Re: Smoking ban in Chicago started Monday


"gpsman" <gpsman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138039733.881542.8950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Popeye wrote:
>> "gpsman" wrote in message
>> > Popeye wrote: <brevity snip>
>> >
>> >> If you saw me smoking crack in an Iron Skillet, you'd be appalled.
>> >
>> > Relevance...?
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't know that was a common occurrence in your world.
>
> WTF... is that supposed to mean? What do you know about my world...
> that I don't?
>
>> >> But the fact is, smoking cigarettes is deadlier by an order of
>> >> magnitude,
>> >> and costs the country billions in medical treatment.
>> >
>> > Smoking cigs IS deadlier, to the smoker, I'd have to agree. The health
>> > costs of smoking have been absorbed by the tobacco companies.
>>
>> Cite.
>
> If you're unaware of the tobacco settlement... you should probably
> direct your attention elsewhere in MTT.

So you can't cite your claim?

And I'm perfectly comfortable where I am, thanks.

>> >Your state just pissed the money away on what suddenly became more
>> >important
>> > once the check cleared.
>> >
>> >> There are also 3000 deaths in America every year from secondary
>> >> smoke.
>> >
>> > Bull***. Secondhand smoke doesn't contain enough toxins to kill
>> > anyone in reasonable health. That anti-smoking bull*** NEVER
>> > considers which, or if any other factors may have been responsible or
>> > contributed. I'd go as far as to suggest that attributing secondhand
>> > smoke as a "cause of death" has NEVER occured, and never will.
>>
>> http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Environmental_Tobacco_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp
>>
>> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html
>
> Govenment sources concerning anything drug related are not reliable due
> to their obvious bias and distortion of the illegal drug question since
> the 1930's that continues through today. Throw our current War On
> Drugs into the equation if needed.

You need to kill the X-files reruns.

American Cancer Society is some government dark force?

And of all the *** they have to lie about, why -ever- would the
government lie about something like that?

You'd think Big Tobacco would buy their silence, if they're so
untrustworthy.

> All government data on the smoking issue never considers other factors
> that we're all affected by. The fumes exuded from carpet, plastic,
> etc. Furthermore, smoking research is almost completely compiled from
> people of lower income who are far more likely to reside in industrial
> areas where pollution is highly concentrated.
>
> The gov't. is loathe to protect poor people from toxic -commercial-
> pollution, more than willing to stick their noses into a business that
> produces less campaign contributions than industry, a bar for example,
> and tell the owner he's polluting the environment for customers who
> always have the option to simply do a 180, and exit of their own free
> will.
>
>> > Surely a person would have exhibited -some- ill health effects,
>> > consulted a doctor, and removed themselves from all secondhand smoke
>> > environments -before- keeling over...?
>>
>> As a specific example, my mother has 2/3 on one lung left, and your
>> smoking near her is a life threatening issue.
>
> All related to second-hand smoke too, huh? Funny how these days
> everything seems to be the fault of someone else. Keep your mom away
> from me... or me away from your mom, problem solved. I'd have to also
> suggest that her lungs are her problem, not mine.

First off, I didn't say it was caused by second hand smoke.

Secondly, she has the right to go where she pleases.

You don't have the right to endanger her for your petty vice.

Her lung, what's left of it, has done just fine for 30 years.

It's not her problem you light up and violate her air, it's yours (feel
free to eat your cigarettes and time you please).

You saying you have that right is no different from me saying I have the
right to spit tobacco juice in your mouth.

> -----
>
> - gpsman
>
> If you find a posting or message from myself offensive, inappropriate,
> or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a
> posting, complain to me and I will demonstrate.

What would the purpose of Usenet be, then?


.

Loading