Comments on: It makes paint taste better, too

By: Snowwy

Snowwy — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 01:21:07 +0000

MCH,
Dude, the Hitlerian bunny-killer remark was at least a joke. Take it in the spirit offered (especially since I was the one who asked for it).

Lesly, now- s/he has hir head so far up hir so-leftist-politically-correct-s/he’s-a-fascist ass it’s a wonder s/he doesn’t hang out with the Connecticut for Lieberman folk. On that, you’re correct.

By: MCH

MCH — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:57:47 +0000

… and yes, regulations, designated areas, public bans, etc are all justified IMHO (though I also think that if Joe wanted to open the smoker-only bar, he should be allowed to, but since I’m not a hardcore libertarian nor have a moustache large enough to be, I wouldn’t let that one lil bit supersede everything else that also happens to be more important than it…)

By: MCH

MCH — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:52:34 +0000

Crikeys. Yeah, tobacco’s not a prize, but if you insert “heroin” for “smoking” in some of the anti-smokering rants above, the sound just like the right wing beating on drug addicts.

So these days we give hugs and methadone to the street junkies, but would compare FDR or Murrow (or any of the past century’s illustrious tobacco fiends) to a Hitlerian bunny-killer?

Geesh. I guess moralist authoritarian impulses are NOT limited to to the other side of the aisle….

By: Gory Rupert

Gory Rupert — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:28:55 +0000

I’m of the opinion that, 200 years from now, our extra-mutated hairless twelve-fingered descendants will look back and say, “Yeah, can you believe they actually used to inhale burning fumes, and got into fights about their right to do it?” From an anthropological point of view, smoking is just plain weird. Unfortunately, from a biochemical POV it makes perfect sense.

The Beatles had it right: Sir Walter Raleigh was such a stupid git!

By: Dan Someone

Dan Someone — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:29:35 +0000

It’s just this little chromium switch here.

Gah, you people are so superstitious….

By: Lesley

Lesley — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:50:34 +0000

oh, and mdhatter, though I could care less what an internet troll says about my mother’s experience, those comments you opened with – the gum goo etc. – reveal you to be a flaming git. They don’t serve you in any way. I mean, really, how can you profit by attacking a cancer victim.

I couldn’t care less that you’re offended – and perhaps feeling manipulated – by a personal story. That’s life fella. Maybe someday you’ll have to actually take care of someone when they’re in deep trouble. Making fun of my mom doesn’t make me want to listen to you or support anything you have to say.

What astounds me is you can come on to a blog like this one – and be all against Bush and torture and the war and all the pain and suffering these gits in power cause, and yet say that shit. Maybe you belong on the right wing blogs.

By: Lesley

Lesley — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:02:07 +0000

if I want to die screaming in pain, who are you to tell me that isnâ€™t the path to a higher place

Go for it. And do it today. The planet’s overcrowded with idiots, you won’t be missed.

Nobody is taking away your right to smoke. Just limiting where you can do it. You claim not to have a problem with that and yet scream and yelp as if the bylaws are ruining your life.

If the subject of smoking is less important on the pollution scales, then comment on something else besides your poor oppressed smokers’ lives.

By: mdhatter

mdhatter — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:25:45 +0000

the brand I smoke, that is, tastes less like cowboys and dromedary crap, and more like a plant.

By: mdhatter

mdhatter — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:24:06 +0000

“well snowwy, maybe someone will start an organic tobacco farm and produce product sans the 4,000 lethal chemicals commercial cigarettes have. The shite might smell better, too.”

they did that, ’bout 20 years ago. I’m not here to advertise, but Atural-Nay erican-amay Irirts-Spay are the best of a bad lot.

I have a degree in toxicology and a 10-smokes a day habit. I get by. I’ve never been a runner (ankles) but I can hike up a mountain no problem.

now, what business the major tobacco companies have putting all that extra crap in there is another matter.

tobacco itself is, well. , probably pretty bad for you, but modern American cigarettes are very very bad for you.

umm, they still smell like cigarettes, they just taste more like plants and less like cowboys.

By: mdhatter

mdhatter — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:18:55 +0000

why does it do this with broken tags? c’est la vie.

didn’ t mean to yell there, just feeling a little bold.

By: mdhatter

mdhatter — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:17:37 +0000

better?

By: mdhatter

mdhatter — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:17:19 +0000

oops.

better?

By: mdhatter

mdhatter — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:16:53 +0000

Lesley,

That smoking diatribe, the palliative care, eating goo with no jaws, and screaming in pain bit. I suppose it touched a nerve, but If I want to die screaming in pain, who are you to tell me that isn’t the path to a higher place, or that your judgement of what is dignified matters one whit.

I feel strongly that industrial emissions of toxic chemicals must be severly regulated, and agree that smoking must be somewhat regulated (for quality and additives more than anything else).

But I feel very strongly that equating the two is disingenuous and counterproductive.

The former is a public health problem caused by passive exposure to environmental toxins, the latter is a public health problem caused by active exposure to systemic poisons.

Nobody chooses to live next to a smelter, but we all DO “pick our poison”.

I do appreciate the concern, but let’s focus effort on the folks making the money by poisoning every single memebr of the general public for the next several generations. See, a victim will give you money and his vote. All you’re going to do by targeting an addict is lose his vote.

Also, if i don’t get to smoke, how come other people get to wear so much perfume?

By: Djur

Djur — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:15:55 +0000

“Is there any evidence dope (grass) is bad for your lungs? If itâ€™s reasonably safe, maybe something could be developed for you immortal youngsters.”

Actually, there’s preliminary evidence that cannabinoids may even reduce lung cancer rates. No kidding. And all the hard evidence is that it at least isn’t anywhere near as bad as tobacco.

By: Lesley

Lesley — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 05:49:45 +0000

well snowwy, maybe someone will start an organic tobacco farm and produce product sans the 4,000 lethal chemicals commercial cigarettes have. The shite might smell better, too.

Is there any evidence dope (grass) is bad for your lungs? If it’s reasonably safe, maybe something could be developed for you immortal youngsters.

By: Snowwy

Snowwy — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 05:25:27 +0000

This smoker has no problem with reasonable restrictions on where he can smoke. I try to make an effort to smoke well away from others. But I’m sensitive to the “ban it” drumbeat, and have as little tolerance for it as I have for right-wingnuts.

Apologies for the diversion.

By: Bitter

Bitter — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:17:56 +0000

Lead was removed from gasoline to avoid poisoning catalytic converters, not to avoid poisoning children. To reduce automotive emissions of nitrogen oxides, you need a platinum or palladium based catalyst in the exhaust sytem — the lead killed that catalyst. The reduction in ozone levels from where they would have been (and actually in absolute terms, even with more cars on the road) has saved many more children than leaded or unleaded.

The one area where lead still matters is aviation gasoline — it’s needed to avoid detonation and maintain safe operation of piston-powered aircraft, which don’t have catalytic converters in any event. So… regardless of whether young kids should smoke in bars (or whichever tangent this thread went…), the lead in fuel issue is only a health issue from the asthma/ground-level ozone perspective — the lead was irrelevant, except that it killed a way to cut asthma-causing ozone…..

By: Handsome

Handsome — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:58:39 +0000

Lesley’s final point is the only one that matters.

I’m the last person in the world to favor prohibition of any sort. I think people have a right to make personal choices, even if those choices are ones I wouldn’t make, and even find foolish.

However, smoking is the only vice I know that I can be forced to partake of by someone else doing it in the same room with me. THAT’s why I believe it should be restricted in environments that people have to share, like the workplace, bus stops, restaurants — things like that.

Honestly, if someone wanted to open a Smoker’s Only restaurant or bar, it wouldn’t bother me. I’d just stay out of it. But if I work somewhere, or I need to catch a bus, well, that’s entirely different.

That’s all.

By: Lesley

Lesley — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:26:56 +0000

Cigarettes will never be outlawed, and while I’d be happy if everyone who smoked quit today, I’m a live and let live gal (like most Canadians). I’m for smoking being banned in closed public places where people gather (restaurants, bars, etc.) and I’m hoping smoking will eventually be banned in outdoor places where people congregate (like bus shelters). I wasn’t happy when smoking was banned in the workplace. (Where I live this happened in the early 80s and people made a stink about it but quickly adapted. I was one of those…a smoker. I can credit this change for helping me quit eventually).

No die-hard smoker will ever support their “rights” being taken away. But these bylaws seem reasonable to me because second hand smoke is harmful. The science is irrefutable.

Here, have a laugh.

By: Dakota Blue

Dakota Blue — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:25:36 +0000

Well, I know one group that is definitely going to stand up against this proposed change: The Republican Right. You know, “Culture of Life” and all… Right?