Re: Interstin' Inconsistency

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:15:55 GMT, Matt Patterson wrote:

> Frenchy wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:11:40 GMT, Matt Patterson wrote:
>>
>>>Frenchy wrote:
>>>
>>>>One of my neighbor's has a big boat. I ain't really got a good sense a'
>>>>size when it comes to boats so I can't tell ya' exactly how big but it's
>>>>got two bathrooms so to me that's a big boat. So anyhow he and his wife are
>>>>always invitin' me and the ol' bat on for a day on the lake. Hendersonville
>>>>is a boat town since it sits right on Old Hickory lake and the Cumberland
>>>>river. Well, there's a nice spot where my friend likes to drop anchor and
>>>>have a beer or a glass a' wine and just hang out. It's in a nice cove and
>>>>lotsa' the boat people (sounds like aliens from the planet Boat) hang out
>>>>there. This spot is actually very shallow as it sits over a big sand bar so
>>>>you can actually get out and be in only knee deep water. So, while I ain't
>>>>much of a swimmin' guy, the ol' crow hops out and swims to the sand bar and
>>>>she's happy as a pig in ***. Well, while I'm sittin' on th boat puffin'
>>>>happily away on a cob filled up with a delightful C&D blend (I don't
>>>>remember which one but hell they're all delightful) I'm noticin' that
>>>>nobody is puffin' on nothin'. I'm the only smoker in that whole buncha'
>>>>people on them boats. Not one puff a' smoke but mine. But I noticed that
>>>>just about everyone had some kinda' liquid refreshment of the alcoholic
>>>>persuasion, mostly brewskis. Now I want ya' to keep in mind that just about
>>>>every drinker hadda get back to his or her vehicle by drivin' that boat (so
>>>>ya' "drive" a boat?) amd, and this is only a guess on my part, I'd lay ya'
>>>>odds that that can a' Bud they were suckin' on wasn't the only one they
>>>>were imbibin' that day. So here's what I get to thinkin' about: I'd venture
>>>>that an inordinate amount a' these boaters were anti tobacco folks 'cause
>>>>not one of 'em was indulgin' in smokin' of any kind and if ya' know smokers
>>>>ya' know we don't drink without some form a' tobacco to puff on right? So
>>>>I'm assumin' a goodly number a' these people'd do the "tobacco wave" and
>>>>fan the air in front a' their noses and treat us like lepers when they
>>>>happen to cross paths wih one of us, and yet they're also indulgin' in a
>>>>perfectly legal substance i.e. the devil's rum (and on a freakin' Sunday
>>>>yet) and then they'd be steerin' them boats whilst under the influence, and
>>>>once they reached they're pick ups or SUVs they'd be drivin' while
>>>>impaired. Now it seems to me this country oughtta srop worryin' about the
>>>>bull*** science surroundin' tobacco use and concentrate on drivin' any
>>>>type a' boat or vehicle after downin' a six pack a' suds. If they put as
>>>>much effort into stoppin' drunk drivin' (or boatin') as they do into their
>>>>anti tobacco nonsense drunk drivin' would be on the endangered species list
>>>>instead a' some poor schlub puffin' peacefully on his brair or Meer. Just
>>>>thinkin' out loud here.
>>>
>>>Frenchy, you have to understand: Boating and Booze are inseprable.
>>>Much like geologists and bottled beer.
>>>
>>>Laws be damned, if there will be boating, there will be booze!
>>>
>>>(at least, that's the way it seems to a non-boater...)
>>>
>>>-matt
>>
>> Yep I totally understand. I saw these young guys quaffin' back the beers
>> while sittin' on their water motorcycles. I ain't a killjoy by any stretch
>> a' the imagination so I'm not even really addressin' the problem a'
>> drinkin' and boatin' I'm just sayin' the inordinate amount of attention
>> given tobacco and health would be much better spent on things that really
>> put people in danger. It's so crazy that some a' the folks that would have
>> a freakin' coniption fit if a stray whisp a' smoke entered their virgin
>> lungs don't seem much comcerned at a real danger like drivin' drunk or a
>> host of other things that are far more immediate and dangerous than a puff
>> a' tobacco smoke. I'm aware of the groups against drunk drivin' and stuff
>> but geez the noise made by anti drunk drivin' and even a freakin' whisper
>> compared to the hysteria about tobacco. It just seems so dumb.
>
> Well, yes. It doesn't just -seem- dumb.
>
> It IS dumb. Nuclear testing, lowered air quality (though it is better
> than it was during the industrial revolution, i'll give you that!), and
> so on are much more of a public health threat than smoking, yet you
> don't see car companies doing annoying commercials about why their car
> exhaust is bad for you...
>
> -matt

Yeah. it's just mob hysteria and junk science goin' down the path of least
resistance. Tobacco has always been a nice easy target and it's always had
this gang a' people who just hate it and, even more interestingly, hated
the users of it, since the first time they saw the unwashed "heathen"
suckin' the smoke out of a hole. All they needed was that first victory
when they finally got it banned from TV advertisin' and they were off and
runnin'. I'm gonna be 60 years old next month and ain't it strange how in
the first 30 years of my life I never heard of one, single person bein'
"allergic" to smoke. Not one in 30 years durin' which I'd been in the
Marines and around the world. Not one person "allergic" to tobacco smoke,
ever. In the second 30 years I've seen hundreds. "Allergy" to smoke has
suddenly afflicted an enormous number of the population. When someone tells
me they're "allgeric" to tobacco smoke I ask if they break out in hives.
No? Do ya' sneeze and have a runny nose? No? How 'bout your throat? Does
your throat swell like if you were allergic to shell fish? Uh-uh? Oh okay
so you ain't really "allergic" ya' just don't like it. If you were really
"allergic" you could take a Benedryl and be fine, even better you'd fall
asleep and the rest of us'd be fine.
--
Frenchy
www.frenchyspipes.com
.

Loading