Smokers forfeit legal rights

[Marcus]

Really I have 0 problem with this and really wouldnt mind it if this made its way over to our shores.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1936975,00.html

SMOKERS are legally responsible for their own ill-health because of their negligence in failing to give up, the High Court ruled yesterday.

In a groundbreaking decision, a judge said that those who had smoked since 1971 were guilty of risking their own health because of the clear evidence that had emerged since then about the dangers posed by tobacco.

Lawyers gave warning last night that the decision could also hit compensation claims for ill-health made by other groups, such as heavy drinkers and obese people.

The court’s ruling came as a study published yesterday showed that, for the first time, more women now smoke than men. The Health Survey for England disclosed that 22 per cent of men smoke compared with 23 per cent of women.

Overall numbers for both genders fell but the proportion of men giving up was twice as high as that for women.

Smoking was declared a form of negligence by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton as he ruled on a claim for asbestos-related lung cancer made against the Ministry of Defence. The judge concluded that while Reginald Badger’s widow, Beryl, was entitled to compensation for his death the award should be cut by 20 per cent because as a heavy smoker he was guilty of contributory negligence.

Mr Badger had been exposed to asbestos while working as a boilermaker in Gibraltar and at Devonport dockyard from 1954 to 1987. He had been a smoker since the age of 16.

Mr Justice Burnton said that no one could blame Mr Badger, who died aged 63, for starting to smoke in 1955 because at the time the risks were not widely known. From 1971, however, he said that the introduction of health warnings on cigarette packets enabled him to infer that the public were aware of the hazards of smoking. Lawyers, including the judge, said that the ruling was the first in the High Court to consider the contributory effect of tobacco in negligence claims and would affect similar cases.

The ruling has been seen as a victory for insurance companies that have fought to try to reduce the cash payouts they have to make to victims of negligence.

But Adrian Budgen, a personal injury specialist at the solicitors Irwin Mitchell, said: “It’s an unhelpful precedent. It will result in greatly reduced damages in a lot of cases. That’s very sad and unfortunate.”

Fuck em I say.

[Uncle Larry]

But they're just victims of Big Tobacco! WHERE'S YOUR COMPASSION, MAN?!

[Unicorn McGriddle]

What about their impact on other people's health, are they responsible for that?

[Ben Sones]

I dunno... where do you draw the line? Are people that are overweight liable for all the health complications that stem from being overweight? How about people involved in sports? They risk all sorts of injuries and chronic health problems, completely by choice. Or how about people who don't get enough excercise?

I can see the argument for smoking, and even agree with it to some extent, but how do you justify singling them out in this manner?

[Andrew Mayer]

I dunno... where do you draw the line? Are people that are overweight liable for all the health complications that stem from being overweight? How about people involved in sports? They risk all sorts of injuries and chronic health problems, completely by choice. Or how about people who don't get enough excercise?

I can see the argument for smoking, and even agree with it to some extent, but how do you justify singling them out in this manner?

Because it's purely optional behavior with no positive benefits (like exercise), and no genetic propensities (like weight)?

[SolomonGrundy]

Well, personally as long as it is legal, then there should be legal protections. If the 'big tobacco' is allowed to operate in the US, they should be held responsible for thier product. When it is made illegal- which is the day before never- then I'd agree with this.
Here is the odd thing for me. #1 killer right? You can go to rehab for booze, heroin whatever, but where is the rehab for smoking- which all accounts say is as addicting as heroin. I've fallen off the wagon back to smokes a few times-the last after being smoke free for 16 months- and quitting is easily the most uncomfortable I've ever been in my life. If I could just go to a resort for two weeks with no temptations, and no stress quiting would be far easier.

[shift6]

I'm just glad that some government, somewhere, finally decided to hold someone responsible for their own actions. I don't mind society helping people to recover from problems, but I'm not so keen on placing the blame for those problems on society.

[magnet]

I dunno... where do you draw the line? Are people that are overweight liable for all the health complications that stem from being overweight? How about people involved in sports? They risk all sorts of injuries and chronic health problems, completely by choice. Or how about people who don't get enough excercise?

I can see the argument for smoking, and even agree with it to some extent, but how do you justify singling them out in this manner?

Because it's purely optional behavior with no positive benefits (like exercise), and no genetic propensities (like weight)?
Those are flimsy criteria.

What about motorcycle riders, nonvegetarians, city smog-breathers, skydivers, beer-drinkers, world travelers, Casanovas, and PC gamers? All of them voluntarily increase their risk of death, without compensatory health benefits. Do we reduce their awards too in the event of an untimely demise?

[Andrew Mayer]

What about motorcycle riders, nonvegetarians, city smog-breathers, skydivers, beer-drinkers, world travelers, Casanovas, and PC gamers? All of them voluntarily increase their risk of death, without compensatory health benefits. Do we reduce their awards too in the event of an untimely demise?

You can make a pretty clear case that those activities are not outliers on the level of smoking, nor (for many of them) do their costs necessariy tax the system to the same degree that a lung cancer patient will.

Beer drinking does have positive benefits if done in moderation, btw.

[Ben]

Mayer- What does outlierness have to do with anything? Lots of people smoke, after all.

I don't have a problem with this decision, but it's damn unfair if a smoker gets fucked on his medical bills if the state is paying for a skydiver's broken leg. A doctrine of "People who are in some part responsible for their own condition don't deserve as much societal assistance" is entirely reasonable, but it's absurd to single out smokers. Which this decision doesn't do, of course, but hypothetically.

[Nellie]

Mr Justice Stanley Burnton as he ruled on a claim for asbestos-related lung cancer

That's the bit that sticks out for me. While asbestos was once as legal as smoking remains now, I believe it's recognised as a pretty insidious substance, even compared to tobacco.

[Ben Sones]

A doctrine of "People who are in some part responsible for their own condition don't deserve as much societal assistance" is entirely reasonable, but it's absurd to single out smokers.

That was precisely my point, but Ben said it more clearly.

[Euri]

nonvegetarians

Just because this rubs me I will comment. Vegetarianism is not on average, nor in total more healthy than a diet with meat in it. A diet is either healthy or unhealthy depending on the proportion of what is in it, not the lack of a certain thing.

[Lizard_King]

I'm just glad that some government, somewhere, finally decided to hold someone responsible for their own actions. I don't mind society helping people to recover from problems, but I'm not so keen on placing the blame for those problems on society.

I say, bring it. The more punishments short of forbidding it you dangle over it, the more I enjoy my cigarrettes. Thank you for this.

[Toddy]

I hear some Christians smoke, too, so double fuck them.

[Andrew Mayer]

Mayer- What does outlierness have to do with anything? Lots of people smoke, after all.

It has to do with the per capita deadliness of smoking when compared with other activities. Also, lung cancer is an expensive way to die, so it has a big impact on health costs compared to other high risk behaviour. Heart attacks don't take weeks or months to kill you.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

What about non-smokers harmed by smoking? Is anyone liable to them?

[Uncle Larry]

What about non-smokers harmed by smoking? Is anyone liable to them?

Oh hold your fucking breath already you big SISSY.

[Nick Walter]

Mayer- What does outlierness have to do with anything? Lots of people smoke, after all.

It has to do with the per capita deadliness of smoking when compared with other activities. Also, lung cancer is an expensive way to die, so it has a big impact on health costs compared to other high risk behaviour. Heart attacks don't take weeks or months to kill you.

Got stats on that? I know lung cancer ain't pretty but I don't think it is any more expensive than other serious illnesses. Yeah, dying of lung cancer will cost more than dropping dead from a sudden heart attack but almost everything costs more than dropping dead from a sudden heart attack. Is lung cancer any nastier than prostate cancer or breast cancer or etc etc etc.

[extarbags]

I'm just glad that some government, somewhere, finally decided to hold someone responsible for their own actions. I don't mind society helping people to recover from problems, but I'm not so keen on placing the blame for those problems on society.

I say, bring it. The more punishments short of forbidding it you dangle over it, the more I enjoy my cigarrettes. Thank you for this.

Good, then you'll be on board for the new $20/pack tax on cigarettes I'm going to be proposing.

[Lizard_King]

I'm just glad that some government, somewhere, finally decided to hold someone responsible for their own actions. I don't mind society helping people to recover from problems, but I'm not so keen on placing the blame for those problems on society.

I say, bring it. The more punishments short of forbidding it you dangle over it, the more I enjoy my cigarrettes. Thank you for this.

Good, then you'll be on board for the new $20/pack tax on cigarettes I'm going to be proposing.
That's great. I propose you get all of the sissy politicians you love to back it. Demand they do it. I want that to be the pillar of their campaigns.

[extarbags]

I'm just glad that some government, somewhere, finally decided to hold someone responsible for their own actions. I don't mind society helping people to recover from problems, but I'm not so keen on placing the blame for those problems on society.

I say, bring it. The more punishments short of forbidding it you dangle over it, the more I enjoy my cigarrettes. Thank you for this.

Good, then you'll be on board for the new $20/pack tax on cigarettes I'm going to be proposing.
That's great. I propose you get all of the sissy politicians you love to back it. Demand they do it. I want that to be the pillar of their campaigns.

I will if you secure the votes among your smoking brethren.

[Andrew Mayer]

Got stats on that? I know lung cancer ain't pretty but I don't think it is any more expensive than other serious illnesses. Yeah, dying of lung cancer will cost more than dropping dead from a sudden heart attack but almost everything costs more than dropping dead from a sudden heart attack. Is lung cancer any nastier than prostate cancer or breast cancer or etc etc etc.

Aaargh! Is my point that subtle?

Is there any other optional behaviour, with so little personal or societal benefit, that is so directly linked to large population dying of disease that puts so much stress on health care system as smoking does with Lung Cancer?

[tromik]

Never mind motocycle owners, what about regualr car drivers?

[Nellie]

Is there any other optional behaviour, with so little personal or societal benefit, that is so directly linked to large population dying of disease that puts so much stress on health care system as smoking does with Lung Cancer?

Crap diet. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4436232.stm)

Today, more adults are obese than ever before and the World Health Organization estimates that dietary factors account for 30% of cancers in industrialized countries.

[Jason McCullough]

You know, statistically they could just put the excess health care costs in taxes on *everything*. Good luck with that, though, when tobacco still owns half of Congress.

[Andrew Mayer]

Is there any other optional behaviour, with so little personal or societal benefit, that is so directly linked to large population dying of disease that puts so much stress on health care system as smoking does with Lung Cancer?

Crap diet. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4436232.stm)

Awesome.

Free the smokers!

[Lizard_King]

You know, statistically they could just put the excess health care costs in taxes on *everything*. Good luck with that, though, when tobacco still owns half of Congress.

I know, bless 'em. That's why I think it's so crucial that extarbags lead his chosen prophets, Lemming-like*, off into political oblivion. Maybe you can pair it up with some solid anti-gun screeds.



*So I learned the other day as I sat, glazed over, watching the nature channel on my new HDTV, that lemmings have actually been cruelly stereotyped into the suicidal hordes of myth. Consider mine a reference to the game, or possibly a few thousand Far Side cartoons.

[Glenn]

You can make a pretty clear case that those activities are not outliers on the level of smoking, nor (for many of them) do their costs necessariy tax the system to the same degree that a lung cancer patient will.
Economists argue all the time that smokers save the government gobs of money because they don't make it to retirement. They may die slow, expensive deaths, but they're just doing it decades earlier than everybody else.

[TrodKnee]

This issue is a great example of how the Right does hypocrisy so much smoother than the Left. The contradiction on the Left is so obvious that even redneck yokels can understand it...if you are so for civil liberty, then why do you want to take away people's right to smoke? Meanwhile, on the Right...if you are concerned with protecting an individuals right to kill themselves, then why does a puff on a joint make someone an evil terrorist? Because everyone knows drugs are bad kids, mmmkay.

Of course, the real issue has nothing to do with the rights of individuals to get a nicotine high and everything to do with the right of big business to make lots of money.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Drugs are dope, hippie! Love it or leave it, move it or lose it, shape up or ship out!

Edit: Dammit, of all the places for a page break.

[Lizard_King]

This issue is a great example of how the Right does hypocrisy so much smoother than the Left. The contradiction on the Left is so obvious that even redneck yokels can understand it...if you are so for civil liberty, then why do you want to take away people's right to smoke? Meanwhile, on the Right...if you are concerned with protecting an individuals right to kill themselves, then why does a puff on a joint make someone an evil terrorist? Because everyone knows drugs are bad kids, mmmkay.

Of course, the real issue has nothing to do with the rights of individuals to get a nicotine high and everything to do with the right of big business to make lots of money.

Your post is a great example of how your general ignorance of a functional political spectrum other than Leftisgoodrightisbad leads to a continual spray of bizarrely self righteous posts.

The American political spread is the problem. Both sides, at least as they are publicly traded, are all over the map when it comes to an understanding of liberties, and it basically comes down to people forming ridiculous binaries in their heads, and then in their posts.

[JeffL]

Got stats on that? I know lung cancer ain't pretty but I don't think it is any more expensive than other serious illnesses. Yeah, dying of lung cancer will cost more than dropping dead from a sudden heart attack but almost everything costs more than dropping dead from a sudden heart attack. Is lung cancer any nastier than prostate cancer or breast cancer or etc etc etc.

Aaargh! Is my point that subtle?

Is there any other optional behaviour, with so little personal or societal benefit, that is so directly linked to large population dying of disease that puts so much stress on health care system as smoking does with Lung Cancer?

What Nellie said. Eating poorly leads to far more deaths and disease than smoking. Heart disease, stroke, etc. Where is the line that you want to draw on personal responsibility and society's obligation to help? I'm working at a shelter for homeless folks, and a number of these people got to where they are because of drinking to excess. Time to kick them out? Got an uncle who is in some serious health care due to a stroke he had, he ate fried foods and fatty foods for years, had two heart attacks and then the stroke. Guess he needs to be told he needs to head home and his family is screwed (they kind of are anyway, since the costs even with insurance is bankrupting them.)

It is indeed the height of hypocricy for people who claim to be caring folks to be so filled with hate for selected people. One of the nicest women I've ever met in my life smoked from the time she was a young girl, tried to stop several times and just couldn't, and she has spent most of her life in charity work working with disadvantaged youth in inner city Detroit (she's also going this Christmas season to an orphanage in Thailand, a trip she organized and has largely funded.) Screw her if she gets sick, right? Let's also shut down any clinics for people with drug problems.

[TrodKnee]

This issue is a great example of how the Right does hypocrisy so much smoother than the Left. The contradiction on the Left is so obvious that even redneck yokels can understand it...if you are so for civil liberty, then why do you want to take away people's right to smoke? Meanwhile, on the Right...if you are concerned with protecting an individuals right to kill themselves, then why does a puff on a joint make someone an evil terrorist? Because everyone knows drugs are bad kids, mmmkay.

Of course, the real issue has nothing to do with the rights of individuals to get a nicotine high and everything to do with the right of big business to make lots of money.

Your post is a great example of how your general ignorance of a functional political spectrum other than Leftisgoodrightisbad leads to a continual spray of bizarrely self righteous posts.

The American political spread is the problem. Both sides, at least as they are publicly traded, are all over the map when it comes to an understanding of liberties, and it basically comes down to people forming ridiculous binaries in their heads, and then in their posts.
Did I not say both sides were hypocritical? Did I not infer that the Right's position was stronger on this issue? Do I have to also spell out that I am personally all for an individuals right to smoke tobacco? I would say my post is a great example of how cloudy (smokey?) the grey area is in this case. The only ridiculous binary is in your brain, tool.

[Lizard_King]

Did I not say both sides were hypocritical? Did I not infer that the Right's position was stronger on this issue?
You said the right was more hypocritical than the left, and therefore more successful. You inferred the right, which apparently includes myself and and the few others you disagree with here, is defined by fundamentalist Christianity, etc. You either need to change your team definitions for Qt3, or for America, or both. Not being in the same happy squad that you purport to represent does not an American rightist or conservative make.

Do I have to also spell out that I am personally all for an individuals right to smoke tobacco?
Actually, yeah, since that was anything but obvious from what you posted and it is the elephant in the thread, here.

I would say my post is a great example of how cloudy (smokey?) the grey area is in this case.
Yes, I would say that is an accurate analogy for your style of posting generally.

The only ridiculous binary is in your brain, tool.
No, YOUR brain. As if. Is that all you've got?

[MatthewF]

I say you're both poopie heads.

[Bren]

I'll smoke to that.

[Flowers]

You said the right was more hypocritical than the left, and therefore more successful. You inferred the right, which apparently includes myself and and the few others you disagree with here, is defined by fundamentalist Christianity, etc. You either need to change your team definitions for Qt3, or for America, or both. Not being in the same happy squad that you purport to represent does not an American rightist or conservative make.

Yeah, everyone knows that Lizard_King is a Carlist.

[Jason McCullough]

This issue is a great example of how the Right does hypocrisy so much smoother than the Left. The contradiction on the Left is so obvious that even redneck yokels can understand it...if you are so for civil liberty, then why do you want to take away people's right to smoke? Meanwhile, on the Right...if you are concerned with protecting an individuals right to kill themselves, then why does a puff on a joint make someone an evil terrorist? Because everyone knows drugs are bad kids, mmmkay.

Of course, the real issue has nothing to do with the rights of individuals to get a nicotine high and everything to do with the right of big business to make lots of money.

Well on *paper*, smoking is a corrupt private entity slowly killing you through exploitative addiction, which isn't much of a civil right. But yes, there's a bit of it.

The anti-smoking coalition at this point is a combination of "damn it I'm tired of having to put up with the entire world smelling like a brush fire," "they're being horribly exploited by an evil corporation," or "I don't like smelly smokey poor people."

[extarbags]

Got stats on that? I know lung cancer ain't pretty but I don't think it is any more expensive than other serious illnesses. Yeah, dying of lung cancer will cost more than dropping dead from a sudden heart attack but almost everything costs more than dropping dead from a sudden heart attack. Is lung cancer any nastier than prostate cancer or breast cancer or etc etc etc.

Aaargh! Is my point that subtle?

Is there any other optional behaviour, with so little personal or societal benefit, that is so directly linked to large population dying of disease that puts so much stress on health care system as smoking does with Lung Cancer?

What Nellie said. Eating poorly leads to far more deaths and disease than smoking. Heart disease, stroke, etc. Where is the line that you want to draw on personal responsibility and society's obligation to help?

I guess you missed the part about "so much stress on the health care system." Also, shitty food is still food, and people need food to live. Not true of cigarettes. And oh yeah there's the whole bit about how Big Macs don't flood the whole room with trans fats.

I'm working at a shelter for homeless folks, and a number of these people got to where they are because of drinking to excess. Time to kick them out?

No, but maybe it's time to get them off the sauce.

It is indeed the height of hypocricy for people who claim to be caring folks to be so filled with hate for selected people. One of the nicest women I've ever met in my life smoked from the time she was a young girl, tried to stop several times and just couldn't, and she has spent most of her life in charity work working with disadvantaged youth in inner city Detroit (she's also going this Christmas season to an orphanage in Thailand, a trip she organized and has largely funded.) Screw her if she gets sick, right? Let's also shut down any clinics for people with drug problems.

There are nice people who smoke! Stop the presses! Look man, it isn't like we're saying that this should be sprung on them when they get lung cancer. This is about two things:

- Discouraging smoking, because fucking come on already, it's completely selfish and it ruins everyone else's good time.

and

- Society not internalizing the health care costs of diseases that people willfully cause themselves to acquire, for absolutely no good reason.

So basically, if you're seventy and you've smoked your whole life and you get lung cancer today, well yeah, sure, you should be taken care of. But if you're twenty and you say "oh well fuck it, I don't care, I'm going to smoke," and you get cancer fifty years from now because of it, you've had ample warning.

And for the record, I would favor the same policy with regard to conditions caused by alcoholism, and before you trot it out again, yes, I also am in favor of clinics to get people to stop smoking/drinking/whatever.

[Nellie]

I guess you missed the part about "so much stress on the health care system." Also, shitty food is still food, and people need food to live. Not true of cigarettes. And oh yeah there's the whole bit about how Big Macs don't flood the whole room with trans fats.

People may need food to live, but they dont need to shovel so much of the crap down their throats that they cause themselves massive problems that have a direct impact and put a bigger strain on your precious health service than tobacco related diseases do.

By BMJ Specialty Journals, The UK's poor dietary habits are costing its health service an annual £6 billion - three times as much as the financial toll from smoking - reveals research in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[extarbags]

I guess you missed the part about "so much stress on the health care system." Also, shitty food is still food, and people need food to live. Not true of cigarettes. And oh yeah there's the whole bit about how Big Macs don't flood the whole room with trans fats.

People may need food to live, but they dont need to shovel so much of the crap down their throats that they cause themselves massive problems that have a direct impact and put a bigger strain on your precious health service than tobacco related diseases do.

Well, healthy food costs more, so there's that. It also takes longer to prepare a healthy meal than stop at McDonald's on the way home from work, which is a real issue for a lot of people. And again, at least eating unhealthy foods doesn't clog everybody else's arteries. So there are several valid reasons that someone might not eat healthily.

No such reason exists for smoking.

Edit: and it isn't my precious health service. Unfortunately.

[Nellie]

And again, at least eating unhealthy foods doesn't clog everybody else's arteries. So there are several valid reasons that someone might not eat healthily

The only reason not to eat healthily is ignorance. With a weekly food budget of £3 for parts of last year I managed to eat healthily, if not spectacularly interestingly so frankly I don't buy that there is any valid reason to poision yourself with shit food day in and day out.

You know that this food is not good for you and has the nutritional content of a housebrick yet you continue to eat it, despite all the campaigns, documentaries, doctor's advice etc. Buy a bag of rice instead you fat fuck and stop using "I can't afford to eat anything other than lard" as an excuse.

So you might have to watch 30 minutes less TV to prepare a decent meal, my heart bleeds for you.

The selfish argument is totally beside the point in this discussion, I know I'm going to hell for all the babies I murdered with my Marlboro lights. The issue here is the guy who had his settlement for working unprotected with Asbestos for 20 years reduced because he probably contributed to his condition by smoking.

Why should diet be any different? Since the 90's at least we've known that poor diet is bad for us. Stuffing those big macs down your throat every day is being as willfully negligent to your body and lighting up that Marlboro.

[extarbags]

Hey I just noticed the flaw in that study. It says the total cost of dealing with poor dietary habits is three times as much as the cost of dealing with health problems arising from smoking... but what we should really be looking at is the annual average cost of a smoker's smoking-related health problems versus the average fat person's fat-related health problems. After all, if 80% of the population is overweight, and only 20% smoke, that makes smoking more expensive after all, per smoker.

[extarbags]

Now to these:

The only reason not to eat healthily is ignorance. With a weekly food budget of £3 for parts of last year I managed to eat healthily, if not spectacularly interestingly so frankly I don't buy that there is any valid reason to poision yourself with shit food day in and day out.

You know that this food is not good for you and has the nutritional content of a housebrick yet you continue to eat it, despite all the campaigns, documentaries, doctor's advice etc. Buy a bag of rice instead you fat fuck and stop using "I can't afford to eat anything other than lard" as an excuse.

Out of curiousity, what did you eat for £3/week? Is a bag of rice healthy, in your opinion?

So you might have to watch 30 minutes less TV to prepare a decent meal, my heart bleeds for you.

Yep, all people that eat unhealthy food just come home from their lazy four-hour workdays and sit in front of the TV all night with their Big Macs. Yep.

The selfish argument is totally beside the point in this discussion, I know I'm going to hell for all the babies I murdered with my Marlboro lights. The issue here is the guy who had his settlement for working unprotected with Asbestos for 20 years reduced because he probably contributed to his condition by smoking.

It's not beside the point, totally, because this kind of legislation isn't only designed to cut back on healthcare costs, in the same way that taxes on cigarettes aren't only designed to raise revenue. The other motivation behind this is discouraging smoking, and that's in large part due to the societal harm that it does.

Why should diet be any different? Since the 90's at least we've known that poor diet is bad for us. Stuffing those big macs down your throat every day is being as willfully negligent to your body and lighting up that Marlboro.

Besides the aforementioned, there's also the fact that the sale of fatty foods isn't regulated seperately from other foods or limited to a certain age group, which means that a lot of people do, unfortunately, start eating that stuff at a very young age. There's also the fact that there's no real consensus on what, exactly, constitutes "healthy" food, and while it's easy to see that apples are probably pretty healthy and Big Macs are not, there's a lot of grey in between, and the relevant medical community is not in agreement on exactly what is what.

And yeah, healthier food really is more expensive. But I'm still waiting for your superhealthy £3/week diet to come prove me wrong.

[Nellie]

Out of curiousity, what did you eat for £3/week? Is a bag of rice healthy, in your opinion?


£3 will get you a bag of rice, a bag of onions and a box of eggs. While I wouldn't suggest you live on that for 6 months without change it will keep you upright and functioning for a few weeks.

For a couple of pounds more a week you've got the option of potatoes and a couple of tins of tomatoes and things start to look a bit more balanced. There's no reason not to be able to feed yourself on something other than shit for £5 or so per person per week. I'm not suggesting you're going to eat like kings, but I can make much better, tastier food with that money than I can buy frozen in a bag.

I don't dispute that if you want Hugh Fernley-Wittingstall's best organic meat and veg then you will certainly be paying more than for a bag of turkey twizzlers. But it is not hard on a couple of pounds a week per person to cook basic food that is a lot better for you than a bag of chicken nuggets.

Yep, all people that eat unhealthy food just come home from their lazy four-hour workdays and sit in front of the TV all night with their Big Macs. Yep.


All smokers are selfish bastards, all junk food eaters are lazy bastards.

It's not beside the point, totally, because this kind of legislation isn't only designed to cut back on healthcare costs, in the same way that taxes on cigarettes aren't only designed to raise revenue. The other motivation behind this is discouraging smoking, and that's in large part due to the societal harm that it does.
I'm sorry I don't follow you, how does sueing the crap out of a company that left your husband neck deep in asbestos and having that settlement reduced because as a smoker he probably brought the cancer on himself have any impact on healthcare or discorage smoking?

It might reduce some companies insurance because they'll be going over personal information with a fine tooth comb to prove anyone who'd smoked after 1971 is at least partially liable for any illness they got.

Besides the aforementioned, there's also the fact that the sale of fatty foods isn't regulated seperately from other foods or limited to a certain age group, which means that a lot of people do, unfortunately, start eating that stuff at a very young age. There's also the fact that there's no real consensus on what, exactly, constitutes "healthy" food, and while it's easy to see that apples are probably pretty healthy and Big Macs are not, there's a lot of grey in between, and the relevant medical community is not in agreement on exactly what is what.


We may not be able to put together the absolute ideal diet at the moment, but even without Mr Sporlock's help is there anyone that would seriously suggest that a diet of burger and chips on a daily basis is good for you?

Perhaps food producers should have an obligation to start making it clearer what is in their food and how it's produced. The top two complaints on TV this year was coverage of Chefs slaughtering a lamb and some turkeys. We're not interested in what's in our food at the moment so we'll eat any old shit as long it looks and tastes ok. That it's packed full of crap to make it look and taste ok doesn't bother us half as much as watching the start of that process. Once all the decent stuff has been siphoned off to sit, packed in the expensive section of the supermarket, the hooves, ears, tails and all the other crap we wouldn't buy if it were sat on a shelf can be minced up combined with lots of salt and preservatives and punched out into oven ready, low cost, low maintenance "food". Want not, waste not eh?

After all, if 80% of the population is overweight, and only 20% smoke, that makes smoking more expensive after all, per smoker.

Well
Clearly, diet is not responsible for all cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer, which account for 28 per cent of health service costs, but the researchers calculate that food accounts for around a third. Double the cost to the NHS of Road accidents, three times the cost of smoking.
Is the closest I can get to anything approaching numbers, but I don't really see what pissing numbers into the wind gains. Lets whittle down all the tax income equations, number of patients and so on and see if we can come up with a satisfactory Fattie cost to health service per person and Smoker cost to health service per person index and see which is the more evil shall we?

Smoker gets their settlement reduced on the basis of personal negligence by smoking and everyone is happy. All I'm suggesting is that something similar should be applied to people who willfully neglect their diet. Whether it's not getting a hip replacement because you're overweight (as is starting to happen, to much consternation, here at the moment) or having to shoulder some of the cost burden for your diabetes treatment because you drank six cans of coke every day for 10 years.

Or we just tax the crap out of it as we do with smoking to a point that it generates way more revenue than it costs to treat the diseases it contributes to. And as a knock on benefit, it becomes cheaper to buy a bag of carrots than fat filled, overly salted, oven ready hooves in a bag.

[Joel]

Sorry my addiction is hard to kick. Thanks for understanding.

[Angie Gallant]

I used to be opposed to smoking because I am allergic to tobacco so being around smokers is more than just a nuisance to me, it genuinely makes me ill. But now I've been through what is considered the gentlest cancer treatment you can have. And I was dying for two months.

I can't imagine intentionally doing something that could cause me to go through something worse.

[Rob Beschizza]

Regarding giving up smoking, my feeling is that when you really want to do it, it's easy.

For years I smoked and made the half-assed, therapy-assisted attempts at giving up that failed because at the end of the day, I wasn't that bothered. Even when I'd convinced myself of its necessity, knew what it might do to me, knew I was a slave to some of the nastiest companies in the world, it wasn't enough. I tried gum, patches, wellbutrin: everything, and none of it helped much.

Then, one day, I didn't want to smoke anymore. The last couple of packs went in the trash and that was that. I was surly for a few days, had a couple of cravings, and haven't smoked in three years.

The one thing I think is bad about this experience is it's made it harder for me to sympathise with victims of addiction: A part of me just cannot believe it when a morbidly obese person tells me they can't stop eating, or when a smoker says they can't give up. It's because it makes you feel better, not because you can't live without it.

It's not that I don't have vices. I just now know that they are my fault, and I do it because I want to and am too weak to stop myself.

[JeffL]

This is pretty simple to me: once you decide that people's choices and lifestyles contribute to their health problems and thus we will not pay for the incurred health costs, you've crossed a really dangerous line. People who drink too much. By far the biggest cause of health problems in America, people who eat poorly. Someone who refuses to wear a helmet when they ride a motorcycle. I'm currently typing this from bed because I don't exercise enough and my sciatic nerve got scrunched again and I am in major, bed-ridded pain.

It's just another example of people looking for excuses to attack smokers. I don't smoke, don't want to (except for the occasional special event cigar), watched my wife's grandfather die a horrible death of emphysema (sp). But I also don't like holier than thou hypocricy, and that's what I think of withholding health care from one specific group of people who do something that's not healthy when our entire society is filled with such people for whom the same standards are not being proposed.

[Charles]

You know, I detest smokers. I would like nothing more than to punch everyone who smokes near me in the face, or perhaps carry a squirt gun and spray their cigarette out while they are smoking. It's disgusting, and if you are that guy smoking in front of me in the bus line, or part of that group of people huddled outside of a building puffing up a small storm, know that I hate you. If you are that guy who gets in the elevator in my building and stinks of smoke, know that I hate you.

However, charging smokers more for healthcare is a bad idea. What it leads to is a privatized system. Because when you say that people who are less healthy need to pay more, it opens the doors for healthy people to say "Why should I have to pay? I'm going to cost the system next to nothing, I should get to save money on my healthcare."

I just don't like the direction it takes healthcare systems. It leads to a breakdown of the fundamental ideas behind healthcare in the first place.

[Marcus]

I 100% agree with that first paragraph.

[JeffL]

Well, most healthcare systems I have been in already charge smokers more for their insurance.

[Ben]

extarbags- What about extreme sport-types? Skateboarding off 2 story buildings leads to medical bills aplenty.

[Rob Beschizza]

OK. Forgive the sallow devil's advocacy, but so what if recreational injuries incur an extra degree of financial responsibility on the victim?

I understand that there are general societal benefits to paying out generously to keep the population at work and healthy. But, you know, why should the taxpayer pick up the hypothetical tab when someone gets their head cracked open because they were too busy being a free-living indepentent road warrior to wear a helmet on their motorbike?

I guess this only really applies to socialized healthcare systems anyway. The american healthcare system has to be sued before it even gets out of bed in the morning, let along let you get into one.

[Ben]

Rob- Again, that's cool with me. The issue is that extarbags is apparently fine with a system that holds smokers responsible for their own actions but grants all non-smokers immunity.

[Rob Beschizza]

Rob- Again, that's cool with me. The issue is that extarbags is apparently fine with a system that holds smokers responsible for their own actions but grants all non-smokers immunity.

There is something to patterns of habitual behavior that gets in people's craws, I think. I don't know why, but skydiving, skateboarding, and the like are risky endeavors of a kind that I find part and parcel of acceptable choice. It somehow seems different to being physically addicted to a harmful chemical.

For example, If a kid OD'd on heroin once, sure, I'll pitch in my 0.0005 cents to the hospital bill. And the next time, too. But when it comes to the eighth time, or when it comes to footing the bill for his 24/7 nursing home care when he finally ruins his body, there's just something much, much more annoying about it.

[Joel]

Maybe you non-smokers should just give it smoking a whirl. Then when we're on our early death beds together, at least I won't have to pass into the darkness listening to your sanctimony.

You know what I hate? People that drive cars that put out exhaust! Right on the fucking street, where I walk. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?!?

[Matthew Gallant]

I know for a fact they have sidewalks in New York City.

[Rob Beschizza]

Maybe you non-smokers should just give it smoking a whirl. Then when we're on our early death beds together, at least I won't have to pass into the darkness listening to your sanctimony.

You know what I hate? People that drive cars that put out exhaust! Right on the fucking street, where I walk. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?!?

Also, is there even any hard, peer-reviewed evidence that second hand smoke has harmed anyone? One thing I read said that even sat next to a smoker, you're unlikely to get a fiftieth of the smoke. I also saw the episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit which called Bullshit on second hand smoke as a danger compared to other sundry environmental pollutants. Also, I remember that some of the "studies" often cited were hopeless estimation jobs that recycled data from other studies, or tried to count deaths by comparing estimated intake to cancer incidence, as if all second-hand smoke was directly inhaled from the ciggie, and other pseudoscientific waffle.

[Nellie]

There's a study somewhere which I can't even be arsed to find which suggests that one cigarette a day triples your chances of heart disease and lung cancer. But I don't recall it specifying whether that was for someone living in a city where you have to walk past countless cars spewing out crap or someone in the country where you might only have to breathe in pesticides and fertilisers. Nor how often they ate burgers.

I've no idea whether a city like new york gives you a similar experience (but I'd be amazed if Los Angeles doesn't) but go visit a bar that allows smoking, then spend a day in London and see which experience makes you pick black snot out of your nose.

[Joel]

I know for a fact they have sidewalks in New York City. They went on strike!

[extarbags]

I've no idea whether a city like new york gives you a similar experience (but I'd be amazed if Los Angeles doesn't) but go visit a bar that allows smoking, then spend a day in London and see which experience makes you pick black snot out of your nose.

I've never been to London, but I've been to New York and I've been to Los Angeles, and the only times I've ever come down with a case of the black snots is after being at a bar or concert that featured a lot of people smoking.

[Lizard_King]

Also, is there even any hard, peer-reviewed evidence that second hand smoke has harmed anyone? One thing I read said that even sat next to a smoker, you're unlikely to get a fiftieth of the smoke. I also saw the episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit which called Bullshit on second hand smoke as a danger compared to other sundry environmental pollutants. Also, I remember that some of the "studies" often cited were hopeless estimation jobs that recycled data from other studies, or tried to count deaths by comparing estimated intake to cancer incidence, as if all second-hand smoke was directly inhaled from the ciggie, and other pseudoscientific waffle.

I would say it's a simple matter of common sense. Cigarrette smoke is bad for everything it comes in contact with...certainly determining the degree of the harm is important, but non smokers have options just as smokers do. I see no reason why smokers shouldn't pay more for life insurance, definitely, but health insurance would really have to rest on more certain data on whether it's cheaper to drop dead at 50 from emphysema and your third heart attack or at 95 after years of gradual decline.

Try going to Mexico City sometime. Your nose will be...impressed.

[Rob Beschizza]

Also, is there even any hard, peer-reviewed evidence that second hand smoke has harmed anyone? One thing I read said that even sat next to a smoker, you're unlikely to get a fiftieth of the smoke. I also saw the episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit which called Bullshit on second hand smoke as a danger compared to other sundry environmental pollutants. Also, I remember that some of the "studies" often cited were hopeless estimation jobs that recycled data from other studies, or tried to count deaths by comparing estimated intake to cancer incidence, as if all second-hand smoke was directly inhaled from the ciggie, and other pseudoscientific waffle.

I would say it's a simple matter of common sense. Cigarrette smoke is bad for everything it comes in contact with...certainly determining the degree of the harm is important, but non smokers have options just as smokers do. I see no reason why smokers shouldn't pay more for life insurance, definitely, but health insurance would really have to rest on more certain data on whether it's cheaper to drop dead at 50 from emphysema and your third heart attack or at 95 after years of gradual decline.

Try going to Mexico City sometime. Your nose will be...impressed.

Holy crap:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/mexico%20city%20pollution.jpg

That's the point though, right? Whining about second-hand smoke is about at meaningful as whining about traffic pollution.

[Charles]

Also, is there even any hard, peer-reviewed evidence that second hand smoke has harmed anyone?

I see this annoying argument brought up all over the place, and I'd just like to say: I don't give a shit if second hand smoke is harmful. It's gross, it stinks, and it's hard to breath. So all my opinions about smokers stand.

If I was seriously in to the anti-smoking argument about health, I'd have to be a generally healthy person, and I doubt that shit'll happen any time soon.

[Stroker Ace]

Also, is there even any hard, peer-reviewed evidence that second hand smoke has harmed anyone?I come home from bars and I have to hit on my inhaler and smell like shit for the evening, that's enough for me. What thread was this again?

[Joel]

Also, is there even any hard, peer-reviewed evidence that second hand smoke has harmed anyone?I come home from bars and I have to hit on my inhaler and smell like shit for the evening, that's enough for me. What thread was this again?

You know, I can understand not wanting to deal with the smoke in bars. I really can. Even as a smoker, coming home reeking (more) of smoke is a drag, let just feeling all the smoke and tar and nicotine all over your skin while you're there.

So I don't bitch when I have to smoke outside in New York (even if I still think it should be owner's choice, employees be damned). But after acquiesing to all the complaints, it gets old to be reamed because I am huddled with my fellow smokers outside a door in the freezing cold. The perceived right by anti-smoking zealots to be indignantly hard-headed about the choices others make is really annoying.

[Charles]

So I don't bitch when I have to smoke outside in New York (even if I still think it should be owner's choice, employees be damned). But after acquiesing to all the complaints, it gets old to be reamed because I am huddled with my fellow smokers outside a door in the freezing cold. The perceived right by anti-smoking zealots to be indignantly hard-headed about the choices others make is really annoying.

I don't begrudge your right to smoke. I just dislike having to be subjected to it. You can sit at home and chainsmoke 25 hours a day if you want. Just as long as I don't have to deal with it.

Really, same view I have of drugs. *shrug*

[Lizard_King]

I don't begrudge your right to smoke. I just dislike having to be subjected to it. You can sit at home and chainsmoke 25 hours a day if you want. Just as long as I don't have to deal with it.

Really, same view I have of drugs. *shrug*

Which is why I think segregated bars are great ideas. Let nonsmokers be the lepers just once in their self righteous little lives. Personally, I would much rather be offensive by creating a personal pollution cloud than by being that pain in my ass that complains about which way the wind blows every time I light up. I *could* concievably quit smoking; they will *always* be assholes.

Anyway, stay at home and not chainsmoke all you want. Just as long as I don't have to deal with it.

[MatthewF]

Which is why I think segregated bars are great ideas. Let nonsmokers be the lepers just once in their self righteous little lives. Personally, I would much rather be offensive by creating a personal pollution cloud than by being that pain in my ass that complains about which way the wind blows every time I light up. I *could* concievably quit smoking; they will *always* be assholes.

Anyway, stay at home and not chainsmoke all you want. Just as long as I don't have to deal with it.
Well, aren't you the asshole. See, I smoked for 6 years. Quit a year ago. You know what I've become? The "assholes" I hated so much that complained about my own smoking. Not only does the fact that I've smoked make me extra physically sensitive to others' cigarette smoke now, but I've noticed something strange: smokers are jerks. I was a jerk. I'd light up around other non-smokers without ever considering them, and I'd get the same self-righteous attitude only in reverse -- "if they don't like it, it's not my problem. It's MY RIGHT to smoke." Ha. So even if you quit smoking, you're still going to be an asshole. Just an asshole of a different kind. You think I like having to close my windows in my upstairs apartment because the damn human bbq beneath me loves to come out onto his back porch and smoke, like 6 times an hour? I shouldn't have to close my windows. It's MY GODDAMN RIGHT to have open windows without smoke pouring into them.

The difference between a smoker and a non-smoker is that non-smokers are justifiable assholes. By not smoking they're not fucking with the air quality of others. They're not throwing their non-existent cigarette butts all over the fucking place. Ever seen a smoker get offended at the clean smelling exhale of a non-smoker and ask him to kindly light up a cigarette because, goddammit, his unsmoky breath is polluting the fucking air around them? No, because it would be considered being an unreasonable asshole, while when it happens in reverse it's reasonable assholishness.

And please, spare me all your "second hand smoke isn't dangerous!" bullshit. Before I myself smoked, I lived with a mother who was a veritable chimney. Every once in a while I'd wake up in the morning with a thick throat and cough up mucus filled with ash. I didn't think anything of it back then, and certainly not when I myself smoked, but now something tells me that coughing up ash that was previously just chilling in your lungs is not good for you.

Anyway, I'm all for segregated bars. I don't want to deal with your shit, you don't want to deal with mine, sounds fair. But non-smokers sure as hell won't be the lepers. You can enjoy your rank, yellow-stained, polluted section of the bar all you want. We'll all be much happier for it. Don't mind me, though, if I pass your hospital room in 20 years and point and laugh while you gasp for breath from your oxygen tank. Provided I'm not hooked up to my own tank -- damn you, cigarettes!

[Soapyfrog]

Smoking in public isn't much different from urinating in public, really.

[Lizard_King]

Well, aren't you the asshole. See, I smoked for 6 years. Quit a year ago. You know what I've become? The "assholes" I hated so much that complained about my own smoking. Not only does the fact that I've smoked make me extra physically sensitive to others' cigarette smoke now, but I've noticed something strange: smokers are jerks. I was a jerk. I'd light up around other non-smokers without ever considering them, and I'd get the same self-righteous attitude only in reverse -- "if they don't like it, it's not my problem. It's MY RIGHT to smoke." Ha. So even if you quit smoking, you're still going to be an asshole. Just an asshole of a different kind. You think I like having to close my windows in my upstairs apartment because the damn human bbq beneath me loves to come out onto his back porch and smoke, like 6 times an hour? I shouldn't have to close my windows. It's MY GODDAMN RIGHT to have open windows without smoke pouring into them.
You born again assholes are the worst kind. The worst. Reminds me of those people who were "formerly gay", with all of their absurd screeds based on their imaginary moral standing. Anyhow, it sounds like you have a jerk who happens to smoke for a neighbor, and that is the principal problem. I've cohabited with any number of nonsmokers, to the point of marrying one, and never had a problem.

The difference between a smoker and a non-smoker is that non-smokers are justifiable assholes. By not smoking they're not fucking with the air quality of others. They're not throwing their non-existent cigarette butts all over the fucking place. Ever seen a smoker get offended at the clean smelling exhale of a non-smoker and ask him to kindly light up a cigarette because, goddammit, his unsmoky breath is polluting the fucking air around them? No, because it would be considered being an unreasonable asshole, while when it happens in reverse it's reasonable assholishness.
You ever seen a gay guy ask a person to please stop being not gay because it's bothering him? Probably not. But I bet you would be all about him telling an offensive homophobe to shut the fuck up.

And please, spare me all your "second hand smoke isn't dangerous!" bullshit. Bla bla bla I didn't say that or anything like that. In fact, I expressly said that regardless of data, secondhand smoke is a legitimate complaint.

Anyway, I'm all for segregated bars. I don't want to deal with your shit, you don't want to deal with mine, sounds fair. But non-smokers sure as hell won't be the lepers. You can enjoy your rank, yellow-stained, polluted section of the bar all you want. We'll all be much happier for it. Don't mind me, though, if I pass your hospital room in 20 years and point and laugh while you gasp for breath from your oxygen tank. It's only fair, after all.
Yeah, whatever. I don't really care how cool you think your little clique is. Like I said, split up the bars. California has the right idea, but I think you have to kick it up a notch and just have either nonsmoking or smoking bars. Make people pick a side, already.

[MatthewF]

Actually, for an accurate analogy it would be "smoking in public isn't much different than urinating in public, exccept you're walking around and pissing in everyone's mouth within a 15 foot radius."

[Lizard_King]

Smoking in public isn't much different from urinating in public, really.

Note to self: next time somone gives me a dirty look for smoking in the wide open, start peeing. I bet you anything they'll find that more offensive.

[MatthewF]

You born again assholes are the worst kind. The worst. Reminds me of those people who were "formerly gay", with all of their absurd screeds based on their imaginary moral standing. Anyhow, it sounds like you have a jerk who happens to smoke for a neighbor, and that is the principal problem. I've cohabited with any number of nonsmokers, to the point of marrying one, and never had a problem.
I'm very sorry for them. And "born again" is really not an accurate term. More like "healthy and not choking on my own spit again".

You ever seen a gay guy ask a person to please stop being not gay because it's bothering him? Probably not. But I bet you would be all about him telling an offensive homophobe to shut the fuck up.
What? That's twice you've mentioned a gay analogy. I don't know where this is going, but I don't want any part of it.

I didn't say that or anything like that. In fact, I expressly said that regardless of data, secondhand smoke is a legitimate complaint.
That wasn't directed at you. I just wanted to fit it all into one post.

Yeah, whatever. I don't really care how cool you think your little clique is. Like I said, split up the bars. California has the right idea, but I think you have to kick it up a notch and just have either nonsmoking or smoking bars. Make people pick a side, already.
YES I THINK I AM SO COOL NOW THAT I DON'T SMOKE ANYMORE, I ONLY WISH YOU COULD BE AS COOL AS ME!!#!one!@!. Please. I don't feel any "cooler" than I did when I smoked. Although I do have decidedly less accidental cigarette burns on my clothing and upholstry. And your use of the word "clique" is interesting, next you'll be accusing me of being a member of some non-smoker mafia.

[Soapyfrog]

Note to self: next time somone gives me a dirty look for smoking in the wide open, start peeing. I bet you anything they'll find that more offensive.
Oh sure, it's SOME different, just not MUCH different :P I mean, it's all about spewing obnoxious substances, right? Of course, cigarette smoke is actually posionous, whereas urine isn't, sooo.... :roll:

[Lizard_King]

I'm very sorry for them. And "born again" is really not an accurate term. More like "healthy and not choking on my own spit again".
It is, actually, an exact term. You know, like born again Christians, who usually go from being sinners you could have a good time with to preachy nitwits.


What? That's twice you've mentioned a gay analogy. I don't know where this is going, but I don't want any part of it.
Well, it was meant purely as a comparison in terms of social groups that are marginalized. But your reaction to it is at least as interesting. You really don't understand what I meant by it, or do you just close your eyes and start imagining a penis when you hear the word "gay"?


That wasn't directed at you. I just wanted to fit it all into one post./[quote]
Well, glad we could clear that up.

[quote]
YES I THINK I AM SO COOL NOW THAT I DON'T SMOKE ANYMORE, I ONLY WISH YOU COULD BE AS COOL AS ME!!#!one!@!. Please. I don't feel any "cooler" than I did when I smoked. Although I do have decidedly less accidental cigarette burns on my clothing and upholstry. And your use of the word "clique" is interesting, next you'll be accusing me of being a member of some non-smoker mafia.No, I just meant you and your presumably like minded friends. Way to dime out the conspiracy, tho.

[Graeme Dice]

And your use of the word "clique" is interesting, next you'll be accusing me of being a member of some non-smoker mafia.

It's especially interesting when you consider that a "clique" is, by definition, a small, exclusive group. I think he has the terms "clique", and "majority", mixed up.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

do you just close your eyes and start imagining a penis when you hear the word "gay"?

I sure do! I don't know if Scry does, though.

[Graeme Dice]

I've cohabited with any number of nonsmokers, to the point of marrying one, and never had a problem.

Well, since you've identified yourself as a smoker, that would obviously be why you don't have a problem with other people smoking in your vicinity. You've already trashed your sense of smell, so you don't realize just how offensive your odour is.

You ever seen a gay guy ask a person to please stop being not gay because it's bothering him? Probably not. But I bet you would be all about him telling an offensive homophobe to shut the fuck up.

You might want to use analogies that actually work. Last time I checked, a person was able to choose whether or not they smoked. So, yes, since the smoker is just about as offensive as the homophobe, I'd have no problem telling him to butt out.

[Charles]

bigotted bullshit

Leave it to a white trash redneck to fall back on gaybashing when someone brings up valid and pertinent arguments.

[Charles]

Also, since it was brought up: The worst thing about smokers is the fucking trash they leave all over the place. Every time I see some dick toss a but on the ground (especially near grass in the summer, that's my fucking FAVORITE) I feel like picking it back up and dropping it in his/her pants. Burning or not.

Fuck you fuckers.

[Joel]

Also, since it was brought up: The worst thing about smokers is the fucking trash they leave all over the place. Every time I see some dick toss a but on the ground (especially near grass in the summer, that's my fucking FAVORITE) I feel like picking it back up and dropping it in his/her pants. Burning or not.

Fuck you fuckers.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Fuck people!

[extarbags]

Also, since it was brought up: The worst thing about smokers is the fucking trash they leave all over the place. Every time I see some dick toss a but on the ground (especially near grass in the summer, that's my fucking FAVORITE) I feel like picking it back up and dropping it in his/her pants. Burning or not.

Fuck you fuckers.

You know what the worst example of this is, for me? People that throw cigarette butts out of their window while driving. Man, I cannot fucking stand that. You don't see too many people just throwing fast food wrappers or used tissues out of car windows these days, but man, it seems like almost every smoker thinks that cigarette butts are magically not trash, and it's just cool to chuck them out the window instead of putting them in the ashtray.

Christ I hate that.

[Crispus]

I had a feeling when this thread popped up that it'd degenerate into a fight between smokers and people who hate smokers. Yeah, talking about your stupid smoking pet peeves is so much more enlightening than any discussion about whether this ruling is a good precedent to set. :roll:

Since we've already headed down this road, though...personally, I think a lot of the anti-smoking rhetoric makes anti-smokers look like complete anal-retentive jerks, and this perspective is coming from someone who's never smoked. They came off looking like control-freak sissies when they crowed that smoking should be banned from restaurants, and they're coming off looking like that again here, with attacks that are based more on their dislike of the habit than on any outrage over having to pay for the smokers' medical treatments. I've never heard so much whining about something so small as I have from anti-smokers whining about having to breathe smoky air now and again. Why don't you just pass a law banning the act of smoking and be done with it?

[MatthewF]

Also, since it was brought up: The worst thing about smokers is the fucking trash they leave all over the place. Every time I see some dick toss a but on the ground (especially near grass in the summer, that's my fucking FAVORITE) I feel like picking it back up and dropping it in his/her pants. Burning or not.

Fuck you fuckers.

You know what the worst example of this is, for me? People that throw cigarette butts out of their window while driving. Man, I cannot fucking stand that. You don't see too many people just throwing fast food wrappers or used tissues out of car windows these days, but man, it seems like almost every smoker thinks that cigarette butts are magically not trash, and it's just cool to chuck them out the window instead of putting them in the ashtray.

Christ I hate that.
It's even better when they hit your windshield and send a starburst of burning ash all over your car. Even when I used to smoke, I always put them out in the ash tray, because once one flew back from a car in front of me, went in my driver's side window and nicked me on the ear. The embers fell out and burned a hole in my pants and eventually my leg before I even knew what was happening.

[extarbags]

Why don't you just pass a law banning the act of smoking and be done with it?

Because of the tobacco lobby :/.

[Crispus]

Why don't you just pass a law banning the act of smoking and be done with it?

Because of the tobacco lobby :/.

Are you in favor of drug legalization? I hope not, because it'd seem a little odd to be in favor of legalizing drugs while banning tobacco.

And speaking of drugs, if drug legalization were to ever occur, would drug addicts forfeit the same legal rights that smokers are forfeiting?

[extarbags]

Why don't you just pass a law banning the act of smoking and be done with it?

Because of the tobacco lobby :/.

Sir, your hyperbolic statement is inconsistent with a political position that I have decided to pretend that you hold! Your hypocrisy astounds and offends, sir!

[shift6]

Try going to Mexico City sometime. Your nose will be...impressed.
Holy crap:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/mexico%20city%20pollution.jpg

That's the point though, right? Whining about second-hand smoke is about at meaningful as whining about traffic pollution.
I grew up with smokers (dad, aunt, etc), but never in my life have my eyes literally burned just from being open except when I was walking around in Mexico DF about 1989. I actually had to go back to my room and throw water into them just to get them to stop stinging. From plain old city air. That's no shit.

[Euri]

I'm all for being able to windmill my arms wherever I go, in any situation. I mean, they are my arms and you can't prove just doing it hurts anyone, right? I mean, if your nose happens to connect with my first it might sting but you won't die or anything.

[Crispus]

Why don't you just pass a law banning the act of smoking and be done with it?

Because of the tobacco lobby :/.

Sir, your hyperbolic statement is inconsistent with a political position that I have decided to pretend that you hold! Your hypocrisy astounds and offends, sir!


If such hypocrisy existed on your part, it might offend, but it certainly wouldn't astound.

[extarbags]

Why don't you just pass a law banning the act of smoking and be done with it?

Because of the tobacco lobby :/.

Sir, your hyperbolic statement is inconsistent with a political position that I have decided to pretend that you hold! Your hypocrisy astounds and offends, sir!


If such hypocrisy existed on your part, it might offend, but it certainly wouldn't astound.

And why is that?

[bago]

Cause of Death Rank Deaths %

Diseases of heart 1 606,876 28.9
Malignant neoplasms 2 482,481 22.9
Cerebrovascular diseases 3 139,719 6.6
Chronic respiratory diseases 4 115,395 5.5
Accidents (unintentional) 5 90,866 4.3
Diabetes mellitus 6 58,459 2.8 4
Influenza and pneumonia 7 58,346 2.8
Alzheimer’s disease 8 55,058 2.6

By this model of ranking government health subsidies according to risk of death you essentially mandate healthcare only for the healthy.

Required government interventions in order to ensure compliance with the healthcare program would include: Monitoring daily diet for excessive salt intake (cardiovascular), monitoring radation intake and trace chemical intake (cancer), pretty much nothing for strokes an aneurysims, monitor particulate inhalation for respiratory diseases, monitor all risk taking activity, such as sports, driving, walking through the bad part of town, wearing a helmet, etc (accidents), ensuring you always washed your hands and used a handkercheif (flu), and straight up snuffing you when you become daft.

In short, the government would have to monitor all aspects of your life, because anything can be lethal.

Of course if you really wanted to encourage personal responsibility, you would transfer ownership of healthcare back to the individual. After all, who other than yourself has the most to lose when you lose your health? Who is in a better position to make the value judgements about your health other than you? If you don't want a long life, you don't need one. If you can't understand that sticking fire into your face and coughing up tar isn't healthy, then you're literally too stupid to live to a long age.

It's called the tragedy of the commons. If a resource is "Free" people will abuse it, because they have no responsibility to ensuring future survival, as there is always that free benefit to exploit, until it runs out because everyone over-exploited it. With private ownership you give people an incentive to care for themselves if they want to see tomorrow.

Of course you can't be absolutionist in this however, because some people are fuckups. Humans make mistakes. Some make many mistakes. You need to provide a minimal social safety net because nothing is more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose. Ensure everyone has a little something to lose. Pay for cystic fibrosis treatment, because that's just an evil disease, and it is congenital. If you are born without a chance you deserve a helping hand. Means test pay for kids under 18, because kids are dumb, and shouldn't suffer because their parents can't afford them. Do drug clinics for addicts, because their criminal action in support of their addiction is FAR more dangerous than the drug itself. Give them their drug but make them wards of the state, doing some labor each day to pay for their fix. They will either quit because it sucks, or live out their short lives away from anyone they could harm. Means test pay for emergency treatment and kids, congnital diseases, and addiction and that's it.

People not wanting cancer will be forced to look their cigarette at eye level and say "You are trying to kill me". People who would rather die than wear a helmet are granted that option. The facts are out there, and you have everything to lose by being ignorant. That pretty much sums up life though, doesn't it?

[Lizard_King]

It's especially interesting when you consider that a "clique" is, by definition, a small, exclusive group. I think he has the terms "clique", and "majority", mixed up.
I'm actually in this forum as well, so you can feel free to address me directly rather than stagewhispering to your homeboys. I was actually using it as "an exclusive circle of people with a common purpose", in this case a collection of "wankers" whose mission it is to make "smokers" feel their disdain and overregulate every aspect of life to ensure they are never around a smoker again.

Well, since you've identified yourself as a smoker, that would obviously be why you don't have a problem with other people smoking in your vicinity. You've already trashed your sense of smell, so you don't realize just how offensive your odour is.
That actually makes no sense with reference to what I said. Let's recap:
Me: I've actually managed to coexist successfully with a large number of nonsmokers at various points in my life, my point being that sometimes when a person is a jerk first and also a smoker, it is that former character trait that makes the latter a problem.
You: You enjoy the company of smokers because you smoke, smokety smoke smoke. No sense of smell and you stink, too!!!! Ha ha ha.

You might want to use analogies that actually work. Last time I checked, a person was able to choose whether or not they smoked. So, yes, since the smoker is just about as offensive as the homophobe, I'd have no problem telling him to butt out.

Actually, it does work in a narrow sense. It's a lifestyle that inspires vehemently obnoxious behaviour on the part of those who do not share it.


Leave it to a white trash redneck to fall back on gaybashing when someone brings up valid and pertinent arguments. Techically speaking, I'm neither white nor from anywhere that could concievably be regarded as redneck country. I imagine you see redneck as a state of mind consisting of people not obviously in agreement with you, which is fine if typically ignorant. I'm also interested to see where I was bashing gays, there.
But really, I'm impressed with you upping the ante. Because to someone like you, I gather, arguments are not so much a question of being right but seeing who can be more exaggeratedly offended over nonsense first. I'd say you're definitely in the lead, but I wonder when that will become the gold standard for victory around here.

Also, since it was brought up: The worst thing about smokers is the fucking trash they leave all over the place. Every time I see some dick toss a but on the ground (especially near grass in the summer, that's my fucking FAVORITE) I feel like picking it back up and dropping it in his/her pants. Burning or not.
I bet you've never done it, though. Must suck spending your entire life angry at everyone but only able to vent through the anonymous venue of the internet.

It's even better when they hit your windshield and send a starburst of burning ash all over your car. Even when I used to smoke, I always put them out in the ash tray, because once one flew back from a car in front of me, went in my driver's side window and nicked me on the ear. The embers fell out and burned a hole in my pants and eventually my leg before I even knew what was happening.
That sounds hilarious. I typically use empty plastic bottles, myself, but given the small chance of someday having Charles drive behind me, I'll have to start doing that...thanks for the pro tip.

Are you in favor of drug legalization? I hope not, because it'd seem a little odd to be in favor of legalizing drugs while banning tobacco.

And speaking of drugs, if drug legalization were to ever occur, would drug addicts forfeit the same legal rights that smokers are forfeiting?
Interesting questions. I'd be willing to bet the root causes for that lack of consistency lie with their arguments coming from a matter of taste rather than principle.

[Soapyfrog]

Can I take a dump in public and then smear my fecal matter on passer's by? That should legal! Freedom and all that! Freedom dammit! If you don't like my shit, just don't come near me!

[Lizard_King]

Can I take a dump in public and then smear my fecal matter on passer's by? That should legal! Freedom and all that! Freedom dammit! If you don't like my shit, just don't come near me!
Is this the extent of your argument? Increasingly disgusting scatological analogies? Pretty weak. Are you going to make it illegal to pass gas, too?

The biggest problem isn't smoking itself, it's inconsiderate smokers. They spur the sort of busybodies we see in this thread to new paroxysms of intolerance which they inflict on normal smokers. To continue Soapy's masterful line of reasoning, not everyone farts in a crowded elevator.

[Ben Sones]

Can I take a dump in public and then smear my fecal matter on passer's by?

You have my permission.

[Charles]

The biggest problem isn't smoking itself, it's inconsiderate smokers.

If you are smoking outside of the privacy of your own home, then you are an inconsiderate smoker.

[Lizard_King]

The biggest problem isn't smoking itself, it's inconsiderate smokers.

If you are smoking outside of the privacy of your own home, then you are an inconsiderate smoker.

Ah, I just realized. "Montreal, Quebec". I completely understand where you're coming from, and I have another analogy for you: despite the fact that most Quebecois are really wonderful people, there is that small, loud minority that make the rest of the region look bad. You would be that guy. In your case, if you are Quebecois outside the privacy of your own home, you are inconsiderate. That includes Le Internet, so I'll be seeing ya...

[Nick Walter]

If you are smoking outside of the privacy of your own home, then you are an inconsiderate smoker.

:applauds:

Amen brother! This is also true for people who wear perfume or scented deodorants which aggravate my allergies. I can't believe the fuckers walk outside of their homes with their allergy bombs sprayed all over the bodies and expect people to not attack them.

I think we should try and get the law changed so we can legally slap smokers, people wearing perfume, ugly people, retards, and other offensive inconsiderate types.

[Charles]

Amen brother! This is also true for people who wear perfume or scented deodorants which aggravate my allergies.

Oh christ yes. Old women are the worst. You can smell them coming from thirty feet away. The winter is the worst; I'm so tempted to push them in the snow and bury them.

[Soapyfrog]

Is this the extent of your argument? Increasingly disgusting scatological analogies? Pretty weak.
Is it? Sorry. I just seem some degree of equivocation there. i.e. doing things in public that are best done in privacy: body functions, sex, drugs, etc... Especially things that are immediately and directly offensive to others in an invasive way (as smoking is).

I completely understand where you're coming from, and I have another analogy for you: despite the fact that most Quebecois are really wonderful people, there is that small, loud minority that make the rest of the region look bad.
You are determined to undermine your own arguments by openly displaying your own ignorance, eh? Well don't let me stop you :D

[Lizard_King]

Is it? Sorry. I just seem some degree of equivocation there. i.e. doing things in public that are best done in privacy: body functions, sex, drugs, etc... Especially things that are immediately and directly offensive to others in an invasive way (as smoking is).
What happened to tolerance? It is really just a matter of taste rather than a principal around here. I'm telling you, it's not all smokers that are the problem, just a very visible minority that is very inconsiderate. For instance, I don't like the leftover smell of smoking either, so I usually smoke outdoors, and I can't imagine blowing smoke in someone's open window regularly. I am always willing to negotiate with people that are polite, versus people that assume a categorical imperative in their crusade against smokers anywhere.


You are determined to undermine your own arguments by openly displaying your own ignorance, eh? Well don't let me stop you :D
You're absolutely right. Talking about poo poos really elevated the level of discourse, whereas me responding quite moderately to Charles redneck smear is really bringing us down.

[Charles]

Ah, I just realized. "Montreal, Quebec". I completely understand where you're coming from, and I have another analogy for you: despite the fact that most Quebecois are really wonderful people, there is that small, loud minority that make the rest of the region look bad. You would be that guy. In your case, if you are Quebecois outside the privacy of your own home, you are inconsiderate. That includes Le Internet, so I'll be seeing ya...

You know, I'm not really sure where you are going with that. Disregarding the fact that I grew up in western Canada, or the fact that Quebecois don't really have a bad reputation (unless you are referring to seperatists, but that's strictly political and has no real bearing on anything else), the fact of the matter is that even then it's a poor attempt at an analogy because where someone comes from doesn't affect anyone else. Some asshole smoking does.

That being said, I'd just like to state that white trash redneck doesn't require you to be white.

[Lizard_King]

You know, I'm not really sure where you are going with that. Disregarding the fact that I grew up in western Canada, or the fact that Quebecois don't really have a bad reputation (unless you are referring to seperatists, but that's strictly political and has no real bearing on anything else), the fact of the matter is that even then it's a poor attempt at an analogy because where someone comes from doesn't affect anyone else. Some asshole smoking does.

Actually, my goal was just to show how absurd your opening attack on my alleged ethnicity/cultural affilations was, a pointless ad hominem in a very trivial dispute spun off of a minor issue. Thanks for making my point for me.
That being said, I'd just like to state that white trash redneck doesn't require you to be white.

Or a redneck, or have much in common with them politically or socially other than not agreeing with you. Yeah, I get it. I really like how you spin being personally intolerant of cultural segments you don't understand or know anything about as some sort of noble crusade, acceptable tactics in the imaginary defense of "real" minorities that need you as their paladin. Condescension really is the new racism.

[Charles]

Or a redneck, or have much in common with them politically or socially other than not agreeing with you. Yeah, I get it. I really like how you spin being personally intolerant of cultural segments you don't understand or know anything about as some sort of noble crusade, acceptable tactics in the imaginary defense of "real" minorities that need you as their paladin. Condescension really is the new racism.

You are right. I should just stuck to the basics: That your arguments don't make any sense, and the correlations you try and draw are nonexistant.

Whether someone is being gay or french, that affects no one else nearby.

[Lizard_King]

You are right. I should just stuck to the basics: That your arguments don't make any sense, and the correlations you try and draw are nonexistant.
It's actually an analogy, not a correlation. You know, one of those things that bear a similarity to something else despite being different in most other respects. It's a common rhetorical instrument, used world round. I suppose covering your ears and screaming "You don't make any sense, I hate smokers, bla bla bla" is also a rhetorical tool, but it seems to me it really undercuts your ability to respond to arguments.

Whether someone is being gay or french, that affects no one else nearby.Right, which is why my analogy related antismoker crusaders (you) to obnoxious homophobes. The latter find the simple existence of homosexuality at least as repellent as you do cigarrette smoke, even when it happens in a total legal and downright decent manner. You antismoker types seem to lay claim to the entire outdoors as well as your little slice of the world, to which I reply: nice try. Remember, the smokers own all the guns.

The french crack was just an instructional episode to demonstrate the flipside of your crazy little world of arguments. Have a nice day.

[Charles]

Right, which is why my analogy related antismoker crusaders (you) to obnoxious homophobes. The latter find the simple existence of homosexuality at least as repellent as you do cigarrette smoke, even when it happens in a total legal and downright decent manner.

Except, one is totally imaginary and subjective, and the other is objectively and quantifiably real.

But hey, if you want to equate "gay people bother me" with "I don't like breathing/smelling smoke", go ahead and live in your little world where 1=0.

[MatthewF]

Right, which is why my analogy related antismoker crusaders (you) to obnoxious homophobes. The latter find the simple existence of homosexuality at least as repellent as you do cigarrette smoke, even when it happens in a total legal and downright decent manner.
Wait a second. If it's happening somewhere that I don't have to experience it, why should I give a shit? You're applying comparisons that aren't even fucking valid. I doubt anyone cares at all if you do it in your own little hotboxed closet or outdoors far enough away from us that we don't have to breathe it. By the way, applying a homophobe analogy to a non-smoker is a great way to be a dick. So thumbs up!

You antismoker types seem to lay claim to the entire outdoors as well as your little slice of the world, to which I reply: nice try.
If your smoke is going into my lungs at any given time and I can't move away from it without causing myself an unreasonable hassle, I don't give a fuck who you are or what you have to say, you will know about it. And trust me, I'm not one of those prissy little cupcakes who mock-coughs to let you know they don't approve.

Remember, the smokers own all the guns.
Seriously, what in the fuck. Are you going to shoot people who don't like it when you smoke around them? I hope you're a better shot than me then, because you can be damn sure I'll shoot back. Wow, this thread is starting to move way beyond sanity.

Have a nice day.
Well, fuck you very much.

[Charles]

Remember, the smokers own all the guns.
Seriously, what in the fuck. Are you going to shoot people who don't like it when you smoke around them? I hope you're a better shot than me then, because you can be damn sure I'll shoot back. Wow, this thread is starting to move way beyond sanity.

... and he thinks I was offbase with my comment!

[Graeme Dice]

I'm actually in this forum as well, so you can feel free to address me directly rather than stagewhispering to your homeboys.

I'd write my posts to you directly if you were worth responding to.

Actually, it does work in a narrow sense. It's a lifestyle that inspires vehemently obnoxious behaviour on the part of those who do not share it.

Except, of course, that the only person being vehemently obnoxious is the smoker.

[Jason McCullough]

Getting back on topic: the referenced article has nothing to do with "the public insurance system paying your smoking-related costs". It's just about compensation from suing the manufacturer.

[Nick Walter]

Getting back on topic: the referenced article has nothing to do with "the public insurance system paying your smoking-related costs". It's just about compensation from suing the manufacturer.

Don't rerail the thread man :)

I'm having way too much fun watching the childish bickering from all sides. Though I do feel guilty for egging them on a bit.

P.S. Smokers are basically subhumans and the death penalty might be the only solution.

P.P.S. Anti smoking activists are all basically gay. Or Canadian, which is worse.

[Flowers]

Say what you want, there isn't a much more honorable or reliable form of suicide than smoking. Thanks Kurt.

[Rob Beschizza]

Do anti-smokers get this upset about car exhaust and stuff like that? For some reason, I just don't think they do.

[Flowers]

Can I take a dump in public and then smear my fecal matter on passer's by?

You have my permission.

You could probably get some money from the government if you videotape it and yell, "I am cigarrettes! Smoking is poopy! Tobacco companies called you a doodyhead that wants poopy kisses from ugly puppies!"

If you don't want to compromise your artistic integrity, you could probably still get a grant from the government, but it'd have to be from those people who Jesse Helms says will give you money to pee on a crucifix.

[bago]

The same health logic that could be used to bust sex clubs (They spread disease! public health! they're gross! Don't want to look at ugly naked people!) are the exact same arguments people are using to close smoking clubs.

Although Canada just made sex clubs nice and legal. They're also legal is most of the US. The fact that there's not a club exemption shows that it is not based on logic, but rather those damnably fashionable puritan desires.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

P.S. Smokers are basically subhumans and the death penalty might be the only solution.

P.P.S. Anti smoking activists are all basically gay. Or Canadian, which is worse.

If both of these things are true...

... can I be anti-smoking without being an activist per se?

[MatthewF]

Do anti-smokers get this upset about car exhaust and stuff like that? For some reason, I just don't think they do.
You could, I dunno, what's the word I'm looking for... ask? Look, although I'm already not a fan of exhaust, if you ran your car beneath my window with clouds of exhaust pouring in, or parked your car next to my table at a coffee shop with the exhaust manifold 4 or 5 feet from my face, the answer would be a resounding yes -- it would piss me off just as much. As for the general emissions from cars that pollute our air every day well, yeah, they annoy me. I wish we could eliminate them completely, and hopefully they will, but I accept that they're a necessary evil of the vast benefit that motor vehicles offer us. Find me a matching benefit for smoking cigarettes, and you might just have your hypocrite.

I wonder... is it hypocrytical for a smoker to complain about non-smokers, but still get upset about car exhaust? Does anyone like exhaust? Has a smoker never rolled up their window or shut off their air conditioning when a diesel truck in front of them emits a giant cloud of putrid smoke, or do you guys just open that shit up and take in a deep, satisfying breath?

[Rob Beschizza]

Do anti-smokers get this upset about car exhaust and stuff like that? For some reason, I just don't think they do.
You could, I dunno, what's the word I'm looking for... ask?

Because "anti-smokers" is a rather unfriendly shorthand and I didn't want to direct that question personally.

[Lizard_King]

Wait a second. If it's happening somewhere that I don't have to experience it, why should I give a shit? You're applying comparisons that aren't even fucking valid. I doubt anyone cares at all if you do it in your own little hotboxed closet or outdoors far enough away from us that we don't have to breathe it. By the way, applying a homophobe analogy to a non-smoker is a great way to be a dick. So thumbs up!
The theme of the thread was not directed at smokers that have bothered you. You directed it at all of us. Hence my attempt to make you understand that it's not all the same group, and it is possible for a nonsmoker to be at least as offensive. I am flattered that I meet your standard for being a dick; that is really setting the bar high.


If your smoke is going into my lungs at any given time and I can't move away from it without causing myself an unreasonable hassle, I don't give a fuck who you are or what you have to say, you will know about it. And trust me, I'm not one of those prissy little cupcakes who mock-coughs to let you know they don't approve.
Well, then go right ahead, cupcake. Probably depending on the manner in which you do it, it wouldn't be a problem. Personally, I'm huge fan of just directly telling me, hey man, could you direct your cancer elsewhere. That's all I really want. People to address me like a man with whom they have a problem, rather than vermin to be exterminated.


Seriously, what in the fuck. Are you going to shoot people who don't like it when you smoke around them? I hope you're a better shot than me then, because you can be damn sure I'll shoot back. Wow, this thread is starting to move way beyond sanity.
Alas, I was just going along with the generally militant direction the thread was head. It was not an empty internet threat, I assure you. Just remember that small acts of civil disobedience over tea have started wars. I'm sure cigarrettes are big enough to end us all.


Well, fuck you very much.
Oh, now, well that's not very nice.

I'd write my posts to you directly if you were worth responding to.
Ooooh, snap. That is an excellent course of action. You are the best debater that the second grade has ever seen. Is this the new paradigm for qt3? Talking about people you disagree with? That's really cute.
Except, of course, that the only person being vehemently obnoxious is the smoker.
I'm fairly certain Miss Manners would have a thing or two to say about your bullshit, too, judging from your conduct thus far. You too, should have a nice day. It sounds like you need one.

[MatthewF]

The theme of the thread was not directed at smokers that have bothered you. You directed it at all of us. Hence my attempt to make you understand that it's not all the same group, and it is possible for a nonsmoker to be at least as offensive. I am flattered that I meet your standard for being a dick; that is really setting the bar high.
Bullshit. You've generalized in nearly every post in this thread, do I need to direct you to all the "you people" comments of your own? I'm only being fair, and to be honest, by the way you've been responding I have come to the conclusion that you are indeed one of those smokers who bothers me. Because I am pretty damn bothered by your attitude at the moment.

Oh, now, well that's not very nice.
Oh, forgive me then. No wait, don't, because I think you deserved it.

[Rob Beschizza]

Has a smoker never rolled up their window or shut off their air conditioning when a diesel truck in front of them emits a giant cloud of putrid smoke, or do you guys just open that shit up and take in a deep, satisfying breath?

I just noticed that in your reply to me, you start addressing me as a smoker. That's an interesting assumption.

[MatthewF]

So you're not? If you're a non-smoker, why were you wondering what non-smokers thought about car exhaust?

[Nick Walter]

So you're not? If you're a non-smoker, why were you wondering what non-smokers thought about car exhaust?

He was asking about anti-smokers not non-smokers. Interesting that you automatically assume the world is split into smokers and anti-smokers.

[MatthewF]

He was asking about anti-smokers not non-smokers. Interesting that you automatically assume the world is split into smokers and anti-smokers.
There's nothing "interesting" about it. I had no idea that there was a difference in terminology being applied here, so don't make any assumptions of your own. In my case I guess I would be an anti-"don't breathe your smoke in my face or throw your cigarette butts at my car" person. Which classification does that make me?

My beef in this thread started with an attack on NON-SMOKERS. It was my bad that I didn't see the terminology change, but oh well. Now I know, I guess.

[Flowers]

I think some of us may be overstating our adherence and level of zealotry with regards to smoking. I am just waiting for someone to start quoting Malcolm X. Holding people responsible for stupid decisions is ok when you just don't let someone return the Dharma & Greg Season Four Boxed VHS set. When someone is dying, it doesn't care whose fault it is, society is forced to get off its ass, get out its wallet and bail the unfortunate person out. That's the point of teaming up against nature and strangers. The next idiot might be you.

Either you smoke or you don't, and if you don't smoke, you notice the smell. The way things are going, there are less and less places for people to smoke. That means more places should smell fresh and clean for the nonsmokers. No one needs a cigarrette that badly. They can relax people, but we aren't dealing with delerium tremens.

So the nonsmokers say that they wish they could go more places, but they can't because of the impenetrable wall of noxious smog that permeates their entire being for the following week, getting them fired from their jobs and making them have less restful sleep. Nonsmokers promise to show up in droves if only the cloudkill can be dispelled, but they never really do. That's ok, everyone talks big sometimes.

Smokers, understand that there may be hours until your next cigarrette.
Nonsmokers, admit that you just want to be able to go places at night without coming home smelling smokey.

Attacking smokers during winter is like pissing off a cornered rock badger. Nonsmokers would be wise to table the discussion until the time of year when smokers are not shiverring outside whilst plotting a violent counterrevolution to return the United States to its glory days when the nonsmoking section of the restaurant was fuck you.

[Jack Black]

I find it interesting that no matter how much the topic can be from the smoking/anti-smoking vibe, it always turns into some sort of hate-a-thon, mostly from non-smokers. Also it's interesting how it's the exact same people trying to convince people that not only are ciggarettes bad, but everyone who smokes (or has smoked, for the zealots) it stereotyped to be these asshole smokers.

Littering is only an issue when it's smokers littering? All bars that allow smoking are horrible dens of iniquity that don't have the right to cater to specific customers? All non-smokers are anti-smokers... etc.

Why are you fuckheads even trying to have a debate?

[MatthewF]

I find it interesting that no matter how much the topic can be from the smoking/anti-smoking vibe, it always turns into some sort of hate-a-thon, mostly from non-smokers. Also it's interesting how it's the exact same people trying to convince people that not only are ciggarettes bad, but everyone who smokes (or has smoked, for the zealots) it stereotyped to be these asshole smokers.

Littering is only an issue when it's smokers littering? All bars that allow smoking are horrible dens of iniquity that don't have the right to cater to specific customers? All non-smokers are anti-smokers... etc.

Why are you fuckheads even trying to have a debate?
I think I tried to make it perfectly clear that only the smokers who disregard other people are the ones that bother me. And come on.. everyone knows cigarettes are bad, so I'd agree with you that that's a pointless topic. Oh, and littering sucks no matter who litters. There just seems to be a certain group of people who think that tossing cigarette butts out a car window is ok, whereas tossing an empty soda or used tissue isn't. I just don't see why the line is drawn at cigarette butts, which usually also happen to be wonderful little bundles of firey burning that like to spread their firey burning to other things.

[Jack Black]

I think I tried to make it perfectly clear that only the smokers who disregard other people are the ones that bother me. And come on.. everyone knows cigarettes are bad, so I'd agree with you that that's a pointless topic.

Well yes, everyone does know they are bad. But is it bad enough to warrant (this type of) legislation. If yes, then why don't we take other things that are as bad, or worse and not do the same? Then you get into these whole debates about alcohol, fast food, etc. If ciggarettes have to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, then let them legislate it and everything else on that list, plus new shit that people start to not like in the near future.

Oh, and littering sucks no matter who litters. There just seems to be a certain group of people who think that tossing cigarette butts out a car window is ok, whereas tossing an empty soda or used tissue isn't. I just don't see why the line is drawn at cigarette butts, which usually also happen to be wonderful little bundles of firey burning that like to spread their firey burning to other things.

Well, litter is litter. If you are inconsiderate enough to drop your trash on the ground, it doesn't matter if it's a McDonald's wrapper or a ciggarette butt. However, I have found the greater majority will use ashtray/smoking cans if availiable, however, in this bright new world alot of the times there isn't anything like that availiable where they are herded.

Also, there are assholes in every group, since when has it been a good idea to base decisions for the whole on a minority?

Second, if you want me to believe that these assholes are the majority, then I just don't agree. Most of the smokers I tend to meet are generally very courteous and are amicable.

[Lizard_King]

Bullshit. You've generalized in nearly every post in this thread, do I need to direct you to all the "you people" comments of your own? I'm only being fair, and to be honest, by the way you've been responding I have come to the conclusion that you are indeed one of those smokers who bothers me. Because I am pretty damn bothered by your attitude at the moment.
Oh, dearie me. I barely dodged the shrapnel from that monocle. When have I ever addressed anything in this thread except at 1) vehement antismokers or 2) whoever the fuck you angry types responding here classify yourselves as?


Oh, forgive me then. No wait, don't, because I think you deserved it.
Well, just so long as we understand each other.

[MatthewF]

Oh, dearie me. I barely dodged the shrapnel from that monocle. When have I ever addressed anything in this thread except at 1) vehement antismokers or 2) whoever the fuck you angry types responding here classify yourselves as?
1) Let nonsmokers be the lepers just once in their self righteous little lives. Personally, I would much rather be offensive by creating a personal pollution cloud than by being that pain in my ass that complains about which way the wind blows every time I light up. I *could* concievably quit smoking; they will *always* be assholes.
2) You might not have noticed while we were doing the little "internet yelling" dance, but you're one of those angry types. You're just on the opposite side of the argument. This bickering is pointless...

[Rob Beschizza]

So you're not? If you're a non-smoker, why were you wondering what non-smokers thought about car exhaust?

I'm a non-smoker, and I wondered what anti-smokers think about car exhaust. So, do you think that all non-smokers are anti-smokers; misread my post; or think the difference between "not doing something" and "actively hating something" to be trivial?

[Angie Gallant]

He was asking about anti-smokers not non-smokers. Interesting that you automatically assume the world is split into smokers and anti-smokers.
There's nothing "interesting" about it. I had no idea that there was a difference in terminology being applied here, so don't make any assumptions of your own. In my case I guess I would be an anti-"don't breathe your smoke in my face or throw your cigarette butts at my car" person. Which classification does that make me?

My beef in this thread started with an attack on NON-SMOKERS. It was my bad that I didn't see the terminology change, but oh well. Now I know, I guess.

Reposting since you missed it the first time, Rob.

[Lizard_King]

1)
That's the best point you've made yet.



2) You might not have noticed while we were doing the little "internet yelling" dance, but you're one of those angry types. You're just on the opposite side of the argument.
Dude, I was provoked. Plus I'm out of smokes.

This bickering is pointless...
In which we all learn a little bit about life, and maybe about ourselves as well.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

This bickering is pointless...
In which we all learn a little bit about life, and maybe about ourselves as well.

And DEFINITELY a bit about Star Wars (http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/columns/155/).

[Ed Solomon]

And DEFINITELY a bit about Star Wars (http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/columns/155/).
You know McGriddle, that reminds me. If QT3 ever goes to hell and we get animated avatars and signature lines, this is so going to be my signature:
You know, normally my Stardar is pretty good, but there are times you gotta go to active emissions.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

And DEFINITELY a bit about Star Wars (http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/columns/155/).
You know McGriddle, that reminds me. If QT3 ever goes to hell and we get animated avatars and signature lines

And that reminds me, hell is bad. Every time I load the forums index, I indulge in a smug little bitchy smile of pure satisfaction at the absence of sigs and avatars here. Sure, I have a crop of Nikolai Yezhov's face from that famous picutre that he got edited out of that I use as my avatar when I need one... but it wouldn't be worth it.

this is so going to be my signature:
You know, normally my Stardar is pretty good, but there are times you gotta go to active emissions.

There's so much truth in that. How many times have we all stifled the protests of our nerves and our neuroses to tentatively geek-flirt with somebody in the all-too-often-vain hopes of a return signal? You learn quickly not to be too obvious about it: "Did you see B5 last night?" runs the risk of having to explain what B5 is to somebody who doesn't care, or at least conspicuously brush off the obligatory polite inquiry. No, what you do is you say, "Damn, I need to get started on ___, or I'll miss B5." Then if you don't get an immediate response, you rush off like you've got something to do.