Another smoking ban article

[Plop007]

Just posting this..

Smoking bans cut heart attacks by a third - Heart health- msnbc.com


comments?

[Delsana]

They're focusing on cigarettes, and in all truth the noted people are reputable.

It's feasibly impossible to actually think that things like this wouldn't be reduced with such a ban, though of course drinking is higher now...

This doesn't really target cigars when you look into the background statistics and research so ehh...

[slyder]

Total BS! Why dont they knock down all the burger kings and mcdonalds in the world and completely eliminate heart attacks all together? How about we outlaw booze too and save everybodies livers. This kinda crap just makes me wanna go postal.

[Plop007]

Well I know its talking about cigarettes but I just felt that since their talking about cigarettes and tobacco that the antis would just include cigars long with cigarettes.

since wouldn't people who smoke cigarettes feel discriminated if cigarettes were banned but not cigars?

[Delsana]

Originally Posted by slyder

Total BS! Why dont they knock down all the burger kings and mcdonalds in the world and completely eliminate heart attacks all together? How about we outlaw booze too and save everybodies livers. This kinda crap just makes me wanna go postal.

You have to understand that in their eyes this is the first step. While food is necessary, in all truth smoking isn't, and so the plan calls for the removal of the unnecessary. If you look into the history of their plans and acts, you'll see that they fully intend to attack big food, as well as big tobacco and big alcohol. But before they can do that, they have to have the public on their side, and that means eliminating the "evil" smokers.

I can assure you that while people constantly use the excuse "well why not this too?" they don't seem to realize that they actually plan on doing it, but prohibition from the blue doesn't work well, and so this is their tactic.

You may or may not agree, but it is what they're doing.

Edit:

I could really care less about cigarette smokers being upset about anything, because they really don't have any excuse, and there are no positive benefits whatsoever.

Edit 2:

You should probably also know that there really is nothing you can do, as non smokers who want all smokers banned drastically outnumber the smokers or non smokers who don't want it banned.

[zeavran1]

Cigars will always be assumed to be used in studies like this because alot of people think the only thing worse than a cigarette is a cigar.

[slyder]

so they are out to make the USA the most boring place on the planet?

[Delsana]

Personally I can't see how the US would be boring if the unhealthy things were removed, especially after you remarked how they were so unhealthy...

Those things are either for relaxing, wasting time, or enjoying yourself, and while these are all good things in their own time (well aside from fast food), that doesn't mean they are all that the world has to offer. I try to focus on a more wider appreciation of life, instead of just focusing on a few things.

Point being, it won't change, and they will keep pushing until either something goes drastically wrong, or someone says NO, and they're important. They don't care how it affects the local bars, or what not... they care about public opinion, and as long as the majority says YAY, they will continue.

A thing you should know is that the anti-tobacco agencies and ban groups are very anti-tobacco because they've been affected by it themselves either directly or via family... it's a bit bias because it's completely full of these people.

[Cigary]

Originally Posted by Delsana

You have to understand that in their eyes this is the first step. While food is necessary, in all truth smoking isn't, and so the plan calls for the removal of the unnecessary. If you look into the history of their plans and acts, you'll see that they fully intend to attack big food, as well as big tobacco and big alcohol. But before they can do that, they have to have the public on their side, and that means eliminating the "evil" smokers.

I can assure you that while people constantly use the excuse "well why not this too?" they don't seem to realize that they actually plan on doing it, but prohibition from the blue doesn't work well, and so this is their tactic.

You may or may not agree, but it is what they're doing.

Edit:

I could really care less about cigarette smokers being upset about anything, because they really don't have any excuse, and there are no positive benefits whatsoever.

I agree in that the anti smokers dont really care what they do as long as they get their anti smoking agenda out there. While I read and watch what the facts are in regards to smoking and the health concerns that come with it we have to understand that "spin" is included with their facts. What they are not concerned with is what your "acceptable risk" is when you use tobacco but rather what their agenda is. They are against smoking of any kind in open or closed spaces for reasons that might or might not be accurate. I have to question their logic when there are far greater dangers out there when it concerns their health and they make this their Alamo. Why accept polluted waters and air as ok but personal choices of smoking tobacco as the ultimate taboo?

[Delsana]

Originally Posted by Cigary

I agree in that the anti smokers dont really care what they do as long as they get their anti smoking agenda out there. While I read and watch what the facts are in regards to smoking and the health concerns that come with it we have to understand that "spin" is included with their facts. What they are not concerned with is what your "acceptable risk" is when you use tobacco but rather what their agenda is. They are against smoking of any kind in open or closed spaces for reasons that might or might not be accurate. I have to question their logic when there are far greater dangers out there when it concerns their health and they make this their Alamo. Why accept polluted waters and air as ok but personal choices of smoking tobacco as the ultimate taboo?

Polluted water is already being worked towards, as is air... it's not just one target, you have to understand that this one is simply the one progressing the fastest. There's a lot of support, and despite the spin on it, the fact remains they still have a lot of true arguments.

People want the world to "improve" and despite your own opinions, no one can truly argue against the fact that if no one drank, smoked, or did drugs, the world would be a much "cleaner" place, and that's their spin, that's their facts, and it's also their logic. The public wants this, even some of the private people want this, and it will happen, but it's not necessarily a "bad thing", it's just that the way they're doing it is more "totalitarianism" and it affects us in a way we can't input on.

[Plop007]

Those anti's may have some true arguments but those bastards are not taking us down without a fight.

[Cigary]

Originally Posted by Delsana

Polluted water is already being worked towards, as is air... it's not just one target, you have to understand that this one is simply the one progressing the fastest. There's a lot of support, and despite the spin on it, the fact remains they still have a lot of true arguments.

Polluted water is being addressed as it is with air pollution but as long as we have had these "so called" programs in dealing with them we should have been able to "fix" these problems long before now. I understand that tobacco is the Poster Child for agendas and I am just talking about why their agenda seems to be on something that should be 4th or 5th in a list of bad things. Not trying to be argumentative or getting into a debate as far as what the real issue is but I don't quite understand your stance on being in a forum where you believe they have a right to shut down something that you say you support. If you feel that they have valid arguments ( which I don't when it comes to my choice to use tobacco products for myself ) what agenda do you stand behind? Are you for people to choose as to having rights to smoke or do you favor the opposite stance? I am a bit confused as to where you stand sometimes because you seem to favor playing a Devils Advocate role rather than saying what you believe.

I believe that each person has a right to choose for themselves if they want to use tobacco and should be able to do so without having to give up that right just because somebody else doesnt like it. If my usage does not infringe upon their rights why must I give up something that pleases me? I use other examples as air pollution and water which affects more people than smoking but that doesn't get top billing. The popular topic is tobacco as you said and its not about health as much as it is an agenda and that smacks of hypocrisy. ( this is becoming a rant that isnt my intent,,,Im just sick and tired of hearing how much people care about my health when they are busy sucking in fumes from factories and cars while drinking themselves into oblivion as they take all of their pharmaceuticals pills )

[Plop007]

Originally Posted by Cigary

Polluted water is being addressed as it is with air pollution but as long as we have had these "so called" programs in dealing with them we should have been able to "fix" these problems long before now. I understand that tobacco is the Poster Child for agendas and I am just talking about why their agenda seems to be on something that should be 4th or 5th in a list of bad things. Not trying to be argumentative or getting into a debate as far as what the real issue is but I don't quite understand your stance on being in a forum where you believe they have a right to shut down something that you say you support. If you feel that they have valid arguments ( which I don't when it comes to my choice to use tobacco products for myself ) what agenda do you stand behind? Are you for people to choose as to having rights to smoke or do you favor the opposite stance? I am a bit confused as to where you stand sometimes because you seem to favor playing a Devils Advocate role rather than saying what you believe.

I believe that each person has a right to choose for themselves if they want to use tobacco and should be able to do so without having to give up that right just because somebody else doesnt like it. If my usage does not infringe upon their rights why must I give up something that pleases me? I use other examples as air pollution and water which affects more people than smoking but that doesn't get top billing. The popular topic is tobacco as you said and its not about health as much as it is an agenda and that smacks of hypocrisy. ( this is becoming a rant that isnt my intent,,,Im just sick and tired of hearing how much people care about my health when they are busy sucking in fumes from factories and cars while drinking themselves into oblivion as they take all of their pharmaceuticals pills )

Can I get a Amen?

Great post man.

[Delsana]

Originally Posted by Cigary

Polluted water is being addressed as it is with air pollution but as long as we have had these "so called" programs in dealing with them we should have been able to "fix" these problems long before now. I understand that tobacco is the Poster Child for agendas and I am just talking about why their agenda seems to be on something that should be 4th or 5th in a list of bad things. Not trying to be argumentative or getting into a debate as far as what the real issue is but I don't quite understand your stance on being in a forum where you believe they have a right to shut down something that you say you support. If you feel that they have valid arguments ( which I don't when it comes to my choice to use tobacco products for myself ) what agenda do you stand behind? Are you for people to choose as to having rights to smoke or do you favor the opposite stance? I am a bit confused as to where you stand sometimes because you seem to favor playing a Devils Advocate role rather than saying what you believe.

I believe that each person has a right to choose for themselves if they want to use tobacco and should be able to do so without having to give up that right just because somebody else doesnt like it. If my usage does not infringe upon their rights why must I give up something that pleases me? I use other examples as air pollution and water which affects more people than smoking but that doesn't get top billing. The popular topic is tobacco as you said and its not about health as much as it is an agenda and that smacks of hypocrisy. ( this is becoming a rant that isnt my intent,,,Im just sick and tired of hearing how much people care about my health when they are busy sucking in fumes from factories and cars while drinking themselves into oblivion as they take all of their pharmaceuticals pills )

Your last statement touched home on an issue the people against these associations have, and that's the constant use of excuses to allay blame or redirect the focus to different people. While they may not be perfect, no Human is, and I can assure you the people in these associations aren't the type doing the things you're stating.

As for cars, transportation is needed for our busy world, but electric (such as my soon to be Tesla sports car) bio-diesel, and solar cars are already being worked on and advanced, so they are taking a form towards that. I can't really take a statement towards alcohol but from what I know since they are also targeting that to a degree I can't see how they're partaking of it.

As for my stance, in simplest form it's the following:

I confirm what I do as "wrong" in some forms, and perhaps unhealthy, I also confirm that I've done my own research on what I can and cannot do in a form that is healthy or beneficial for me. This habit breeds camaraderie and relaxation in the worst or best of times, and is thus more healthy due to our need to be social and interactive creatures, then not partaking of it, however I make sure not to over-indulge. While I can understand it might be confusing why I would defend people against such things, it's because despite SOME of the hypocrisy and idiocy involved in their attempts, it is still a noble goal to improve the world, and I have no problem with them doing so, however I will admit not having a choice in the matter is bothersome but we can't have it all (that may sound defeatist, but I assure you it is simply the intention to see how things progress).

Point being, I'll defend your right to choose as you like, but I'll also defend their right to "upgrade and improve" the society, no matter how they see it as long as it doesn't prove problematic to society in general.

Intellectual and intelligent concepts, thesis, and conversations are what the world needs more of, and as I've stated in previous threads; if we can understand the opposing side, and their views without such aggression or confrontation, then we can then move on to beneficial solutions that don't hurt us all.

[gjcab09]

Originally Posted by slyder

so they are out to make the USA the most boring place on the planet?

No, they are out to control every friggin' aspect of your life that they don't feel is necessary for the good of the State.

I'm telling you, re-education camps are right around the corner...actually, they're already here, it's called the evening news, and the public school system.

Goes waaaaay beyond cigars, and I gotta stop reading this before my blood-pressure goes through the roof!