It's Happened - A Smoke-Free City

[Gunny]

Fat people don't take their fat and stick onto someone else's body. Smokers blow their vice right into other people's lungs.

Y'know, I probably would agree with you except for one little thing ..... that car you drive blows more crap up my lungs than some dude smoking a cigarette. Don't believe me? Try going for a run around 5PM.

And California was BY FAR the worst place for air quality I ever had the misfortune to live in.

So this isn't about cleaning up any air. It's about extremists with scratching that itch to tell others how to live.

And all some fat person has to do is lose their balance on their disproportioned, pear-shaped bodies and fall on a child and it's over. Sounds liek a DEFINITE threat to me.

 

[Annie]

Y'know, I probably would agree with you except for one little thing ..... that car you drive blows more crap up my lungs than some dude smoking a cigarette. Don't believe me? Try going for a run around 5PM.

And California was BY FAR the worst place for air quality I ever had the misfortune to live in.

So this isn't about cleaning up any air. It's about extremists with scratching that itch to tell others how to live.

And all some fat person has to do is lose their balance on their disproportioned, pear-shaped bodies and fall on a child and it's over. Sounds liek a DEFINITE threat to me.

LOL! I love this! I don't think I should be able to deduct my share of taxes for the fat, the mentally ill through drugs/alcohol abuse, the criminals, etc. I do think that the insurance companies should be able to cut out covering smokers, with the decrease passed onto the remaining insured.

If you choose to smoke, medical care that you can afford, then that's it. Then remove all the taxes collected on tobacco-no one is subsidizing the smokers anymore, so be done with it.

 

[Nienna]

LOL! I love this! I don't think I should be able to deduct my share of taxes for the fat, the mentally ill through drugs/alcohol abuse, the criminals, etc. I do think that the insurance companies should be able to cut out covering smokers, with the decrease passed onto the remaining insured.

If you choose to smoke, medical care that you can afford, then that's it. Then remove all the taxes collected on tobacco-no one is subsidizing the smokers anymore, so be done with it.

And health ins co's should be able to increase rates or even cut out the severly obese, too. Obesity leads to a BUNCH of medical problems, including diabetes.

 

[Annie]

And health ins co's should be able to increase rates or even cut out the severly obese, too. Obesity leads to a BUNCH of medical problems, including diabetes.

Fine, cut them out too. Drug addicts/alcoholics too. Lower the rates on the rest.

 

[Gunny]

LOL! I love this! I don't think I should be able to deduct my share of taxes for the fat, the mentally ill through drugs/alcohol abuse, the criminals, etc. I do think that the insurance companies should be able to cut out covering smokers, with the decrease passed onto the remaining insured.

If you choose to smoke, medical care that you can afford, then that's it. Then remove all the taxes collected on tobacco-no one is subsidizing the smokers anymore, so be done with it.

I think insurance companies ALREADY have higher rates for smokers. However, you have the tax thing backwards. Smokers aren't subsidized by taxes .... but this nation was pretty-much built on tobacco and taxing the Hell out of it.

I'm not arguing that smoking is healthy, and fat people is just an analogy. WHAT and/or WHO is next? You mentioned the mentally ill.

And there's no tinfoil hat. The slippery slop in the case of our individual civil liberties is pretty clear. The politically correct-driven agenda is playign divide and conquer, one little group at a time.

We are supposed to discrminate against the segment of our society that society itself created; yet, gays can falunt their aberrant sexual behavior in everyone's face. Seems ass-backward to me.

 

[Annie]

I think insurance companies ALREADY have higher rates for smokers. However, you have the tax thing backwards. Smokers aren't subsidized by taxes .... but this nation was pretty-much built on tobacco and taxing the Hell out of it.

I'm not arguing that smoking is healthy, and fat people is just an analogy. WHAT and/or WHO is next? You mentioned the mentally ill.

And there's no tinfoil hat. The slippery slop in the case of our individual civil liberties is pretty clear. The politically correct-driven agenda is playign divide and conquer, one little group at a time.

We are supposed to discrminate against the segment of our society that society itself created; yet, gays can falunt their aberrant sexual behavior in everyone's face. Seems ass-backward to me.

Nope, if you don't smoke, your company's insurance rates are raised because of the smokers. In 'corporate' they don't ask who does and doesn't, they assume.

If your company provides life insurance, same thing. Now if individuals pay for it, they can ask and charge 'appropriate' premiums.

Bottom line, 'smokers are being blamed from all fronts.' That's cool. Just saying that cut them loose, stop blaming them. If they quit for 5 years, let them be counted as non-smoking and figured into the actuarial tables.

For those that do smoke, stop taxing the product, since there are no 'costs' born by society, after all the laws, ya know. If they get a disease fuck em, it's the price of smoking.

 

[Said1]

ya--I know all the dark corners where smokers are allowed to indulge.

I know a few myself. Thank gawd they sell beer too.

 

[no1tovote4]

Nope, if you don't smoke, your company's insurance rates are raised because of the smokers. In 'corporate' they don't ask who does and doesn't, they assume.

If your company provides life insurance, same thing. Now if individuals pay for it, they can ask and charge 'appropriate' premiums.

Bottom line, 'smokers are being blamed from all fronts.' That's cool. Just saying that cut them loose, stop blaming them. If they quit for 5 years, let them be counted as non-smoking and figured into the actuarial tables.

For those that do smoke, stop taxing the product, since there are no 'costs' born by society, after all the laws, ya know. If they get a disease fuck em, it's the price of smoking.

How very Randian! I like it!

 

[Annie]

How very Randian! I like it!

Thank you. I keep telling you all, at heart I'm a Libertarian, it's they that have let me down.

 

[no1tovote4]

Thank you. I keep telling you all, at heart I'm a Libertarian, it's they that have let me down.

They've let us all down by never compromising to reality and actually working to win elections on any regular basis.

 

[Annie]

They've let us all down by never compromising to reality and actually working to win elections on any regular basis.

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

 

[Democrat4Bush]

One more example of the government taking away your rights, one at a time.

 

[Trigg]

Just a pet peeve cause I smoke. Lawyers supposedly proved that cigarette manufacturers manipulated the amout of nicotine in cigarettes to hook users. If you buy the reasoning behind the legal argument (which was won), then the "victims" were the smokers however smokers didn't receive one dime of this settlement. The general public now benefits financially from vices ( smoking, drinking etc) and loves to complain about the behavior but loves the income they get from it too much to ban it outright.

I absolutally hate smoking, I've been trying to get my dad to quit since I was 8 or 9 (my sister and I used to put water on them so he'd have to buy more). That didn't turn out to be a good idea, it just got us in trouble.

I'm not for anti-smoking law though, the gov. getting involved is just to big-brother for me. Also, the smoking industry states right on the box that smoking is bad for you. They didn't used to do this, but anyone my age or younger who startes smoking knows the risks (or should) and they shouldn't be able to sue for lung disease.

 

[archangel]

Being a former regular smoker...now I only smoke occassionally..there are pros and cons to this issue...I have told my kids to never start...and they haven't...however smoking as linked to lung cancer is just a theory...many examples of life long smokers who never became a statistic to this disease...one prominent person is George Burns who smoked many cigars every day of his life and lived to be 99years young...and there are examples of non smokers who were never exposed to second hand smoke and got lung cancer!
I agree it is a bad habit as it does limit ones lung capacity and is generally not a good habit to take on! But to deny those who wish to continue is just plain exaggeration basing cancer as the main reason...when in fact this is just a theory...and some studies have come to the conclusion that smoking has a postive effect on persons with alzheimers...it slows the process and in theory staves off this disease...is it annoying to those who do not smoke..the answer is yes...but so is overly perfumed bodies as well as those with cronic BO! So in all reality cancer is a individual disease in my opinion it is already in the persons genetic makeup regardless of what they do or not do... Maybe this whole issue is comming from those who want their habit...'cannibus' legalized this is why they are attacking the smokers...jealousy eh!

ps: and for the jokesters who are surely comming...NO I do not have alzheimers...so your joke is dead before ya start!

 

[GotZoom]

Being a former regular smoker...now I only smoke occassionally..there are pros and cons to this issue...I have told my kids to never start...and they haven't...however smoking as linked to lung cancer is just a theory...many examples of life long smokers who never became a statistic to this disease...one prominent person is George Burns who smoked many cigars every day of his life and lived to be 99years young...and there are examples of non smokers who were never exposed to second hand smoke and got lung cancer!
I agree it is a bad habit as it does limit ones lung capacity and is generally not a good habit to take on! But to deny those who wish to continue is just plain exaggeration basing cancer as the main reason...when in fact this is just a theory...and some studies have come to the conclusion that smoking has a postive effect on persons with alzheimers...it slows the process and in theory staves off this disease...is it annoying to those who do not smoke..the answer is yes...but so is overly perfumed bodies as well as those with cronic BO! So in all reality cancer is a individual disease in my opinion it is already in the persons genetic makeup regardless of what they do or not do... Maybe this whole issue is comming from those who want their habit...'cannibus' legalized this is why they are attacking the smokers...jealousy eh!

ps: and for the jokesters who are surely comming...NO I do not have alzheimers...so your joke is dead before ya start!

Hey Arch...check it out:

http://www.harmonize.com/PROBE/aids/manual/punctuate.htm

 

[archangel]

Hey Arch...check it out:

http://www.harmonize.com/PROBE/aids/manual/punctuate.htm

then again I never claimed to be a English major...carry on zoom..your on a usual boring roll!

 

[GotZoom]

then again I never claimed to be a English major...carry on zoom..your on a usual boring roll!

Oh. Ok.

Ouch.

Yawn.

 

[Shattered]

then again I never claimed to be a English major...carry on zoom..your on a usual boring roll!

Should be...

"Again, I never claimed to be an English major. Carry on, Zoom. You're on your usual boring roll."

 

[Shattered]

And that, my dear, is not "English major" material.

That's 4th grade grammar.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Should be...

"Again, I never claimed to be an English major. Carry on, Zoom. You're on your usual boring roll."

Actually there should be a comma between usual and boring, or you should say "usual and boring" one or the other.

Alternatively, for added spice and flare, throw in a semicolon!

"Again, I never claimed to be an English major. Carry on, Zoom; you're on your usual, boring roll."