Darrell, you never fail to show up at the most unexpected
times and provide "insight" into things you imagine that you
understand. Not the least of which are my motives and the
underlying reasons behind them.
You may provide this fine service to others, I'm not intrigued enough to check.
I've been meaning to thank you for your concern and for the
thirteen (on average) paragraphs you devote to either explaining
or debunking my statements. I'm glad you are not my parent.
I'd run away.
My point here is that Marie is trying to get help to quit smoking. She needs all the support she can get. We're not trying to be nanny-state pseudo-parents focused on changing someone who loves to smoke; she's the one who came here asking for help.
When she said that “I cannot have this operation until I quit smoking,” you responded this way: “Says who? Why? Medical folks will try all kinds of BS to get you to quit smoking. I had pleurisy and pneumonia, they said it was from smoking. I called BS, asked them if they imagined I had smoked an infected cigarette. No answer, just propaganda.”
Humblegunner, I will defend your right to smoke. I don't like nanny states any more than most other conservatives — if you're a smoker or ex-smoker who thinks your pneumonia and pleurisy are unrelated to smoking, that's your right to think that way.
I responded for two reasons.
First, Marie is an addict. She needs all the help she can get, and she came here to get help. I don't think your comment was helpful to her.
Second, I also know from experience dealing with addicts that the addicted brain will grasp at all kinds of straws to hang onto the addiction, and I believe your comment could actually be hurtful to her.
You have every right to disagree. Smoke all you want if you're a smoker. Defend smoking all you want if you're an ex-smoker or non-smoker. I'll defend your right to be wrong. If suffering from pneumonia and pleurisy didn't change your mind, I doubt anything I say will have any effect.