Hilarious article of the day...

[Use]

Fraggle, I knew you would pull something like that. I also knew the comparison would be taken only on the surface, because any further look into it would reveal your ignorance, thus prove you completely unfounded and wrong in your claims. But we can't have that can we?

The basis of your problem is intolerance. This basic human flaw can be found in many, many trouble spots in history. In principle, you and your ilk are no different than any close minded fool who bases his happiness and well being on the intolerance of others.
As I mentioned in a previous thread this is a problem of extremes. One extreme is smoking in any public building, the other is to simply ban smoking in all public structures. These are not solutions. I respect your opinions, because i respect you as a person.
In case you never see the errors in your extremes or your intolerance, i pity you. Otherwise this opportuniy can be taken for reflection, and growth. History always makes the same mistakes, because people refuse to learn from those mistakes.

thanks for the discussion, i mean no personal harm against anyone. i hope something i've said makes sense to someone.

[nxn]

Use3D said:

i hope something i've said makes sense to someone.

Can you imagine if Bush said someting like that at the end of a speach?

[DOOM Anomaly]

Use3D said:

i hope something i've said makes sense to someone.

orion said:

Can you imagine if Bush said someting like that at the end of a speach?

Bush mutters that at the end of each speech he gives.

[Penguin]

so all liberals are for smoking regulations? lol, that's not even what liberalism is about. (not all democrats are liberal, not all republicans are conservative)

republicans suck
democrats blow

i don't smoke and cigarette-smoke doesn't bother me, i guess i'm in the minority.

:-]

[Y2theJ]

i don't smoke and cigarette-smoke doesn't bother me, i guess i'm in the minority.

Same. :)

[fraggle]

Use3D said:

Fraggle, I knew you would pull something like that. I also knew the comparison would be taken only on the surface,

Oh right, I should have paid greater attention to your post because theres obviously great depth of insight in your comparing me to hitler.

because any further look into it would reveal your ignorance, thus prove you completely unfounded and wrong in your claims.

What claims? I was stating my opinion. There is nothing to be "proved wrong".

The basis of your problem is intolerance. blah blah blah blah holier than thou crap

I am tolerant of smokers. I go out with my friends and have my hair and clothes filled with the stench of tobacco smoke from the polluted air I sit in. But I dont pretend to like it in any way. I think you should have the right to do whatever drugs you want as long as it doesnt harm other people, and in this respect I think the "employees taking cigarettes outside during breaks" policy most companies have is sensible. But what makes you think you should neccesarily have the right to pollute the air other people are sitting in?

[Little Faith]

Also there is no need to make asthma a bigger handicap than it already is.

[Fredrik]

Whenever I walk past someone who is in process of smoking a cigarette, I hold my breath. Preferrably exaggeratedly visibly so :)

[TheHighestTree]

I make it a point to only listen to the opinions of people who seem to have a lick of common sense, and to me it doesn't make sense that someone would purposely suck back cigarette smoke. It is too stupid...what's the point? Do you think you're cool or something? Rebelious? IMO, anyone who's addicted to tobacco has some sort of psychological problem.

And (at least in Canada) heavy smokers run taxes way up with their clogged, dying bodies. As far as i'm concerned, there are 2 things they could do that would make me hate tobacco a lot less:

1. Make it 50X more lethal, thus saving our tax dollars and hospital beds for people who are sick (not dead instantly)

2. Tax the hell out of smoking. Would you still buy the shits if they were 20$ a pack? Even if you didn't buy locally, all the companies could charge this price.

]; P

[Fletcher`]

TheHighestTree said:

2. Tax the hell out of smoking. Would you still buy the shits if they were 20$ a pack? Even if you didn't buy locally, all the companies could charge this price.

]; P

Oh, so we let the cigarette companys get even richer? Face it, even with tax raises on cancer sticks, smokers will still buy them. Their addiction is not just psycological, but physiological as well. Trust me when I say this, "If you sell them, they will buy."

[Julian]

ravage said:
Oh, so we let the cigarette companys get even richer?

What? You thought all these laws were made so that fraggle could still smell good after a drinking session?
Wait... isn't alcohol a drug?
OH GN0! fraggle iz teh drug addict :/

[Fredrik]

ravage said:

Oh, so we let the cigarette companys get even richer?

Umm, higher taxes always means the company gets less money.

[Mordeth]

fraggle said:
Whether it harms me or not, I would prefer to work in an environment not containing foul smelling tobacco smoke.

I would prefer if I could go to bars with my friends and not return home with my clothes stinking of tobacco smoke as a result.

I would prefer if you took your drug addiction out of my face.

I couldn't agree more.

[Wobbo]

IMJack said:

Indeed. If you make a habit of getting into another person's face and methodically violating their privacy, using your personal preferences as an excuse or tool to do so, you should live with the consequences.

the right to kill your self is not "privacy". Defending the lungs or others, the environement, and th elives of millions of addicts is not "intolerance"

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS 1984!?!?!?!!?!?!?

Goddammit! look at whats Whats being called "freedom", "individality", and "privacy" these days! And the worst thing is seeing people actaully fall for it!

[Penguin]

A WISE MAN ONCE said:

the right to kill your self is not "privacy". Defending the lungs or others, the environement, and th elives of millions of addicts is not "intolerance"

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS 1984!?!?!?!!?!?!?

Goddammit! look at whats Whats being called "freedom", "individality", and "privacy" these days! And the worst thing is seeing people actaully fall for it!

smokers have the right to smoke but people also have the right to goto a restaurant w/out choking. i have asthma and cigarettes don't bother me too much but are the smoking/non-smoking sections really effective? they're usually RIGHT next to eachother w/out any sort of divider.

[IMJack]

Yeah, bending words to suit your views is fun.

The thing is, I may not like smokers, but I don't have the time or the ambition to pick a fight every time someone lights up near me. I can cope; I am very good at coping, and I really don't care about second-hand smoke. If it really bothers me, I'll move; if someone decides to blow smoke in my face, only then will I fight.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS 1984!?!?!?!!?!?!?
Goddammit! look at whats Whats being called "freedom", "individality", and "privacy" these days! And the worst thing is seeing people actaully fall for it!

I'll be honest: That has to be the stupidest, most irrelevant invocation of Orwell's Corollary I have ever seen.

[Wobbo]

Thats a strawman, ive never picked a fight over smoking. You dont always have the option to move. you bended words to support the "freedom" to smoke- that is destry yourself, annoy and possibly harm others, and harm the environment.

The correlation between Orwel's classic and today is that the words we use to describe teings have become the OPPOSITE of what they mean. "Privacy" has nothing to do with ciggarette smoke, if that was true addicts wouldnt be doing out in the open in front of everyonem and we wouldnt be worried about it.

This entire thread is proff that what you said was BS, because if smoking had anything to do with "frredom of choice" (well maybe for the minority of smokers...) or "Privacy" none of us would be disscussing this

[IMJack]

Wobbo said:

Defending the lungs or others, the environement, and th elives of millions of addicts is not "intolerance"

This cracks me up for some reason. Since when did this become some kind of crusade? And of course, what gives you the right?

You dont always have the option to move.

Most likely you had the option to be there in the first place. If all else fails, complain to the manager.

you bended words to support the "freedom" to smoke-

And why isn't it a freedom, as long as you're not bothering anybody else?

that is destry yourself,

Seeing as how the average American is already destroying themselves with junk food and sedentary lifestyles. But I don't see anybody rallying against fat people.

annoy and possibly harm others,

You may choose to be annoyed by whatever you please; that's one of the great things about living in this country. If it's really irritating, or a real hazard to your health, move. Or you could always ask the smoker to be a little mindful; diplomacy is always an option.

and harm the environment.

This interests me; I would like to see some numbers on this. If there is a correlation between smoker population and environmental damage.

The correlation between Orwel's classic and today is that the words we use to describe teings have become the OPPOSITE of what they mean. "Privacy" has nothing to do with ciggarette smoke, if that was true addicts wouldnt be doing out in the open in front of everyonem and we wouldnt be worried about it.

As much as it is possible to have privacy in a public place (i.e. not), there are addicts who go out of their way to not bother anyone else.

My problem with your crying Orwell is that it's an alarmist buzzword, a canned arguement up there with the best of them. And I still can't see how it fits in to this conversation, although I haven't read 1984 in a few years. (I need to refresh my paranoia if I'm gonna run with this crowd...)

This entire thread is proff that what you said was BS, because if smoking had anything to do with "frredom of choice" (well maybe for the minority of smokers...) or "Privacy" none of us would be disscussing this

This thread was about hostility on public smokers in the first place, even when they take steps not to bother other people. And you and I both know that arguements like this only pull the most fervent pro/opponents out of the woodwork, leaving moderates out of the discussion.

[Wobbo]

[IMJack]

oops, i forgot that the health of human beings is NOT the default in america...

Y'know, if you miss my points, you don't have to make up for it with sarcasm.

You just complained about invading peoples privacy and being intolerant, now you think i should have to complain about every instance to the manager, who may (assuming he doesnt laugh in my face) THROW THE PERSON OUT?? It clearly bothers other people, even peggy noonan was able to admit that.

Missed my point completely. If someone is smoking near you and refuses to concede to your wish that he not smoke near you, then you bitch to the manager.

SINCE WHEN DO I CHOOSE TO BE ANNOYED BY SOMETHING!??!?! WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT? I WISH I COULD CHOOSE what pissed me off and what didnt, id have NO PROBLEM living here after that! GREAT JOB linking psychological impossibilities with geographic location. Fucking classic. TO make it clear for other people, its like saying do i chose i might choose what i eat, but i dont choose to be hungry- nor do i choose what foods i like and dont like.

So it annoys you. So it pisses you off. I understand that. But you can choose to react to that annoyance, or to ignore it and take it like a man. And if you decide not to take it, you can chose to relocate in such a way where the anoyance isn't present (or as pronounced), or to ask the annoyance if he would care to oblige you.

Ah, I'm willing to bet that this is where you point me out as an Orwellian poster-child. :) But hey, I'm still arguing with you, so I can't be that docile. ;)

im sure thats true. the point was that i can just as easily say -that a smoker invades my privacy with the annoyance he/she leaves around - why does the addict get priority over the majority of peopel?

He doesn't. Tell him to fuck off. But you don't villify all smokers because a number of them are assholes.

Finally: If you tell off the guy who is standing next to you and smoking, that's just fine. If you cross the street to tell off the guy who is standing there smoking, that's just chicken-shit.