BillsNYC Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Lately, I've been noticing a lot of anti-tobacco ads on tv, most notably the TRUTH ads that have anti-cigarette protests in front of a tobacco company headquarters (Which living in NYC I recognize the building as the Philip Morris Headquarters.) These ads are really starting to annoy me, and I’m now starting to side with the tobacco companies. First off, I never smoked cigarettes and never will. I can’t stand cigarettes and hate when people light up around me. I do smoke cigars but only occasionally and its either in my home or a cigar lounge. However, I don’t care that people smoke cigarettes. If they want to smoke a butt and risk lung cancer then that’s their problem. Since the New York ban on cigarettes kicked in, I’ve had almost no contact with people smoking, which has been nice. If people need to smoke, they can do it outside or in the privacy of their homes. That’s their choice, as its their choice to smoke. Alcohol is just as, and maybe more dangerous than tobacco, yet nobody protests the banishment of that. Or even automobiles… Tobacco companies choose not to advertise on TV (they can, but then anti-tobacco companies can legally advertise the same amount which is why they don’t), they don’t advertise to children, and aren’t half as aggressive as they were 20 years ago. They have had to deal with ridiculous amounts of taxes, their products being banned from all public indoor places and events, and an onslaught of negative press. I think the tobacco companies have done more than their share in warning people about the potential problems their products carry, and have complied with all of the laws against them. In the end, its up the PEOPLE whether they want to smoke or not. These TRUTH ads should focus on THEM, not the companies. The tobacco companies simply provide a product, its up to the people to buy and use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 OK, This is VERY strange... maybe it's a Monday, but... I agree with you completely. If I want to smoke a pack a day, or eat cannolis every day, 365 days a year, or not exercise, then that's ME, and no commercial will EVER be needed to 'educate' me when I should be SMART enough to figure these things out!! All this said, I have NO PITY for the smoker whatsoever, because that second hand smoke can't be justified. Smoking is a luxury, and it's taxed appropriately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 While the "personal choice" argument you both cite is powerful, the counter to that argument is that the "personal" choice to smoke, drink, or over-eat becomes a social problem in the aggregate when your and a million others' personal choices cause health care and other costs to go up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 OK, This is VERY strange... maybe it's a Monday, but... I agree with you completely. If I want to smoke a pack a day, or eat cannolis every day, 365 days a year, or not exercise, then that's ME, and no commercial will EVER be needed to 'educate' me when I should be SMART enough to figure these things out!! All this said, I have NO PITY for the smoker whatsoever, because that second hand smoke can't be justified. Smoking is a luxury, and it's taxed appropriately. 217060[/snapback] I figured it'd be a topic that the usually enemies could agree on and allies disagree on! If a person wants to a cancer stick in their own privacy...fine...laws are in place to allow that to happen without affecting me. Tobacco companies are not to fault, people are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Sadly, Americans need villians. Jews, African-Americans and others have been cast as such. Today, it is the cigarette smoker. Non-smokers always had the right whether or not to choose to enter a privately owned bar. Owners were free to open non-smoking establishments. Now, corrupt politicians have taken this right away from legit business people who own the property. Mark it down....tailgates will soon be a thing of the past. Drinking alcohol on stadium property will be banned, as will barbecues, whereas charcoal fumes are harmful, and the smell of burning flesh offends militant vegetarians. The ironic part is that imo, the whining leftists who purport such bans rarely go to bars nor football games. It is just another form of left wing behavioral control, which the dumb masses follow like blind sheep. One day, the masses will wake up and see something THEY enjoy banned by the left, but it will be too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 Sadly, Americans need villians. Jews, African-Americans and others have been cast as such. Today, it is the cigarette smoker. Non-smokers always had the right whether or not to choose to enter a privately owned bar. Owners were free to open non-smoking establishments. Now, corrupt politicians have taken this right away from legit business people who own the property. Mark it down....tailgates will soon be a thing of the past. Drinking alcohol on stadium property will be banned, as will barbecues, whereas charcoal fumes are harmful, and the smell of burning flesh offends militant vegetarians. The ironic part is that imo, the whining leftists who purport such bans rarely go to bars nor football games. It is just another form of left wing behavioral control, which the dumb masses follow like blind sheep. One day, the masses will wake up and see something THEY enjoy banned by the left, but it will be too late. 217099[/snapback] You say its soley left wingers....I don't know if I agree with that. I think its a mix of extreme left and right wingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 While the "personal choice" argument you both cite is powerful, the counter to that argument is that the "personal" choice to smoke, drink, or over-eat becomes a social problem in the aggregate when your and a million others' personal choices cause health care and other costs to go up. 217080[/snapback] Gay (and/or hetro) anal sex is said to be unhealthy and a way of developing AIDS. Should this too be banned, or would this conflict with the leftist agenda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 You say its soley left wingers....I don't know if I agree with that. I think its a mix of extreme left and right wingers. 217110[/snapback] Certainly there are right wing sellouts, but most of this is from the left. In Nassau County, the vote was 8-7 on straight party lines, with the dems having the 8 votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 The ironic part is that imo, the whining leftists who purport such bans rarely go to bars nor football games. 217099[/snapback] Is it possible that they rarely went to bars due to the smoking, and that now that the ban is in place they are now frequenting these places? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Is it possible that they rarely went to bars due to the smoking, and that now that the ban is in place they are now frequenting these places? 217123[/snapback] Business is down in NYS bars. This is a fact. you will see varying stats, but only when restaurants are included. To answer your question, yes, it is possible in individual cases. So what? Does this make it OK to strip property owners of their rights? There are Biker bars, gay bars, S&M bars, strip clubs, etc. All of this is OK but smoking in a bar is not. Is this what you are saying? When, and I do mean WHEN barbecues and alcohol are banned at football games, say goodbye to the Buffalo Bills. How will you feel then? Do you think that vegetarians will come out and fill the seats? Wow, you really are a politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Sadly, Americans need villians. Jews, African-Americans and others have been cast as such. Today, it is the cigarette smoker. Non-smokers always had the right whether or not to choose to enter a privately owned bar. Owners were free to open non-smoking establishments. Now, corrupt politicians have taken this right away from legit business people who own the property. Mark it down....tailgates will soon be a thing of the past. Drinking alcohol on stadium property will be banned, as will barbecues, whereas charcoal fumes are harmful, and the smell of burning flesh offends militant vegetarians. The ironic part is that imo, the whining leftists who purport such bans rarely go to bars nor football games. It is just another form of left wing behavioral control, which the dumb masses follow like blind sheep. One day, the masses will wake up and see something THEY enjoy banned by the left, but it will be too late. 217099[/snapback] You got it, buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 You got it, buddy. 217134[/snapback] AD, the American left is a sickening bunch of intolerant whiners. Years ago, in the McGovern era, "liberals" would be up in arms against rights being taken away. Today, they choose to use the word "freedom" only when it applies to their own narrow view of a pie in the sky utopian world. Do you think I will get an answer about "banning" anal sex? Of course not. It might inconvenience their constituents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Business is down in NYS bars. This is a fact. you will see varying stats, but only when restaurants are included. To answer your question, yes, it is possible in individual cases. So what? Does this make it OK to strip property owners of their rights? There are Biker bars, gay bars, S&M bars, strip clubs, etc. All of this is OK but smoking in a bar is not. Is this what you are saying? When, and I do mean WHEN barbecues and alcohol are banned at football games, say goodbye to the Buffalo Bills. How will you feel then? Do you think that vegetarians will come out and fill the seats? Wow, you really are a politician. 217132[/snapback] I didn't say it was right. I was just posing a question. Touchy, aren't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I didn't say it was right. I was just posing a question. Touchy, aren't we? 217142[/snapback] Yes, and I sincerely apologize. This is a topic that goes right through me. It may seem like BS, but I view it as deprivation of the rights of property owners, with radical, dictatorial leftists cheering on the sidelines. Again, I am sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Do you think I will get an answer about "banning" anal sex? Of course not. It might inconvenience their constituents. 217139[/snapback] I must be masochistic but I will respond. Your "anal sex" rebuttle (pun intended) was unresponsive. Show me the data that links anal sex with soaring health care costs or any other social costs (and your view of anal sex, homosexuality, and HIV is 20 years outdated). Smoking and the aggregate health toll has been directly linked to soaring health care, medicaid, and other costs. This is a credible argument that you can't simply dismiss with a not-so-clever anal sex analogy. By the way, I also think the "personal choice" argument you site is also powerful, but I do not think the personal freedom of a person to harm themselves outwieghs the aggregate costs. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 How did this go from tobacco to butt sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I must be masochistic but I will respond. Your "anal sex" rebuttle (pun intended) was unresponsive. Show me the data that links anal sex with soaring health care costs or any other social costs (and your view of anal sex, homosexuality, and HIV is 20 years outdated). Smoking and the aggregate health toll has been directly linked to soaring health care, medicaid, and other costs. This is a credible argument that you can't simply dismiss with a not-so-clever anal sex analogy. By the way, I also think the "personal choice" argument you site is also powerful, but I do not think the personal freedom of a person to harm themselves outwieghs the aggregate costs. Just my opinion. 217152[/snapback] Bro, do you remember the gay male stewardess (I think he was French, or French Canadian) ? He alone was blamed for starting an epidemic of AIDS. Certainly you are not stating that anal sex (condom or not) is not a health risk, are you? Please, consult ANY physician in the world and ask if he or she thinks it is "safe." Also, one who engages in this might also expose their next sexual partner. Can't you please see whereI am going, even if you disagree? That said....guess what? I am NOT in favor of such a ban! People take chances in life. They make dumb decisions too, but stripping away rights from property owners, or in the above case all citizens is NOT the answer. What would be wrong with signs OUTSIDE of a bar indicating "Smoking" or "Non Smoking?" What is the problem with this? Donald Trump, should he so desire, is NOT allowed to smoke in his office in his building because people work there. Bars in NYC are searched, and the owners are cited for "Ashtray Possession." You seem to be open minded. Are you really FOR this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I must be masochistic but I will respond. Your "anal sex" rebuttle (pun intended) was unresponsive. Show me the data that links anal sex with soaring health care costs or any other social costs (and your view of anal sex, homosexuality, and HIV is 20 years outdated). Smoking and the aggregate health toll has been directly linked to soaring health care, medicaid, and other costs. This is a credible argument that you can't simply dismiss with a not-so-clever anal sex analogy. By the way, I also think the "personal choice" argument you site is also powerful, but I do not think the personal freedom of a person to harm themselves outwieghs the aggregate costs. Just my opinion. 217152[/snapback] Yeah, AIDS/STDs are inherently cheap - which explains why the government funds research nearly on par with cancer. It's apparently easy to ignore the epic proportions it's reached in 3rd world countries. BTW, we need people to die a little earlier so LME can be right about Social Security not being in crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Bro, do you remember the gay male stewardess (I think he was French, or French Canadian) ? He alone was blamed for starting an epidemic of AIDS. Certainly you are not stating that anal sex (condom or not) is not a health risk, are you? Please, consult ANY physician in the world and ask if he or she thinks it is "safe." Also, one who engages in this might also expose their next sexual partner. Can't you please see whereI am going, even if you disagree? 217177[/snapback] Gaeten Dugas. French-Canadian. And falsely blamed, as it turned out...he was the index case, "patient zero", on one of the first epidemiological studies done on the disease, and as it turns out the one that first proved it was a transmissable disease and not an enviromental one. Some reporter got a hold of a picture of a rough draft of the chart for the study that still had his name on it, published it...and Dugas was subsequently blamed for the whole American epidemic. Not that he helped...he was one of those select few in the studies that, when asked for their lifetime number of sexual partners, needed a calculator to figure out the answer. AND he was a first-class !@#$ who purposely infected several dozens of men after he was diagnosed. But he didn't "cause" the epidemic... And yes, he did it by putting his pecker into other guys' anuses...which is, by the way, illegal as a homosexual or heterosexual act in most states already as the laws on the books go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Gaeten Dugas. French-Canadian. And falsely blamed, as it turned out...he was the index case, "patient zero", on one of the first epidemiological studies done on the disease, and as it turns out the one that first proved it was a transmissable disease and not an enviromental one. Some reporter got a hold of a picture of a rough draft of the chart for the study that still had his name on it, published it...and Dugas was subsequently blamed for the whole American epidemic. Not that he helped...he was one of those select few in the studies that, when asked for their lifetime number of sexual partners, needed a calculator to figure out the answer. AND he was a first-class !@#$ who purposely infected several dozens of men after he was diagnosed. But he didn't "cause" the epidemic... And yes, he did it by putting his pecker into other guys' anuses...which is, by the way, illegal as a homosexual or heterosexual act in most states already as the laws on the books go... 217222[/snapback] I have no knowledge of how many states consider sodomy illegal (but I have a weird feeling that YOU do). !) Do you favor these laws? 2) Should they be strictly enforced? 3) Go back to being a cop in the "Anti-Drew" Police Department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts