Midweek rant: Why pander to smokers? Just “cough up” 2,000 baht and don’t come back

[hawker9000]

19 hours ago, transam said:

I like a ciggy the same as I like a beer...I never annoy anyone when having a fag..

I find it funny when non smokers come on here slagging smokers off just because they don't smoke. Yet many of the moaners drive diesel rides, use BBQ's and burn horrendous amounts of cheap fuel on cheap flights which to them is OK..

I don't particularly like looking at obese folk, but l don't tell them this is 2017 and the info is out there to become a normal size do l...

Folk should mind there own business and let folk live their own life..

Your comparisons are absolutely ludicrous (as they always are; REALLY tired stuff).  'Comparing smoking in public to having to look at fat people; and backyard BBQs - ROFLMAO.  Now THAT'S lame!   All the usual rationalizations - never seen the one about fat people before - hilariously irrelevant.  But wait!   If you find it funny now, you're gonna' just love the next round of taxes and restrictions, because they're ALWAYS coming.

 

It's great that you never annoy anyone with your smoking (if it's true; given the obvious strength of your addiction, there'll be another side to THAT story I expect...).  Unfortunately too many of your brethren never gave a damn and have been content to shed their filth over anyone within range, and actually consider being able to do so a matter of right!  So now you ALL pay the price, as you will continue to do, and the price WILL keep going higher.  You all give politicians something they can actually all agree on.  Bravo.  So I hope you enjoy the boom being lowered an inch at a time as much as I've enjoyed watching it!

 

[Stargeezr]

In Alberta a careless smoker threw out his cigarette from his car into dry grass

that caused a fire that burned up someones garage and another persons house.

This happened just north of Calgary, in a small city, named Airdrie.

  I hate careless and thoughtless smokers everywhere in the world.

Good rant

Geezer

[travelingman1959]

In Alberta a careless smoker threw out his cigarette from his car into dry grass
that caused a fire that burned up someones garage and another persons house.
This happened just north of Calgary, in a small city, named Airdrie.
  I hate careless and thoughtless smokers everywhere in the world.
Good rant
Geezer

If thats the case you should get ready to start catching the fireworks thats going to start .

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[dbrenn]

Cigarettes are taxed, so why does the OP think that his taxes paid for these glass enclosures? 

[habanero]

6 hours ago, gr8fldanielle said:

Move to California, you must think I'm an idiot, only an idiot would move to California. Then again, only an idiot would stay in California with someone like Governor Moonbeam at the helm. Now it's illegal to stop a school shooting with a gun. It's legal to donate HIV infected blood or even knowingly infect someone with HIV. It's illegal to use the wrong pronoun. California? I think not!

Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. I don't like the smell of flesh being grilled, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Geeeee. Lighten up!

[mok199]

the beach is empty in pattaya..the only smokers are the jet ski goons..

[joeyg]

9 hours ago, nisakiman said:

 

Why on earth would I do that? Whatever makes you think doubling or tripling  ones consumption of cigarettes would be 'the best thing you can do'?

 

Or was that an attempt at sarcasm?

 

Whatever, everything I've written above is fact. I can find the links to all that info if you like, although I suspect you're uncomfortable with having your belief system challenged.

 

I could fill pages of this forum with examples of the chicanery employed by Tobacco Control. They are completely amoral. They care not one iota for the huge amount of economic and social damage they cause. It stopped being about health decades ago. It's all about money and ideology now, and has been for years, even more so since the big pharmaceutical companies realised they could make fortunes out of punitive smoking legislation. That's why they fund the WHO's FCTC. The more countries that introduce smoking bans, the more massively overpriced (and useless - 98% failure rate) nicotine patches and gum they can sell. It's a multi-billion dollar global business now, and the few millions a year they throw to the avidly anti-smoking WHO is small change compared to the profits they make from the persecution of smokers. It's a good investment.

 

I respect your right to have an opinion.  Fact is though, nothing is less important to me than your opinion. What I say is just my opinion.  It's hard to figure how TV members here propose to be able to understand my thought process. 

"I suspect you're uncomfortable with having your belief system challenged."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Remember,  although I respect your right to have an opinion.  Nothing could be less important to me.  It's an opinion and your welcome too it.  Thank you.

[joeyg]

9 hours ago, gr8fldanielle said:

Move to California, you must think I'm an idiot, only an idiot would move to California. Then again, only an idiot would stay in California with someone like Governor Moonbeam at the helm. Now it's illegal to stop a school shooting with a gun. It's legal to donate HIV infected blood or even knowingly infect someone with HIV. It's illegal to use the wrong pronoun. California? I think not!

Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. I don't like the smell of flesh being grilled, but I don't think it should be illegal.

I moved to SoCal from New York in 1984.  lived there for 30 years, nearly half my life. San Diego  was great for many years.  Especially living on the beach.  Ski in the morning surf in the afternoon, if you drive fast enough.  I retired in Thailand, after traveling here since 1971.  My only regret is not having done it sooner.  yeah California is pretty much done.  i'm also with you on, "Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. I don't like the smell of flesh being grilled, but I don't think it should be illegal."  The thing is I don't want to breathe it in so I stay away from BBQs.  I'm a former smoker.  it seems nearly impossible to avoid it completely, I just try to minimize my exposure it's very dangerous.

[transam]

4 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Your comparisons are absolutely ludicrous (as they always are; REALLY tired stuff).  'Comparing smoking in public to having to look at fat people; and backyard BBQs - ROFLMAO.  Now THAT'S lame!   All the usual rationalizations - never seen the one about fat people before - hilariously irrelevant.  But wait!   If you find it funny now, you're gonna' just love the next round of taxes and restrictions, because they're ALWAYS coming.

 

It's great that you never annoy anyone with your smoking (if it's true; given the obvious strength of your addiction, there'll be another side to THAT story I expect...).  Unfortunately too many of your brethren never gave a damn and have been content to shed their filth over anyone within range, and actually consider being able to do so a matter of right!  So now you ALL pay the price, as you will continue to do, and the price WILL keep going higher.  You all give politicians something they can actually all agree on.  Bravo.  So I hope you enjoy the boom being lowered an inch at a time as much as I've enjoyed watching it!

 

Strange how folk like you don't like comparisons that you might be involved in....Hmmmm.

 

Do you condemn folk who drive diesel rides, you know the rides you sit behind in traffic where you have to close the vents cos you can't breath, well do you..?

For your information l do not smoke near anyone unless it's OK, me being a considerate fellow. I do find people like yourself who castigate smokers as being some sort of low-life very baffoonish, small minded. 

 

I reckon you're going to come back and say you don't drive a diesel and never fart on an airplane...                                                                      

[joeyg]

12 minutes ago, transam said:

Strange how folk like you don't like comparisons that you might be involved in....Hmmmm.

 

Do you condemn folk who drive diesel rides, you know the rides you sit behind in traffic where you have to close the vents cos you can't breath, well do you..?

For your information l do not smoke near anyone unless it's OK, me being a considerate fellow. I do find people like yourself who castigate smokers as being some sort of low-life very baffoonish, small minded. 

 

I reckon you're going to come back and say you don't drive a diesel and never fart on an airplane...                                                                      

Very well said.  You mentioned a very important phenomenon, " being a considerate fellow."  I think this is the core of the conversation or any conversation for that matter.  I really am a live and let live guy.  I try to avoid cigarette smoke as much as possible and BBQ too for that matter.

 

If people want to smoke that's their decision.  Too say that decades of solid research on the dangers of second hand smoke are "not true" is foolish.  @ hawker9000 Would you like  to sit in a room full of people smoking Yaba for hours at a time?  I think not.

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

Best not to respond to the diesel fumes and BBQ rubbish. The ciggie people don't actually believe these tiresome straw man arguments, a bit of silly sophistry,  like saying "Terrorism is no big deal, everyone dies anyway". In 10 or 15 years when all vehicles are electric it will be "airplanes" or leaf blowers, "smokers right's" or some other ludicrous non sequiter. ("Puff puff, wheeze wheeze, launch the burning butts through the air, there's more trash anyway"). They are addicts, they don"t give a toss and will forever insist foisting smoke on the public is their ULTIMATE entitlement.

 

Fortunately smoking is being banned on beaches as most public places in Thailand. If one has a problem with 100,000 baht fines nothing preventing these poor put-upon smokers to go back to their own country and blow tobacco smoke and vape vapour around. 

[joeyg]

21 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

Best not to respond to the diesel fumes and BBQ rubbish. The ciggie people don't actually believe these tiresome straw man arguments, a bit of silly sophistry,  like saying "Terrorism is no big deal, everyone dies anyway". In 10 or 15 years when all vehicles are electric it will be "airplanes" or leaf blowers, "smokers right's" or some other ludicrous non sequiter. ("Puff puff, wheeze wheeze, launch the burning butts through the air, there's more trash anyway"). They are addicts, they don"t give a toss and will forever insist foisting smoke on the public is their ULTIMATE entitlement.

 

Fortunately smoking is being banned on beaches as most public places in Thailand. If one has a problem with 100,000 baht fines nothing preventing these poor put-upon smokers to go back to their own country and blow tobacco smoke and vape vapour around. 

Wow, common sense, straightforwardness, clarity  and honesty.  Are you sure you're on the right website?  Good job man...

 

[transam]

29 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

Best not to respond to the diesel fumes and BBQ rubbish. The ciggie people don't actually believe these tiresome straw man arguments, a bit of silly sophistry,  like saying "Terrorism is no big deal, everyone dies anyway". In 10 or 15 years when all vehicles are electric it will be "airplanes" or leaf blowers, "smokers right's" or some other ludicrous non sequiter. ("Puff puff, wheeze wheeze, launch the burning butts through the air, there's more trash anyway"). They are addicts, they don"t give a toss and will forever insist foisting smoke on the public is their ULTIMATE entitlement.

 

Fortunately smoking is being banned on beaches as most public places in Thailand. If one has a problem with 100,000 baht fines nothing preventing these poor put-upon smokers to go back to their own country and blow tobacco smoke and vape vapour around. 

I just hope they don't ban pickled onions...My addiction....

[hawker9000]

7 hours ago, habanero said:

Geeeee. Lighten up!

Ever seen a dying lung cancer victim with all the tubes sticking out of him?  I have.  More than one, actually.  'Sure wish you could've been there to tell the wife and three kids he was about to leave behind to "lighten up".

 

Oh, and an edit...   I remember when he first mentioned to me the spot they'd found on his lung.  And I also remember toward the end him telling me in very emotional terms - in tears - how he wished to God he'd never started smoking.

Edited October 22, 2017 by hawker9000

[transam]

1 minute ago, hawker9000 said:

Ever seen a dying lung cancer victim with all the tubes sticking out of him?  I have.  More than one, actually.  'Sure wish you could've been there to tell the wife and three kids he was about to leave behind to "lighten up".

We all die at some time for various reasons..Many die young via their job, military for instance.

 

How many folk die young from eating crap day in day out leaving loved ones to mourn...

 

But wait, YOU would like bigmacs heavily taxed to solve it eh......

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, joeyg said:

Very well said.  You mentioned a very important phenomenon, " being a considerate fellow."  I think this is the core of the conversation or any conversation for that matter.  I really am a live and let live guy.  I try to avoid cigarette smoke as much as possible and BBQ too for that matter.

 

If people want to smoke that's their decision.  Too say that decades of solid research on the dangers of second hand smoke are "not true" is foolish.  @ hawker9000 Would you like  to sit in a room full of people smoking Yaba for hours at a time?  I think not.

The dangers of 'second hand smoke' from smokers is still theory (despite your acclamations to the contrary) - although I care enough not to put the theory 'to the test' in enclosed spaces with non-smokers.....

 

Others have pointed out very well why a smoking ban on beaches (with silly plastic huts that ventilate more concentrated smoke back into common areas) is ridiculous.

 

And that's without getting into the regular burning of plastic etc. - that is common everywhere..... 

[dick dasterdly]

Common sense  dictates:-

 

1) fining those who litter - by dropping their fag-ends on the beach

 

2) on packed beaches, providing smoking and non-smoking parts -  with a distance between each.

[mommysboy]

18 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

The dangers of 'second hand smoke' from smokers is still theory (despite your acclamations to the contrary) - although I care enough not to put the theory 'to the test' in enclosed spaces with non-smokers.....

 

Others have pointed out very well why a smoking ban on beaches (with silly plastic huts that ventilate more concentrated smoke back into common areas) is ridiculous.

 

And that's without getting into the regular burning of plastic etc. - that is common everywhere..... 

 

The second hand smoke argument is over-egged imo, but there is some danger, and smoke is a direct irritant to some.

 

It's just about consideration for others, and reasonableness... which applies to both the non-smokers who quite understandably don't want to be around it, and the smokers who just want to enjoy what they see as one of life's small pleasures.

 

Everyone now understands (hopefully) that it just isn't on to smoke around non-smokers, but the problem seems to be non-smokers who want it all their own way, to the point where they would ban smokers in situations that really need not concern them.

 

Banning smoking from public arenas and spaces is generally ok imo, and it's what we more or less have anyway.

Edited October 22, 2017 by mommysboy

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

Ever seen a dying lung cancer victim with all the tubes sticking out of him?  I have.  More than one, actually.  'Sure wish you could've been there to tell the wife and three kids he was about to leave behind to "lighten up".

 

Oh, and an edit...   I remember when he first mentioned to me the spot they'd found on his lung.  And I also remember toward the end him telling me in very emotional terms - in tears - how he wished to God he'd never started smoking.

Yes I saw my dad die.  He was a heavy smoker for many decades.  Smoking was in the mix for sure but there were other factors too, not the least of which was standing at a lathe for twenty years or more which gave him leg problems.  It was harrowing for him, and us.  Later, I reflected he died of death, something which will get us all.  Of course smoking is dangerous.

 

The worst of it for me was that they just kept him going long past a time when it was best to just fill him full of drugs and allow him to slip away.  It was cruel- wouldn't treat a dog like that!  I know do gooders mean well, but they don't half inflict sheer misery on others.

[habanero]

2 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Ever seen a dying lung cancer victim with all the tubes sticking out of him?  I have.  More than one, actually.  'Sure wish you could've been there to tell the wife and three kids he was about to leave behind to "lighten up".

 

Oh, and an edit...   I remember when he first mentioned to me the spot they'd found on his lung.  And I also remember toward the end him telling me in very emotional terms - in tears - how he wished to God he'd never started smoking.

 

2 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Ever seen a dying lung cancer victim with all the tubes sticking out of him?  I have.  More than one, actually.  'Sure wish you could've been there to tell the wife and three kids he was about to leave behind to "lighten up".

 

Oh, and an edit...   I remember when he first mentioned to me the spot they'd found on his lung.  And I also remember toward the end him telling me in very emotional terms - in tears - how he wished to God he'd never started smoking.

I wasn't making lite of someone with cancer. I was referring to not liking the smell of barbeque. In fact, I never mentioned it. I don't smoke and I don't care who does. As long as you are not blowing smoke in my face, I could care less. I would just hope you would respect my space. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by habanero

[joeyg]

19 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

The dangers of 'second hand smoke' from smokers is still theory (despite your acclamations to the contrary) - although I care enough not to put the theory 'to the test' in enclosed spaces with non-smokers.....

 

Others have pointed out very well why a smoking ban on beaches (with silly plastic huts that ventilate more concentrated smoke back into common areas) is ridiculous.

 

And that's without getting into the regular burning of plastic etc. - that is common everywhere..... 

"The dangers of 'second hand smoke' from smokers is still theory" On contraire  the dangers are very well documented.  I'll leave it at that. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/secondhand-smoke.html

[joeyg]

Lots more like this.  Like Mark Twain said though, "never ruin a good story with the facts." https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/effects-of-secondhand-smoke 

 

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/passive-smoking

 

 

 

[CG1 Blue]

On ‎21‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 8:04 AM, dick dasterdly said:

The OP wrote a 'mid-week rant' that was clearly tongue-in-cheek and a 'click bait' article.

 

Did anyone bother to read the sentence

"They should be told to go home – abroad if they are foreigners – if they want to smoke. And if Thai they should be made to build sealed rooms in their houses – or underneath in dungeons – so their children are protected."

before starting their own rant??

Yes, and I also read:

 

"Why are you being so nice to them? Talk about a red carpet to smoke. How lovely and comfy – they’ll even be protected when it rains."

“Why give these people anywhere to smoke at all – after all their noxious fumes are still going to come out of these soon to be filthy little dens of addiction and pollute the air my children and the rest of us breathe.”

 

This is an irate person trying to disguise their anger by throwing in the occasional funny line. 

 

[Mac98]

The Centers for Disease Control, which first warned against cigarettes, shows on its Website their study of pipe smokers. Their finding was that pipe smokers have exactly the same life expectancy of those who have never used tobacco of any type.

  No butts on the beaches, no health bills beyond the normal. I have smoked a pipe 55 years. Doctors find my lungs and heart to be healthy. They must be as I can still swim a mile a day at age 75. But I still have to pay high tobacco taxes.

    I would like a T-shirt with four pictures: FDR with his cigarette holder; Churchill with his cigar; MacArthur with his corncob pipe; and a red-faced, fist-waving, screeching, spit-flying, tea-totaler, vegetarian, non-smoking Hitler (not unlike some on here who call for death to those of whom they disapprove). Below it would ask: WHO'S YOUR HERO?

[travelingman1959]

WIFI ?  Are they going to put in free WIFI ?

If they can put free wi fi .we can have some good music on .ie smoke on the water

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[nisakiman]

On 10/23/2017 at 6:53 AM, joeyg said:

"The dangers of 'second hand smoke' from smokers is still theory" On contraire  the dangers are very well documented.  I'll leave it at that. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/secondhand-smoke.html

 

 

No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805/No-Clear-Link-Between-Passive-Smoking-and-Lung

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe.

 

RESULTS:

ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776409

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Environmental tobacco smoke in the nonsmoking section of a restaurant: a case study.

Jenkins RA1, Finn D, Tomkins BA, Maskarinec MP.

Author information

Abstract

This study tested the concentrations of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) components in a small restaurant/pub with smoking and nonsmoking areas-a facility outfitted with a heat-recovery ventilation system and directional airflow. The ETS levels in the nonsmoking area were compared with those in other similar restaurants/pubs where indoor smoking is altogether prohibited. The results indicate that ETS component concentrations in the nonsmoking section of the facility in question were not statistically different (P < 0.05) from those measured in similar facilities where smoking is prohibited. The regulatory implications of these findings are that ventilation techniques for restaurants/pubs with separate smoking and nonsmoking areas are capable of achieving nonsmoking area ETS concentrations that are comparable to those of similar facilities that prohibit smoking outright.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11754526

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Results

For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The second and fourth link above refer to the two biggest studies ever carried out on ETS.

 

The second link is to the study carried out by Boffetta et al, and was commissioned by the WHO, a fanatically anti-smoking organisation. When the results came in, and they realised that these weren't the results they wanted, they buried the report and just lied instead, telling everyone that second-hand smoke was lethal, even though the report they had commissioned found that not to be the case at all.

 

The fourth link is to the study carried out by Enstrom and Kabat, and was commissioned by the American Cancer Society. The study was very comprehensive, and was done over a period of 39 years. When the results started to come in, the ACS who had commissioned and paid for the study were horrified, because (as in the case of the WHO study) the results weren't what they wanted to hear. So before the results of this 39 year study could be published, they pulled the plug on the funding, hoping that it would never see the light of day.

 

Do you see a trend emerging here?

 

When you have researched this subject as much as I have, you realise that Tobacco Control and all their assorted hangers-on lie through their teeth as a matter of course. They will tell you that black is white if it suits their agenda.

 

 

[nisakiman]

On 10/23/2017 at 6:55 AM, joeyg said:

Lots more like this.  Like Mark Twain said though, "never ruin a good story with the facts." https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/effects-of-secondhand-smoke 

 

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/passive-smoking

 

 

 

 

On the subject of the great Mark Twain:

 

“The Moral Statistician.”

Originally published in Sketches, Old and New, 1893

 

“I don’t want any of your statistics; I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it.

 

I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man’s health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years’ indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc. etc. And you are always figuring out how many women have been burned to death because of the dangerous fashion of wearing expansive hoops, etc. etc. You never see more than one side of the question.

 

You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation, and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime (which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone), nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from not smoking. Of course you can save money by denying yourself all those little vicious enjoyments for fifty years; but then what can you do with it? What use can you put it to? Money can’t save your infinitesimal soul. All the use that money can be put to is to purchase comfort and enjoyment in this life; therefore, as you are an enemy to comfort and enjoyment where is the use of accumulating cash?

 

It won’t do for you to say that you can use it to better purpose in furnishing a good table, and in charities, and in supporting tract societies, because you know yourself that you people who have no petty vices are never known to give away a cent, and that you stint yourselves so in the matter of food that you are always feeble and hungry. And you never dare to laugh in the daytime for fear some poor wretch, seeing you in a good humor, will try to borrow a dollar of you; and in church you are always down on your knees, with your ears buried in the cushion, when the contribution-box comes around; and you never give the revenue officers a full statement of your income.

 

Now you know all these things yourself, don’t you? Very well, then, what is the use of your stringing out your miserable lives to a lean and withered old age? What is the use of your saving money that is so utterly worthless to you? In a word, why don’t you go off somewhere and die, and not be always trying to seduce people into becoming as ornery and unlovable as you are yourselves, by your villainous “moral statistics”?”

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Mark Twain did not suffer fools gladly...

[Nurseynutcase]

RE Nisakiman - thank you for your response to this topic.

 

In 2010 as a smoker I was asked to take part in  research to find out why some smokers had perfectly good functioning lungs and other non-smokers suffered the debilitating effects of so-called passive smoking.

 

This study was NOT funded by the big tobacco corporations.  The findings were;

 

Some smokers have a genetic dispostion that protects them from lung cancer.

 

Some non-smokers who had developed COPD had a defective gene that meant they would develop this disease EVEN IF THEY HAD NOT been subject to environmental tobacco smoke.

 

This was carried out in Southampton Wellcome institute in England.

 

The research was overseen by a Japanese geneticist - sorry I cannot remember his name.

 

No doubt his findings will not be reported in the mainstream media as it will not fit well with any health organisations views.

 

BTW I am now 63, still cycle everywhere and swim.  Fitter than alot of younger non-smokers.

 

With regards to Freethinker - thank you for your sentiments.  I too chose to live here to get away from the nanny state and live the life I choose without the hectoring commandants interfering in my way of life.

[Rimmer]

A particularly nasty attack on the original poster of this article has been removed. 

[Pilotman]

On 20/10/2017 at 7:45 AM, schlog said:

Let every man seek heaven in his own fashion.

We don't need more nanny state excesses here!

I agree with your statement but with a big caveat .  Smoking and smokers impinge on others to an unacceptable degree.  They pollute the air around me regularly,  even walking past them, they litter by throwing away their buts anywhere they please, they are selfish and inconsiderate.  I have seen a child burnt by a cigarette carrying idiot who  had no concept of the danger  posed to low lying kids.  By all means people must live their own lives, but anything that stops others enjoying theirs must be stopped.