Rant...

steveinaz

Let's talk about smokers. I'm a smoker, a courteous one, I believe. I don't smoke in my own home because I don't like the smell; my wife & I choose to smoke out on the patio.

What's up with all the anti-smoker sentiment lately? First it was restaurants, ok so we moved to the "smoking section." Then it was work, ok, now we're at least 50 feet from any entrance/exit, in a designated "smoking area." Then it was the airline industry, OK, WE WON'T SMOKE ON YOUR AIRPLANE (one reason why I don't fly anymore). Now...parks, sidewalks, the moon, what's next? BS taxes, increased health care premiums (I smoke, and see the doctor about once every 5 years)....grrrrrrrr. I couldn't believe when Ted Nugent (the motor city madman) said on Fox that smokers should be denied health care, period. DENIED health care. Well, you coke sniffin friggin ****. Now that YOUR clean, the rest of us need to get together, huh? ****. Don't bring a Ted Nugent CD in my home, I'll break it.

So, after we rid our country of all of us nasty smokers, whose next? Whose gonna generate all this tax revenue you're living off of, courtesy of us smokers? You overweight folk's? You bet your ****. You drinkers? Yep, right after the overweight folk's. Lazy people, you know those of us who don't particularly care to work out every damn day of the week---yep, your health costs should go up to, you're a RISK. What about you non-vegitarians? Yep, your next. Don't you know meat is bad for you? Our society and Uncle Sam will take care of you, though, so don't worry...

Moral of the story: You holyer-than-thou anti-smokers be careful what you wish for, you could be next....

BIZILL

lol. i can already see an excise tax on food for the gluttons.

aaharvel

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html#Second-hand%20smoke%20is%20dangerous

this should do it.
and no, I'm not for banning smoking necessarily, but you kinda have to look at Chris Reeve's wife who never smoked in her life. My grandfather, the same.

BIZILL

...oops, i'm a glutton. but my body doesn't readily show it....i hope.

HBombToo

I figure all the Lactose intolerant maniacs will be hounding us milk drinkers.
Lets see
Eat dinner, down huge glass of milk, smoke cigerette which makes for a damn fine HOCKER :>)

HBomb

Demiurge

Amen, Steve. It all sounds so good until they're the ones getting the black x on their foreheads.

Banning smoking in public buildings makes a lot of sense. Banning smoking in private businesses, homes, and cars is a complete joke. It's private property and you're enjoying a legal substance. If they would ban the sale of tobacco this argument wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I smoke socially in bars or at social gatherings where alcohol is being served. Something about the combo that just feels right.

Anyhow, everyone knows smoking is bad for you. If you enjoy it and are aware of the risks, so be it. Until it's banned....keep the damn government out of my private life on legal substance matters.

If people wanted to ban smoking, bars would be out of business and forced to open a non-smoking bar. It's simply not the case. It's another case of the minority trying to hold your hand and tell you what you can or cannot do. The overweight people are next.

ohskigod

I genuinly agree with no smoking in Restaurants, work, and other indoor stuff. I really dont want to inhale your smoke. plain and simple

now the whole outdoor thing? not in parks, yada yada, there I feel for the smokers. they have to go somewhere for gods sake.

There will be a smoking ban in clubs and bars in NJ kicking in soon. I dont know if I agree with it persay. I know the last time I went to a club (to catch a band I know) I inhaled enough smoke to give a rhino cancer, it was effin ridiculous. I think if the business owners recognized the fact that they could do saomething about it, instead of allowing a thick haze reminicant of living in london or seattle. would them buying a couple of smokeaters kill them?

I guess it would have, but probably not as much as the smoking ban

my point? businesses should have seen this coming and acted on there own, because when lawmakers do it, its an effing train wreck

ohskigod

tying in the overweight doesnt fly to me. Its not like someone can suffer via second hand twinkie cream...LOL

steveinaz

aaharvel wrote:

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html#Second-hand%20smoke%20is%20dangerous

this should do it.
and no, I'm not for banning smoking necessarily, but you kinda have to look at Chris Reeve's wife who never smoked in her life. My grandfather, the same.

So what is the "second-hand smoke" bandwagoneers doing about vehicle emmissions, which are thousands of times more concentrated and dangerous?...NOTHING. Wanna know why? Because they LIKE their cars, so thats an acceptable risk. People are a trip, "I don't want to smell your smoke, because I've got a 1000' bungee cord jump this afternoon...." Sheesh.

Sorry that don't wash with me.

Demiurge

ohskigod wrote:

tying in the overweight doesnt fly to me. Its not like someone can suffer via second hand twinkie cream...LOL

It doesn't have to fly for you, that's the point. It's about healthcare costs. That's why they're on the smoking ban. It has nothing to do with being annoyed by smokers, because you can avoid it if you want to.

There's no law that says you need to go into a restraunt where the patrons smoke. Don't go if they allow smoking. It's that simple. If enough people started doing that, because it bothered them that much...guess what? The business would have to eliminate smoking on their own. That's how the free market SHOULD be working.

steveinaz

I'm completely understanding with Restaurants, indoor facilities, etc, hell, I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke either. BUT, this movement is looking to ban smoking, period. That's rediculous.

aaharvel

steveinaz wrote:

I'm completely understanding with Restaurants, indoor facilities, etc, hell, I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke either. BUT, this movement is looking to ban smoking, period. That's rediculous.

true. but i couldn't tell you how many people are pissed about the restaurant deal and that is basically the backbone of their argument. I don't see any action from any organized group saying that tobacco should be banned. Hell my best friend's a sales rep for Phillip Morris, god bless 'em- but the problem is with public indoor spots and I agree with their position. I may not agree so far as to join in the fight, but I understand and agree.

steveinaz

I love the a-holes at work that now complain about smokers taking a break to go smoke....

Who the hell made them walk a country mile and put them outside? YOU DID.

ohskigod

Demiurge wrote:

It's about healthcare costs. That's why they're on the smoking ban. It has nothing to do with being annoyed by smokers, because you can avoid it if you want to.

.

that wasnt the motivating factor here (in NJ, i.e. bar ban), it really was people bitching and moaning about too much smoke = pain in the balls. Now, has some carried on the bandwagon further using the healthcare argument? sure, but I have to disagree with your assessment of that being how the movement started.

the pain in the balls thing kinda carries the above argument I made. If business owners would have been proactive, like having a room with serious ventilation for smoking (and I dont mean an area in a restaurant deemed "no smoking" in plain friggin sight of non smoking, like the smoke is going to defy the laws of physics and respect the magic barrier!)

aaharvel

steveinaz wrote:

I love the a-holes at work that now complain about smokers taking a break to go smoke....

yeah that is stupid isn't it. No different than going to the vending machine and getting a soft drink or candybar if you ask me.

ohskigod

so again, the overweight argument isnt starting soon, becuase there is no outcry of people complaining of being assaulted by unwarranted pastry. Its not like crisco is going to fly out of containers and down someone's gullet

bobman1235

Yup, ridiculous, plain and simple. They banned smoking in all public buildings and businesses in Massachusetts a couple years ago. It' sjust ludicrous. A private business should be able to make those decisions for themselves. If they want to allow smoking, then the free market will show whether people are willing to tolerate it or go elsewhere. In a well-designed smoking / non-smoking restaurant, you'd never notice that someone was smoking if you were in the non-smoking section.

I gotta say, though, that you should have to pay more for healthcare. YOu're putting yourself at a calculated risk, and you're more likely to develop problems that will cost the HMO money. They should still have to insure you - the denial of healthcare is just nonsense - but they can certainly charge you more.

Strong Bad

I guess we meat-eaters are in the cue also.

No wait, we've been targeted for umpteen years by those f**ktard treehuggin scrawny vegans from PETA.

Grill a steak and party on!



John

ohskigod

steveinaz wrote:

I'm completely understanding with Restaurants, indoor facilities, etc, hell, I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke either. BUT, this movement is looking to ban smoking, period. That's rediculous.

dude, it will never be banned, too much for the economy and tax revenue, but they know you'll do whatever it takes to smoke, be it go outside, wlak 50 meters from an entrance, tap dance, perform yoga, and/or dress in clown regalia. your still smoking

It sucks, but its true.

steveinaz

bobman1235 wrote:

I gotta say, though, that you should have to pay more for healthcare. YOu're putting yourself at a calculated risk, and you're more likely to develop problems that will cost the HMO money.

Bob, to an extent I agree with you. My question is, where does it stop? If you are a rock climber, shouldn't you be charged more? You are prone to more injury correct? If you're a bungee jumper, parachutist, motorcyclist, fisherman, hunter, cage fighter, gymnist, ****, straight, meat eater, coal miner....

Get my point? Why are ONLY smokers targeted?

Demiurge

Well, I can see I won't be long for this thread, so here it goes.

Property rights shouldn't be taken away by the government. If you own a business you can have any clientelle you want. If you want smokers, you can have smokers so long as smoking is legal. That's the key word here. This isn't like people are going and smoking spliffs in their privately owned facilities. Until tobacco is banned (which it won't be -- see Tax Revenue) there's no way in hell that the government should be stepping in and telling a private business owner what to do.

These businesses aren't subsidized by the government are they? No.

The market can effectively create change on it's own. If you don't spend money at a business because of the smoking, they'll lose money. If more people do the same as you they will go out of business. The market effectively forced the business to do what the majority of it's patrons wanted by hitting them in the wallet, every businesses bottom line.

If you don't think that healthcare costs are the motivating factor here take a look at the cost of health insurance these days. Don't think you're going to see a hefty tax on a pint of ice cream someday? Fat taxes are coming. If you think I am wrong about that, who would have thought smoking would be getting banned in bars?

Smokers feel guilty and don't fight back. I've said all I can, so I am done here.

BIZILL

steveinaz wrote:

Bob, to an extent I agree with you. My question is, where does it stop? If you are a rock climber, shouldn't you be charged more? You are prone to more injury correct? If you're a bungee jumper, parachutist, motorcyclist, fisherman, hunter, cage fighter, gymnist, ****, straight, meat eater, coal miner....

Get my point? Why are ONLY smokers targeted?

i believe most are. but i think i'm thinking life insurance. fine print always excludes payment for these type of hobbies.

steveinaz

ohskigod wrote:

dude, it will never be banned, too much for the economy and tax revenue, but they know you'll do whatever it takes to smoke, be it go outside, wlak 50 meters from an entrance, tap dance, perform yoga, and/or dress in clown regalia. your still smoking

It sucks, but its true.

Don't be fooled bro, look at how smokers are already perceived in public, I feel it everyday. Snide comments, dirty looks, etc. And I do my best to stay clear of people when I smoke because I understand their concern; but things have gone beyond "reasonable" now it's just about control.

People are loosing jobs over this, because yuppie punk-**** junior's old man died and now he's running the company. He's giving smoking employees 90 days to quit or they're fired. Entire states are looking at banning smoking IN THE STATE. In AMERICA.

aaharvel

what companies do this?

steveinaz

You missed the 60 minutes look at this huh? Can't remember the names of the companies involved, they spoke with employees on the show. Employees were given a altimatum; take 90 days and quit or be terminated. The Company did agree to provide smoking cessation classes (how nice). Guess how they're going to verify that you've quit? DRUG TESTING. That's right. Not only do they want you not to smoke at work, they don't want you to smoke, period.

Are you ready for your Cholesterol test and body fat index? Better prepare...you will be next.

PolkThug

I just hope they don't ban wiping your **** with the shower curtain, tp is expensive.

steveinaz

The health care providers are simply jumping on the wagon that the non-smokers are already pushing. Shoot man, that's profit. What about people like me? I smoke, I can count on one hand the number of times I've been to the docter IN 20 YEARS. Will I get a break on my premium? Hell no. What about the non-smoker that goes to the doctor everytime he/she gets a sniffle?

Health Care providers are snakes, capitilizing on the situation--just like everyone else.

I've been a skinny-**** my whole life, but I sincerely sympathize with people who battle weight problems. Why? Because I realize that I just got lucky that I have a metabolism that lets me eat like WWF wrestler, but I don't gain weight---if I didn't, smoking would be the least of my worries.

Skynut

You can always start chewing tobaco, as long as you do not spit ON anyone they should just STFU.
As for the rest of the sugestions, they are comming.
The fat tax will have a nice sounding name like excersize motivation tax.
Alcohol is already taxed and will continue to rise.
Dangerous sports will be protested and many will be outlawed because so many people feel like they should decide how to keep you safe.
DNA testing will become manditory and you will be charged acording to your healt risk assement.
Then we can add the constant monitoring of your blood and it's contents to insure you are doing all you can to be all you can be.

Strong Bad

I did see the 60 Minutes episode. I couldn't believe it! Companies were actually firing employees for smoking and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it within the eyes of the law. There's no written law. Kind of scary if you ask me. As others have said, whats next. Bodyfat measurements? Treadmill tests? Adhere to a specific diet? Don't do this, don't do that?

I'm not a smoker and alot of times have been pissed off by smokers, atleast the ones whose smoke drifted over to me. But really, this is not right. It's getting far away from the basic principles that built this country.


John

steveinaz

I sympathize John, absolutely. I dislike being in a smoke filled room as well. My wife & I typically get a non-smoking hotel room when we travel, usually prefer to eat in the non-smoking area, then move to the bar side for a cigarette and a beer kinda thing. I'm good with all of that, and I say it's about time. My problem is the "attitude" and the continuing restrictions.

cfrizz

Yup you beat me to it! I work for MetLife, and I can tell you that you will pay higher premiums if you are a smoker. If you claim that you don't smoke & our tests turn up nicotine in your system you will be requestioned & rated as a smoker. Other dangerous hobbies are also rated higher.

The same is true if you are over acceptable guidelines for weight.

You will get a policy but you will be paying a lot more money for it.

Our building went smoke free at least 15 yrs ago if not longer all on its own.

BIZILL wrote:

i believe most are. but i think i'm thinking life insurance. fine print always excludes payment for these type of hobbies.