Posted on 02/21/2007 5:01:58 PM PST by jdege
You said it all. Hopefully somebody is listening.
I was.
Well said!
Thanks for the ping!
Should be a snap to just stop bringing fattening foods and beer into the house...unless you are addicted to them. Most smokers agree their habit is an addiction.
You've got me wondering what is an accurate definition of "addiction".
Tough habituation?Agreed.
A few years ago I spent 12 no-smoking days in the hospital. It's kind of amusing to me that, in addition, I "enjoyed" a strictly liquid diet for the first six days. You know. "Jello", water ice, clear tea and boullion. Yet I did not crave a cig.
Thank you both. I don't understand people who denigrate the idea of a "slippery slope." It always leaves you at the bottom with a muddy butt, wondering what happened. Non-actions as well as actions have consequences.
Only if they can prove, without a doubt, that second-hand smoke is dangerous. So far, they haven't. Read some of the reports which point out the falsified results of the research on which these findings are based.
The following represent a part of the Surgeon General's 2004 Report:
- Smoking causes reduced fetal growth and low birth weight.
- Smoking by the mother can cause SIDS.
- Smoking causes low fertility in women.
- Babies of women who smoke are more likely to be born too early.
My (our) children are all adults now, and back when they came into the world, and obviously before that time, smoking and pregnancy were not at war with each other. My kids weighed in at 8 lbs 6 ozs, 8 lbs 7 ozs and 8 lbs 8 ozs.
They all showed up within a week of their "due date", and SIDS? Never heard of it then or before. If smoking by pregnant women could be blamed for SIDS, imagine the outcry of horror for such a catastrophe through all the years when pregnant women did smoke! Yet, it was not even heard of then.
Low fertility? Believe me, smoking was not my choice of birth control!
Or out? We chose an outside table for lunch at Niagara Falls, with one of our daughters and her husband. Smoking was allowed outside. A couple with two girls eventually took a table next to ours.
At some point, I lit a cigarette and the dad at the other table asked me not to smoke. In deference to his "sensitivities", I doused the cig. He had no objection, though, to his about-10-year-old daughter removing her shoes and sitting with her bare feet on her chair.
Wonder if he would have objected aloud if the four of us did the same thing? Probably would have judged us as low-lifes.
The do-gooders will eventually get to the unshodden masses; their choice of targets is endless, but right now they're busy (-bodying) about smokers. Who's next! Oh, that's right! Overweight folks and their "providers" are already on the chopping block.
Excellent! You summed up the truth in a nutshell.
(Does anyone else refer to "putting it in a nutshell" anymore? I may be dating myself.
bump
then local govt has every right to take action.No government at any level has the right to do anything. Governments don't have rights.
The belief that smoking is an "addiction" is absolutely essential to fulfill point E of poster Eric Blair:
"I represent Big Pharmaceutical interests that benefit from the anti-smoking movement because it increases the sales of our Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products."
Remember a few years ago when Philip Morris (I think) proudly announced it was on the cusp of developing a smokeless cig? Who shot it down? The AMA, on the grounds that it was "just a nicotine delivery system." Less than a year later, the first patch and gum came to market, courtesy of the drugmakers -- and requiring a doc's prescription.
PS to Eric Blair: Hilarious list of rationales! Thanx!
Governments don't have rights.
Whoa! The only one who came up with that description is you. No. I never said or suggested that. Please note also that I did not need to resort to sarcasm to state my views.
I do not believe every claim put forth as a result of a research report. I do suspect there's a hidden agenda behind the "facts" sometimes, along with exaggeration.
You're totally misunderstanding me. I was not being sacastic. That's too bad. So, it wasn't a wonderful experience.
Whatever...In any case, I'll leave you with my final thoughts: even the remotest possibility of possible ill effects of second hand smoking would encourage my supporting a ban on smoking around others.
Why do so many people have such difficulty with this simple concept?
1.)They believe the liberal junk science about second hand smoke because they are easily manipulated by emotion and the catch all “It’s for the children” rationale for nanny state social engineering.
2.)They feel their personal preference and convenience trumps their neighbors’ God given freedom and the general concept of individual liberty, individual property rights, and personal accountability.
3.)They are suckers that believe the government will protect them and nurture them from cradle to grave and don’t trust themselves to make good choices and avoid vices that may be harmful or considered immoral, as long as they trade away everyone else’s liberty.
I love this!! Awesome post it pretty much sums up the thought process of the nanny state fascists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.