View Full Version : Smoking ban?
EDITED 08-14-2008
added some pictures and In an attempt to clarify and avoid confusion I am adding this preamble:
Everything in this post is personal opinion and is not the actual poll question...
The actual poll question is Should the sale of tobacco be banned
For clarification What I personally envision and mean by banned is; Should the commercial sale of cigarettes or even tobacco be banned. The question is not should we ban the use of tobacco. banning the commercial sale does not take away a smokers right to smoke. hopefully it would derail the 8+ billion dollars a year in advertising funding the deceptive adds targeting young smokers that large tobacco company's use to get young kids addicted. The private and nonprofit sale of tobacco could still be legal..
End Edit
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Original post
When is this country going to smarten up and finally outlaw tobacco products? <<<<<< This is a personal comment by someone upset about seeing a young man suffer. THIS IS NOT actually the poll question The actual poll question is Should the sale of tobacco be banned added 08-14-08 for clarification
Last December I lost my 5th acquaintance to Tobacco related complications.
Personally I just got over a bad case of pneumonia that required hospitalization. My Dr. of 20 years told me that my cigar smoking complicated my pneumonia because it has weakened my lungs. Apparently even one cigar a week is enough to completely destroy all your cilia. He said if I didn't smoke cigars they could have simply given me antibiotics and sent me home.
Shezzz I only smoke maybe 2 cigars a week. Anyhow I sold my humidor and about $9K worth of well aged cigars Hmmmmmm!!
The Dr said if I don't quit cigars Next time I get pneumonia it will probably kill me. So that's its for me. I'm done.
The pneumonia was not the only reason I quit.
The sad truth is a young man of 23 who is a friend of one of my boys just had both his legs amputated. About 8 months ago he was diagnosed with Buerger's disease. In case you don't know Buerger's disease is strictly a tobacco related illness. 6 months ago he was told quit smoking or lose you legs. His Tobacco addiction was so strong that he could not quit.
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6562/buergerdisease4030427qm4.jpg
image of Buerger's disease. its not the person I'm talking about in the post. Picture added 08-14-08
End result, today a 23 year old boy had both his legs amputated, He chose smoking over walking. I guess he will finally quit when they amputate his arms. According to his Dr. if he doesn't quote smoking he will probably lose his arms in less then a year.
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/1179/200804smokeadob8.jpg
Picture added 08-14-08
While I was at the hospital with my son today waiting for his friend to get out of surgery I had a good long talk with his Dr. and he shared some interesting facts.
Next to Obesity Cigarette smoking is the number one most preventable cause of death in the United States, causing an excess of 450,000 premature deaths yearly. This is more deaths than those caused by all accidents, infectious diseases including AIDS, murders, suicides, diabetes, atherosclerosis, kidney disease and liver disease combined. More Americans will die this year from cigarette smoking than all the Americans killed in battle deaths from World War I, World War II, the Korean War the Viet Nam War, and both Gulf wars combined!
Yet the U.S. government ignores the deaths and allows the sale of tobacco because it generates in excess of 8 billion dollars in tax's each year.
What do you think should the sale of tobacco products finally be outlawed. <<<<<<< Actual poll question
please don't confuse the issue I'm not asking if you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in your own home. I'm not suggesting that, in fact I think its fine. But you will have to grow your own tobacco if tobacco sales are outlawed.
I'm just wondering how our government justifies baning far less dangerous products such as ephedrine (Ca). Yet allows the sale of a product that is responsible for more then 450,000 deaths a year. Heck ephedrine was only responsible for two deaths and both those people admitted to exceeding the maximum dosage by more the 800 times.
Should the sale of tobacco be banned <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< once again this is not the poll question this is a question to spark intelligent conversation in the responses THE ACTUAL POLL QUESTION IS SHOULD THE SALE OF TOBACCO BE BANNED added for clarification
W2JGA
08-10-2008, 11:23 AM
When is this country going to smarten up and finally outlaw tobacco products?
They should ban alcohol also.
Although I thought politics was out of bounds, I have to say that I want anyone who wants to take away my freedom shot on the spot. I am sick and tired of a control freak on every corner.
I've lost two friends to smoking illnesses, but then again, I lost another to hang-gliding, one to a home-brew helicopter, and am in the process of losing one to hepatitis.
I stopped smoking because I didn't want to take the risk. I also don't sky-dive, fly ultralights (I used to) or race AA-fuel dragsters. However, I support your right to risk your life and your body as you wish.
Brave men who loved life have given their own lives to bring freedom to ours. Get a clue and go run your own life without trying to run everyone else's.
No one is trying to run your life but keep in mind your rights don't trump mine. As the old saying goes your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.
You can smoke all you want in your own home. But the second I smell it I have the right to demand that you put it out or leave. If you refuse you better expect a bucket of water or a hose. You have no right to endanger my health. I will admit that anytime I was asked I would always politely put out what ever I was smoking
You see I was once a smoker and took the same stand you do. Now I realize how dumb that was. I never had the right to force my smoke on others and nether do you. You won't win this debate against me because I've argued your side for over 30 years.
450,000 deaths each year and an estimated 120,000+++ of those are from second hand smoke those facts put you on the wrong side of the issue.
Some more interesting facts and opinions.
My Dr. told me that in his last 30 years of practicing medicine at least 7 out of every 10 patients who died, died of tobacco related illnesses or complications. He said in the last 10 years that number has dropped significantly. He attributes this decline to consumer education and stricter tobacco laws. He seems to think the younger generation is far smarter health wise as compared to the older 30-70+ year old group
We were also discussing the possibility the effect of making people who smoke ineligible for health insurance. banning people who smoke from health insurance coverage would go along ways to lowering medical insurance premiums. :eek:
They should ban alcohol also.
Yes Alcohol can be used improperly. But when used reasonably it doesn't pose much of a health risk, some even say it helps. The problem is abuse and we already have laws to deal with alcohol abuse, especially when it causes harm to someone else.
The problem with tobacco is the damage is cumulative. If you come down with medical complications resulting from second hand smoke there is no way to hold anyone person responsible. With alcohol If you get hit by a drunk driver the person responsible is probably strapped to a hospital bed down the hall.
W2JGA
08-10-2008, 11:46 AM
No one is trying to run your life but keep in mind your rights don't trump mine.
But the second I smell it I have the right to demand that you put it out or leave. If you refuse you better expect a bucket of water or a hose. You have no right to endanger my health.
What about the companies that are spewing toxic pollutants everyday? How about that 1970 dump truck that gets 10ft to the gallon sitting in front of you at the light in traffic? Or even the guy in his convertable smoking a big fat cigar and it blows toward your open window? What about the city water you drink everyday? Flouride, chlorine and who knows what other chemicals they put in it.
:confused:
kb3cvo
08-10-2008, 11:48 AM
They should ban alcohol also.
That was tried. The 18th amendment was the greatest boon to organized crime in this country.
Why not just let people make their own choices? I take responsibility for my own actions but I don't walk around pointing out bad choices made by others and demanding that they stop. That is on them.
KI4ITV
08-10-2008, 11:55 AM
Please save us from ourselves.
Take our smokes, drinks, drugs, guns, sex, cars, hobbies, then put us in bubble wrap clothes and make us all ride the Nerf Bus anywhere we wish to go.
There, now that's better.
:eek:
What about the companies that are spewing toxic pollutants everyday? How about that 1970 dump truck that gets 10ft to the gallon sitting in front of you at the light in traffic? Or even the guy in his convertable smoking a big fat cigar and it blows toward your open window? What about the city water you drink everyday? Flouride, chlorine and who knows what other chemicals they put in it.
:confused:
Yeah yeah we have heard the bull that smokers try and pass of as justification.
Such as living in the city is like smoking 2 packs a day. Well That's just a bunch of male bovine excrement.
This subject has been studied to death. Back it the early 1990's the new England journal of medicine published a study that compared living in LA to smoking. they claimed a 22 year old man living in downtown LA and riding a bicycle 10 miles each way to work 6 days a week was the equivalent of smoking 10 or so cigarettes a year.
Post mortum examinations of city dwellers lungs also fully support this conclusion.
On the other hand, the average smoker who smokes one pack a day for 3 years has lungs that are visibly deformed and tar encrusted, they appear black and charred.
The same one pack a day smoker at the end of 2 years has precancerous cells through out 80 percent of his bronchial tubes. Those precancerous cells will sit benign for decades until one day one cell POP's and you have lung cancer. The good news is the precancerous cells are 100 percent reversible with quiting.
140 years ago Lung carcinoma was unheard of, it was extremely rare. Today its one of the number one cause's of death in America
"Lung carcinoma is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. About 85% of cases are related to cigarette smoking"
link (http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec05/ch062/ch062b.html)
Once again the FDA regularly bans substance's that result in far less health risk with far less proof, Do you think 8 billion dollars in tax revenue might be influencing the government in keeping tobacco of the FDA's banned list
Personally I don't care if you do this to yourself as long as my insurances is not affected and I don't have to smell your smoke. I say let Darwinism deal with all the smokers.
WB3JLA
08-10-2008, 12:24 PM
I am 61 I do not smoke never did I wish my wife would quit.
The goverement is telling us what to put in our food some fats are banded
I like BUTTER on my tost
I like BUTTER in my popcorn
I drink BEER
Potatoe Chips from the AMISH tast good cooked in PIG LARD
I like FRESH ham and eat the chrispy skin
I eat the skin from a chicken
NOW ALL THIS STUFF IS BAD I GUESS
But it should not be baned
They call the Crisco Kid
I am a Little Fat in the CAN
and they Call me Magnam I weigh 357
MY SITE TUBE AMPS
http://www.geocities.com/insp/SUPRO6420.html
That was tried. The 18th amendment was the greatest boon to organized crime in this country.
Why not just let people make their own choices? I take responsibility for my own actions but I don't walk around pointing out bad choices made by others and demanding that they stop. That is on them.
The problem is you bad habit is not confined to affecting you. When your bad habbits kill other people you lose that right.
By the way my nephew was right on the money. Earlier today he expressed his opinion that he thought hams were pretty much dumb as stumps. A bunch of old conservative farts living out the glory days of slavery and segregation. Not saying I agree with him but its an interesting observation.
Anyhow I promised his mom before she passed that I would make sure his college education was taken care of. Of course I' didn't know at the time I'd be paying for a dam Ivy league university. Well I'm proud of him he's now a 4th year law student with an IQ of 150+ and a 4.0 GPA . Since I'm paying tuition I have access to his schools private network including the forums.
Well he posted a similar poll and the results could not be more different. A whopping 100 percent of students think the FDA should ban tobacco.
Maybe Kids are smarter then us old farts after all.
kb3cvo
08-10-2008, 01:15 PM
The problem is you bad habit is not confined to affecting you. When your bad habbits kill other people you lose that right.
Well he posted a similar poll and the results could not be more different. A whopping 100 percent of students think the FDA should ban tobacco.
Maybe Kids are smarter then us old farts after all.
Well it may also be that the younger generation is so used to the almighty nanny state running our lives that they actually need the government to make all their decisions for them. They have grown up with the concept that the "State" knows what is best and will keep them from harming themselves.
Sad, very sad.
KB9BVN
08-10-2008, 01:23 PM
If you want people to stop using tobacco, you don't ban it. You educate the consumer. Which is what we have been doing and we have seen the number of smokers go down...and then go up...and then go down again...
I quit smoking, cold turkey in 1990. My wife did as well, at the same time. Our kids barricaded themselves in their bedroom, shoved all the furniture against the door, and had pizza delivered to their bedroom window. We all survived.
I dreamed about Marlboro cigarettes for almost three years.
The slightest whiff of tobacco smoke now, makes my throat hurt and my sinuses swell up. So I avoid places that allow open smoking.
Tobacco has no redeeming qualities and dope is for dopes.
KB9BVN
08-10-2008, 01:24 PM
Well he posted a similar poll and the results could not be more different. A whopping 100 percent of students think the FDA should ban tobacco. Maybe Kids are smarter then us old farts after all.
That's really sad. I hate to hear that. Nanny state fanboys are a scary bunch.
ad5mb
08-10-2008, 01:36 PM
When is this country going to smarten up and finally outlaw tobacco products?
Last December I lost my 5th acquaintance to Tobacco related complications....
Shezzz I only smoke maybe 2 cigars a week. Anyhow I sold my humidor and about $9K worth of well aged cigars Hmmmmmm!!
Yet the U.S. government ignores the deaths and allows the sale of tobacco because it generates in excess of 8 billion dollars in tax's each year.
What do you think should the sale of tobacco products finally be outlawed....
Should the sale of tobacco be banned...
Indeed. Heaven forfend that someone should knowingly profit or benefit from the sale of something that does harm but no good.
I was looking the other day at death rates by cause (after a recall of sugarless cherry pie with unlabelled soy product). It occurs to me that we react too strongly to small threats, and not well, even if strongly, to larger ones.
I smoked pipes from 1965-1987, when pieces of skin started falling off my palate. Took that as a sign, you know? But I had found a tobacco whose flavor I liked (so did women!) and nicotine DOES help thinking.
Absent the desire to stay alive, and talk, and swallow, should we use the force of Law to compel abstinence? That is an awfully slippery slope. There've been SF novels whose premise was the tyranny of an omnipotent protectorate (usually robots, as that offends no political party).
How dangerous would a behavior have to be to warrant a ban? In the case of soy products, deaths among those allergic to soy look (if I've figured right) like they're about 4.5 per 100,000, similar to the overall death rate from falls. Following this to its dubious logical conclusion, if we are willing to recall a food for a risk that low, (and lower for the general public, soy allergy running about 1.1% among us) we should be willing to prohibit ANY behaviors of greater risk. As I say, a dubious logical conclusion, but a wonderful straw man.
Anyway, it is too late for the smokers, as public sentiment has resulted in banning tobacco use almost everywhere. Oddly enough, we don't seem so upset over marijuana, which is already illegal.
FWIW, my mother died after her small-cell carcinoma, which had been treated and was in remission, came back and spread; she had been unable to quit smoking. A selfish desire to see someone I love stay alive would impel me to ask tobacco plants be exterminated wherever found. And it was a terrible death. But she was 75. How long would we have had her anyway?
She would be "only" 83 now... and her mother made it to 80. I miss them both.
Cortland
KA5S
Follow the money, do you have any idea the amount of tax collected by state government on smokes. When was the last time government, at any level, eliminated a revenue generator?
W3RSL
08-10-2008, 02:37 PM
Follow the money, do you have any idea the amount of tax collected by state government on smokes. When was the last time government, at any level, eliminated a revenue generator?
As long as the GOV makes money off it, it's OK. The GOV will never outlaw anything as long as it makes money. I support the right of people to kill themselves!:rolleyes:
W4HAY
08-10-2008, 02:40 PM
It would work about as well as present drug laws. Ask any high-school kid.
Do a little research on the legacy of prohibition. You know -- organized crime, Al Capone, bathtub gin, St. Valentine's Day massacre, speak-easys -- things like that.
KB3RCL
08-10-2008, 02:45 PM
Yes, an alcohol ban has been tried once already. Perhaps you have heard of Al Capone, one of the biggest profiteers from the wonderful prohibition. The ban of tobacco would no doubt lead to the same results.
you ban it and all that would do is increase the desire for it. It's bad enough states are slowly but surely turning smoke-free. I understand the point behind it however as a smoker myself i also see other views.
Not so long ago I was sitting in a local dinor smoking and enjoying some coffee before work when an elderly couple came in and sat behind me. Not long after the lady turned and asked if i would mind putting the cigarette out. She had stated that the dinor had been a favorite of hers for years and it would be a shame for them to leave just because of the smoking.
well, i told her that the cigarette was lit when they sat and if it offended her then maybe they should have sat elsewhere upon seeing it. secondly if she had been going there for years then she was in the know of the smoking policy. and thirdly, i treat such matters the same as i do music and television. if you don't like it then change the damned channel. or in this case, move seats or go elsewhere.
its bad enough states are taxing tobacco at such high rates that for a carton of smokes i am paying the same price as i am to fill my gas tank, or more.
at the age of twelve in PA, a child is trusted with a gun. at the age of sixteen they are trusted with a couple thousand pounds of steel at rates of speed. and at 21 we are trusted with alcohol. all of which are more of an immediate danger to themselves and others than that of tobacco.
N5PAR
08-10-2008, 03:15 PM
I am 56 and have never smoked even though I was raised in the era of it and drinking being socially acceptable. I quit drinking in my early 30s. I had been a paramedic for a couple of years by then and saw what alochol did to the people who drank and most importantly the inocient bystanders the happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I also have a long history of alcoholism on both sides of my family and didn't want to take the chance.
A couple of people replying to the thread have said when used in moderation alochol is OK. I think that may be true but the problem is that I am conviced that if you drink long enough you will be eventually abuse it in some way or another. That's just my opinion.
The solution is not banning alochol and tobacco. They tried banning alochol back in the 1920 and 30s by a constituional amendment. I didn't work. It's too easy to make. It is also human nature to want something they're not supposed to have. It's the same for smoking. A lot of the kids I knew as a teenager smoked for the most part because it was getting away with something.
I feel education is the only way to go. At least people can make an informed decision.
Several people have mentioned only stopping smoking when they were finally faced with an actual medical problem related to it. I can understand it is, it's that way with a lot of the thinks we humans do that are unhealthy.
I have been over weight all my teenage and adult life. I have have tried many different diets and over the years have lots several hundred pounds and always gained it back. A little over a year ago I developed a serious stomach infection called H. Pyloeri. I was sick with it for several months before it was finally diagnosed. Even though I don't have the bacteria anymore the damage it caused to my gastrointestinal tract is long term. It has forced me to change my bad eating habits that I sould have changed many years ago. What is my motivation? You may ask. It's the fear of intense double me over stomach pain that usually last several hours I may have if I eat the wrong thing.
I have jokingly called this my negative re-inforcement diet plan. Instead of being praised for eating right I get the fear of intense pain if I don't.
I have even thought of a way I might be able to market this negative re-inforcement diet plan. It is still in the planning stages but here it is. You sign up for my diet plan, If someone sees you eating wrong they call a special number and shortly after a couple of hit men show up to beat you up. It's tought love at it's best. I figure it could also work to help people stop smoking and drinking. If you want to sign up let me know.
Not so long ago I was sitting in a local dinor smoking and enjoying some coffee before work when an elderly couple came in and sat behind me. Not long after the lady turned and asked if i would mind putting the cigarette out. She had stated that the dinor had been a favorite of hers for years and it would be a shame for them to leave just because of the smoking.
well, i told her that the cigarette was lit when they sat and if it offended her then maybe they should have sat elsewhere upon seeing it. secondly if she had been going there for years then she was in the know of the smoking policy. and thirdly, i treat such matters the same as i do music and television. if you don't like it then change the damned channel. or in this case, move seats or go elsewhere.
Good for you. I was on the Carnival Sensation sailing out of Tampa when another passenger came up to me and informed me smoking was not allowed it the lobby. I guess he thought i would put out my cigarette but got a surpise when i told him where he could go.
KB9BVN
08-10-2008, 03:20 PM
Good for you. I was on the Carnival Sensation sailing out of Tampa when another passenger came up to me and informed me smoking was not allowed it the lobby. I guess he thought i would put out my cigarette but got a surpise when i told him where he could go.
I just walked over to the customer service desk and told them about the smoker that was smoking somewhere they were not supposed to be. They gave the guy one warning and threatened to have him removed from the ship. The guy was a jerk.
KB3RCL
08-10-2008, 03:36 PM
lol, ac4r. though i find your response amusing the situation is a bit different. when going into an establishment where smoking is not allowed i am more than willing to accept those rules and ignore my urge for a smoke.
its when people come into a place knowing full well that smoking is allowed and they complain about it, that it gets to me.
N5PAR, you have some very valid points and amusing ideal for resolution. however i do have to say that education on the matter would be a flop. People have known for years the risks of smoking, including myself. Unfortunately, again including myself, we are to ignorant to care of the effects.
In the words of Dennis Leary, you could make a cigarette that comes in a black pack with skulls and crossbones then name it Death, and we would just want them more.
On a side note, Asians are an interesting breed when it comes to the smoking and drinking manner. Though in the US i have noticed it is rare to catch an asian smoking or drinking, i have learn from talking with people from the asiactic cultures and those familiar with it that smoking is a very very common habit. and drinking as well. yet, they do not have the cancer isssues we have. leads one to believe that we may just be using smoking as a scapegoat for other cancer-causing habits we have.
cell phones, radios, cleaning substances, and so on. all have supposedly been proven to help aid in the developement of cancer. as proud as i am to be an american i do have to admit we have our faults. a couple of the biggies are the ignorance we have when it comes to thinking of consequence, and the amount of time we spend placing blame. rather than admitting that we as a culture are causing our own deaths by ignoring the effects our pleasures have on us, we simply choose one and place all blame there.
N7RJD
08-10-2008, 03:38 PM
Good for you. I was on the Carnival Sensation sailing out of Tampa when another passenger came up to me and informed me smoking was not allowed it the lobby. I guess he thought i would put out my cigarette but got a surpise when i told him where he could go.
I just walked over to the customer service desk and told them about the smoker that was smoking somewhere they were not supposed to be. They gave the guy one warning and threatened to have him removed from the ship. The guy was a jerk.
Seems to me when I was on a Carnival ship they were very limited as to where one could smoke, especially indoors. Even most of the bars were non-smoking with the one exception being what we called the "cigar bar" as it was where they sold fine cigars and was just outside one of the big lounges. This is where we would run up to when we didn't want to find our way outside as it was right off of the elevator that was near our room.
I don't see the point in making things into us against them. I smoke but I also don't care to be in a smoke filled room. I have no problem with inside smoking given a good amount of ventilation. I can only assume that as much as I don't care to be in a smoke filled room a non-smoker would find it even worse.
I do not care for a lot of the limitations they put on smoking but have to agree with others. Given that I visit one city where there are outdoor smoking bans in most public areas I can attest to the fact that things have gotten out of hand but this should not be used as an excuse to ignore those that do make sense.
450,000 deaths each year and an estimated 120,000+++ of those are from second hand smoke those facts put you on the wrong side of the issue.
How does anybody know that 450,000 people die each year because of tobacco? Where can I find the results to these 450,000 autopsy's? Where is the scientific proof, not some "estimated" (by who?) guess?
I can understand banning smoking in restaurants or indoor events but some of these laws are going way too far. We just enacted one in Iowa which tried to ban a farmer smoking out in his corn field or combine if there was ANY chance someone else might come in contact with just the residue. A farmer who smoked on cigarette in the cab of his tractor then had his hired help or anyone else drive said tractor from that day forward would have been in violation.
In an outdoor bistro/deli/beer garden, you know birds chirping, flowers blooming, breeze blowing outdoors, which gives a higher level of carcinogen exposure for the people present, a half dozen people smoking a cigarette or the exhaust from the cars driving past?
You inhale more carcinogens from the freshly installed carpet than from the second hand smoke from a smoker. Ever change the oil/filter in your car and get your hands covered in used motor oil? You just smoked a carton of cigarettes.
Had your house checked for Radon ingress?
My point is smoking is being given credit for lung disease deaths that probably aren't caused by cigarettes. It's a politically correct scapegoat. What's the next step after all these laws don't produce any demonstrable change in the statistics? What's the next scapegoat de jour?
I just buried an uncle yesterday who has been a non-smoker for 40 years. He died of lung cancer. How do we know for sure the source and if he didn't die from second hand exposure is his death being counted in the "statistics"?
kc9jwa
08-10-2008, 04:40 PM
I can see peoples points, but dont forc esomeone to quit, ask them to try, try to guide them specially if thier your friends or loved ones, or go on a bann example.... i wanna quit so does my friend well lets try together.:) As for people who dont smoke i respect them, i go outside to smoke or far enough, if they follow well oh well, it hard for people to quit, very and yes it makes you do rediculous stuff , or act stupid, but its the addiction, the goverment is puttin mores tuf finto your smokes and cigars to get you to keep smoking, my buddy barely smokes a cigar maybe less then half in a day but still addicted smoking it depends on what kind the stronger the worst, the more the worst you just cant win.:)
KB3RCL
08-10-2008, 04:42 PM
How does anybody know that 450,000 people die each year because of tobacco? Where can I find the results to these 450,000 autopsy's? Where is the scientific proof, not some "estimated" (by who?) guess?
I can understand banning smoking in restaurants or indoor events but some of these laws are going way too far. We just enacted one in Iowa which tried to ban a farmer smoking out in his corn field or combine if there was ANY chance someone else might come in contact with just the residue. A farmer who smoked on cigarette in the cab of his tractor then had his hired help or anyone else drive said tractor from that day forward would have been in violation.
In an outdoor bistro/deli/beer garden, you know birds chirping, flowers blooming, breeze blowing outdoors, which gives a higher level of carcinogen exposure for the people present, a half dozen people smoking a cigarette or the exhaust from the cars driving past?
You inhale more carcinogens from the freshly installed carpet than from the second hand smoke from a smoker. Ever change the oil/filter in your car and get your hands covered in used motor oil? You just smoked a carton of cigarettes.
Had your house checked for Radon ingress?
My point is smoking is being given credit for lung disease deaths that probably aren't caused by cigarettes. It's a politically correct scapegoat. What's the next step after all these laws don't produce any demonstrable change in the statistics? What's the next scapegoat de jour?
I just buried an uncle yesterday who has been a non-smoker for 40 years. He died of lung cancer. How do we know for sure the source and if he didn't die from second hand exposure is his death being counted in the "statistics"?
perfect. couldnt have said it better. PA is about to enact a smoking ban in restaurants and public events. that is the only step they should be allowed to take.
until then, however, anyone need a smoke?
kb3laz
08-10-2008, 05:07 PM
perfect. couldnt have said it better. PA is about to enact a smoking ban in restaurants and public events. that is the only step they should be allowed to take.
until then, however, anyone need a smoke?
Yes but I have my own!:p
Although a cigar sounds good, to bad the cigar shop is closed!
I could go to the news depot but I dont wanna pay their prices.
AHHH, its to cold to fish to day 3!
kg4kww
08-10-2008, 05:31 PM
QRZ.COM is a smoke free area.
Good for you. I was on the Carnival Sensation sailing out of Tampa when another passenger came up to me and informed me smoking was not allowed it the lobby. I guess he thought i would put out my cigarette but got a surpise when i told him where he could go.
Good for you glad you never tried that with me. I have physicly removed cigerets from peoples mouths and put them out for them. Usually after they were rude to my wife and ignored her requests.
No one ever did anything about it either, Nothing they could do. At the time I was also a cigarette smoker. But I believed respecting women was more important then pushing my right to expose others to my cigarettes. If you disrespect my wife you have to deal with me. Back then I was 6.1 240 pounds and not one once of that was fat. I've been lifting weights, practicing martial arts and boxing since I was 8 or so as a result very few people ever challenged me and the few who did learned a good lesson. . I'm still 6.2 but now closer to 290 I've gained a bunch of weight as a result of inactivity after a traumatic knee injury. I still wouldn't have a problem taking a cigarette out of someones mouth if they were rude though.
Even though I smoked back then I never smoked in front of or around my wife and children. What kind of husband and father would endanger their own children's lives by exposing them to cigarette smoke. According the the academy of pediatrics each year second hand cigarette smoke is responsible for over 200,000 cases of asthma related illness in children under the age of 13. Second hand cigarette smoke is also responsible for more then 160,000 asthma related emergency room visits involving children.
What kind of monster would expose their children to something so dangerous and unhealthy. Doing something so stupid goes way beyond you personal rights it should earn you a Darwin award. .
Well it may also be that the younger generation is so used to the almighty nanny state running our lives that they actually need the government to make all their decisions for them. They have grown up with the concept that the "State" knows what is best and will keep them from harming themselves.
Sad, very sad.
Sure thats it. I guess your ignoring the fact that this is an Ivy league university. The students responding to the poll are mostly law students and are examining the question in ways that should make most of you ashamed of yourselves. The level of professionalism and respect among those students as compared to QRZ is absolutely stunning. Some of these kids are ready to argue cases in front of the supreme court. I have a new found respect for the younger generation. the score is now 98% in favor of a ban. 2% feel it's somesort of violation of your rights. I gusee those morons will go on to be ACLU attorneys . The rest of the students have looked at the facts and decided that nothing in the bill of rights or the constitutions gives you the right to knowingly endanger other peoples health.
Besides the FDA has already set the precedence by banning chemicals and such that are far less toxic and and far less evidence.
By the way my nephew has an IQ of 150+ and is highly gifted he is a 4th year law student who already has some very prestigious law firms soliciting him. He comes from good stock his mom also had an IQ of 150+ and held multiple PHd's
Personally I think the kids are the only ones making non-emotional rational educated judgments and decisions, most people here on QRZ are simply making irrational decisions based on some erroneous perception of the bill of rights and the constitution.
k4kyv
08-10-2008, 08:24 PM
some of these laws are going way too far. We just enacted one in Iowa which tried to ban a farmer smoking out in his corn field or combine if there was ANY chance someone else might come in contact with just the residue. A farmer who smoked on cigarette in the cab of his tractor then had his hired help or anyone else drive said tractor from that day forward would have been in violation.
What about the guy who smokes like a chimney to the point that everything in his house is saturated with tobacco smoke residue, who then takes his radio to sell at a hamfest? I have seen radios for sale at flea markets, that were covered with a yellow-brownish residue, sticky all over the touch, and which reeked with the smell of cigarette smoke. Yuck!
If they outlaw the sale of tobacco, addicts will still be able grow their own. You smokers should start saving seeds now, while they are still legal.
I was looking the other day at death rates by cause (after a recall of sugarless cherry pie with unlabelled soy product). It occurs to me that we react too strongly to small threats, and not well, even if strongly, to larger ones.
I smoked pipes from 1965-1987, when pieces of skin started falling off my palate. Took that as a sign, you know? But I had found a tobacco whose flavor I liked (so did women!) and nicotine DOES help thinking.
Absent the desire to stay alive, and talk, and swallow, should we use the force of Law to compel abstinence? That is an awfully slippery slope. There've been SF novels whose premise was the tyranny of an omnipotent protectorate (usually robots, as that offends no political party).
How dangerous would a behavior have to be to warrant a ban? In the case of soy products, deaths among those allergic to soy look (if I've figured right) like they're about 4.5 per 100,000, similar to the overall death rate from falls. Following this to its dubious logical conclusion, if we are willing to recall a food for a risk that low, (and lower for the general public, soy allergy running about 1.1% among us) we should be willing to prohibit ANY behaviors of greater risk. As I say, a dubious logical conclusion, but a wonderful straw man.
Anyway, it is too late for the smokers, as public sentiment has resulted in banning tobacco use almost everywhere. Oddly enough, we don't seem so upset over marijuana, which is already illegal.
FWIW, my mother died after her small-cell carcinoma, which had been treated and was in remission, came back and spead; she had been unable to quit smoking. A selfish desire to see someone I love stay alive would impel me to ask tobacco plants be exterminated wherever found. And it was a terrible death. But she was 75. How long would we have had her anyway?
She would be "only" 83 now... and her mother made it to 80. I miss them both.
Cortland
KA5S
I think far to many people did not understand the question. The question was not about banning the use of the product just the comertial sale fo the product.
Anyone is free to smoke in their own home and on their own property as long as they don't expose anyone elsse to the toxic fumes. The only difference is you will have to grow your own because the sale of tobacco will be illegal.
The only reason I posted this poll was to gage the intelligences level of QRZ responders to that of students at my nephews university.
Other then your post which seemed well thought out I have to say that the responses by the students were much more intelligent and well thought out then what was presented her on QRZ. Almost all the students who responded were able to quote relevant legal precedences and previous interpretations that substantiated their opinion.
This has nothing to do with brainwashed nanny state kids. Most of these young kids posted extremely well thought out arguments. So much so that I would feel very subconsciouses even posting in that forum.
I would really love to see the same question posted to kids studying in community colleges and state university's, as compared to those Ivy league students. Somehow I don't they would be able to match the level of insight and intelligence.
What about the guy who smokes like a chimney to the point that everything in his house is saturated with tobacco smoke residue, who then takes his radio to sell at a hamfest? I have seen radios for sale at flea markets, that were covered with a yellow-brownish residue, sticky all over the touch, and which reeked with the smell of cigarette smoke. Yuck!
If they outlaw the sale of tobacco, addicts will still be able grow their own. You smokers should start saving seeds now, while they are still legal.
If they outlaw the sale of tobacco, addicts will still be able grow their own. You smokers should start saving seeds now, while they are still legal.
Wow someone who actually read the question!!! I'm impressed
It looks like most people here have serious reading compression problems. far to manny people completely ignore the intended meaning of comments and questions and transpose what they read to suit their preconceived arguments . The question was about banning the commercial sale of tobacco not the use of.
kb3cvo
08-10-2008, 08:38 PM
Sure thats it. I guess your ignoring the fact that this is an Ivy league university. The students responding to the poll are mostly law students and are examining the question in ways that should make most of you ashamed of yourselves. The level of professionalism and respect among those students as compared to QRZ is absolutely stunning. Some of these kids are ready to argue cases in front of the supreme court. I have a new found respect for the younger generation. the score is now 98% in favor of a ban. 2% feel it's somesort of violation of your rights. I gusee those morons will go on to be ACLU attorneys . The rest of the students have looked at the facts and decided that nothing in the bill of rights or the constitutions gives you the right to knowingly endanger other peoples health.
Besides the FDA has already set the precedence by banning chemicals and such that are far less toxic and and far less evidence.
By the way my nephew has an IQ of 150+ and is highly gifted he is a 4th year law student who already has some very prestigious law firms soliciting him. He comes from good stock his mom also had an IQ of 150+ and held multiple PHd's
Personally I think the kids are the only ones making non-emotional rational educated judgments and decisions, most people here on QRZ are simply making irrational decisions based on some erroneous perception of the bill of rights and the constitution.
You are twisting my words, crediting me with arguments I did not make and coming to assumptions about me, my intelligence and my motivations. I believe any further discussion is not possible with you. Have a great day!
Good for you glad you never tried that with me. I have physicly removed cigerets from peoples mouths and put them out for them. Usually after they were rude to my wife and ignored her requests.
.
It might not be a good idea to try that in 16 selected states. The person may consider you a threat .
You are twisting my words, crediting me with arguments I did not make and coming to assumptions about me, my intelligence and my motivations. I believe any further discussion is not possible with you. Have a great day!
kb3cvo is wise. This is a political thread.
Follow the money, do you have any idea the amount of tax collected by state government on smokes. When was the last time government, at any level, eliminated a revenue generator?
8 billion dollars in Tax's and fees....
How does anybody know that 450,000 people die each year because of tobacco? Where can I find the results to these 450,000 autopsy's? Where is the scientific proof, not some "estimated" (by who?) guess?
It never fails to amaze me that people still try and justify cigarette smoking, By claiming it does no harm.. Not the brightest light in the harbor. cigarette smoking has been extensively studied. I like the study that was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine where researchers used a machine to simulate smoking 2000 cigarettes. They took the tar residue collected from those 2000 cigarette diluted it 50% so it was brusheble and proceeded to brush the tar substance onto the skin of lab rats. 85% of those rats developed cancer!! 85% 85% 85% !!!!!!! I say be my guest smoke all you want to in your home hopefully Darwinism will do its thing and we will be rid of these twits
Here's some light reading material for you..
"About 8.6 million people in the U.S. have at least one serious illness caused by smoking. That means that for every person who dies of a smoking-related disease, there are 20 more people who suffer from at least one serious illness"
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette Smoking Attributable Morbidity – U.S., 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2003 Sept; 52(35): 842-844.
Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 438,000 American lives each year.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States, 1997–2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report [serial online]. 2005;54:625-628 [cited 2007 Mar 13]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5425a1.htm.
You are twisting my words, crediting me with arguments I did not make and coming to assumptions about me, my intelligence and my motivations. I believe any further discussion is not possible with you. Have a great day!
Now here is exact quote.
Well it may also be that the younger generation is so used to the almighty nanny state running our lives that they actually need the government to make all their decisions for them. They have grown up with the concept that the "State" knows what is best and will keep them from harming themselves.
Sad, very sad.
I never twisted your words, I merely pointed out that your attempt to discredit these bright students was based on an asinine assumption with little merit or factual basses.
I was just reminding you that the students are in fact Ivy league law students. That their comments were not emotionally based and that they were in fact better thought out and presented then many posts right here in this thread. Of course since I can't repost any of their comments That's stickily my personal opinion.
The University has a strict policy preventing anyone other then the author from copying a post verbatim outside the university's system. I can only make descriptive references. The forums are private and can only be viewed by students, faculty and authorized family members. It's truly a shame to hide these forums from public view. Some of these students are very gifted intellectually. Many of these students will move on to be very influential people in our society. Many will become high paid lawyers, judges and even U.S. Supreme Court Justice's and Presidents. They are truly the future movers and shakers of our nation. Much of what they write now could someday be very valuable or maybe even dangerous who know but for what ever reason the university has opted to keep their discussions and debates out of public view. I feel very lucky to have the ability to browse and read as these students discuss class projects With debates ranging from constitutional law to corporate law. Even though I'm not a student I feel that I have benefited greatly from simply being given accesss to the forums.
This is a political thread from someone who admitted to 30 solid years of dumbness.
The University has a strict policy preventing anyone other then the author from copying a post verbatim outside the university's system. I can only make descriptive references. The forums are private and can only be viewed by students, faculty and authorized family members. It's truly a shame to hide these forums from public view. Some of these students are very gifted intellectually. Many of these students will move on to be very
Well, talk to them and to the University; it may be possible to get permission if you ask. The authors are the ultimate judge of whether their words should be spread around, though in the school setting students may be required to accept restrictions not tolerable to outsiders.
I'd not want them dumped into the Zed milieu, however.
Regarding our manners here, it is difficult to do reasoned and thoughtful comments in this medium. Either one spends a lot of time composing a reasoned (and well crafted) post, or puts up with coming off as a ranting fanatic. Not that fanatics have to rant. But the speed of this medium invites off-the-cuff remarks and discourages reasoning things out on the screen. IMHO.
Cortland
KA5S
This is a political thread from someone who admitted to 30 solid years of dumbness.
talking about dumbness. What does smoking and the FDA have to do with politics?
Seriously do you actually read what you write? or do you just talk first think later.
If we where discussing FCC banning a questionable 10 meter rig would that be a political thread as well?
kb3laz
08-11-2008, 12:02 AM
QRZ.COM is a smoke free area.
Then I brake the rules every time I post because I have a cigarette every time Im at the pc.:p
I think far to many people did not understand the question. The question was not about banning the use of the product just the comertial sale fo the product.
Anyone is free to smoke in their own home and on their own property as long as they don't expose anyone elsse to the toxic fumes. The only difference is you will have to grow your own because the sale of tobacco will be illegal.
The only reason I posted this poll was to gage the intelligences level of QRZ responders to that of students at my nephews university.
Other then your post which seemed well thought out I have to say that the responses by the students were much more intelligent and well thought out then what was presented her on QRZ. Almost all the students who responded were able to quote relevant legal precedences and previous interpretations that substantiated their opinion.
This has nothing to do with brainwashed nanny state kids. Most of these young kids posted extremely well thought out arguments. So much so that I would feel very subconsciouses even posting in that forum.
I would really love to see the same question posted to kids studying in community colleges and state university's, as compared to those Ivy league students. Somehow I don't they would be able to match the level of insight and intelligence.
With respect, a product available commercially in the quantities tobacco is, that people must begin to grow for themselves as never before, has to all effects actually been banned.
BTW, I thank you for the compliment, but the Zed doesn't put a premium on reason, and were it not for the Web, I'd be hard put to come up with the information to liven and perhaps justify some of my own remarks.
I suspect that some of our members could hold their own in that other forum. It might be a shock, though! And don't underestimate students at less expensive schools; they may not have been as well served by their schooling, but if they were willing to put their minds to it they might surprise the "Tenth Floor Or More" elite.
Cortland
KA5S
No one is trying to run your life but keep in mind your rights don't trump mine. As the old saying goes your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.
This from a person who thinks he has the right to control what people do and shoot them if they do not comply.
N7RJD
08-11-2008, 12:41 AM
Then I brake the rules every time I post because I have a cigarette every time Im at the pc.:p
You and me both, at least when I am at home which anymore is a day or two each month. When stuck down here I have to go outside out of respect for someone ele's home and their request. I suppose I could pop the wifi card into the Pocket PC and have the best of both worlds. :D
KC2STS
08-11-2008, 12:49 AM
I smoke, but in turn your cars expose me to toxic fumes.
k4kyv
08-11-2008, 12:50 AM
kb3cvo is wise. This is a political thread.
Is it possible to discuss any subject that might be the least bit debatable, without the possibility of it being interpreted as political?
Or should we limit our discussions to electric shavers vs razor blades, sit-down vs squat-down toilets, and pushbutton vs toggle electrical switches? But wait. Those are debatable topics, therefore political. Mustn't start a thread.
KB3RCL
08-11-2008, 01:04 AM
Good for you glad you never tried that with me. I have physicly removed cigerets from peoples mouths and put them out for them. Usually after they were rude to my wife and ignored her requests.
No one ever did anything about it either, Nothing they could do. At the time I was also a cigarette smoker. But I believed respecting women was more important then pushing my right to expose others to my cigarettes. If you disrespect my wife you have to deal with me. Back then I was 6.1 240 pounds and not one once of that was fat. I've been lifting weights, practicing martial arts and boxing since I was 8 or so as a result very few people ever challenged me and the few who did learned a good lesson. . I'm still 6.2 but now closer to 290 I've gained a bunch of weight as a result of inactivity after a traumatic knee injury. I still wouldn't have a problem taking a cigarette out of someones mouth if they were rude though.
Even though I smoked back then I never smoked in front of or around my wife and children. What kind of husband and father would endanger their own children's lives by exposing them to cigarette smoke. According the the academy of pediatrics each year second hand cigarette smoke is responsible for over 200,000 cases of asthma related illness in children under the age of 13. Second hand cigarette smoke is also responsible for more then 160,000 asthma related emergency room visits involving children.
What kind of monster would expose their children to something so dangerous and unhealthy. Doing something so stupid goes way beyond you personal rights it should earn you a Darwin award. .
now that you are done tooting your own horn...what was the point? I mean, aside from the attempt at intimidation and stating stats already stated?
as far as being monsters for exposing children to such dangerous things? you have kids? I wonder, you ever drive them anywhere or take them on a plane? Maybe a boat? They old enough to hunt? Or maybe they swim? All of said activities are responsible for more deaths, instant death at that. And i am sure you have done at least one. So, what kind of monster are you?
Is it possible to discuss any subject that might be the least bit debatable, without the possibility of it being interpreted as political?
Or should we limit our discussions to electric shavers vs razor blades, sit-down vs squat-down toilets, and pushbutton vs toggle electrical switches? But wait. Those are debatable topics, therefore political. Mustn't start a thread.
The guy who started this thread has engaged in a breathtaking series of subtle and not so subtle insults about the intelligence of hams while asserting that he wants government to initiate force against the peaceful trade of tobacco.
It is a political position.
k4kyv
08-11-2008, 01:18 AM
Beside the overall decline in smoking, the major cigarette companies are increasingly using cheap foreign-produced tobacco, so our domestic tobacco farmers are facing a declining market for their product.
One of the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution, is to levy import duties. Congress should impose a high enough tariff on tobacco and tobacco products to make foreign-produced tobacco prohibitively expensive, thus limiting the tobacco companies to domestically produced tobacco for products manufactured and sold in the USA.
That would guarantee U.S. tobacco farmers a continued market for their product, while discouraging consumption by raising the price of cigarettes, without increasing the tobacco tax to consumers.
kb3laz
08-11-2008, 01:24 AM
Beside the overall decline in smoking, the major cigarette companies are increasingly using cheap foreign-produced tobacco, so our domestic tobacco farmers are facing a declining market for their product.
One of the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution, is to levy import duties. Congress should impose a high enough tariff on tobacco and tobacco products to make foreign-produced tobacco prohibitively expensive, thus limiting the tobacco companies to domestically produced tobacco for products manufactured and sold in the USA.
That would guarantee U.S. tobacco farmers a continued market for their product, while discouraging consumption by raising the price of cigarettes, without increasing the tobacco tax to consumers.\
Increasing the price will not make all people quit, heck if they made it illegal people would still do it. How many people smoke dope and take other narcotics regardless of the price and the legality issue? Well beings we have multiple task forces to deal with these items and offenders I would say quite a few. So the plain and simple thing with tobacco is that people will use it no matter what, period!
KB3RCL
08-11-2008, 01:25 AM
well, you guys are right. i am of sub-level intellegence and dont deserve to voice my opinion when asked. I guess we all are...well, unless we are of ivy league status. Sorry community college folk, your opinion no longer matter as well. we are nothing more than some lame sociological experiment.
and here we were thinking we were on a forum answering a question of opinion.
maybe if you are expecting people to state facts and legalities then you might want to try and ask for evidence leaning one way or the other rather than a simple question.
excuse me while i go and try to collect my thoughts. all 4 of them. i must do so quickly before they all float away and some sheltered and spoiled trust-fund ivy league baby beats me to it.
until the next time, KNARF!
KB3RCL
08-11-2008, 01:31 AM
wow, it's the next time already!
anyway, KB3LAZ is 100% correct. have you seen the increase in tobacco costs? It has stopped people from buying them. they just switch to rolling their own or look for other sources to buy from.
if you ban the sale of said product then consumers will simply grow their own. if the product is then banned completely then you are looking at nothing more than a repeat in history. It has been mentioned a couple of times, but does anyone remember learning about the alcohol prohibition and the results?
k4kyv
08-11-2008, 01:57 AM
I recall the last time I visited the Netherlands back in the 70's, almost everyone there rolled their own. The tax on ready-made cigarettes was very high, but loose tobacco was taxed at a lower rate.
It still moderated smoking, because whenever one felt the urge to indulge, instead of mindlessly pulling out a fag, one had to consciously get out the pouch, take the rolling paper, roll the cigarette and then light it, so undoubtedly many times the person would simply put it off until a more convenient time.
Increasing import tariffs on foreign-grown tobacco, or even prohibiting its importation altogether, would still help domestic farmers.
Absolutely the last thing we need is Prohibition of the sale and possession of another product highly demanded by the public, in order to protect us against ourselves.
kb3laz
08-11-2008, 02:01 AM
I recall the last time I visited the Netherlands back in the 70's, almost everyone there rolled their own. The tax on ready-made cigarettes was very high, but loose tobacco was taxed at a lower rate.
It still moderated smoking, because whenever one felt the urge to indulge, instead of mindlessly pulling out a fag, one had to consciously get out the pouch, take the rolling paper, roll the cigarette and then light it, so undoubtedly many times the person would simply put it off until a more convenient time.
Increasing import tariffs on foreign-grown tobacco, or even prohibiting its importation altogether, would still help domestic farmers.
Absolutely the last thing we need is Prohibition of the sale and possession of another product highly demanded by the public, in order to protect us against ourselves.
I agree with your statement on the farming industry.
As for rolling cigarettes I can easily make a carton in 1/2 of an hour, problem solved.
now that you are done tooting your own horn...what was the point? I mean, aside from the attempt at intimidation and stating stats already stated?
as far as being monsters for exposing children to such dangerous things? you have kids? I wonder, you ever drive them anywhere or take them on a plane? Maybe a boat? They old enough to hunt? Or maybe they swim? All of said activities are responsible for more deaths, instant death at that. And i am sure you have done at least one. So, what kind of monster are you?
are you seriously trying to compare smoking to boating :rolleyes:
Obviously you have not been following along. I guess you can say I do a bit of boating I am a retired ships master. I retired holding the top ticket a USCG Unlimited Masters. As result all my children have been exposed to extensive bluewater sailing. Our private boat is a 2007 Island Packet 485 and right now she's in Greece.
Anyhow according the CDC cigarette smoking is responsible for 438,000 premature deaths yearly. This is more deaths than those caused by all accidents, infectious diseases including AIDS, murders, suicides, diabetes, atherosclerosis, kidney disease and liver disease combined.
Further more, according to the CDC More Americans will die this year from cigarette smoking than all the Americans killed in battle deaths from World War I, World War II, the Korean War the Viet Nam War, and both Gulf wars combined!
Not only that but
"About 8.6 million people in the U.S. have at least one serious illness caused by smoking. That means that for every person who dies of a smoking-related disease, there are 20 more people who suffer from at least one serious illness"
I would be included in this category as I just recovered from a sever case of pneumonia complicated from years of Cigar smoking. I quite smoking cigarettes about 20 some odd years ago, Every once in a while I would fall of the wagon and smoke for a week or two. That's what happened right before I came down with pneumonia. I happened to be around a bunch of old friends who where smoking and one thing led to another next thing you know I was smoking again. This time only for about 4 days before coming down with pneumonia. Will I ever light up again ? probably, once a smoker always a smoker. Unlike most I have tremendous willpower I can quit cold turkey at the drop of a hat. This is something that has always amazed my wife and friends. Its really hard to remember. I think I stated smoking at 14. I quit the first time at 21 that lasted for like 15 years, then I smoked again for about a year and quit cold turkey that lasted about 10 years. At least I can quit when I want most people can't. That young boy was told either quite or lose your legs, he lost his legs and he wll probably lose his arms as well. That's one power full addiction!
sources.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States, 1997–2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report [serial online]. 2005;54:625-628 [cited 2007 Mar 13]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5425a1.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette Smoking Attributable Morbidity – U.S., 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2003 Sept; 52(35): 842-844.
N7RJD
08-11-2008, 02:06 AM
I agree with your statement on the farming industry.
As for rolling cigarettes I can easily make a carton in 1/2 of an hour, problem solved.
I am taking this to mean that you do this frequently. Purely out of curiosity are you hand rolling or injecting preformed tubes? I know it sounds like a strange question but is more a marketing interest as we just brought in the preformed tubes and injectors. We are seeing some movement on them but nobody breaking down the doors to get them yet.
kb3laz
08-11-2008, 02:15 AM
I am taking this to mean that you do this frequently. Purely out of curiosity are you hand rolling or injecting preformed tubes? I know it sounds like a strange question but is more a marketing interest as we just brought in the preformed tubes and injectors. We are seeing some movement on them but nobody breaking down the doors to get them yet.
Well we will not discuss how I get my cigarettes on a public forum, and no I dont steal them, lol. However I have had to resort to rolling my own and I used to rool them for my grandfather. I have used various methods, such as the slide rollers, the old school rollers, by hand, and injected. The injection method works rather well if the machine is of good quality and can spit them out rather quickly. Are the devices you have the small hand slide injectors or the large crank injectors that cost around 60$, if it is the latter they work rather well. However if it is the had version they are kind of tiresome and break easily but they are cheap and work well on the go if necessary. \
Out of curiosity do you own some sort of shop?
kb3laz
08-11-2008, 02:18 AM
are you seriously trying to compare smoking to boating :rolleyes:
Obviously you have not been following along. I guess you can say I do a bit of boating I am a retired ships master. I retired holding the top ticket a USCG Unlimited Masters. As result all my children have been exposed to extensive bluewater sailing. Our private boat is a 2007 Island Packet 485 and right now she's in Greece.
Anyhow according the CDC cigarette smoking is responsible for 438,000 premature deaths yearly. This is more deaths than those caused by all accidents, infectious diseases including AIDS, murders, suicides, diabetes, atherosclerosis, kidney disease and liver disease combined.
Further more, according to the CDC More Americans will die this year from cigarette smoking than all the Americans killed in battle deaths from World War I, World War II, the Korean War the Viet Nam War, and both Gulf wars combined!
Not only that but
"About 8.6 million people in the U.S. have at least one serious illness caused by smoking. That means that for every person who dies of a smoking-related disease, there are 20 more people who suffer from at least one serious illness"
I would be included in this category as I just recovered from a sever case of pneumonia complicated from years of Cigar smoking. I quite smoking cigarettes about 20 some odd years ago, Every once in a while I would fall of the wagon and smoke for a week or two. That's what happened right before I came down with pneumonia. I happened to be around a bunch of old friends who where smoking and one thing led to another next thing you know I was smoking again. This time only for about 4 days before coming down with pneumonia. Will I ever light up again ? probably, once a smoker always a smoker. Unlike most I have tremendous willpower I can quit cold turkey at the drop of a hat. This is something that has always amazed my wife and friends. Its really hard to remember. I think I stated smoking at 14. I quit the first time at 21 that lasted for like 15 years, then I smoked again for about a year and quit cold turkey that lasted about 10 years. At least I can quit when I want most people can't. That young boy was told either quite or lose your legs, he lost his legs and he wll probably lose his arms as well. That's one power full addiction!
sources.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States, 1997–2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report [serial online]. 2005;54:625-628 [cited 2007 Mar 13]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5425a1.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette Smoking Attributable Morbidity – U.S., 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2003 Sept; 52(35): 842-844.
The foods we eat are not any better for us beings they are pumped full of steroids. Im not asking you to smoke or allow me to smoke in a public building but I dont think that it is to much to ask to let me smoke in my home, car, and outside of my work place.
N7RJD
08-11-2008, 02:22 AM
Well we will not discuss how I get my cigarettes on a public forum, and no I dont steal them, lol. However I have had to resort to rolling my own and I used to rool them for my grandfather. I have used various methods, such as the slide rollers, the old school rollers, by hand, and injected. The injection method works rather well if the machine is of good quality and can spit them out rather quickly. Are the devices you have the small hand slide injectors or the large crank injectors that cost around 60$, if it is the latter they work rather well. However if it is the had version they are kind of tiresome and break easily but they are cheap and work well on the go if necessary. \
Out of curiosity do you own some sort of shop?
What we have are the cheaper hand injectors. We had a meeting where the rep from the company showed us how they work but he couldn't get it to work so I started this venture with some pretty good doubts.
I manage a truck stop. I pity the company that owns the place. Mostly because they have to put up with me. Out of five or six thousand stores they have both nationally and internationally I am the highest volume store they own. They have no idea how different we are from their other stores and they know it. This is why I am able to negotiate my way into just about anything I want. My biggest problem is that I am at a dead end at this time because I can't find anyone else they will trust to run this store so I can move up. Of course when the wind blows the loose cash seems to blow right to the dead end so I really can't complain. :D
kb3laz
08-11-2008, 02:31 AM
What we have are the cheaper hand injectors. We had a meeting where the rep from the company showed us how they work but he couldn't get it to work so I started this venture with some pretty good doubts.
I manage a truck stop. I pity the company that owns the place. Mostly because they have to put up with me. Out of five or six thousand stores they have both nationally and internationally I am the highest volume store they own. They have no idea how different we are from their other stores and they know it. This is why I am able to negotiate my way into just about anything I want. My biggest problem is that I am at a dead end at this time because I can't find anyone else they will trust to run this store so I can move up. Of course when the wind blows the loose cash seems to blow right to the dead end so I really can't complain. :D
If you use to much or to little tobacco or even pack it to tight it will not work, it takes practice. However those who buy them will most likely know how to use them properly before them buy them.
Do you sell ham equipment if not suggest that because the truck stop closest to me does not but the next one up sells antennas and little odds and ends, it can be a life saver.
N7RJD
08-11-2008, 02:39 AM
If you use to much or to little tobacco or even pack it to tight it will not work, it takes practice. However those who buy them will most likely know how to use them properly before them buy them.
Do you sell ham equipment if not suggest that because the truck stop closest to me does not but the next one up sells antennas and little odds and ends, it can be a life saver.
I don't sell ham equipment because the only supplier I can get electronics from would only supply the illegal 10m/11m stuff. I have run that stuff out since taking that store over. The supplier was actually very cooperative and requested a list of the banned radios. I'm sure they will still sell to other places that want them but they haven't tried pushing anything like that on me since.
kb3laz
08-11-2008, 02:44 AM
I don't sell ham equipment because the only supplier I can get electronics from would only supply the illegal 10m/11m stuff. I have run that stuff out since taking that store over. The supplier was actually very cooperative and requested a list of the banned radios. I'm sure they will still sell to other places that want them but they haven't tried pushing anything like that on me since.
Well Im glad that the one I have carries pl-259s, 10/11m antennas, 6m antennas, and 2m 70cm antennas-base/mobiles. They dont sell radios except for CBs, but its still a good place to get some cheap antennas.
oops I think we hijacked this thread.
73
N7RJD
08-11-2008, 02:49 AM
Well Im glad that the one I have carries pl-259s, 10/11m antennas, 6m antennas, and 2m 70cm antennas-base/mobiles. They dont sell radios except for CBs, but its still a good place to get some cheap antennas.
oops I think we hijacked this thread.
73
We just don't get a lot of call for things like that. It would be nice but a lot of our business is local companies and to be honest a lot are kind of like what people stereotype the farmer type as being. Not to say they are stupid but they are not big on technology.
Something tells me not too many will worry about this thread being hijacked at this point. I think we tortured them enough staying on topic.
kb3laz
08-11-2008, 02:55 AM
We just don't get a lot of call for things like that. It would be nice but a lot of our business is local companies and to be honest a lot are kind of like what people stereotype the farmer type as being. Not to say they are stupid but they are not big on technology.
Something tells me not too many will worry about this thread being hijacked at this point. I think we tortured them enough staying on topic.
Lol, I hear ya.
One of the required classes in college was a health class, I think it was HE-101. It was a third of a century ago, but I remember vividly our instructor talking about Sir Walter Raleigh, the guy who introduced tobacco to the courts of Europe. Supposedly Raleigh wasn't referring to a nicotine addiction at all when he prescribed the following three rules for making a significant change in your behaviour:
1. Change must be Immediate. The change must happen now. It cannot be a change that you are going to implement next week, next meal, or next holiday. It must be immediate.
2. Change must be Flamboyant. By this Raleigh meant that you must tell everyone that you are changed. and you must do so repeatedly.
3. Change must be Without Exception. You cannot excuse the occasional lapse, or it is likely to become a part of your life again.
I have not been able to independently verify that Raleigh made these three rules of change, but it is what I remember from that single lecture so long ago. It hit me hard at the time because I was addicted to nicotine and wished to quit.
kc9jwa
08-11-2008, 04:52 AM
Yes but I have my own!:p
Although a cigar sounds good, to bad the cigar shop is closed!
I could go to the news depot but I dont wanna pay their prices.
AHHH, its to cold to fish to day 3!
Na i got my own, i dont smoke inside i smoke outside becouse my husband has asthma and his mom, i also do the same at others houses, i plan to quit i do it for new years, then its done and no more complaints or dollars, or worrying about gettin somethin from it, or docs or whoever may have it to wher eyou have to quit ready or not, a person has to have it where they quit on thier own, otherwise it aint happening for most, im doing it on my own also dont wnat to any longer or i never stop. :)
k9kjm
08-11-2008, 10:09 AM
As pointed out by many others, A "Ban" on anything is simply stupid, And helps promote big time crime.
Good education about the many problems that smoking (And alcohol) cause is a much better answer.
(Consumption of very small quantities of either is actually good for a person in many cases)
Smoking can be prohibited in public places where many people are in very close proximity, But to try to "ban" smoking in private homes goes against the very principles of a free country.
Everyone should have the right to poison themselves as they see fit, As long as it does not directly affect others.
KD8BVS
08-11-2008, 10:22 AM
I can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke anymore, and I'm sick of having to smell it everytime I go to a resturant. My friends dad smokes and my lungs hurt everytime I go to his house, even if his dad is standing 30 feet away from me while smoking.
I occasionally find that a freshly lit natural cigarette can smell very nice, but menthol cigarettes are disgusting to me. I also have a low tolerance for perfumes around food. I had to leave a restaurant once because another customer's perfume was so strong it was making me feel ill.
What about the guy who smokes like a chimney to the point that everything in his house is saturated with tobacco smoke residue, who then takes his radio to sell at a hamfest? I have seen radios for sale at flea markets, that were covered with a yellow-brownish residue, sticky all over the touch, and which reeked with the smell of cigarette smoke. Yuck!
If they outlaw the sale of tobacco, addicts will still be able grow their own. You smokers should start saving seeds now, while they are still legal.
Easy, don't buy the radio.
oh2gra
08-11-2008, 12:39 PM
Killing is forbitten. By the law. In all countries that I know of. People still do it every day. There's no way stopping it.
Damaging yourself by smoking tobacco, or anything else for that matter, is more personal decision. Feel free.
But don't complain when you die in pain, and to soon. You wanted to smoke. What more is there to say?
8 billion dollars in Tax's and fees....
It never fails to amaze me that people still try and justify cigarette smoking, By claiming it does no harm.. Not the brightest light in the harbor. cigarette smoking has been extensively studied. I like the study that was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine where researchers used a machine to simulate smoking 2000 cigarettes. They took the tar residue collected from those 2000 cigarette diluted it 50% so it was brusheble and proceeded to brush the tar substance onto the skin of lab rats. 85% of those rats developed cancer!! 85% 85% 85% !!!!!!! I say be my guest smoke all you want to in your home hopefully Darwinism will do its thing and we will be rid of these twits
Here's some light reading material for you..
"About 8.6 million people in the U.S. have at least one serious illness caused by smoking. That means that for every person who dies of a smoking-related disease, there are 20 more people who suffer from at least one serious illness"
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette Smoking Attributable Morbidity – U.S., 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2003 Sept; 52(35): 842-844.
Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 438,000 American lives each year.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States, 1997–2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report [serial online]. 2005;54:625-628 [cited 2007 Mar 13]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5425a1.htm.
Nowhere in my post did I try to "justify cigarette smoking". I am a non-smoker.
I simply asked whether the numbers you quoted were based on scientific method (autopsy's) or statistical supposition. You answered the question with more statistical supposition and a personal attack.
I also mentioned that people are exposed to many carcinogens that lead directly to lung cancer. Don't hear anyone proposing a ban on the internal combustion engine, changing your own motor oil, or building basements under houses. It's ASSumed by mindless zealots like yourself, and politicians trying to get re-elected, that ALL lung disease deaths in this country are caused by tobacco and it's not true.
When you see the word "estimated" that's statistical short hand for "we don't know for sure", and depending on the process used could represent as little as 50,000 tobacco deaths or as many as 800,000. What portion of ALL lung disease deaths in this country does your 438K number represent?
I have physicly removed cigerets from peoples mouths and put them out for them. Usually after they were rude to my wife and ignored her requests.
I doubt it. Just more internet induced bravado.
k8ceb
08-11-2008, 01:28 PM
I am an Ex smoker. Decided I didn't like the way I felt due to smoking. I don't have a problem with smokers as long as I don't have to breathe their smoke.
I have a minor lung problem not caused by cigarettes but second hand smoke does aggravate this.
Usually when my wife and I go into a restaurant it's either a Non smoking establishment or they have one section for the smokers, and another section for the non smokers. No problem if I don't have to smell the second hand smoke. I have noticed that some restaurants don't have adequate enough ventilation for their smoking section causing problems for the rest of us in the non smoking sections. This problem naturally should be taken care of by the owners of the eating establishment. I don't believe trying to ban the sale of tobacco would work. There would always be a way to find and buy it anyway.
KC8FKS
08-11-2008, 02:54 PM
It's funny how some people just dont get it.
They dont care who they kill including themselves.
Just plain SAD:(
WA6MHZ
08-11-2008, 03:07 PM
Why do they make Tobbacco, a confirmed KILLER totally LEGAL, and yet make a harmless weed ILLEGAL? Follow the MONEY! Big Tobbacco money is keeping the politicians hands well greased to keep their product legal and weed illegal!
Big Alcohol doesn't want weed legal either! Both big money industries would suffer drastically if weed were suddenly legalized. Especially when anyone could easily just grow it in their back yard.
KD6NIG
08-11-2008, 03:19 PM
Inhaling smoke from anything is harmful. Period. Doesn't matter if its weed, tobacco or the smoke from a campfire.
However, even though I have lost relatives myself from the use of tobacco, I feel its still a personal choice. As long as you respect my personal space. I will have issues if you blow smoke in my face purposely, or come into my house and expect to be able to smoke. I wouldn't walk into your house and demand you smoke outside, so don't come into mine and demand to smoke inside.
As far as I'm concerned though, people can make logical choices, or illogical if you will. If you want to smoke, go for it. As long as you aren't causing an inconvience to another human being. Same with other drugs. Now if you go out 'under the influence' and cause harm or trouble to another human being, then I have a problem with it.
I wouldn't even have a problem with establishments allowing smoking again. As long as there is a sign on the door clearly stating it so I can choose to go elsewhere if I so desire.
But lets stop this crud about "this drug is ok but it doesn't hurt you." I'm sorry, but if something messes you up (causes you to not be totally concious) or has risks like taking a aspirin or whatever, its not ok. Its up to you to decide if the risks are worthwhile. And as long as you aren't exposing others to the risk without their permission, then its your choice. You want to bake yourself into oblivion and die early or whatever, thats your choice. But don't do it where I, who chooses not to, can inhale your fumes also.
I wouldn't have a problem with people using a cellphone while driving either, if they were by themselves on the road and wrecked themselves. But the problem is I'm out there too, I'm getting cut off or worse. Don't cause any harm to others and thats fine.
kb3laz
08-11-2008, 03:37 PM
It's funny how some people just dont get it.
They dont care who they kill including themselves.
Just plain SAD:(
No ones killing anyone they are just speeding up the natural process of death.
We all have our own little forms of slow painful suicide weather we realize it or not and we are all mortal. Why should we not want to live life the way we wish, because we only have a short time to do so in the first place.
kc9jwa
08-11-2008, 03:48 PM
Killing is forbitten. By the law. In all countries that I know of. People still do it every day. There's no way stopping it.
Damaging yourself by smoking tobacco, or anything else for that matter, is more personal decision. Feel free.
But don't complain when you die in pain, and to soon. You wanted to smoke. What more is there to say?
Well, its not always bychoice, and i feel i support them whatever they do, even if they practially did it by themselfs, like if someone did somethin stupid and broke or did somethin that caused suicide i wouldnt be rude to em i support them, now some smoke by choice and are not addicted i kind of dont understand why they do it, its hard for a addicted person but someone would intentionally do it anyway then i dont feel real bad for em i think its nutz thou. I am trying to quit i will , it hard a scan be but its has to be done i cant do it forever .
The Earth is overpopulated anyway. If people want to live unhealthy, I say let 'em.
K0RGR
08-11-2008, 06:37 PM
All the anti-smoking efforts have been very effective. If it could get me to quit, it was something pretty powerful. I was the world's worst nicotine addict for several decades, and I can't begin to tell you glad I am that I finally found a doctor with more than a 'suggestion' of how to quit!
I've been tobacco-free for well over a decade now.
We need to extend the same kind of social pressure to things like abortion. Outlawing it will just drive it underground. But if you can make it something seen as shameful and harmful to the rest of the population, you can drive it out of existence.
At first, even though I don't smoke, I was not in favor of the restaurant and bar smoking bans. Now, however, all public places in this state are smoke-free, and I really enjoy it. I never realized how foul-smelling those places with 'smoking sections' are. I do feel that the smoker's rights have been crushed, and we've set a bad precedent by allowing it to happen, but if you continue to smoke, you must have a very thick hide.
kc0vuv
08-11-2008, 07:00 PM
One thing that is kinda funny is that if ETOH were "discovered" today it would be a class 2 NARCOTIC and only be availble by RX. I heard this a long time ago, don't know if it's true...
Nowhere in my post did I try to "justify cigarette smoking". I am a non-smoker.
I simply asked whether the numbers you quoted were based on scientific method (autopsy's) or statistical supposition. You answered the question with more statistical supposition and a personal attack.
I also mentioned that people are exposed to many carcinogens that lead directly to lung cancer. Don't hear anyone proposing a ban on the internal combustion engine, changing your own motor oil, or building basements under houses. It's ASSumed by mindless zealots like yourself, and politicians trying to get re-elected, that ALL lung disease deaths in this country are caused by tobacco and it's not true.
When you see the word "estimated" that's statistical short hand for "we don't know for sure", and depending on the process used could represent as little as 50,000 tobacco deaths or as many as 800,000. What portion of ALL lung disease deaths in this country does your 438K number represent?
I doubt it. Just more internet induced bravado.
This is for all of you who are still arguing that environmental pollution is just as dangerous and harmfully as cigarettes.
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/4176/citydwelerslunggw1.th.jpg (http://img355.imageshack.us/my.php?image=citydwelerslunggw1.jpg)
Top picture is a healthy lung from a 75 year old non smoking city dweller who lived in NY
The tiny black spots are a result of environmental pollution
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/4751/smokercancerjq5.th.png (http://img367.imageshack.us/my.php?image=smokercancerjq5.png)
bottom image is the tar encrusted lung of a 42 year smoker who died of lung cancer. This is what a pack and a half a day will do to your lungs. By the way the white mass at the top is cancer. If you have been smoking a pack a day for 20 years or so this is a good approximation of what your lungs look like.
kb3laz
08-11-2008, 07:32 PM
This is for all of you who are still arguing that environmental pollution is just as dangerous and harmfully as cigarettes.
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/4176/citydwelerslunggw1.th.jpg (http://img355.imageshack.us/my.php?image=citydwelerslunggw1.jpg)
Top picture is a healthy lung from a 75 year old non smoking city dweller who lived in NY
The tiny black spots are a result of environmental pollution
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/4751/smokercancerjq5.th.png (http://img367.imageshack.us/my.php?image=smokercancerjq5.png)
bottom image is the tar encrusted lung of a 42 year smoker who died of lung cancer. This is what a pack and a half a day will do to your lungs. By the way the white mass at the top is cancer
Its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.:D
KD5ZPG
08-11-2008, 08:09 PM
Oh the hypocrisy of some people. LOL :D
Outlaw cigarettes....but....but....but....Legalize Pot!!! :rolleyes:
KD5ZPG
Oh the hypocrisy of some people. LOL :D
Outlaw cigarettes....but....but....but....Legalize Pot!!! :rolleyes:
KD5ZPG
I don't think anyone who is against smoking would be for legalizing smoking.
Smokers to face picture warnings
Images highlighting the dangers of smoking will be printed on all tobacco products sold in the UK by the end of 2009, under regulations being set out.
Now this is not a bad idea. It's time we attempted to undo the damaged caused by unscrupulous tobacco company by allowing them to target young kids. Maybe packaging like this can help undo years of false advertising.
Forcing tobacco company's to print gross picture warnings under their brand name is a fantastic idea. They spent decades and spent billions in advertising promoting inspiring images such as the "Marlboro Man" to get the attention of young kids. Now its time to force them to advertise the truth No more fancy logos and ego boasting images, just a name and a picture of a diseased lung. That would go a long way to snuffing out the tobacco companies ability to target young children in their advertising. Who do they think they are fooling "Marlboro Man" "Joe Camel" "Kool"
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8109/p0109040030hhp0.jpg http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1959/p0109040018hxl0.jpg
k0ews
08-11-2008, 10:59 PM
No one ever did anything about it either, Nothing they could do. At the time I was also a cigarette smoker. But I believed respecting women was more important then pushing my right to expose others to my cigarettes. If you disrespect my wife you have to deal with me. Back then I was 6.1 240 pounds and not one once of that was fat. I've been lifting weights, practicing martial arts and boxing since I was 8 or so as a result very few people ever challenged me and the few who did learned a good lesson. . I'm still 6.2 but now closer to 290 I've gained a bunch of weight as a result of inactivity after a traumatic knee injury. I still wouldn't have a problem taking a cigarette out of someones mouth if they were rude though.
6 feet 2 inches and 290 lbs. puts your BMI at a little over 37. Anything over 30 is considered obese. Should the government ration your food? Should we have scales and body fat calculators outside of every McDonalds and KFC?
Obesity in this country is the biggest killer of them all. Heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and a whole host of cancers are brought about by obesity. There will be movement by the nanny state to watch what you are allowed to cook and eat. Matter of fact, it has begun. Several states have regulations banning the sale of trans-fats in food. Just wait. Prohibition from bacon and eggs is just around the corner.
The argument is a slippery slope. Actually, smoking is one area where I think the government has done it about right. They've done about all they can do. They've taxed the hell out of them so buying them is expensive. They've limited the places one can smoke down to one's home and one's vehicle. They've strongly regulated the sale of them to minors in recent years. In addition, anti-smoking curriculum is in probably every public school in America. There is smoking cessation programs in virtually every town and every state in the country, and quitting aids are just about free from someone somewhere. Prohibition will never work, however. It never has.
I think RGR has this right. The public stigma will do more to kill it than anything else. Of course that would never work on obesity. One can discriminate legally against smokers. Try discriminating against a fat person sometime and see how fast it takes you to go to court.
Smokers to face picture warnings
Images highlighting the dangers of smoking will be printed on all tobacco products sold in the UK by the end of 2009, under regulations being set out.
Now this is not a bad idea. It's time we attempted to undo the damaged caused by unscrupulous tobacco company by allowing them to target young kids. Maybe packaging like this can help undo years of false advertising.
Forcing tobacco company's to print gross picture warnings under their brand name is a fantastic idea. They spent decades and spent billions in advertising promoting inspiring images such as the "Marlboro Man" to get the attention of young kids. Now its time to force them to advertise the truth No more fancy logos and ego boasting images, just a name and a picture of a diseased lung. That would go a long way to snuffing out the tobacco companies ability to target young children in their advertising. Who do they think they are fooling "Marlboro Man" "Joe Camel" "Kool"
Before i retired i worked with two people who were also big anti-smoking activists. They were both health nuts , worked out every day, didnt eat fat foods, on and on. They would tell the smokers how they would out live them by 20 or 30 years, always harping on smokers . Funny thing is they are both dead now. One had a heart attack, the other was t-boned by a kid who ran a red light. Very few from work attended the funerals.
6 feet 2 inches and 290 lbs. puts your BMI at a little over 37. Anything over 30 is considered obese. Should the government ration your food? Should we have scales and body fat calculators outside of every McDonalds and KFC?
Obesity in this country is the biggest killer of them all. Heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and a whole host of cancers are brought about by obesity. There will be movement by the nanny state to watch what you are allowed to cook and eat. Matter of fact, it has begun. Several states have regulations banning the sale of trans-fats in food. Just wait. Prohibition from bacon and eggs is just around the corner.
The argument is a slippery slope. Actually, smoking is one area where I think the government has done it about right. They've done about all they can do. They've taxed the hell out of them so buying them is expensive. They've limited the places one can smoke down to one's home and one's vehicle. They've strongly regulated the sale of them to minors in recent years. In addition, anti-smoking curriculum is in probably every public school in America. There is smoking cessation programs in virtually every town and every state in the country, and quitting aids are just about free from someone somewhere. Prohibition will never work, however. It never has.
I think RGR has this right. The public stigma will do more to kill it than anything else. Of course that would never work on obesity. One can discriminate legally against smokers. Try discriminating against a fat person sometime and see how fast it takes you to go to court.
Obesity and smoking are not comparable. Obesity only effects the health of the individual in question, smoking on the other hand negatively impacts the health of everyone near the smoker. It's kind of like comparing a 22 cal bullet to a nuclear bomb..
As for you assumptions to my health let me correct your mis-information
First off the BMI index is about useless as tits on a boar hog. It assumes similar body types. A far more accurate method is body fat measurement.
Just before my bicycle accident I rode 25 miles a day 4 days a week I'm not talking leisurely ride around. I'm talking work your ass off aerobic riding, keeping your heart rate at close to 75 to 80 percent of max. Then 3 days a week I worked out in my gym lifting free weights and practicing martial arts. Not bad for a man my age, heck most kids 20 years younger then me couldn't keep up.
Just before my accident and debilitating knee injury I weighed in at just about 240 with a body fat measurement of 9 percent. Average body fat in my age group is about 24 percent. Obese would be over 32 percent. And an ideal body fat measurement would be around 19 percent. 9 percent body fat put me at extremely lean and athletic. Of course doing incline crunches with 150 pounds stacked on my chest would tend to make any BMI chart a bit inaccurate.
By the way I've had my 2rd cortisone injection and I'm finally up to a mile daily on my bike. I have a long way to go to get back to my original hi energy 25 mile ride. And I have no idea how long it will be before my knee can handle free weights again is ever.
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/5392/p0109040009hys8.jpg
N7RJD
08-12-2008, 12:46 AM
Personally I hate smoking ban. I can never keep the stuff lit.
kc9jwa
08-12-2008, 04:46 AM
Its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.:D
The last pic, about 20 years of smoking and a pack and a half a day , i know some one who smokes probably 3packs a day.:eek: I bet his look like that or wrose.
kb3laz
08-12-2008, 04:49 AM
The last pic, about 20 years of smoking and a pack and a half a day , i know some one who smokes probably 3packs a day.:eek: I bet his look like that or wrose.
There you go talking about me again, wait I only smoke 2 packs a day!:p;)
W1GUH
08-12-2008, 07:20 AM
This whole issue is about the government taking control of your personal life. The whole smoking issue is about the government getting us "used to" having them tell us how to live our lives.
Screw you.
You're obviously a rabid ex-smoker who thinks you can tell anyone else how to live. Get real.
KA7RRA
08-12-2008, 08:12 AM
[QUOTE=n6yg;1313022]When is this country going to smarten up and finally outlaw tobacco products?
They won't their is to much money in it, that's also why we don't have a war on drugs, because the drug lords donate to both parties there is to much money invole to do a war on drugs like it should be done
KA7RRA
08-12-2008, 08:17 AM
[its bad enough states are taxing tobacco at such high rates that for a carton of smokes i am paying the same price as i am to fill my gas tank, or more.
if you don't like it quit stop buying smoking stinks!!!
This whole issue is about the government taking control of your personal life. The whole smoking issue is about the government getting us "used to" having them tell us how to live our lives.
Screw you.
You're obviously a rabid ex-smoker who thinks you can tell anyone else how to live. Get real.
No, Screw you moron !!!
Maybe you should try watching less Jerry Springer and use that extra time to improve your reading comprehension skills. No where did I advocate allowing the government more authority to control your personal life and toxic deadly highly addictive drugs then they already have.
Talking about getting real, Maybe you should get real!! obviously you don't realize that the government has already banned the sale of many dangerous substances. You can't legal sell heroin or cocaine. And I will remind you that both of those combined don't kill even a fraction of the people that cigarettes do. Whats really ironic is both heroin and cocaine would probably be legal if the government could figure out how to get 8 Billion yearly in taxes out of them.
You can't go out and buy weapon's grade plutonium, you can't go out and buy anthrax or the ebola virus. You can't go out and simply buy codeine, morphine or Valium's you cant buy or sell Opium Heck in many places you need to show ID to simply buy cold medicine. Nothing I suggested is any more restrictive of tobacco especially considering how toxic and deadly the product is. In fact nothing I suggested even takes your right to smoke away from you. It just treats you like the drug addict you are. It just bans the commercial sale of a highly addictive deadly product.
The problem is most smokers simply don't want to admit what they really are (Drug addicts) Smokers seem to feel that just because cigarettes are legal that some how this makes them better then a crack addict. They simply bury their head in the sand and refuse to hear the facts that cigarettes kill more people each and every year the heron, cocaine, crack combined. The reason cigarette smokers defend the right to smoke so adamantly is they fear accepting that they are no better then a street junkie addicted to crack. The big difference is the crack addict has a higher survival rate.
Like I said I never suggested banning the use of tobacco just the commercial sale of tobacco If you want to kill yourself be my guest your more then welcome too . But you will have to resort to the same life style as most drug addict which by the way is exactly what cigarette smokers are (drug addicts) . Just like pot smokers, you will ether have to buy it illegally or grow it yourself. At least my suggestion would make growing it legal something most pot smokers only dream of! Personally I think its about dam time we quit shoving deadly drugs down children's throats by glorifying them with ego and self image boasting advertising.. When it comes to cigarettes I think its time for truth in advertising.
Of course I would be willing to change my mind and accept the commercial sale of a deadly product if the company's profiting from the death of others was required to tell the truth about their product and remove the false and deceptive advertising and replace it with factual pictures of what really happens to people who become addicted to such a deadly drug. A picture of a mans mouth with rotting teeth or a picture of a man with a huge cancerous tumor on his throat is much more accurate then a cool picture of "Joe Camel" or an inspiring picture of the Marlboro man.
I started smoking when I was 14. When I was 14 if a pack of Marlboro looked like this
I would have never touched them..
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8109/p0109040030hhp0.jpg
Instead I saw this, the original Marlboro Man. Do you think this image inspired a boy who grew up watching westerns
for more info on the original Marlboro Man see the text at the bottom of the post
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1815/longjn3.jpg
Do yo think a picture like this might have inspired a 14 tear old!! heck with 14
I remember seeing the image of this man advertising the red and white box of cigarettes on billboards ads since before I could walk,
I remember asking for candy cigarette that were packaged just like the real Marlboro's
I wonder how many of you defending your right to kill yourself started smoking the same way under the same false pretenses. Now your to dam addicted to do anything about it.
I'm sure you don't realize it but you where sold on cigarettes long before you took your first puff.
Instead of defending your right to smoke maybe you should be furious at the company's who tricked you by bombarding you with glorious images of smoking.
remember John Wayne and all those famous stars who the tobacco company's paid to smoke in movies and TV? Yup they did a good job making you think it was your idea.
I'm sure Most 14 year olds were like me and
thought it made them look cool like the cowboy in the picture.
Do you think a picture of rotting teeth
and tar encrusted lungs would have inspired as
many 14 year old children to start smoking.
The tobacco company's knew
dam well that if they got young kids addicted
they would be life long tobacco addicts.
By the time I was 16 I was too addicted to quit. I wasn't able to quit until I was 21!
and its been a battle ever since then. Once a smoker always a smoker. I have started and quit many many times!
I despise the tobacco company for not telling me the truth about cigarettes when I was 14! By the time I relized what I was into it was to late.
If I had known the truth before I became addicted I would not have been fighting this dam addiction my whole life.
I wonder how many millions of children
the tobacco company's deceptive ads have killed?
Once a smoker always a smoker! You might think smoking is a personal choice, but its not!!!
Most smokers have no choice what so ever, Most couldn't quit if there lives depended on it.
If they could things like this would never happen. heres a picture of a smoker who lost a toe. All he had to do to keep his toe is quit smoking.
Simple right quite smoking keep your toe. Smoking is as addictive as heroin thats why he lost his toe
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/9877/smokingeffectscirculatikt1.jpg
Nicotine is more addictive then heroin and as the old saying goes you never see an old heroin addict! But you do see old smokers on oxygen!
The original Marlboro Man
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1815/longjn3.jpg
This is C.H. Long, a 39-year-old foreman at the JA ranch in the Texas panhandle, a place described as “320,000 acres of nothing much.” Once a week, Long would ride into town for a store-bought shave and a milk shake. Maybe he’d take in a movie if a western was playing. He said things like, “If it weren’t for a good horse, a woman would be the sweetest thing in the world.” He rolled his own smokes. When the cowboy’s face and story appeared in LIFE in 1949, advertising exec Leo Burnett had an inspiration. The company Philip Morris, which had introduced Marlboro as a woman’s cigarette in 1924, was seeking a new image for the brand, and the Marlboro Man based on Long boosted Marlboro to the top of the worldwide cigarette market.
Of course what they don't tell you in that cute Little story is the Marlboro Man died of lung cancer!
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/871/44084706lungdiseasefo5.jpg
K0HWY
08-12-2008, 10:31 AM
Isn't it weird that suicide is illegal and yet, you're still allowed to kill yourself via tobacco products? I suppose they figure if you're willing to drag it out over several decades, you must be serious and therefore there's no point in trying to stop you. :D
I don't support banning tobacco completely. Smokeless tobacco should be allowed but only at the discretion of the property owner. In that form, it's really no harm to those who don't want its effects as opposed to smoke which is yours whether you like it or not.
Your pictures are not working. The no votes have won
They're working for me. Maybe you need a better ISP.
k0ews
08-12-2008, 03:02 PM
Obesity and smoking are not comparable. Obesity only effects the health of the indiv