Rich said:
No, of course not! Are you constitutionally incapable of noticing the
all-or-nothing thinking involved here?
You don't like smoke.
That's OK.
But it is wrong to impose your preferences on _PLACES WHERE YOU WOULD
NEVER GO ANYWAY!!!!!!!!!!!_
And I have not. I am not a member of the legislature, I don't make the
laws. I do, however, enjoy that more and more places that I frequent forbid
smoking... I enjoy it a lot.
But let's talk about that. Should there be separate parks for smokers
and non smokers? Even though we are outside, the smoke from some gentle
soul such as yourself infringes my space from sometimes hundreds of yards
away. You don't know this because you have long since lost the ability
to smell anything but the harshest of smells.
I live in a town where there was only *one* nearby electronics store. The
employees drew straws to see who was going to smoke for the shop each day.
The air was that thick! Well, by your reasoning, I should give up electronics
so I wouldn't have to go to that shop. I avoided shopping there as much
as I could, but I needed parts, and they were the only show in town. They
were usually very crowded, so the wait for service was often nearly an hour.
When I shopped there, I always got all buzzy and lightheaded from the smoke.
How was I to avoid waiting in that shop?
Every restaurant in town had a smoking section that was 3/4 of the building,
and a nonsmoking section that was located back by the toilets and kitchen.
There was nothing to separate the air from the two sections. And further,
the non smokers outnumbered the smokers 10 to 1! Yet, we all had to suffer
the smoke of a couple of diehard guys like you (who frequently even lit
up in the nonsmoking sections). Should I be forced to not
eat in restaurants? Back then, I avoided it like the plague.
We had two theaters in town. Both allowed smoking in any seat. The air
got so thick that you could see the picture extend from the screen all the
way back to the projector. I suppose that I should be a pal and not go to
the movies?
The Ice cream parlors, there were two, all suggested that you shouldn't smoke,
but they couldn't stop you (no business could) But there was always smokers
that felt the need to share their ciggies with the crowd. The ice cream always
tasted like an ashtray smells. Was that right?
Both of the grocery stores in town had ash trays in every isle....
The local college had ashtrays in every hallway, and usually several in the
classrooms. Every seat in the massive theaters that were the lecture halls
had an ashtray in the armrests. No education for the non smokers, I suppose?
Elevators in all of the hotels and apartment buildings in town had those nice
little ashtrays bolted to their walls. Imagine how much fun that was
for a non smoker. I used the stairs whenever practical... even the dank
musty air in the staircases was preferable to the smoky elevators.
Bear in mind in each of these places the non smokers easily outnumbered the
smokers 10-to-1. Yet all of the non smokers had to suffer the smoke of a few
guys like you.
Things like the above are what laws are made of.
_THAT_ is what demonstrates that antismokerism is nothing more than a
religion, and a pretty lame one at that. All your gods guarantee is
that when you die of old age, you won't have any cigarette smoke in
your lungs keeping the dust mite feces company.
Religion n. 1. The service and adoration of God or a god as expressed
in forms of worship. 2. One of the systems of faith and worship.
3. The profession of practice of religious beliefs; religious observances
collectively;pl., rites. 4. Devotion or fidelity; conscientiousness.
5. An awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being, arousing
reverence, love, gratitude, the will to obey and serve, and the like; as
man only is capable of religion.
Let's see,
1) No, I don't worship antismoking, I rarely even think about it.
2) faith and worship? I have no faith in antismoking, and I surely
don't worship it, as I understand the term.
3) anti smoking isn't a belief, it is a preference. Thinking that
not smoking is healthier than smoking is an easily verifiable belief.
4) devotion, or fidelity, Well, yes I am always against smoking, but devotion
implies that I regularly spend time and effort, on antismoking, but
I rarely even think about it...
5) supreme being? I don't think this can apply.
I think calling antismoking a religion is a little specious.
And there is no amount of whooptedoo that can change the fact that
cancer is entirely self-inflicted. You can deny it all day long, but
that does not make it not true.
Why is it that baby children get cancer? Fish, dogs and other animals
get cancer too. How did they inflict this on themselves? The "non
smoking" wife of a friend who was a heavy smoker got emphysema, and
later lung cancer (and died a cruel, very painful death). Does living with
her husband count as self-infliction?
Did the folks that got cancer from ground water that was contaminated
with hexavalent chromium inflict the cancer on themselves?
What about the employees of Johns-Mansfield the asbestos manufacturer?
Blaming the victim? Maybe you'd be served to ask yourself, from whence
blame? What is the payoff from your victimhood?
But no, these are advanced concepts that require the participation of a
functional consciousness to grasp.
Rich, the level of denial and self delusion you express is simply staggering.
You need to look at smoking and cancer objectively, rather than through a
lens of distortion that makes you think the vandalism you daily do to your body
is a good choice.
Denial isn't just a river in Africa.
-Chuck Harris
.
