Smokers are FUBAR

[Neely8]

What I was getting at was to lump 3000 or so deaths to second hand smoke just because they were non smokers who got lung cancer is laughable. People who do not live with smokers and are hardly ever around them have been diagnosed with lung cancer. It was a rhetorical question.

Were any of those firefighters one of the 3000 deaths attributed to second hand smoke from cigarettes Mike?

[OCmike]

those hypothesis are SO conclusive.

My favorite part of his link was this, which was repeated over and over, as if definitive:

It turns out that a study published by JNCI has concluded that ETS may not be the major factor in lung cancer in nonsmokers AND that “an as-yet-unidentified carcinogen(s) plays an important role.” In short, not only is secondhand smoke NOT considered to be the major factor in lung cancer in nonsmokers, but something else unrelated to ETS IS.

I love the conclusion that the author of the article comes to, after a "may not be" and an "as-yet-unidentified". He spins THAT pure speculation into a concrete conclusion? BWAHAHAHA!

Nice link, Clavensdale.

Once again you've proven yourself to be nothing more than one who is adept at hitting lots of keys and clicking "submit", resulting in a scroll wheel-punishing post, while simultaneously posting nothing worthwhile. You'd think that somewhere in that novella there'd be something of merit, but as usual, you leave the reader wishing he could have those two minutes back.

[Mister Bushice]

I'll go ahead and post an article with a whole lot of completely non committal statements in it like "support the Hypothesis" and " "These results also ‘suggest", and "NCI has concluded that ETS "may not be" and “an as-yet-unidentified carcinogen(s)" in it, and say that it is comprehensive.

Dammit Mike, you upstaged my comeback. :)

[Dinsdale]

You'd think that somewhere in that novella there'd be something of merit, but as usual, you leave the reader wishing he could have those two minutes back.

Fuck, take some responsibility for your own education, tard. Hell, I steered you in the right direction, citing the World Heath Organization, that says any statistical links are pure bullshit.

If you're completely dependent on me for your entire education, it goes a long way to explaining why you're such an ignorant dumbfuck.


Does your Google not work? Was "WHO/ETS study" not give you enough to work with?

Try this one -- http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/pas-smok.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The people making money off the ETS paranoia had a cow over the WHO's findings, and essentially had the study blocked... what does that tell you about the politics/profits vs. facts of it?

For any reader who needs final, definitive PROOF that SCOTH and the other medical missionaries - in their passionate hatred of tobacco - have forsaken education for PROPAGANDA on ETS, I urge dipping into a single chapter (45 pages) by Robert Nilsson in a recent symposium entitled What RISK? Nilsson is not merely a professor of molecular toxicology but the top man in the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate.
It's worth wrapping up in a wet towel to marvel at a transparently pure example of scientific scholarship on the sins of epidemiologists with a mission. You can skip the flights of academic mumbo-jumbo - for example, about "grilled hamburgers with a mean BaP content of 9 µg/kg" - and positively revel in the total demolition of the leading 'Research' on ETS and lung cancer.

Among the fatal flaws are: biased selection, which ignores unwelcome findings; changed "confidence intervals", which amounts to fiddling the margins of error; "meta-analysis", which makes an omelette of bad and rotten eggs; "self-reported information" which confuses ex-smokers with non-smokers; "dose response" which ignores amounts of exposure to ETS; "confounding factors", which ignores differences in diet, hereditary disposition, life-style, etc; and "study utility", which judges the value of research by its results not by its quality.

Scientists, seeking funding and recognition by ruling orthodoxy, strive ever-harder to fake figures.

Their incentive is the knowledge that insignificant or negative findings are less likely to attract attention even in scientific journals, let alone make it newsworthy for the popular press.

In short, "passive smoking" is a hoax inspired by anti-smoking pressure groups (ASH, etc), obligingly invented by militant medicos, and unwittingly spread by passive thinking! It is driven by familiar political imperatives and orchestrated by media scare stories. For all the effort to prove their point, the anti-smokers' ETS claims vanish in a puff of smoke.

This book is expensive - 200 cigarettes - but the Nilsson chapter alone is worth the price for any serious smoker, or student of medical myth-making.

[Mister Bushice]

If you're completely dependent on me for your entire education, it goes a long way to explaining why you're such an ignorant dumbfuck.

That pretty much sums you up all right.

[Dinsdale]

No doubt -- I can't entirely succeed where your parents and teachers have failed so miserably.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

25 years ago you used to be able to smoke in just about any normal public place. Now some people are being told they can't even smoke in their own apartments. I'd say there's some provocation there.

Yes. And 25 years later we have all kinds of facts that outline how horrible smoking is for you.

Myself? I never started. Pardon me if I have no sympathy for you losers.

[TenTallBen]

As a casual smoker I accept the fact that you pansy assed retards are doing all you can to ban smoking anywhere and evrywhere you can. I will say this...if you ban smoking everywhere then you have to ban talking on cellphones in cars, check out likes...everywhere. That shit invades my lifestyle of peace and harmony. Jesus fucking christ! The light is fucking green. GO MOTHERFUCKER! Get off the fucking phone and get your sack of shit car out of my way!

[Smackie Chan]

The light is fucking green. GO MOTHERFUCKER! Get off the fucking phone and get your sack of shit car out of my way!

And your landscaping, too.

[TenTallBen]

The light is fucking green. GO MOTHERFUCKER! Get off the fucking phone and get your sack of shit car out of my way!

And your landscaping, too.

If the tree is using the phone then hell yeah! Fuck that earthborn shit!

Go take a bath, Smackie.

[OCmike]

Fuck, take some responsibility for your own education, tard.

You must be a shitty poker player, because you've got a blatantly obvious tell. Anytime you've been owned (yet again) in a thread or clearly proven wrong, you start cussing, claiming Bode and calling people tards and dumbfucks.

Hell, I steered you in the right direction, citing the World Heath Organization, that says any statistical links are pure bullshit.

You cited WHO? Fine, I'll cite the New England Journal of Medicine:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abs ... w=abstract

If you're completely dependent on me for your entire education, it goes a long way to explaining why you're such an ignorant dumbfuck.

The only thing I depend on rainforest-dwelling motormouths like yourself for, is wasting my time with line after freaking line of hyperbole and definitive bullshit.

The people making money off the ETS paranoia had a cow over the WHO's findings, and essentially had the study blocked... what does that tell you about the politics/profits vs. facts of it?

And people who come to "shocking" conclusions about man-made effects on global warming, do so to get further $$ to support their study for another year...big deal. Any time there are federal or private grants available for a study, there are no shortages of scientists willing to sell their soul for a piece of the pie, regardless of the topic or which side of the issue they're studying. Thanks for the news flash.

[Smackie Chan]

Using a cell phone while driving will be the next banning.

I've got my money on R_t_S.

'Sup, Rog?

[PSUFAN]

Using a cell phone while driving will be the next banning.

God willing. Seriously...that shit is dangerous. Studies, practical experience, common fucking sense...all of those are the enemy of tards who think they're in a phone booth rather than a moving vehicle. Hands free, ok...but hand-held cell phone usage shouldn't happen for drivers.

[Smackie Chan]

Using a cell phone while driving will be the next banning.

God willing. Seriously...that shit is dangerous. Studies, practical experience, common fucking sense...all of those are the enemy of tards who think they're in a phone booth rather than a moving vehicle. Hands free, ok...but hand-held cell phone usage shouldn't happen for drivers.

Then you have to ban eating while driving, too, which causes far more accidents than cell phone use. Shaving and make-up application while driving also need the legal heave-ho.

[Dinsdale]

We're allowing the government to take our country away from us and there's a whole lot of morons who think it's a great thing. Trust me...it's not.

Mace

RACK Mace. He gets it.

Lots of people are fans of Big Government... so long as it's regulating everyone's behavior but theirs.


It's all well and good when their taking away other peoples' freedom to make choices for themselves.

"I don't like smoking, so I think the government should tell other people to stop."

"I don't think fat people should be eating fast food. The government should make them stop."

"I don't like elm trees, so I think the government should make people take them out of their yard."

"WHAT?!?!?!? THEY PASSED A LAW, AND I CAN'T EAT APPLE PIE ANYMORE??? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?????"



It's all well and good... until they come for you.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

It's all well and good... until they come for you.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Using Niemöller's poem on the Nazis and the Holocaust...to defend the ability of smokers to light up whenever and wherever they want?

Between this most recent display of his "Chicken Little" hysteria and his earlier "men DIED for your right to [fill in the blank of your favorite personal activity]" idiocy, the guy is making Lyndon LaRouche look pretty damned normal.

There are professional skiers and snowboarders less obsessed with slippery slopes than the board's own self-medicating "Encyclopedia Idiotica."

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

It's all well and good... until they come for you.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Using Niemöller's poem on the Nazis and the Holocaust...to defend the ability of smokers to light up whenever and wherever they want?

Between this most recent display of his "Chicken Little" hysteria and his earlier "men DIED for your right to [fill in the blank of your favorite personal activity]" idiocy, the guy is making Lyndon LaRouche look pretty damned normal.

There are professional skiers and snowboarders less obsessed with slippery slopes than the board's own self-medicating "Encyclopedia Idiotica."

Not to get all rational on this thread or anything, but nobody is saying smokers should be able to light up "whenever and wherever they want." If you don't want me to smoke in your house, you have every right to forbid it. If you don't want me to smoke in the business you own, you have every right to forbid it.

I just have a problem with local and state governments telling people how to run their businesses (and lives). Whether you're a 2 pack a day smoker or have never taken a puff in your life, you should have a problem with it too.

Sorry to break it to you, but you don't have a "right" to hang out in a smoke-free bar. You do, however, have the right to "vote with your wallet" and frequent bars that voluntarily ban smoking. You also have the right to open a bar of your own and set whatever rules you want.

I think that poem is a pretty apt analogy. You have to be willing to defend the freedoms you don't like in order to preserve the ones you do...

[Dr_Phibes]

Nazis and the Holocaust

Well there is a second hand smoke gag in there.

*fetches coat*

[BSmack]

Nazis and the Holocaust

Well there is a second hand smoke gag in there.

*fetches coat*

"Good" Germans knew better than to complain about second hand smoke.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Not to get all rational on this thread or anything, but nobody is saying smokers should be able to light up "whenever and wherever they want."

On the contrary - duncedale seems to be of the opinion that ANY limitation on the "right" to smoke is some sort of infringement.

If you don't want me to smoke in your house, you have every right to forbid it. If you don't want me to smoke in the business you own, you have every right to forbid it.

If you read my earlier posts, you find that those were my precise sentiments. I think that smoke-free bars/restaurants and smoke-allowed bars/restaurants should be each be allowed to exist, and I'm positive that each type of business would do quite well.

I personally hadn't realized how much the smoking in bars absolutely sucked until I caught a friend's band at the Dinosaur BBQ for the whole 4 hour gig...and managed to leave the bar not reeking of smoke and without a sore throat. On the one hand, nobody goes to a BBQ joint/bar for their health, but it sure as hell was a surprise to me how much more I enjoyed the experience without the cloying reek of other people's stale smoke in my clothes and hair (that used to "follow me" to my car, my pillowcase, etc.).

There are morons arguing that they should have the right to pollute the public's air in an enclosed public building. That's horsecrap. Hell, the fact that HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES where I used to work thought they should be able to light up near patients and families shows how fucking clueless some smokers have been and still are. Yes, there are polite folks like Bri and Dio who ask before lighting up, but I've dealt with more than my fair share of asshole smokers who light up in prohibited areas and laugh about it or pitch hissyfits when I ask them to step outside my house if they're going to smoke.

Sorry to break it to you, but you don't have a "right" to hang out in a smoke-free bar. You do, however, have the right to "vote with your wallet" and frequent bars that voluntarily ban smoking. You also have the right to open a bar of your own and set whatever rules you want.

What I and others DO have a right to do is be able to be in a public area and be free of the unnecessary and foul wastes from someone else's HABIT. Smokers absolutely should be able to indulge in their self-destructive, expensive habit of choice...they just have to realize that the smoke that they emit is offensive and, because they seem unwilling or unable to contain that smoke to their own lungspace, it infringes upon the rights of others to breathe clean air.

Dimwitsdale tried making an analogy between cigarette smoke and car exhaust/smoke from heating a house. That was nothing short of retarded. Cigarette smoking is a personal habit of choice, not a necessary act required to keep employment/food or heat shelter.

The more accurate analogies were the ones I listed - drinking booze and listening to music.

You have the right to drink alcohol, but your exercise of that right doesn't allow you to dump your wastes all over your neighbors, nor are you allowed to exercise that right in a way that may hurt others (e.g., drinking and driving).

You have the right to listen to music, and you even have the right to listen to it loudly - provided that you don't blast your tunes out of your car or house so loud that it infringes on MY right to peaceful enjoyment of my own property. What some of the numbskulls on this board seem unable to grasp is that the smoke from cigarettes is just like placing your stereo speakers in your windows and blasting tunes so loud that I can hear it across your property line and into MY house. The free exercise of rights does not include the "right" to intrude upon my breathable air or my eardrums (if I'm on my own property).

As far as bitching about fat fucks/lardasses complaining about smokers - until the fat fucks smear their greasy fingers or bodily wastes on the rest of us, they're not in the same league as smokers with regards to infringing on others.

For me, it's about people imposing their crap on me. Boozers and fatties thus far haven't done that.

I agree that the government at ANY level lacks the moral right to prohibit folks from putting tobacco, fatty foods/excessive foods, booze, drugs, other people in their own body. THAT is where I call the government intrusion "nanny stating." When they write laws to keep the wastes from your HABIT from infringing on MY rights, they're just doing their rightful job.

I think that poem is a pretty apt analogy. You have to be willing to defend the freedoms you don't like in order to preserve the ones you do...

The freedom to smoke? Sure. The pulled-out-of-their ass "freedom" to force their wastes into my clean air whenever and wherever they'd like? No fucking way.

Anyone honestly trying to equate cigarette smokers with Jews in Nazi Germany is a fucking moron with a piss-poor grasp of priorities and history.

[RadioFan]

My point is that smokers do not have, nor can they ever legitimately claim, a right to pollute the air of non-smokers.

Indoors? No problem here, especially if it's your house or a public building.

But if I'm outside, on a public street, park, sidewalk or right-of-way, then we have a major fucking problem. Many of the health nazis can't seem to understand this simple concept.

As fas as private establishments, I'm glad you agree that the market should decide.

Btw, for what it's worth, the anti-smoking lobby here finally got a smoking ban passed in Oklahoma, which went into effect last fall. The legislators here reached a compromise, however: With the exception of bars and casinos, all smoking is banned in public buildings and restaurants, except if restaurants had a seperate, ventilated area, for smokers. Some restaurants invested 100K or more, for ventilation systems, pretty much making everyone happy.

But guess what's happening now? The anti-smoking lobby here is trying to ban ALL exemptions to the law that was just fucking passed! They, of course, have some asshat in the legislature, who was willing to sponsor a bill to this effect. As you can imagine, the restaurant association here is none too pleased, especially after the restaurants were promised that, yes, yes, as long as you spend millions on separate ventilation areas, this issue won't come up again.

Nice job, Goddamn liars.


But hey, while we're at it, why not do BMI indexes every time you enter a public building and MANDATE that you go on a diet, right Nazis? Hell, they could put twinkie detectors in your cars -- sort of like breath-tests -- only maybe something like mass detectors under the seats, before you can start up and drive. Or better yet, GPS systems to simply track where you go to buy sweets and "bad" foods.

Sounds great, doesn't it? After all, it's for your health. Plus, fat people really, really bother me, and I want the government to DO something about it.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

The BMI thing is ridiculous.

NY wants to start tracking BMI info for elementary kids and have school-level "interventions" for chubby kids.

The alleged legal arguments are that because NYS participates in that taxpayer-funded child healthcare program, they have the right and obligation to interfere with family eating habits ("well, we're just trying to lower taxpayer costs...") and well, gosh darn it...the state HAS to step in to do the nutrition-related job that parents are just too stupid or lazy or harried to do themselves!

NYS, one of the great "nanny states," is a big believer in the whole it takes a "village idiot (i.e., state bureaucrats) to raise a child" philosophy.

[RadioFan]

The BMI thing is ridiculous.

Exactly.

As are the "do-gooders," when it comes to smoking outside.

But damn, I was trying to exaggerate off the scale. I didn't realize that shit was actually being considered "for the children." Fuck me.

This country has its priorities twisted beyond belief.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

To deal with overweight kids and adults, I think we should just stick to public ridicule. Screw this self-esteem shit - if you are stupid enough to indulge in gluttony to the point of obesity, you richly deserve the jokes at your expense. Let the constant stream of fat jokes and rejection by the opposite sex be their motivation for shedding the pounds. No need to involve the government.

I'm not overly concerned about some porker going postal due to the verbal and emotional abuse, what with their grease-covered, sausage-like digits unable to load a firearm or successfully pull the trigger.

[RadioFan]

To deal with overweight kids and adults, I think we should just stick to public ridicule. Screw this self-esteem shit - if you are stupid enough to indulge in gluttony to the point of obesity, you richly deserve the jokes at your expense.

Just don't tell that to overweight kids' parents, who are "offended" by a wiff of cig smoke outside.

EVERYONE is SPECIAL. DAMNIT!

Somebody is lobbying for government intervention upon my rights, and it sure as hell isn't fat, fucking kids waddling out of those minivans and SUVs.

[RadioFan]

Now, the OUTSIDE concourse?

Not in our stadium.

* The Stadium is 100% smoke free. Smoking is prohibited in the seating bowl, on the concourses, in restrooms and in the luxury suites. There are three smoking sections. Two on the plaza level on the east end of the Stadium at Gates O1 and O2 and a third smoking section which is located on the west end of the plaza level at Gate E. Adherence to this policy will be strictly enforced.

Sorry. :)

For what?

Stay on topic much, hypocrite?

Btw, how's that outside concourse smell? A breath of fresh air, I'm sure. Given the combination of burps, beer, farts, sauerkraut, beer farts, and urine, good thing everyone there is kindly acute of that olfactory ambrosia ... mmmmmm. Yummy.

[trev]

Um, what exactly did I say that is hypocritical?

I'm pointing out that our stadium nazi's have relegated smoking to a couple areas.

Your stadium is next.

Go have a smoke and lighten up.

[PSUFAN]

Not a bad idea, MtLR.

We should chase around fatties screaming "FATTY!!" or "DIE, PIG!!!" or "LARDPILE!!!!". It might help them burn calories. If our legislators can find the time and need to worry about "SPYGATE", then why can they underscore the public humiliation of the obese? Good plan.

[Diogenes]

Whoever was babbling about Alpha Radiation earlier should check out the levels of Polonium-210 in food and drinking water compared to ETS...

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/1000083301A-3301C.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As far as the 1998 WHO study, it was WHO itself that tried to bury the thing when the results didn't match their agenda. It was only after it was leaked to the press that they came out with a statment claiming the oposite of the study's findings...

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As far as the Niemöller being so offensive, considering Hitler's hatred of smoking, the smokenazis' facist methodology, and the fact that without tobacco, there wouldn't be an America, you might want to buy a clue.

You want more links?

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.p ... e&sid=2224" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fumento.com/susmoke.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingp ... e_lies.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.antibrains.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.forces.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.davehitt.com/facts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mike the Lab Rat]

As far as the Niemöller being so offensive, considering Hitler's hatred of smoking,

Hitler was also a vegetarian. That doesn't mean that the PETA freaks protesting my love of bacon are tantamount to Nazis.

the smokenazis' facist methodology,

Nazis? Fascists?

My God but you're an absolute nutjob if for even a millisecond you think that cigarette smokers, -a group of folks who have chosen a self-destructive habit- are in the same historical, cultural, moral grouping as European Jews. What next? Declaring the designated smoking areas as "Smokers' Ghettoes?" Are you going to scour the papers for some isolated incident that you can twist into a Smokers' Kristallnacht? Do you expect that smokers will honestly be rounded up and executed en masse?

I realize that invoking Nazis, fascism, or the Holocaust is de rigueur to describe ANY position that people don't like, but to use all three? Dio, you're truly certifiable.

and the fact that without tobacco, there wouldn't be an America,

Way to go, slugger. Although it is undeniable that tobacco played an important financial role in early American history, your claim that without tobacco "there wouldn't be an America" is just another priceless slice of the madness that is you. It's great to know that your grasp of history is right up there with your grasp of science.

Maybe if the tobacco companies and their "scientists" hadn't spent so much time, money, and energy denying the INDISPUTABLE FACT that their products cause cancer in their users, people might be more inclined to believe that secondhand smoke was harmless. I personally think that the jury is still out on scientific evidence on secondhand smoke's negative health impacts, but I understand why a lot of people are skeptical of any defense of "Big Tobacco."

[smackaholic]

the anti smoking nazis may not be lining smokers up against a wall or stuffing them into ovens, btu, what they are doing is damn near as reprehensible.

When they pass laws that legally ruin someones private business, it is about as bad an assault on that person as you can have, short of killing them.

This is exactly what those cocksuckers are doing by passing no smoking legislation in places like bars where it is a known fact that many will stay away when told they can't light up anymore.

I am not saying that anti smoking regs in general are bad. I am glad fukkers can't light up where I work, but, my company is not going to see a substantial down turn in bidness as a result. Bars are different. Folks go to bars to hang out, have a drink or three and light up, if they desire. Banning smoking there has a direct considerable effect on the business.

Tell some guy that has his life savings into his pub that the antismoking fukks that have the power to close him down aren't "nazis".

I would expect a libertarian type like you to be offended by such an egregious assault on personal property rights.

[Diogenes]

As far as the Niemöller being so offensive, considering Hitler's hatred of smoking,

Hitler was also a vegetarian. That doesn't mean that the PETA freaks protesting my love of bacon are tantamount to Nazis.

the smokenazis' facist methodology,

Nazis? Fascists?

My God but you're an absolute nutjob if for even a millisecond you think that cigarette smokers, -a group of folks who have chosen a self-destructive habit- are in the same historical, cultural, moral grouping as European Jews. What next? Declaring the designated smoking areas as "Smokers' Ghettoes?" Are you going to scour the papers for some isolated incident that you can twist into a Smokers' Kristallnacht? Do you expect that smokers will honestly be rounded up and executed en masse?

I realize that invoking Nazis, fascism, or the Holocaust is de rigueur to describe ANY position that people don't like, but to use all three?

What a simpleton. First of all, the PETA nutjobs don't have the government banning meat for them. I don't give a shit what any group of simpletons want to protest or bitch about, it is governmental coersion I am speaking of. And exactly where did I mention the Holocaust, BTW? And for the record, dipshit...

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and the fact that without tobacco, there wouldn't be an America,

Way to go, slugger. Although it is undeniable that tobacco played an important financial role in early American history, your claim that without tobacco "there wouldn't be an America" is just another priceless slice of the madness that is you. It's great to know that your grasp of history is right up there with your grasp of science.

So you're saying you know less about science than I do as well? No wonder the public schools suck. For those (like you appearantly) who didn't know- the Jamestown colony was on the verge of collapsing before they finally managed to find the only crop to keep them afloat and make them economicaly viable-namely tobacco. If not for tobacco, the english would have given up on this continent, we'd all be speaking spanish or french now.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I would expect a libertarian type like you to be offended by such an egregious assault on personal property rights.

Apparently you're one of the posters here with the attention-span of a sparrow. There are a lot of you here.

Read my previous posts. I am opposed to forcing private businesses to go smoke-free. I have specifically stated that bar owners should be free to be smoke-free or smoke-allowed (or any option in the middle that they can devise) and let the free market decide. Hell, I even stated that the argument that going smoke-free in the name of "protecting" the bar employees is horseshit, since no one is forcing them to work as a bartender or server in a smoking establishment.

I think that any laws telling folks that they can't smoke in their own homes are outrageous, as are laws outlawing smoking by parents in the presence of their kids (in home or their own cars).

Bri's statement trying to equate the government forbidding pot use/drug use in your home with the aformentioned smoking bans in homes ridiculous, since the government is, in the latter cases, banning activities that are illegal ANYWHERE. There is no more "government intrusion" in banning pot smoking in the home than there is with banning counterfeiting, heroin use and sale, kidnapping, etc. I disagree with the government's policy on outlawing pot, but to claim that it's somehow being inconsistant in not allowing it within your own home is ludicrous.

What I find funny is how some smokers and their defenders somehow see ANY limits on their activities as equivalent to Nazism, fascism, and the Holocaust. Duncedale called me a hypocrite because I'm not one of his "libertarianism = you can do anything you damned well want anytime and anywhere you want" nutjobs. I've explained, over and over, that cigarette use is a right that, like ALL rights, has limits that end with the rights on the next citizen. That's when I compared the habit to drinking alcohol and playing of music. I never argued for a ban. Ever.

Smokers have legitimate gripes, but when the smokers and their defenders make the most asinine arguments or inappropriate analogies in the attempt to defend their habits, refer to people attempting to limit the exposure of nonsmokers to tobacco wastes as members of the mass-murdering Third Reich, or try to defend an industry that has indisputably PROVEN to have lied to its customers, the government, and the public at large about the negative health impact of their product, they make themselves look like complete idiots.

[Raydah James]

RACK the hell out of Mike.


Excellent work.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

What a simpleton. First of all, the PETA nutjobs don't have the government banning meat for them. I don't give a shit what any group of simpletons want to protest or bitch about, it is governmental coersion I am speaking of. And exactly where did I mention the Holocaust, BTW? And for the record, dipshit...

Government "coersion" [sic] does not automatically equate with Nazism, you retard.

You, like all hysterical nutjobs, like to invoke the Third Reich to describe ANY perceived "persecution." You cheapen the depth of the Nazis' evil by your repeated, trite referral to anything you dislike as Nazism.

So you're saying you know less about science than I do as well?

No, Dio, you've pretty much established that there is literally no one on this board that knows less about science than yourself. With each attempt you make to wade into any area involving science, you make your glaring deficiencies in that area abundantly clear and further cement your reputation as the scientific dimwit of the internet. Wear your dunce hat proudly. You've earned it.

For those (like you appearantly) who didn't know- the Jamestown colony was on the verge of collapsing before they finally managed to find the only crop to keep them afloat and make them economicaly viable-namely tobacco. If not for tobacco, the english would have given up on this continent, we'd all be speaking spanish or french now.[/b]

I'm sure that the "tobacco rich" areas of New England, New York, Pennsylania, etc. would laugh hysterically at your incredibly myopic and hysterically ill-informed view of American history. No one, myself included, is disputing that tobacco was incredibly important to the American colonies and the UK. But your unprovable contention that there wouldn't even BE an America without tobacco is a hoot (well, to anyone not totally enamored with/suckered into a Southern-centric or tobacco-centric view of American history).

Considering your laughter-inducing forays into science, English, and theology, this "American history moment" from you is just par for the course, I guess.

[Diogenes]

What a simpleton. First of all, the PETA nutjobs don't have the government banning meat for them. I don't give a shit what any group of simpletons want to protest or bitch about, it is governmental coersion I am speaking of. And exactly where did I mention the Holocaust, BTW? And for the record, dipshit...

Government "coersion" [sic] does not automatically equate with Nazism, you retard.

You, like all hysterical nutjobs, like to invoke the Third Reich to describe ANY perceived "persecution." You cheapen the depth of the Nazis' evil by your repeated, trite referral to anything you dislike as Nazism.

Actually I refered to Fascism (their methodology to be precise), not Nazism. And until Mussolini's1943 overthrow, Jews were trying to get out of France and into Italy, which was never down with Hitler's 'final solution'.

But since I don't recall my 'repeated, trite referral to anything I dislike as Nazism'...

Link?

For those (like you appearantly) who didn't know- the Jamestown colony was on the verge of collapsing before they finally managed to find the only crop to keep them afloat and make them economicaly viable-namely tobacco. If not for tobacco, the english would have given up on this continent, we'd all be speaking spanish or french now.[/b]

I'm sure that the "tobacco rich" areas of New England, New York, Pennsylania, etc. would laugh hysterically at your incredibly myopic and hysterically ill-informed view of American history. No one, myself included, is disputing that tobacco was incredibly important to the American colonies and the UK. But your unprovable contention that there wouldn't even BE an America without tobacco is a hoot (well, to anyone not totally enamored with/suckered into a Southern-centric or tobacco-centric view of American history).

So you are somehow under the impression that the Mayflower would have set sail for the Hudson if Jamestown had collapsed? Hate to break the news, dumbshit, but they were seeking religious 'tolerance' (by their definition, of course) not mass suicide. Stick to lying about what I've posted and propogandizing your personal dogmas as 'science', nitwit. You can't even fake a basic knowledge of history.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Actually I refered to Fascism (their methodology to be precise), not Nazism.

As far as the Niemöller being so offensive, considering Hitler's hatred of smoking, the smokenazis' facist methodology...

Don't look now, Dio, but I believe your pants are on fire.

But since I don't recall my 'repeated, trite referral to anything I dislike as Nazism'...

Link?

Actually, you numbnut, I was referring to not just you in specific, but the collective "pro-smoking" contingent.

So you are somehow under the impression that the Mayflower would have set sail for the Hudson if Jamestown had collapsed? Hate to break the news, dumbshit, but they were seeking religious 'tolerance' (by their definition, of course) not mass suicide.

You still haven't proven your case.

The fact is that tobacco wasn't the prime reason that the Dutch and French were in Canada or the Mid-Atlantic regions, and if you think for a second that the non-tobacco resources of the area wouldn't have drawn the interest of Great Britain finacially and militarily, you're as big a twit in history as you are in other fields. I'm sure that you can "wiki up" or "google up" a quote or two from some fringe "historian" that will also claim that tobacco is the end-all and be-all of our founding, but that doesn't prove anything. It'd be nothing more than assumptions based on Southern boosterism and tobacco advertising. Tobacco was an important crop. But the reason for our existence? Horseshit.

Stick to lying about what I've posted

If by "lying" you mean "calling you out for the unrepentant, repeated truth-twister you are," then I'll be happy to oblige. You remember that you denied mentioning the Nazis, don't you?

and propogandizing your personal dogmas as 'science', nitwit. You can't even fake a basic knowledge of history.

"[My] personal dogmas?" You're a hoot. You're the one who advocates a steaming pile of theological crap that has all the scientific basis of astrology (by Behe's own admission under oath in court...) and was outed as such by a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN judge.

Tag, dimwit. You're it.

[Diogenes]

Yawwwwwn.

Next?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Outstanding point-by-point rebuttal. I can see why you're taken so seriously on this board.

At least you managed to not misspell anything this time.

[golf claps]

[smackaholic]

I would expect a libertarian type like you to be offended by such an egregious assault on personal property rights.

Apparently you're one of the posters here with the attention-span of a sparrow. There are a lot of you here.

Read my previous posts. I am opposed to forcing private businesses to go smoke-free. I have specifically stated that bar owners should be free to be smoke-free or smoke-allowed (or any option in the middle that they can devise) and let the free market decide. Hell, I even stated that the argument that going smoke-free in the name of "protecting" the bar employees is horseshit, since no one is forcing them to work as a bartender or server in a smoking establishment.

I made that statement because you seemed to be almost defending such policies by questioning using hyperbole like nazis or facism.

No derogatory terms are too strong, IMO for these fukking cocksuckers. As much as I despise smoking, I'm almost tempted to take it up just to spite them. Almost.

If I do decide to fight the power, I think I'll go with a pipe though. I love the smell of some pipe tobacco and it, like, makes you look smart and stuff.