Smoker's whinge

[Lisa Denton]

Lisa you are too funny........cat shit......Bahahahahahahahaa!

I'm using that arguement.

I'm sorry, I got into a rant. It happens when I wonder if its legal to think bad thoughts.

(Lisa walks away lookin for a hole to crawl into and light up)

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I'm sorry, I got into a rant. It happens when I wonder if its legal to think bad thoughts.

(Lisa walks away lookin for a hole to crawl into and light up)

So far yes, but don't enjoy it or they will ban it.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Lisa you are too funny........cat shit......Bahahahahahahahaa!

I'm using that arguement.

My puppy does it all the time, he's a toddler.

 

[haldir]

We're going to get a abn on smoking in enclosed public places/workplaces.

I haven't had a cig for a while which why my keyboard skills (see sentence 1) are all to cock. Like Ogg, just going outside for my nicotine fix.

I have never smoked in my house when my kids/ex were around and still don't. Pollution and accidents from cars cause more pain and suffering to others than the fact that I smoke - fuck em all.

Its time these mindless zealots were taken up a close, given a guid auld fashioned Glesca kiss and a right doin!

 

[Guest]

Glesca kiss

I have to know, what is it? P.


p.s. Lisa, proud mum as ever

 

[CharleyH]

I know I am in a minority, especially in California. I know smoking is unhealthy, deadly for some, etc. But this is political, public neurosis. For decades now I have wondered why those who fight against second-hand smoke do not fight as adamantly against the majority of deadlier air pollutants (traffic, smog, industrial waste, etc.) in their neighborhoods. It seems ridiculous to me that in a traffic burdened city like SF (hardly 7 miles from any point to another) people will feel healthier by banning smoking in the parks. Thankfuck they left the ocean beach alone.

I don't want non-smokers lecturing me about fuck all (please start a non-smokers thread if you like); this is my rant for the day.

Perdita

No need to feel mad, but wait YES. A secret . . . I was the PR instrument in the/a provincial, Canada smoking ban. Why? Because I smoke and know what people need to hear. I still smoke, and I try, TRY really hard to quit, but can't seem to accomplish the task. Unfortunately I know every argument, and most of the PR is bogus - not giving REAL facts. The real fact is . . . it is harder for women, based on biology, to quit than men.

Now factor in the who cares quality, and life it little more than Nazi Germany. For those who think not? SMOKE! And you will see. It is a constitutional right to be able to live and be free, and yet more and more I am finding, even in Canada, that we have no rights to do what we will. Censorship. On porn? On smoking. Do you think ya'll can escape the impending draft?

Sorry I am going off, but where it starts . . . the question is, does it stop? Ok - get me when I can talk about how lobbies work, but still. I can quote smog figures, the bad about PM 10 and the like . . . where should I start though? Smoking? The puddle in a greater problem.

Enough until I can talk somewhat intelligibley(sp)

 

[smartnsassy]

This is not aimed at you, Sweet, but allow me one more blast.

Toddlers put anything in their mouths, don't get on me about cig butts (which I do not use as litter). I pulled a giant water beetle out of my son's mouth once (I'd rather it have been a cig butt).

I smoked outside in Haworth, Yorkshire and always put the cig out and in my pocket til I found a trash bin (same in Venice). I am a considerate smoker, don't even smoke in my own home if a guest doesn't (which is also probably why I invite few people over, hahaha).

Honestly, bringing babies into the anti-smoking campaign is low.

Perdita

True, toddlers will put anything in there mouths. But for some reason, my kids always seemed inordinantly attracted to those little white and yellow stubs.

You are an amazing woman, not too many people are thoughful enough to look for a trash can. I have many friends who are smokers and they are great people, but none of them would do it.

I have this big thing about litter too. (yeah Ms Denten, that includes kitty litter ) Littering is much worse than smoking, and done by smokers and nonsmokers alike. Usually *somebody* ends up having to clean up the litter, and more often than not, that somebody has been me. Besides, litter ruins a perfectly good view and is bad for a variety of other reasons too.

A giant water beetle --eww!--- just had to say that. Yeah, I agree, I think I'd rather it be a ciggy too- although, I prefer that there are *less* things around to pop in mouth, rather than more so kiddy has a choice.

PS- i don't smoke, but can I go topless in support of your campain?

 

[Guest]

PS- i don't smoke, but can I go topless in support of your campain?

Given the arse in your AV I propose any non-smoking supporters go bottomless (esp. males, hahaha).

Perdita

 

[stingray61]

Honestly I think San Francisco will soon ban itself out of existence. We have had no smoking within one hundred feet of a playground in a park here for over a year. I'm not sure if it's so smokers won't put the butts in the sand or so the kids won't get the second hand smoke but I know one thing is for sure, if it's for the second hand smoke they will have to ban smoking outdoors altogether when it's windy. God help me if I smoke when there's a hurricane around.
Funny they never print a headline that says "They were killed by a smoking driver" but they don't ban drinking. They don't ban the fucking smokestacks or chemicals they put into our air everyday either or them fucking busses that blow a ton of black shit in my face everyday while taking my kid to school.

LOl my taxes pay for the roads too but the bastards still won't let me drive as fast as I want on them.

yeah I DO smoke, wish I could stop but until I do don't rain on my parade..or my ciggies either, they cost too much.

 

[haldir]

Glesca kiss

Just about to sign off for tonight - tired out.

A "Glesca kiss" is an affectionate Scottish term for a head-butt. Don't worry I was being humourous

 

[Guest]

Haldir, sleep nice. P.

 

[cloudy]

I'll chime in on the side of those thinking about how ridiculous this whole damn thing is.

Yes, I smoke.

That said, I'm also another one of those horrible considerate smokers who won't smoke around those who don't unless it's okay with them, and like Perdita, when I'm somewhere there's not an ashtray, I will put it in my pocket until I find a trashcan.

Let 'em outlaw it every damn where, although I'm sure they'll be telling me soon that I can't even smoke in my own damn home. I don't mind going outside to smoke when I'm in a public place, but banning it from places that are already outside is verging on the ridiculously paranoid. They need to get over themselves. I love California, it's home, but the laws over this and that are getting just a little out of hand. If anything keeps me from moving back, that's what it'll be - not just the smoking thing, but the whole "we're going to regulate your entire life" mindset that a majority of people there seem to have.

I hate Alabama, but one thing I'll give these rednecks....they have enough sense not to try to keep people from smoking outside. We like our cigarettes here.

Has anyone ever thought that instead of this whole ban on smoking thing, that the money might have been better spent on finding a cure for AIDS, perhaps, or even something else that actually kills people besides smokers?

 

[gauchecritic]

You know who I hate? My brother. You wanna know why? 'cos he's an ex-smoker.

Ex-smokers are fine all in all, good luck to them, they have improved their health, but those ex-smokers that preach about the bad that my smoking is doing to other [people really gets my goat. They won't think twice about all the shit that they are breathing in when walking by the road, but light up one tiny, fragrant, ciggy within 50 metres and they start coughing up their lungs. If they can see you.

A coal fired power-station situated very closely by our homes blots out the sun and (apparently) causes acid rain in nearby countries. Has he ever complained once about that? NO.

The super listening device (which listens to his cell/mobile calls to his wife) that replaced the Filingdales early warning golf balls kicks out enough microwaves to literally fry any bird that gets too close. Has he ever even uttered a mild expletive about either situation? NO.

The television that he watches each night (quite apart from being Murdoch owned and ruining soccer for the true fans of football by pricing any team out of the premiership who refuse to pay 8 million pounds for a quite good midfielder), that television set controls the colour guns by bending photons of light with thousands of volts through an electric coil. Do you know what else they use thousands of volts to produce? X-rays. Is he even aware that he is being regularly dosed by x-radiation. NO.

But just let me even look like I'm going to light a cig in an enclosed space (however large) and he starts whining.

 

[Guest]

Update

from BBC online today:

US staff sacked over smoking ban - Four workers in the United States have been sacked after refusing to take a test to determine if they were smokers. They were employees of Michigan-based healthcare firm Weyco, which introduced a policy banning its staff from smoking - even away from the workplace.

The firm says it is to keep health costs down and has helped 14 staff to stop smoking, but opponents say the move is a violation of workers' rights. If the firm survives a potential legal challenge, it could set a precedent. Weyco gave its staff a stark ultimatum at the end of last year - either stop smoking completely on 1 January or leave their jobs.

The firm says that, as its business is to help other firms save money and improve employee health through its benefit plans, it is only natural it should take a lead on the issue. "For every smoker who quits because of it, there will be many people - family members, friends, co-workers - who are very thankful the person won't be going to an early grave," said Weyco President Howard Weyers, in a message on its website.

But opponents say it is a violation of workers' rights to indulge whatever habits they choose to when they are off-duty, particularly as smoking is legal and does not impair people's ability to do their jobs. According to Reuters news agency, Mr Weyers wants to turn his attention next to overweight workers. "We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," he said.

The BBC's Jannat Jalil in Washington says that if the firm survives any future legal challenges, it could set a precedent for other companies to follow suit. "Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue," job placement specialist John Challenger told Reuters. "Rising healthcare costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual."

 

[stingray61]

"US staff sacked over smoking ban"

Oh good God!!!

 

[KarenAM]

I kinda feel like this. Let em ban smoking. Then lets see how happy they are when they can't keep the parks openbecause the tax base dropped so badly.

There is no evidence second hand smoke is even significantly detrimental to anyone. All the "studies" that said so were so badly done, with such obvious biase, and without even paying lip service to the sceintific method, that even the government, no group of intellectuals by any means, quit pushing it when A circut court judge said basing legislation on it was unconstitutuional.

I don't mean this in a confrontational way, but I'd appreciate knowing where you got this information, Colly.

I have a real problem with secondhand smoke. Physically, I mean. My lungs don't bring up the tar and so forth the way most people's do. As a result, even a little bit of secondhand smoke can make me very, very sick, and even getting a whiff of it sends me into a panic because I know what can come from it.

Perhaps that's not evidence, or scientific, but I am someone (I hope).

Now, my friends who smoke (and I do have them) generally understand this, and they're very considerate about it. Those who aren't just don't get visits very often. Unfortunately, there seems to be an attitude among some smokers that not only is secondhand smoke harmless, but that it is their right as smokers to blow it into my face if I ask them to stop or perhaps even just stand downwind from me. "It's a free country and I can do what I goddamn well please regardless of who it hurts," is their attitude.

So I wind up supporting bans on smoking in enclosed public places (outdoors is fine, and I agree that banning smoking in parks is absurd), because it's essential for my health (admittedly a selfish motivation). This flies straight in the face of my general political views, which are that adult individuals should have the right to do with their bodies as they wish, provided they aren't directly or deliberately hurting other people. Smokers, by and large, aren't trying to hurt others, so I don't like the idea of restricting them. I wish there were more considerate smokers like the folks here seem to be, and fewer who seem to get their thrills by making me sick, but until that happens I'm afraid I'm going to have to support the bans I do.

I hope you all understand.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I don't mean this in a confrontational way, but I'd appreciate knowing where you got this information, Colly.

I have a real problem with secondhand smoke. Physically, I mean. My lungs don't bring up the tar and so forth the way most people's do. As a result, even a little bit of secondhand smoke can make me very, very sick, and even getting a whiff of it sends me into a panic because I know what can come from it.

Perhaps that's not evidence, or scientific, but I am someone (I hope).

Now, my friends who smoke (and I do have them) generally understand this, and they're very considerate about it. Those who aren't just don't get visits very often. Unfortunately, there seems to be an attitude among some smokers that not only is secondhand smoke harmless, but that it is their right as smokers to blow it into my face if I ask them to stop or perhaps even just stand downwind from me. "It's a free country and I can do what I goddamn well please regardless of who it hurts," is their attitude.

So I wind up supporting bans on smoking in enclosed public places (outdoors is fine, and I agree that banning smoking in parks is absurd), because it's essential for my health (admittedly a selfish motivation). This flies straight in the face of my general political views, which are that adult individuals should have the right to do with their bodies as they wish, provided they aren't directly or deliberately hurting other people. Smokers, by and large, aren't trying to hurt others, so I don't like the idea of restricting them. I wish there were more considerate smokers like the folks here seem to be, and fewer who seem to get their thrills by making me sick, but until that happens I'm afraid I'm going to have to support the bans I do.

I hope you all understand.

Of course, there are many people who are allergic to smoke, it can be serious and/or deadly to them, I know one. After telling someone you are allergic to smoke if they blow it in your face you have a right to defend your life and should do so with a two by four. If I am around I will help beat the asshole to a pulp.

Even outside if someone asks nicely I will put my cigarette out or quickly move away from them while apologizing. They don't need to be allergic, if it bothers them that is enough.

Assholes are assholes, and some smoke.

 

[rgraham666]

Regarding perdita's last post.

Good Fucking Christ!

They're employees, you assholes. Not property.

I was at a restaurant a few months ago listening to the owner talk to another customer.

"It isn't a case of smokers vs. non-smokers," he said. "It's a case of people who go out vs. people who don't go out. Now that smoking is banned, the people who don't go out still aren't coming out. And I've lost 20% of my business because the smokers can't come out."

They did try to compromise here in Toronto by allowing designated smoking rooms. But the health nuts wouldn't even allow that.

A groups of friends and I have started 'smoke-easies'. We get together at someone's home rather than go out. Too bad for the bars and restaurants we used to frequent.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Update

from BBC online today:

US staff sacked over smoking ban - Four workers in the United States have been sacked after refusing to take a test to determine if they were smokers. They were employees of Michigan-based healthcare firm Weyco, which introduced a policy banning its staff from smoking - even away from the workplace.

The firm says it is to keep health costs down and has helped 14 staff to stop smoking, but opponents say the move is a violation of workers' rights. If the firm survives a potential legal challenge, it could set a precedent. Weyco gave its staff a stark ultimatum at the end of last year - either stop smoking completely on 1 January or leave their jobs.

The firm says that, as its business is to help other firms save money and improve employee health through its benefit plans, it is only natural it should take a lead on the issue. "For every smoker who quits because of it, there will be many people - family members, friends, co-workers - who are very thankful the person won't be going to an early grave," said Weyco President Howard Weyers, in a message on its website.

But opponents say it is a violation of workers' rights to indulge whatever habits they choose to when they are off-duty, particularly as smoking is legal and does not impair people's ability to do their jobs. According to Reuters news agency, Mr Weyers wants to turn his attention next to overweight workers. "We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," he said.

The BBC's Jannat Jalil in Washington says that if the firm survives any future legal challenges, it could set a precedent for other companies to follow suit. "Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue," job placement specialist John Challenger told Reuters. "Rising healthcare costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual."

when they find out we're pornsters, they'll sack us all.

 

[SeaCat]

Re: Update

from BBC online today:

US staff sacked over smoking ban - Four workers in the United States have been sacked after refusing to take a test to determine if they were smokers. They were employees of Michigan-based healthcare firm Weyco, which introduced a policy banning its staff from smoking - even away from the workplace.

The firm says it is to keep health costs down and has helped 14 staff to stop smoking, but opponents say the move is a violation of workers' rights. If the firm survives a potential legal challenge, it could set a precedent. Weyco gave its staff a stark ultimatum at the end of last year - either stop smoking completely on 1 January or leave their jobs.

The firm says that, as its business is to help other firms save money and improve employee health through its benefit plans, it is only natural it should take a lead on the issue. "For every smoker who quits because of it, there will be many people - family members, friends, co-workers - who are very thankful the person won't be going to an early grave," said Weyco President Howard Weyers, in a message on its website.

But opponents say it is a violation of workers' rights to indulge whatever habits they choose to when they are off-duty, particularly as smoking is legal and does not impair people's ability to do their jobs. According to Reuters news agency, Mr Weyers wants to turn his attention next to overweight workers. "We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," he said.

The BBC's Jannat Jalil in Washington says that if the firm survives any future legal challenges, it could set a precedent for other companies to follow suit. "Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue," job placement specialist John Challenger told Reuters. "Rising healthcare costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual."

Hmmmmm, what's next? I can see their want ads now:

We are looking for Non-smoking, moraly upright heterosexual personel to fill positions in our firm. Your wage scale will be comiserate with your experience. All company policies will be followed to the letter, with un-anounced home visits to enforce our behavior codes.


Cat