The Smoking Crowd - at work or school

[Croc]

Of course it can aggravate it...but so can running, smog, or anything else in the air. You are definitely born with it. I have athlete's asthma, but cigarettes do nothing to stir it up. When I was born/in utero I/my mother was not subjected to second hand smoke...so why do I have it? Who knows...

[Drew Dowdell]

Also, the drunk driver has a double whammy on the costs...not only do you get hit for medical insurance hikes, but auto as well.

---------------------------------------------------------

I'm with Black and Blue..."he who is without vice..."

197499[/snapback]

In 2001, excessive alcohol use was responsible for approximately 75,000 preventable deaths Center for Disease Control

v.

The report also finds that during 1997–2001 an estimated 438,000 annual premature deaths occur as a result of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke.*

Center for Disease Control

You're projecting.

*edited for clarity

Edited September 25, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[Croc]

And how many of those 438,000 premature deaths involved costly court cases?

[Camino LS6]

Is smoking good? Of course not, but the anti-smoking legislation is bordering on persecution these days which makes me want to smoke forever just to piss-off these self-righteous "born again breathers". I will always side with personal freedom over "the common good".

<------ lighting protest smoke

<------ holding smoke in middle finger position

[Croc]

YEA CAMINO!

Arrrrrright gotta ask: what brand? I'm either a Camel or Parliament man...lights of course.

Edited September 25, 2006 by Croc

[z28luvr01]

Is smoking good? Of course not, but the anti-smoking legislation is bordering on persecution these days which makes me want to smoke forever just to piss-off these self-righteous "born again breathers".  I will always side with personal freedom over "the common good".

<------ lighting protest smoke

<------ holding smoke in middle finger position

197513[/snapback]

I respectfully disagree. I think the issue of smoking is one where the greater good should prevail. Smoking in public places forces people who are allergic to cigarette smoke to be exposed to it. Smoking should be handled in the same way that drinking is - it should be illegal to do so wherever the well being of others is in jeopardy. You are allowed to drink in your home and in a bar or restaurant, but you cannot drink in a car because you present a risk to the general population. With that said, however, I'm in favor of having designated smoking areas that can be avoided by the general public, with the exception being school property. My workplace has these, and I don't have a problem with them. If such areas are in jeopardy as a result of legislation, then I can see that as an impingement on freedom.

[Drew Dowdell]

And how many of those 438,000 premature deaths involved costly court cases?

197512[/snapback]

a bunch... it's called Class Action Lawsuits.

[Drew Dowdell]

Is leaded gas good? Of course not, but the anti-leaded gas legislation is bordering on persecution these days which makes me want to use leaded gas forever just to piss-off these self-righteous "born again breathers".  I will always side with personal freedom over "the common good".

197513[/snapback]

just sayin...

[Croc]

just sayin...

197525[/snapback]

Arrrright I think it's time to agree to disagree since I think your altering of Camino's quote is beyond ridiculous. Those two are not a parallel analogy at all.

[Croc]

I respectfully disagree. I think the issue of smoking is one where the greater good should prevail. Smoking in public places forces people who are allergic to cigarette smoke to be exposed to it. Smoking should be handled in the same way that drinking is - it should be illegal to do so wherever the well being of others is in jeopardy. You are allowed to drink in your home and in a bar or restaurant, but you cannot drink in a car because you present a risk to the general population. With that said, however, I'm in favor of having designated smoking areas that can be avoided by the general public, with the exception being school property. My workplace has these, and I don't have a problem with them. If such areas are in jeopardy as a result of legislation, then I can see that as an impingement on freedom.

197520[/snapback]

Exactly. That is a reasonable compromise. If I smoke, it will be outside. Away from others, unless they care to join...that's just common courtesy.

[Drew Dowdell]

Those two are not a parallel analogy at all.

197529[/snapback]

Rather than just summarily discounting it. Explain why they are not parallel?

If I choose to burn a substance that is hazardous to my health and the health of those around me, it's my right isn't it?

Does it really matter if I'm burning said substance between my lips or in the engine of a 1957 Buick?

[Drew Dowdell]

Exactly.  That is a reasonable compromise.  If I smoke, it will be outside.  Away from others, unless they care to join...that's just common courtesy.

197530[/snapback]

That doesn't address the massively increased health care costs.

Personally, I think anyone who smokes should see an automatic 1000% surcharge in their health insurance premiums and a reduction by 50% of the cost covered by an employer.

Anyone without health insurance should be ineligible for any "free" treatment of smoking related ailments.

[z28luvr01]

That doesn't address the massively increased health care costs.

Personally, I think anyone who smokes should see an automatic 1000% surcharge in their health insurance premiums and a reduction by 50% of the cost covered by an employer.

Anyone without health insurance should be ineligible for any "free" treatment of smoking related ailments.

197532[/snapback]

I think the issue of health care costs is another issue entirely. If you get into that, there's no stopping insurance companies from reducing your coverage and/or increasing costs of coverage based on certian lifestyle choices. Consider:

- Are you into contact sports/extreme sports, or even regular exercise? If so, you're more at risk of injuries.

- Do you get any regular exercise? If not, you're more at risk of heart problems.

- Are fatty foods a regular part of your diet? If so you're at greater risk of clogged arteries.

- Do you drink? if so, you're more at risk of liver cirrhosis (sp?), liver cancer, etc.

- Are you very active sexually? If so, you're more at risk of contracting STDs.

- Do you use computers a lot? If so, you're more at risk of having eye problems.

- Do you travel abroad? If so, you may be at risk of contracting a disease. not yet treatable by Western doctors.

Drew, I'm not asking you specifically. Just know that if insurance companies go through with what you're saying, they very easily could expand that to include ALL lifestyle choices to screw the majority of the population out of coverage.

[Croc]

Rather than just summarily discounting it. Explain why they are not parallel?

197531[/snapback]

Because unlike cigarette smoke, which goes UP in the air and dissipates, lead fuel shoots out of exhaust pipes and into the grilles of the people driving behind you, giving them lead contamination, and then settles in the area around them. Old highways have a very high lead content in and around the ground around them...and this would take a toxic cleanup to fix. Not the case with cigarette smoke. It does not leave its deposits everywhere, and it's toxins are only toxic if inhaled.

Also, lead exposure is much more fast-acting as well as guarantees symptoms. As I said before, not everyone who smokes automatically gets lung cancer, just as some people who have never smoked or been around second hand smoke have gotten lung cancer. There are many factors that can give someone cancer, and while smoking greatly increases that risk, one thing and one thing only causes lead poisoning...and there is a quantifiable amount of lead that gives an individual lead poisoning.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think the issue of health care costs is another issue entirely. If you get into that, there's no stopping insurance companies from reducing your coverage and/or increasing costs of coverage based on certian lifestyle choices. Consider:

- Are you into contact sports/extreme sports, or even regular exercise? If so, you're more at risk of injuries.

- Do you get any regular exercise? If not, you're more at risk of heart problems.

- Are fatty foods a regular part of your diet? If so you're at greater risk of clogged arteries.

- Do you drink? if so, you're more at risk of liver cirrhosis (sp?), liver cancer, etc.

- Are you very active sexually? If so, you're more at risk of contracting STDs.

- Do you use computers a lot? If so, you're more at risk of having eye problems.

- Do you travel abroad? If so, you may be at risk of contracting a  disease. not yet treatable by Western doctors.

Drew, I'm not asking you specifically. Just know that if insurance companies go through with what you're saying, they very easily could expand that to include ALL lifestyle choices to screw the majority of the population out of coverage.

197564[/snapback]

Do 438,000 people die each year from any one of those activities?

Does the treatment of farsightedness cost in the same ballpark as advanced chemotherapy or lung removal?

[Croc]

I think the issue of health care costs is another issue entirely. If you get into that, there's no stopping insurance companies from reducing your coverage and/or increasing costs of coverage based on certian lifestyle choices. Consider:

- Are you into contact sports/extreme sports, or even regular exercise? If so, you're more at risk of injuries.

- Do you get any regular exercise? If not, you're more at risk of heart problems.

- Are fatty foods a regular part of your diet? If so you're at greater risk of clogged arteries.

- Do you drink? if so, you're more at risk of liver cirrhosis (sp?), liver cancer, etc.

- Are you very active sexually? If so, you're more at risk of contracting STDs.

- Do you use computers a lot? If so, you're more at risk of having eye problems.

- Do you travel abroad? If so, you may be at risk of contracting a  disease. not yet treatable by Western doctors.

Drew, I'm not asking you specifically. Just know that if insurance companies go through with what you're saying, they very easily could expand that to include ALL lifestyle choices to screw the majority of the population out of coverage.

197564[/snapback]

Exactly.

And to take this one step further, an insurance company could use the following logic:

Since you are gay, and gay men statistically have more frequent sex and more sexual partners than any other coupling, you are at a greater risk of STDs and therefore the insurance company will charge you a 1000% premium.

OR

If someone is overweight, and overweight people have a higher incidence of Type II Diabetes than any other demographic, they will charge every overweight person a 1000% premium since diabetes is a very expensive and long-term disease.

the list goes on and on...

[Croc]

Do 438,000 people die each year from any one of those activities?

Does the treatment of farsightedness cost in the same ballpark as advanced chemotherapy or lung removal?

197576[/snapback]

Z was bringing up the point of where to draw the line...and you missed that point. OK I said to agree to disagree earlier, and at this point it is clear to me you have your little crusade against smoking. That's fine...but this discussion really isn't going anywhere.

Neither of us are going to agree, so let's just end it, mkay?

[Camino LS6]

I respectfully disagree. I think the issue of smoking is one where the greater good should prevail. Smoking in public places forces people who are allergic to cigarette smoke to be exposed to it. Smoking should be handled in the same way that drinking is - it should be illegal to do so wherever the well being of others is in jeopardy. You are allowed to drink in your home and in a bar or restaurant, but you cannot drink in a car because you present a risk to the general population. With that said, however, I'm in favor of having designated smoking areas that can be avoided by the general public, with the exception being school property. My workplace has these, and I don't have a problem with them. If such areas are in jeopardy as a result of legislation, then I can see that as an impingement on freedom.

197520[/snapback]

That's just the probelm,Z. Most places where this legislation is put in place make no provision for smoking areas, rather they are blanket bans on all indoor and even some outdoor smoking in public. I always respect a no smoking policy where it has been instituted by the property owner, but these laws don't give the owner the choice. Those offended by smoking could simply not patronize any establishment where such a ban doesn't exist - it would be such a fair,logical, and easy solution. However, the anti-smoking Nazis are only happy when they pass draconian laws that offer no choice, forcing all business owners to be 100% smoke free. If I were faced with such invasive government meddling in my affairs I would simply defy the law and refuse to pay any related fines. It's just too heavy-handed.

[ocnblu]

Croc is never going to change. He always thinks his opinions should be law, and anyone who dares contradict him should pay the price he demands of them.

[Croc]

Croc is never going to change.  He always thinks his opinions should be law, and anyone who dares contradict him should pay the price he demands of them.

197622[/snapback]

I said we should agree to disagree. How you came to the conclusion you did in this thread is absolutely beyond me.

I'm telling you now...if you're trying to provoke a flame war (which you seem to be) you might want to look into getting a better hobby because that one is soon going to prove immensely unsatisfying.

Edited September 25, 2006 by Croc

[capriceman]

my 2 pennies...

I belive I can touch the sky.... sorry for real this time

I never understood why people care that other people smoke or make other decisions. Its not in your self intrest that some one else will get sick from it.

Plus Tobbaco was one of our first exports that gave us money. So basicly Smokers founded the U.S. Plus the taxes that smokers pay goes towards education and services alike. also those "big" tobbaco companies pump millions of dollars into events and charitys but no one sees that. They just see those comercials from Truth.com that pisses me off. So next time you see a smoker you should instead of give them a dirty look you should thank them.

And by the way, I dont smoke, but i Support those that do!

So Thank You For Smoking!

[razoredge]

Im not trying to keep this going, just a few things to say

As a former smoker of some 30 years -

1. Croc - your wrong. Cigs have so many people in the hospitols sucking the healthcare system its pathatic. Its very costly treatment too. Kids do start smoking to be cool, or peer pressure which = being cool, and using the "keeps me calm" or however you worded it is a cop out. Nonsmokers dont need it, I never used that lame excuse when I smoked, I knew I smoked because tobacco had its fingers around my thoat, period, no other reason, addiction. Lastly I didnt interpret Blu as trying to start a flame war, he was simply stating your demeanor, if someone said the same about me I wouldnt think they were flaming me, simply stating the truth............ Now pay up, bitch !.........

2. The healthcare system is loaded with bottom feeders, so I wish loads and loads of second hand smoke and lead upon them !

3. Im trying to imagine the world free of all the annual deaths everyone seems to think we need to eliminate. Cancer and automobiles - man only predator. Anybody remember learning about the cycle or circle of life...........well man keeps denying it. Live and let die. Dont get heavy on me over that one either, I lost both my mother and father to forms of cancer..........none were smoke related. Mom, brain tumor at 36 yrs of age and Dad at 67 from a form of aggressive lukiemia, cancer of the white blood cells. tic toc tic toc tic toc

4. Oldsmoboi - your wrong, leaded gas was far more of a problem than cigs to our environment. In fact I highly doubt our environment is affected .0001 % due to tobacco smoke.

5. However inside bans on smoking are appropriate and have been here in NY state for what seems decades. I never smoked in food establishments or inside around people, except bar rooms. If I stayed out late, however, I actually stopped smoking because the rooms would be choking and eye burning. Im glad they stopped this and smoking in work areas, its only fair..........key word...... FAIR

6. Where this fairness ends is when people are not supplied a smoking area at work or worse yet "no smoking on property"..........that is Nazism and I can think of many more things to get Nazi about............have I ever mentioned anything about our healthcare system ? ...........immigration ?...............woman drivers ...............

7. If our government is going to collect sales tax from tobacco, and income tax from the tobacco industry, its clear to me that they are the problem. Our government is always the problem because the are a bunch of slackers, the slackiest, (shhh, I think they have a ......union.....shhh) they dont look after the population of the country, if they did, tobacco would be illegal. By By RJ Renolds/By By problem, end of story!

8. I truely believe the "second hand" smoke thing is Bull&#036;h&#33;. You dont hear of nonsmoking spouse of a smoker having smoke related health problems. Maybe a non smoking bar tender back in the day, that lived in those bars their whole life, but, hey!.........dance with the devil.........bow before St. Peter.........

[trinacriabob]

Croc is never going to change.  He always thinks his opinions should be law, and anyone who dares contradict him should pay the price he demands of them.

197622[/snapback]

Mr. "Pants on," looks like you and the Crocmeister have the same "on the rag" battles you and I periodically do. That's refreshing! I don't feel left out!

[Croc]

Actually, the "keeps me calm" isn't a BS excuse. I am not addicted. I can stop whenever I want. I have stopped. I am not currently smoking. I have never smoked more than a few cigarettes a day...and usually not any. I do not get cravings. I truly do it because occasionally it pleases me.

[regfootball]

Actually, the "keeps me calm" isn't a BS excuse.  I am not addicted.  I can stop whenever I want.  I have stopped.  I am not currently smoking.  I have never smoked more than a few cigarettes a day...and usually not any.  I do not get cravings.  I truly do it because occasionally it pleases me.

197743[/snapback]

Actually, the "keeps me calm" isn't a BS excuse. I am not addicted. I can stop MASTURBATING whenever I want. I have stopped MASTURBATING. I am not currently MASTURBATING. I have never MASTURBATED more than a few TIMES a day...and usually not MANY. I do not get cravings TO MASTURBATE. I truly MASTURBATE because occasionally it pleases me.

Sorry, I was just comparing the two dirty filthy habits for a moment. Is it true your hand falls off if you smoke too much? wait, I don't think I have these two straight anymore.........

If you must invest daily time in pleasing oneself for a habit, save the four bucks a day towards retirment and terminal lung cancer. Give up the heaters and if you really want to spend your time in a more efficient manner, just ramp up more on the nicotine patch and boxing the clown. Al least the rest of us won't be as disgusted be the gross stinky smell.

Edited September 26, 2006 by regfootball

[Croc]

...but I don't smoke daily. Never have, never will.

[LosAngeles]

Actually, the "keeps me calm" isn't a BS excuse.  I am not addicted.  I can stop MASTURBATING whenever I want.  I have stopped MASTURBATING.  I am not currently MASTURBATING.  I have never MASTURBATED more than a few TIMES a day...and usually not MANY.  I do not get cravings TO MASTURBATE.  I truly MASTURBATE because occasionally it pleases me.

197772[/snapback]

I've tried. Can't help it, rubbing one out comes in handy (pun intended). Even behind closed doors with a chick, you have to finish yourself off sometimes.

Louis CK never lied about feeling like a real pud sometimes afterward, but it's the thing to do when you're looking for that release. Whether it's over an ill porno scene or thinking back to that last ep swung with a certain chick that just needs to be revisited right then and there (only at home, LOL)

Secure in my manhood, my straightness, and all that...and I admit it.

I like busting nuts too much.

[FAPTurbo]

I'm surprised it took FOUR pages until the subject of masturbation came up...

Usually, it's less...

[razoredge]

Whats masturbation. Is that some new trend ?

[regfootball]

sure. actually, i would promote it more as a thousand dollar a year savings over smoking and it stinks less.