Travel: Smokers called Animals In A Zoo

Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans ^ | 1-8-05 | Robert Hayes Halfpenny

[SheLion]

I am surprised Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson didn’t refer to the smokers as swine in a pig sty. Isn’t that, after all one of the one of the first images that comes to mind when think of a pen?  Before I am offended by “da mayor” I would have to be offended by the reference to the term smoking pens. In a city and state  that was founded by a group of people so seriously reviled for their own beliefs in years past, you would think they would be among the first to take a “live and let live” attitude about the behavior and choices of others. Clearly the past lessons learned about intolerance by the Mormons must now have been forgotten.

Only 88 airports nationwide is hardly a mandate to make one’s own airport smoke free. Furthermore if these “smoking kiosks” are eliminated it will only cause people to find other places to smoke. Delta Airlines is correct in standing behind the rights of the smokers.  Perhaps they have taken note that incidence of “air rage” only became prevalent AFTER smoking was banned on aircraft. It should also be noted that since the ban, they no longer use fresh air to ventilate the planes; instead, they just run the air through a filtrations system which in an enclosed environment further exacerbates the problem.

Mayor Anderson’s pompous arrogance in stating that the ban will help smokers to “break the habit” is outrageous. It is not his job to be neither a social engineer nor the arbiter of personal choices. I do know however, that as long as Salt Lake City and Utah continue down this Draconian path of heavy handed intolerance, I will avoid their state in very way possible. I will not travel to it, I will not travel thru it, and I will not support my company scheduling a convention there.

BANS ARE BAD! Read it again, BANS ARE BAD! Banning blacks from white facilities---BAD! Banning books---BAD! Banning Beer---Bad! If the people of Utah agree that these bans are bad, then they must also agree that banning smoking is also BAD! I would certainly hope at this juncture they are starting to realize that any action, that would favor a smoking ban of any type, will only create far more harm than good. IN all fairness I should note their may be one kind of good ban. That of course would be banning Mayor Anderson from further political office at the next election.   

[docbnj]

I like the way the author of the article fulminates against a ban on airport smoking, and says BANS are BAD! And then advocates a boycott of Utah.

There is hypocrisy for you. And it is typical. There is no logic in an addict when it comes to his/her addiction. The addiction is in control.

[SheLion]

You are comparing crack addicts to smokers?? Please tell me you aren't really that rude and/or ignorant.

Geeeze. I just sit here and shake my head. Our smoking threads sure bring them out from under their rocks, don't they?

And they think we should just fold under and take their rude remarks. Well, I for one am sick of it.

[Judith Anne]

So, your dictionary doesn't show the difference in "bans" and "boycotts"? That's a crying shame, but here's your clue--one has the force of law and one is voluntary. Guess which one freedom-loving people like best.

[SheLion]

Guess which one freedom-loving people like best.

Can you believe some of these ah..........can't say it. heh!

[exnavychick]

And they think we should just fold under and take their rude remarks
____________________________________________________________

That's because we are missing the point...they are just trying to help us see the error of our ways, dontcha know. It's "well-meant" (HA) paternalistic sermonizing. If I wanted to be lectured in such a manner, I would still be living at home with my parents.

Though I don't see how a lot of anti-smoking folks can call themselves well-intentioned when they insult you while trying to convince you of the "immorality" of what you are doing. The old adage that you can catch more bees with honey seems to elude a lot of folks, and not just the ones crusading against smoking.

[SheLion]

The old adage that you can catch more bees with honey seems to elude a lot of folks, and not just the ones crusading against smoking.

Well, docbnj jumps in here and said that he can 'only advise.' Well, for crying out loud, who ASK for his advise?

If he carries the handle of doc, he must be one of those that works for the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. Seems to be his caliber.

[docbnj]

Yes, I most definitely and emphatically WAS comparing crack addicts to nicotine addicts. It was a comparison, but (of course) not an equivalence, for there is a matter of degree.

The point I was making was that there are similarities in all addictive behaviors, and that is true. We are even getting closer every day to understanding the biological basis of addiction. In both types I cited, antisocial behavior is a very common characteristic, as it is also in other forms of addiction, such as alcoholism and compulsive gambling. Family interests and other social relations are frequently sacrificed for the sake of the individual demands of the addiction.

When you consider the health implications of nicotine, there is not even any rational self-interest in continuing the habit. Addictions are jealous masters, however, and tend to crowd out competing, and possibly more innocent pleasures.

[exnavychick]

Well, sir, perhaps you would care to elaborate what you mean EXACTLY by antisocial behavior? I would be extremely interested to know what you think it consists of, and how a majority of smokers exhibit them. If you are going to compare crack smokers and tobacco smokers, perhaps you can also show the similar antisocial tendencies you are talking about.

Most smokers I know don't rob or kill other people for a pack of cigarettes, for example. Then again, our drug of choice is legal, so perhaps your arguments don't really apply there, either. If you are going to compare something, I would highly recommend apples and apples, not apples and oranges. Otherwise, your whole argument is disingenuous, imo.

[exnavychick]

Well, docbnj jumps in here and said that he can 'only advise.' Well, for crying out loud, who ASK for his advise?
____________________________________________________________

Especially when you consider the fact that this was not a thread posted soliciting advice on how to quit. I would be afraid of that thread, to be honest.

[docbnj]

Of course there is a difference between an ban and a boycott, but in this case it is a rather technical one. When you boycott a whole state, you are attempting to punish industries and individuals who have nothing to do with the ban which you oppose. It is reminiscent of the folks who wanted to boycott South Carolina because that state flew the Confederate flag. Many of these boycotts are not really individual actions, but involve manipulating organizations, as is advocated by the author of the article. Not all members of the organizations will agree with the boycott, so they are being dragged along in the action by the machinations of the activists. It is thus not the free choice of everyone involved.

If you read back through some of the responses to my postings, you might notice how outraged the respondents are. I have been "rude" according to one. Another likens me to nagging parents. These are responses of people who don't like what I have said, but I can't help thinking that they react so strongly because they know (deep down) that I have a point. Hey, nothing personal! It's just that addiction is a problem, and if you have it, you might like to understand it. I've probably said enough, and you can think about it later.

(P.S. I don't work for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, by the way.)

[Judith Anne]

Thanks for a rather more reasonable post than the one I first responded to. You express concern for the consequences of a boycott--what do you think the consequences of the ban have been on businesses? As far as I'm concerned, any successful boycott in response to a ban is just tough cookies for the banner.

I'm a smoker, I smoke around 5 cigarettes a day. I enjoy them. Sometimes I forget to have any, sometimes I have a few more. When people sling around the word "addict" to describe a voluntary behavior, they seldom mean in the clinical sense of having withdrawal symptoms if the behavior is avoided--they usually use it in a pejorative sense. That offends me, and every other smoker here. You might want to ask yourself why you use that word so casually, and in what you must be aware is an offensive fashion, to smokers.

[exnavychick]

Another likens me to nagging parents.
___________________________________________________________

Excuse me, but we referring to anti-smoking folks in GENERAL. We were quite clear when we were referring to you specifically, I thought. If not, then...now you know. I would hardly call what you originally posted a paternalistic sermon...it was more of a "scientific" presentation. That's speaking for myself, at least.

[185JHP]

Patches. Gum. Getting rid of the addiction. There are options.

[WildTurkey]

I'm not trying to be hostile or start a fight. But you should realize that you're dealing with a group of people who have been penalized, shamed, extorted, and brutalized for the last twenty-five years. A group of people who are the last safe targets of legalized bigotry and segregation in America.

You forgot. As the author inferred in the original article, a group prone to rage.

[bob3443]

If my smoking inconveniences and annoys others, that is too bad. Live with it. Has it occurred to you that your aftershave, cologne, or musk could be just as big an inconvenience or annoyance to me. As it so happens the scent of musk bothers me greatly. I however, have the maturity to accept your right to wear it. And, I will move without comment if I find the scent to be too over bearing.

You suggest that I should go poison myself in private and leave your air alone. I already do that whenever I walk into a restaurant or bar that allows smoking. You see when I enter one of those establishments I am then on private property. I am exercising my legal right to smoke. And, I am doing so with the approval of that property owner. If you don't like my smoking take yourself and your agenda to an operation that does not allow smoking. THAT IS WHAT IS CALLED PERSONAL CHOICE! YOUR SOPHOMORIC SOPHISTRY IS, AS ONE WOULD EXPECT, FULL OF HOLES!p>

[WildTurkey]

Leave Judith Anne alone! Move on.

I did. Hours ago.

[exnavychick]

Um...I think you have replied to the wrong person, FRiend. Better double check. :)

[WildTurkey]

There is another matter here: addicts typically manifest antisocial behavior. In the extreme, we see this in the case of crack mothers who turn to crime and prostitution for the sake of a drug habit, while neglecting their children. Smokers are also addicts, and though most are not as extreme as crack addicts, they are similarly antisocial when it comes to their addiction. Just watch: they are litterbugs, seldom using the ashtrays in their cars. The butts are usually thrown out onto the road. Smokers are generally inconsiderate, and most of them tend toward the obnoxious in personality profile.

That would explain why the author in the original article stated that air-rage increased when smoking bans were implemented.

[WildTurkey]

Your quotes on my last post seem to indicate otherwise.

Perhaps I was responding in kind to the tone of your post.

[WildTurkey]

have been "rude" according to one. Another likens me to nagging parents. These are responses of people who don't like what I have said, but I can't help thinking that they react so strongly because they know (deep down) that I have a point.

I have bent over backwards NOT to criticize the smoking posters but they have associated me with Hitler and various other slurs. I think you have a point.