drivers do make a contribution. the other things, contact sports
injuries,
> >falling down stairs or while changing a bulb, are incidental and properly
> >grouped under "the occasional cost of doing life."
>
> Injuries in contact sports are not part of the cost of doing life. They
are
> inordinately dangerous activities in which the participants intentionally
> choose to engage.
>
> So the next time a rugby player comes in with a massive head injury, I
> guess he should be turned away... Or, if he has clever friends, they can
> rip off the rugby shirt and say he fell down a flight of stairs.
>
> >> There is an easy solution: don't ban cigarettes, ban smokers.
> >
> >or at least get their demographic size down to that of people who are
> >addicted to climbing scottish mountains in jeans and a t-shirt.
>
> Get their demographic down how? The percentage of smokers in the U.S. has
> remained relatively constant over the past couple of decades, despite ad
> campaigns telling kids not to smoke. Apparently no one has informed the ad
> agencies that telling kids not to do something actually prompts them to do
> it. This has been made even worse by TheTruth.com commercials, which are
> full of half-truths and outright lies that any kid can look up on the net.
>
> And again, what is it with climbing Scottish mountains in jeans and a
> tee-shirt? Rob Roy McGregor did it in a kilt, why can't I do it in jeans?

Yeah, you're on to something Droog. We could even legislate it. We could
call it The Let's Play God Act and everyone...except for smoker's of course,
since they have no rights, oh and ex-smoker's too, since they might have
started the process years ago when they were smoking, no way to tell for
sure, and in the home even, where they poisoned their kids years before it
was politically correct to not do so...and this everyone else can start
deciding who lives and who dies. They could assign dollar values to life
and death, and to medical treatments, then decide who is more worthy of
treatment and who isn't. Oh, and without any tax rebates either. Just
deny them health care, but keep taking their income and cigarette tax
dollars. Sounds like fun no? Nazi Germany all over again. I'm so excited
I have to pee.

--
Rhi