Smokers = Whiney Bitches

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-12 11:51am

Col. Crackpot wrote:smoking will NEVER be banned outright in the United States. Do you want to know why? Tobacco campanies can sell a carton of cigarettes for $10 and make a profit (the price of tax free cartons of marlboros and winston's at the duty free shop in Phillipsberg, Sint Maarten). Here when taxed cartons cost upward of $40 a carton. That means on any given cigarette the various govenments in the US collect THREE TIMES THE REVENUE that the tobacco companies do. Do you think for an instant the government will just walk away from that?

The US is taking Big Tobacco to court for a $500bn lawsuit to do with negligence in regards to the health warnings of tobacco. That's enough to sink them or at least make them bleed an awful lot.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-12 12:15pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:smoking will NEVER be banned outright in the United States. Do you want to know why? Tobacco campanies can sell a carton of cigarettes for $10 and make a profit (the price of tax free cartons of marlboros and winston's at the duty free shop in Phillipsberg, Sint Maarten). Here when taxed cartons cost upward of $40 a carton. That means on any given cigarette the various govenments in the US collect THREE TIMES THE REVENUE that the tobacco companies do. Do you think for an instant the government will just walk away from that?
The US is taking Big Tobacco to court for a $500bn lawsuit to do with negligence in regards to the health warnings of tobacco. That's enough to sink them or at least make them bleed an awful lot.

bleed them, not kill them. Cigarettes are a cash cow for the government. Smoking is looked down upon so very few people have a problem with them being taxed ludicrisly. These lawsuits are just a case of the pimp beating some extra cash out of his prized whore. The problem is that the people who smoke are mostly un-educated working class people who are addicted and the very people who can least afford the constant price increases.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-11-12 12:17pm

Death from the Sea wrote:
Glocksman wrote:
However, the real whiney bitches are the nonsmokers who insist that a private business conform to their wishes and to hell with what the owner and the rest of his customers think.
Clarification: Nonsmokers who insist that the government ban smoking in private businesses are the whiney bitches.

Nothing wrong with lobbying businesses yourself.
So I am a whiney bitch when I complain about going into a public place and having to breathe air that will give me cancer because some other fuckhead made that choice for me? If I were to take any one of the many chemicals found in cigarette smoke such as Arsenic and just started spraying it around in clouds for people to breathe or hooked a hose up the tailpipe of my truck and charged people to suck on the hose and caused people to die or get sick, it would be considered illegal and I would be placed in jail. Why is smoking different? Personally I believe smoking should be outlawed entirely. Smoking is not something a person can do in public without affecting everyone around them. Give one good reason why they should be allowed to smoke in public or at all, there is no need or use for it. Even alcohol can claim at least one benefit to health, it is good for the heart to drink one glass before bed.

there are more than 400 chemicals in cigarette smoke

What is there about the fact that a bar is a private business do you not understand??

No one is forcing you to patronize a bar that allows smoking.
Don't like it? Go somewhere else.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2004-11-12 12:22pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Glocksman wrote:Well that depends on if its the government who pays the medical bills for those who get cancer from passive smoking.

You generally find that the smokers have paid so much in taxes through their habit they've covered the cost of their bypass operation by the time they need it.

As has already been mentioned, about 3/4 of the price of a ciggy goes into the government's pockets.

I wouldn't want a ban on smoking, especially not in pubs, because whilst I myself don't smoke, most of the people I drink with, and who I enjoy drinking with in pubs, do.

Post by **Kuja** » 2004-11-12 12:43pm

New York recently enacted a smoking ban similar to California's and the smokers have been fighting it tooth and nail every step of the way.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2004-11-12 02:44pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:I do believe Big Tobacco puts shitloads of unnecessary chemicals in cigarettes to enhance addictiveness and lethality. Apparently they'd rather we kill ourselves in horrible ways than quit!

Is there any conspiracy theory you dont like?

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2004-11-12 02:50pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Glocksman wrote:
However, the real whiney bitches are the nonsmokers who insist that a private business conform to their wishes and to hell with what the owner and the rest of his customers think.
Clarification: Nonsmokers who insist that the government ban smoking in private businesses are the whiney bitches.

Nothing wrong with lobbying businesses yourself.
Well that depends on if its the government who pays the medical bills for those who get cancer from passive smoking.

Well then we to the..If they die early from smoking they wont collect thier old age pensions... You dont want to use a what the best use of our money argument here. I dont smoke but I dont see why a private business cant allow smoking if it wants. If the public really doesnt like it they can stay away and the business will go under. I am so tired of this whole PC new puritan ideology taking hold in the country. If people want to fuck up there own lives let them.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2004-11-12 02:51pm

Bluntly, I hate the smell. I hate the fact that I work right by the back door, building systems, and the two smokepoles here crack the back door and smoke with their head outside to smoke. I'd say something, except that one of them signs my damn paycheck. Quit, or do it out in the ass of nowhere where it doesn't blow into my face.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2004-11-12 02:53pm

On a similar note, I'm going to have to start just standing by the open door for five or ten minutes every now and then. When my boss bitches at me to get back to work, I'll tell him it's my non-smoking break. Fine, smoke if you can't quit, but don't assume you're 'special' because of it.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-11-12 02:55pm

All these "its a private business" fuckers can go shove a fucking cigarette up thier ass....it contains arsenic and fucking radioactive isotopes of polonium....even if it is a private business it still has workers and the people that work in bars dont get a say in whether a place is non-smoking or not. There are fucking laws about what chemicals you can expose people to in the workplace, if it helps you get it through your head why private places can have laws passed about them, ask yourself, how would you feel if just for the fucking hell of it your boss decided to release radioactive gas into the airconditioning at work.....

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-11-12 03:14pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:All these "its a private business" fuckers can go shove a fucking cigarette up thier ass....it contains arsenic and fucking radioactive isotopes of polonium....even if it is a private business it still has workers and the people that work in bars dont get a say in whether a place is non-smoking or not. There are fucking laws about what chemicals you can expose people to in the workplace, if it helps you get it through your head why private places can have laws passed about them, ask yourself, how would you feel if just for the fucking hell of it your boss decided to release radioactive gas into the airconditioning at work.....

Quick, someone call the WAAAHmbulance. :p

If you don't want to be around smoke and smokers, don't work in a goddamned bar. It's really that simple.
I have no sympathy for nonsmokers who choose to work in a smoky environment and then whine about how the smoke affects them.

Smoking is legal, and as long as it is, it's not the government's job to tell private businessmen that they can't let their customers smoke.

It's not legal to release radioactive gas.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-11-12 03:22pm

[quote="Glocksman"Smoking is legal, and as long as it is, it's not the government's job to tell private businessmen that they can't let their customers smoke.[/quote]

That's what most people are saying. That it shouldn't be legal AT ALL.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-11-12 03:31pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:[quote="Glocksman"Smoking is legal, and as long as it is, it's not the government's job to tell private businessmen that they can't let their customers smoke.

That's what most people are saying. That it shouldn't be legal AT ALL.[/quote]

Read: "I don't like it, therefore it should be illegal."

If people choose to commit slow suicide by smoking, that's their problem, not mine.
No one forces nonsmokers to patronize or work in bars.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-11-12 03:35pm

Glocksman wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Glocksman wrote:Smoking is legal, and as long as it is, it's not the government's job to tell private businessmen that they can't let their customers smoke.
That's what most people are saying. That it shouldn't be legal AT ALL.
Read: "I don't like it, therefore it should be illegal."

If people choose to commit slow suicide by smoking, that's their problem, not mine.
No one forces nonsmokers to patronize or work in bars.

You know what else I don't like? Cancer.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-11-12 03:35pm

Freedom means that one will see things that revolt them. It's part of the price of being free.

As I've said before on the topic, a lot of places have gone nonsmoking before the bans were in place. The majority of fast-food restaurants, for example. Locally, the restaurants that still allow smoking tend to have heavy segregation of smokers... the two I tend to visit go so far as to put smokers in separate rooms, in one case putting the smoking section on the opposite side of a fair-sized facility.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-11-12 03:36pm

Why should it be legal to place workers in a needlessly hazardous enviroment?

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-11-12 03:37pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Glocksman wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote: That's what most people are saying. That it shouldn't be legal AT ALL.
Read: "I don't like it, therefore it should be illegal."

If people choose to commit slow suicide by smoking, that's their problem, not mine.
No one forces nonsmokers to patronize or work in bars.
You know what else I don't like? Cancer.

I think I missed the part where Glocksman was curling up to a fist-sized tumor and declaring his undying love for it...

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-11-12 03:39pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Why should it be legal to place workers in a needlessly hazardous enviroment?

People work in a variety of jobs that are hazardous. I failed to notice any shackles around the ankles of the waitstaff at the local restaurants and bars that keeps them working there.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-11-12 03:40pm

Petrosjko wrote:I think I missed the part where Glocksman was curling up to a fist-sized tumor and declaring his undying love for it...

If people want to go around blowing arsenic into each others faces and radioactive gas, then hey...why tell them to fuck off and do it where other people dont have to bother with them...nooo....make it so people have to put up with that shit if they want to be able to go out or work....genius, pure genius.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-11-12 03:44pm

Petrosjko wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:Why should it be legal to place workers in a needlessly hazardous enviroment?
People work in a variety of jobs that are hazardous. I failed to notice any shackles around the ankles of the waitstaff at the local restaurants and bars that keeps them working there.

You will find that, for a fairly pertinant example, radiologists, the folk giving x-rays, are required to be given protection from the radiation given off...now, the radioactive polonium given off by your average cigarette contains the same radioactivity as between 3 and 50 x-rays.....that's per cigarette...

You seem to be employing the libertarian logic that hey, no one is forced to deal with shit to get by....yes, they are...if you need to pay the rent then you need whatever fucking job you can get...why should that mean some fucker gets to expose you to arsenic all day long just so they can feed their fucking addiction?

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-11-12 03:47pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Petrosjko wrote:I think I missed the part where Glocksman was curling up to a fist-sized tumor and declaring his undying love for it...
If people want to go around blowing arsenic into each others faces and radioactive gas, then hey...why tell them to fuck off and do it where other people dont have to bother with them...nooo....make it so people have to put up with that shit if they want to be able to go out or work....genius, pure genius.

Yes, because by god there are not workplaces these days that are nonsmoking, and only the government can solve this problem for us.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-11-12 03:54pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:You will find that, for a fairly pertinant example, radiologists, the folk giving x-rays, are required to be given protection from the radiation given off...now, the radioactive polonium given off by your average cigarette contains the same radioactivity as between 3 and 50 x-rays.....that's per cigarette...

You seem to be employing the libertarian logic that hey, no one is forced to deal with shit to get by....yes, they are...if you need to pay the rent then you need whatever fucking job you can get...why should that mean some fucker gets to expose you to arsenic all day long just so they can feed their fucking addiction?

I worked in an industry (truck driving) that has a large percentage of smokers among its rank and file. And yet the majority of facilities for the major carriers are nonsmoking, or if they do allow smoking, it's in separate and usually enclosed areas. This trend has taken place without government intervention.

Allow me this point. I have no argument with advocating and lobbying businesses to change their policies. By and large, that is producing more and more smoke-free facilities in the States.

But I do argue with the fact that in cases such as California's, legally I couldn't plop down in my chair at the end of the day at my hypothetical office located there and fire up a nice fat cigar to celebrate another day of glorious oppression of the proletariat.

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2004-11-12 04:10pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Petrosjko wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:Why should it be legal to place workers in a needlessly hazardous enviroment?
People work in a variety of jobs that are hazardous. I failed to notice any shackles around the ankles of the waitstaff at the local restaurants and bars that keeps them working there.
You will find that, for a fairly pertinant example, radiologists, the folk giving x-rays, are required to be given protection from the radiation given off...now, the radioactive polonium given off by your average cigarette contains the same radioactivity as between 3 and 50 x-rays.....that's per cigarette...

You seem to be employing the libertarian logic that hey, no one is forced to deal with shit to get by....yes, they are...if you need to pay the rent then you need whatever fucking job you can get...why should that mean some fucker gets to expose you to arsenic all day long just so they can feed their fucking addiction?

There is actually provision for radiological protection in bars (and all work places) I believe, it's just noone actually thinks to try applying it to a bar as it's the last place you'd expect to look for radiation. The National Radiological Protection Board in the UK sets a minimum dose level of radiation (something like 2-5 milliseiverts) depending on whether you're in a high radiation risk job or not. As long as the average worker dose does not go above that level on an annual basis, then whatever radiation is around is all above board. This is particularly relevant when you're working in an area with a high radon gas background count, as your employer has a duty to keep radon levels below the legal action level. As long as work in a standard bar doesnt exceed that annual dose of radiation, then there's actually nothing illegal about whatever radioactivity is in there.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-11-12 04:16pm

Glocksman wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:[quote="Glocksman"Smoking is legal, and as long as it is, it's not the government's job to tell private businessmen that they can't let their customers smoke.
That's what most people are saying. That it shouldn't be legal AT ALL.

Read: "I don't like it, therefore it should be illegal."

If people choose to commit slow suicide by smoking, that's their problem, not mine.
No one forces nonsmokers to patronize or work in bars.[/quote]I don't like OSHA either, but let's not be silly.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2004-11-12 04:27pm

Banning smoking from public places can be a nightmare to enforce. Also i was down in Dublin a few weeks ago where they banned smoking in the pubs and clubs, what did it breed, drunk assholes outside bars argueingover matches and lighters.