Breaking: Thinking the word "Tobacco" causes death.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

It has been proven that anyone that says or thinks the wored "tobacco" will die and relinquish their superman status.


Fucking amazing, eh?

[MercutioATC]

1. Can I sue for that??

:shrug:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

3. I don't see why not.

We need a court of non-sequitor.

[MercutioATC]

5. Because if you make me think the word "tobacco", that's like punching me

in the face...

See, now you've gone and done it...

Akkkkk...gaaaa...ptthhht.

(I need a "dead" smilie)

[sproutster]

2. Psst... So does sex, eating, drinking and driving (and not together)

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

You forgot breathing. n/t

[seabeyond]

4. you dont die, you only lose a finger. at worse a limb n/t

[knowbody0]

6. i would really like to be near your energy field

[lastliberalintexas]

7. Tobacco alone probably wouldn't kill

It's the toxic chemicals that Big Tobacco adds to their products to increase the addictive properties that are the real killers.

And yes, I know your thread was a snarky response to another. But I've asked this before and never gotten a response, so let me try here. Why do smokers hate the idea of a ban on smoking in enclosed public places so much? I could understand the snarkiness if someone was stupidly arguing for another Prohibition, but they're not.

Yes, I'm biased. My mother has so far thankfully beaten smoking related cancer, and I'd like to string the Tobacco execs up by their genitalia. But there are also less severe issues surrounding smoking, such as the smell, the headaches, the sinus problems- and those can be experienced by someone like me who only is exposed to it second hand.

I really don't understand the defensiveness, or the seeming belief that smokers should be able to expose the rest of us to toxins we've intentionally avoided. Can you help?

[tyedyeto]

8. Define 'public places

are privately owned businesses public. Just because a biz is not a 'private club' is it public? Shouldn't owners of a business be able to decide what is best for their particular business?

[lastliberalintexas]

14. Yes and no

"Shouldn't owners of a business be able to decide what is best for their particular business?"

Externalities are not taken into account in a free market (or even a quasi free market) system like ours. It is only through an outside force that such externalities, both positive and negative, are considered by the market. For the smoking bans and other situations, government regulation is that outside force.

Otherwise, you are also arguing that a business should not be subject to minimum wage and child labor laws, workplace safety standards, and environmental regs imposed by the government. You might want to think about that capital L Libertarian argument before you really go there. After all, shouldn't owners be able to decide what is best for that particular business by paying people $1.00 an hour for 14 hours of work? People like Bo Pilgrim would be very happy to have you on his side.

Individual freedom is one thing. Business freedom is quite another.

[MercutioATC]

10. How do smokers infringe on your rights?

I agree with banning smoking in public transportation, public facilities and other areas where people have to congregate, but how is allowing people to smoke in a bar or restaurant infringing on your rights?

There are non-smoking establishments. There are establishments with non-smoking areas that are adequately ventilated. Nobody is forced to enter an establishment that allows smoking if they don't wish to...and nobody has a "right" to go wherever they wish and expect everybody else to cater to their whims.


Oh, and I believe tobacco smoke would kill, even without the added chemicals. Breathing smoke of any kind is generally considered to be an unhealthy practice.


(ooh! and this is my 16,000th post!)

[lastliberalintexas]

15. Not in my area

At least currently there are no non-smoking bars or pubs. There are some restaurants, but many places still have smoking sections, and the ventilation systems are a joke. You are correct that I am not forced to go to those places, and I choose not to. I only wish business owners recognized that they are missing out on a huge market of customers who would be willing to go to their bar or casino or whatever if we knew we wouldn't leave smelling like an ashtray with a throbbing sinus headache. (and I am excluding from this portion the time that my employer thought it was being nice and took us all to the casino in LA)

It isn't a whim for many people. My reaction is very slight compared to others, and even that is a matter of discomfort. Not me being bitchy, not me being controlling of others, and not me being judgmental of those who smoke. Actual physical discomfort.

Yeah, tobacco would probably kill otherwise. I should have said it would probably be much less lethal without the additives that the tobacco companies put in.


And 16,000 posts? That's a lot of wasted time on here! :)

[MercutioATC]

17. I don't disagree with you, I just think it should be market-driven.

If there are enough people for whom this is an issue, business will certainly court their dollars.




...and yes, that IS a lot of wasted time...

:)

[lastliberalintexas]

22. Well, I'm a Socialist- I don't have that kind of faith in The Market!

:)


And thanks for the civil discourse- usually this issue devolves into snipes and personal attacks from all sides. Mea culpa.

[jbnow]

28. Actually it's a step before the additives

though there are many that were added to cigarettes that are not allowed in food. But oddly it seems the biggest problem is the fertilizer used to grow tobacco. Since the 40's they've been using calcium based phosphate fertilizer.

The problem with that fertilizer tobacco ends up with high levels of Polonium-210 and that is radioactive and that is the only part of tobacco that can alone cause lung cancer. (That is others might in combination). It's estimated 90% of smoking related lung cancers are due to that fertilizer being used. Other cancers as well, smokers have a much higher level of Polonium-210 in their system.

I just learned of this recently when I was trying to understand the study that found no link between pot smoking and lung cancer. I found some mentions that when marijuana was mass produced in fields and calcium based phosphate fertilizer was used it did increase the risk. These researchers were looking at possibility it was actually the fertilizer that made tobacco the high cancer risk, not tobacco itself.

One link led to another. I'd never heard of it before but it's no conspiracy theory, no secret. There are internal memos (now public) of Philip Morris showing they knew radiation contamination in the 70's and as they went on over the years they debated switching to ammonium phosphate which would remove polonium from tobacco. They decided it was too expensive.

Too expensive! I've been so angry since I have learned about this. The companies know, the EPA knows, the government knows and they don't care, they don't change it. They let not just the smokers get the cancer (which people tend to think they asked for) but the fertilizer is also what increases the danger in 2nd hand smoke!

I can't begin to understand that. I can't believe they allow it. Corporations making a little more profit is worth more than all the lives that could be saved?

So my apologies or whatever you'd call it when my government let this happen to your mom and so many other people. It does not have to be. Why is it? The state takes all the tax money, the tobacco settlements...why don't they use some of that money to make them change this? I think it should be the basis of a new round of law suits. They seemed dumb once people were smoking because they knew there was this risk...but damn it the risk is one that is put in that doesn't have to be there. They do this to increase profit. They need to stop.

Pardon my rant but it is still a shock to my system. Other ingredient in tobacco can cause other problems...but the cancer they are letting happen.

[napi21]

11. I think it's a freedom issue. I smoke, and have for many years.

I don't have any health problems, and I worked for 17 years without ever having to take a sick day! I sure can't say that for a lot of my coworkers, smokers or not!

I have no problem with you wanting to be in a smoke free area. I do have a problem with anyone demanding that NO business can have a smoking area.

If a bar or resturant decides they want to offer a smoking section, and they publish it plainly so you will know you don't want to go there, why is that a problem for you? I agree to refrain from smoking around you, but you can't seem to allow me anywhere at all to be with other smokers...separate from you, to do what we choose.

[lastliberalintexas]

18. See my post above

Sorry, but I don't buy into the idea of complete business freedom that some of you apparently do. Just because a business wants to be able to do something doesn't mean that they should be allowed to- otherwise workplace safety and environmental regs are out the door.

Private clubs, open air public places, and residences are excluded from smoking bans. If they aren't, they should be, because in those environments smokers truly affect no one but themselves.

It's sad that smokers don't have the luxury that drinkers do. A drinker affects no one around them when they are ingesting, even if they are destroying their own liver. It's sad that that isn;t the case for smokers, but that's just the way it is.

[napi21]

23. I don't think I said anything about complete business freedom, did I?

Your bias read that into my post. I said any business AS LONG AS THEY POST IT AS A SMOKING FACILITY should be able to determine if they wish to allow smoking or not.

Actually, when I posted originally, I was referring to restaurants and bars, but now that I think about it, it should be any business!

If you don't like smoking, you simply don't enter! How hard is THAT to und3rstand????

[lastliberalintexas]

24. And what of employees?

If any business is allowed to make that decision, what about their non-smoking employees? You want to conversely also give those businesses the right to decide that they don't want to hire smokers? Personally, I just don't believe in giving businesses that kind of power (it isn't really freedom, it's power). And I'd be willing to bet that on any other issue, you'd probably be in favor of regulating the business too, rather than allowing it to set policy that hurts people.

Externalities of all kinds are dealt with by government regulation, the smoking bans are no different.

By the way, the smoking bans are not personal attacks on you or other smokers. As I've said many times, if smokers could engage in their habit without affecting others (as drinkers, overeaters, etc can), this wouldn't even be an issue. But that's just not the way things are.

[napi21]

25. People make a choice about where they want to work.

If you don't want to work in a place where they allow smoking, then don't!

Would you work in a slaughter house? I wouldn't, but not beause of smoking, but because of their practices and how they treat their employees!

Would you work in a paper mill? Let me tell you about the stench of that means!!!!!!

I still think you are just trying to force YOUR opinions on everyone else, and that's wrong!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

13. I'm a smoker. I didn't get upset till they banned smoking outside

inside? fine, as long as the owner agrees.

But when I can't smoke standing in the bus mall (a city street) while big fuming diesel buses chug by every 10 seconds... that really pisses me off.

[lastliberalintexas]

20. I agree that's ridiculous

Open air public places should certainly be exempted from any ban, as should residences. We do disagree, though, on the private business. I just don't believe in giving corporate america that much freedom. :)

[Viva_La_Revolution]

26. corporate? or small business owner?

I think there's a difference.

:)

[seabeyond]

21. i am bothered with the hatred. i dont even have to have a cig

i can get a glare if a person is across a parking space and just see i smoke. it isnt about the second hand smoke, they are close enough to get any whiff, or there is no whiff and still as offended. it is hating at will.....

that disgusts me

[KT2000]

29. I resent tobacco being

singled out when there are som much more dangerous exposures that are protected.
Pesticides and herbicides, solvents, diesel,perfumes (contain neurotoxins), personal care products etc.
Some of these products are much more dangerous than tobacco - they can alter the endocrine system in developing fetuses and in children causing permanent miswiring of the brain - for life.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

9. With 100% Certainty

Everyone who has thought the word Tobacco, has either died or will die within their lifetime.

[seabeyond]

19. that is cute. and the studies prove it..... n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. Oh dear. I'm really, really, really dead then!

:scared:

[TahitiNut]

16. Addendum: Brain Damage From Alcohol Prevents Thinking "Tobacco"

[Matariki]

27. do you mean 'die soon' or just 'die'?