If you drink alcohol, you lose all your progressive cred

[mongo]

Alcohol is the #1 factor in domestic violence. If you drink, you promote an industry which actively contributes to violence against women.

Alcoholism is a disease which has a great impact on society through costs to the criminal justice system, medical insurance costs, car insurance costs, etc.

And the liqueur companies give big donations to Republicans too.

:sarcasm:

Just trying to counter the anti-smoking crap that's been prolific on DU all week.

[ComerPerro]

1. why is it that gun nuts and smokers are so bad at analogies?

[seabeyond]

4. is this better. my post from another thread about suv's being dangerous for cars

wait a minute. they put others at risk. i am suppose to trash smokers

vilify them, criminalize them, call them non progressive, speak as ugly to a smoker as my imagination will allow cause after all, agenda driven, bias reports suggest people sucking in second hand smoke are dropping like flies

but

i am suppose to understand there are reasons for suvs, a person gets to make an individual choice and not harbor hard feelings toward them even though they may put my family, my children in absolutely real time dangers way

i see

good thing i am that good and can do it, with out resentment and take precautions to lessen the risk to my children.

[ComerPerro]

24. I have the same regard towards SUVs and smoking

drive your SUV someplace where its necessary. You know, places prone to a foot of snow, the mountains and desert (sp), your farm, off-road, an African safari...

Smoke somewhere that won't bother other people. Your house, outside the office, after dinner while walking to your car, etc.


Don't buy an SUV if you just wanna haul your kids' soccer team around the suburbs, and keep your smoke out of my face.

[seabeyond]

41. so for you putting other peoples kids in danger (small car drivers)

is ok when you warrant it is ok to own an suv. kinda like the person that says abortion is murder except rape incest and health of mother. it is all or none. we dont get to decide endangering or murdering is ok only when we decide what situation. nope, yours is hypocrisy. i am at least consistant in accepting others allowed to make choices.

[ComerPerro]

no, see, its not at all.the case.

had you read my post you would have seen times in which an SUV was necessary. No children in danger in that case.

And by the way, just because you are too stupid to understand my post doesn't make me a hypocrite.

[seabeyond]

58. a suv is more risk for car drivers.

that is my point of my post. you are against suv if people use them to tote kids around, but are ok with them if there is snow. really has nothing to do with the dangers to other drivers, does it. which is what my post was about. so suggesting i am stupid because i dont understand your post is wrong. i do understand. your post had nothing to do with mine. you are not even judging suv drivers about the dangers to those in small cars, only how and why they use the things.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

63. i am the moron for you resorting to name calling every post. hmmm

what a clever dude you are

[ComerPerro]

65. you wanted the fight, you got it

[seabeyond]

70. nah... i dont fight. might be for you, but not my thing. so..... you justify

your name calling, dont acknowledge or own, shifting the blame to me wanting a fight. just laughing my ass off

[ComerPerro]

74. choose: you either don't understand what you read, or you willfully misinterpret just for a point

[seabeyond]

79. third option.... or i see authoratarian behavior n/t

[ComerPerro]

84. you're the one who says SUVs murder children, remember

[seabeyond]

93. studies show...... but... i am also consistant in saying that one has the

individual and personal right to chose an suv. and that though it may put my family in more risk, it is my responsibility to be more cautious to keep my family safe, and not put the ownership on the suv driver.

[ComerPerro]

95. yeah, and I said that most people have no need for an SUV

just like people don't "need" to smoke indoors in public places

[Totallybushed]

7. 'Cause

you disagree with them. Doesn't mean the analogies don't hold up, though. Alcohol, for instance, has destroyed far more lives than cigarettes. Nobody ever killed someone in a car wreck 'cause he was under the influence of nicotine. Nobody ever beat his wife to death in a nicotine-induced rage.

Alsohol causes diseases just as cigarettes do. Tobacco is a mood-altering drug, no question. Alcohol is a mind-altering one. Cigarettes bad does not mean alcohol good, nor the reverse.

[L A Woman]

15. but alcohol doesn't make my clothes stink...

when I walk by someone who's drinking it. And alcohol is fine, even healthy, in moderation. You are talking about alcoholISM, which is different topic altogether. Cigarettes are not healthy in moderation. One puff is bad.

yeah...really bad analogies.

[Totallybushed]

17. Cigarettes are not healthy in moderation. One puff is bad

Bullshit!!

It takes a lot more cigarettes to kill you than it does alcohol, which could be just a few drinks by a driver you don't even know.

[sinkingfeeling]

25. Guess you've never had a frat boy spill beer on your clothes, uh?

[ComerPerro]

27. yeah, cause beer just fills up the entire air around you, doesn't it?

[sinkingfeeling]

115. Yes, I can't stand the smell of beer, much less the taste.

[ComerPerro]

117. then what the fuck are you doing in a bar in the first place?

[sinkingfeeling]

136. Having a scotch on the rocks.

[dubykc]

29. You don't need to be an alcoholic (alcoholISM) to cause...

the violence and destruction mentioned in the other post. The analogy stands fine.

[ComerPerro]

26. Well, ok, so I get it. The roles are reversed

so, just as defenders of smoking argue these points, I guess I have to defend drinking.

No one can prove that people who are killed in accidents involving drunk drivers wouldn't have died in a car crash anyway. And no one can prove that people who abuse while drunk are doing so because of the alcohol. They might have been abusers anyway.

Sounds uninformed and lame and a bit offensive, doesn't it?

Exactly.

[mongo]

33. And anyone who smokes whould have died anyway too

So what's your point?

[ComerPerro]

56. that is the point. I mean, why is driving while drunk illegal?

[Totallybushed]

38. Yes, and no one

can prove that the muggee that was killed wouldn't have been killed by a drunk driver before he got home, either. But what we DO know is what killed him.

Death by drunken driver is immediate and there is no room for alternative explanations. Diseases are complex, and while cigarettes are definitely a contributing cause, there are many others, and there is some room for ambiguity as to the case in any individual instance. Lot's of people smoke for 60 yearss and die in hunting accidents or something.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending either smoking or drinking. I drink a beer a day at supper, and a whiskey on Saturday night before bed. I don't smoke at all. Tried cigarettes, but, like Bill Clinton, I didn't inhale. So I got little enjoyment from them as they taste like dirt., IMO. I will smoke a fine cigar once every 2-3 years, when I have something to celebrate.

On the other hand, I think all the Mrs. Grundys of the world, no longer able to moralize about sex, have taken up the cause of banning smoking, and they must be stopped.

[mondo joe]

45. You're citing things that are already illegal. No one accepts alcohol as an

excuse to break the law.

[Totallybushed]

51. You seem to

be prone to stray from the point, and now I have lost yours, if you care to explain it. OOOh, he broke the law!! We can't accept that, but the victim is still dead. And the alcohol was a significant contributing factor.

Drinking isn't against the law. Neither is smoking.

[mondo joe]

53. No, neither is against the law. But there are - and will be - laws intended

to limit or prevent the impact of both on others.

For example, laws against driving drunk. Laws agaist smoking in restaurants and bars.

[Totallybushed]

64. I never understood

the "bar" restriction. That's what people go to bars to do. That and drink.

My idea is to let restaurants and bars set their own rules. some would choose to allow smoking, some would not. Then people could decide for themselves what risks they were willing to run, and which establishments they would patronize. It is only the terminally selfish, those who feel they should not be inconvenienced at all by anybody, who are so insistent that EVERYWHERE must suit their own prejudices and EVERYONE must conform to their own ideals.

[mondo joe]

73. I dunno - I thought bars were by definition primarily in the business

of selling alcoholic beverages. Smoking is not necessary to that.

[Totallybushed]

76. No, but lot's

of people who do one also like to do the other. It's called "relaxation"

[mondo joe]

80. And there are people who drink who feel they can drive just fine.

Again, I have no objection to people doing what they like to their own body. But I also respect the right of the people to limit those damages TO their own bodies through legislation.

[Totallybushed]

90. However, it

can be shown that every single one of them is an idiot, not to mention worng. It has been shown that alcohol dulls the intellect and the reflexes. It can be shown that alcohol causes accidents, and I do not understand your imperviousness to facts.

[ComerPerro]

54. yeah but the drunk might have been in the same accident while sober

[Totallybushed]

66. Probably

not, though. We're not talking alternate realities.

[ComerPerro]

67. but you can't prove it

[Totallybushed]

71. I don't have to.

It didn't happen. Your mother might have aborted you, but it didn't happen, and here you are. Al Gore might have had a few more votes counted in Florida, and we wouldn't even have DU.

I can prove that alcohol is disproportionately involved in accidents, and so can you. Get on-line, do some research.

[ComerPerro]

75. yeah. exactly. And that'smy point. Smokers are full of shit

[Totallybushed]

78. Two points.

1) I don't smoke.

2) The power of your reasoning overwhelms poor little ole me.

[ComerPerro]

81. you must not frequent smoking threads

basically, one common argument of smokers is that you can't really prove that smoking causes lung cancer or emphysema, because they have relatives who smoke and still live to be 100, or, conversely, they know people who don't smoke and still die, sometimes of lung cancer, at 35.

[Totallybushed]

96. No,

I believe that smoking contributes to lung cancer. The statistics are overwhelming. But that is a choice that people make. And they are entitled to do so. "Second-hand" smoke, though, the evidence is much shakier. Even so, there should be public areas for smokers that the prudish among us cannot touch them at. Public parks, for instance. If a smoker is near you, move the Hell away.

[ComerPerro]

110. And if the person next to you in the movie theater decides to whip it out and start wanking...

You have no right to complain or have him kicked out.

Just move.

so what if his behavior is rude and inappropriate? So what if you were there first.

Just move.

[Totallybushed]

132. And you know what?

That's what I would do. If I were in an XXX-rated movie house.

You see my point. There are movie houses for people with that kind of jones, why shouldn't there be restaurants that welcome smokers? What, exactly, is unreasonable about that?

[mondo joe]

42. Alcohol in moderation has health benefits. Do cigarettes?

Thank you.

[mongo]

47. 1 in 10 people who drink will become alcoholics

If you are so concerned with the life choices other people make, then why not go after alcohol too?

It worked so well in the 1920's you know.

[mondo joe]

52. I'm not. I don't care who gets addicted - it's their responsibility.

I only care about the impact on bystanders.

[Totallybushed]

48. So what if they don't?

People enjoy them.

You do believe in freedom of choice, don't you? Smokers are mature adults, perfectly able to make decisions concerning what risks they are willing to take. Or should we ban mountain-climbing (big story this week), surfing, football, skiing, skate-boarding, and other dangerous activities, too?

Just asking.

[mondo joe]

50. Oh, but I do believe in freedom of choice. Ithink you should be free to smoke,

to use heroin, to get abotrions as often as you like, to have any sex you can get any other adult(s) to agree to and so on.

Sincerely.

My only problem is when those decisions impact standers by.

[Totallybushed]

57. All those

decisions DO impact standers by, including the ones I mentioned. Rescuers risking, and sometimes losing their lives, for example, or kids left fatherless because their dad wanted to climb a mountain with his buds, or breaks his neck doing something physical.

EVERYTHING we do impacts somebody, and the debate is what is an acceptable risk and what is not.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

82. how is this analogy incorrect?

drunk drivers do kill people

alcohol abuse causes many deaths

alcoholics are a threat to other people (aggression, lowered inhibitions etc)

alcohol causes people to do things they would normally not have done (cant be said of smoking)

etc..

so i fail to understand why we cant compare these addictions

[ComerPerro]

85. Here's the thing.

All the times I have consumed alcohol, I have never once driven drunk or abused anyone in any way.

However, every time someone smokes in a bar, it fills the atmosphere and reaches those around them.

[Totallybushed]

98. Fills the atmosphere around them.

Wow. And they are frozen in place, and can't move! I'm impressed by the evilness of it all.

Can we ban loud rap music in cars? Driving through a quiet neighborhood, playing that disgusting shit at maximum volume with the windows down. That's a ban I could get behind.

[ComerPerro]

107. point is, smoking affects everyone around you.

would you support my right to set off a smoke bomb in a restraunt or a bar?

And, as for your bit about loud rap music, guess what, asshole...

Just about every private business will toss your rude ass out if you come in and blast loud music and disrupt others.

[Totallybushed]

130. My goodness,

personal attacks. What will happen next?

A cigarette is a long, long way from a smoke-bomb. Can't you tell the difference? I mean, really now, the equivalence is totally lacking.

As for the rap crap. I don't think I mentioned any private businesses. What I think I mentioned is driving down public streets blaring offensive, racist, sexist, scatological shit out for anybody to be disturbed, offended, and/or harmed by. You do see the difference, right?

[ComerPerro]

133. last time i checked you can smoke in the streets too

[Totallybushed]

134. Try again next week.

They're trying to eliminate that, too. In fact I read recently that SF, I believe that it was, was considering, or had passed an ordinance against smoking in public parks. And wdhat about the facist yahoos that want to prevent people from smoking in their own apartments because the merest hint of smoke might waft their way. :rofl: :banghead:

Besides, you avoided my question. What is wrong with restaurants that welcome smokers and any not fundamentalist non-smokers? You can easily avoid them just by learning to read the signs on the door.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

108. You haven't, but others have.

And I've never seen a nicotine-induced fight or nicotine-induced erratic driving.

[ComerPerro]

111. I've seen plenty of nicotine induced illness though

[Starbucks Anarchist]

113. Yes, but that hurts the smoker himself.

My point is that alcohol can lead to direct harm to others (drunk driving, assault, etc.) based on one incident.

Generally, someone inhaling someone else's cigarette smoke (barring a severe lung condition, etc.) will not be severely harmed.

[ComerPerro]

116. It hurts others more than you probably care to realize

[Starbucks Anarchist]

119. Want to expand on that?

I guarantee you, in 99% of cases, someone drunk is far more dangerous than someone smoking.

[ComerPerro]

121. Have a friend with sever asthma who we almost had to take to emergency room once

because a couple of people lit up in a rather small and very non-smoking room. The guy literally could barely breathe. When he started coughing bad, we asked them to stop smoking, they told us to fuck off.

Yeah, smokers are great people.

BTW, that was almost a nicotene induced fight right there.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

122. Clearly, those smokers were representative of all smokers.

:eyes:

I personally would never light up in a non-smoking room, or around anyone I knew had a lung condition, so there goes your BS theory.

[ComerPerro]

123. and clearly, drunk drivers are representative of all drinkers, right?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

124. Nope, I never said that.

I said someone who is drunk can, on average, potentially cause more damage (compared to smokers) via drunk driving, assault, etc., because of the effects of alcohol -- NOT that all drinkers (myself included) are drunk drivers.

With the exception of what happened to your asthmatic friend and similar cases, most people are not at risk from a one-time exposure to other people's cigarettes or from the resultant behavior of smokers, as opposed to those drunk people (again, not all) who drive drunk or assault somebody because of the alcohol's effects.

[ComerPerro]

125. you are still saying it.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

126. No, I'm not.

:eyes:

[ComerPerro]

127. consider: I live in a college town. Thousands of people drink every weekend, all weekend.

Now, according to you, if these drinkers are all dangerous and potential drunk drivers, we should expect to see at least fifteen or twenty drunk driving accidents or fatalities each weekend.

But we don't.....

[Starbucks Anarchist]

128. Again, you miss the point.

I said someone who is drunk is more LIKELY to harm someone through their actions than someone who smokes, particularly if it's a one-time incident -- I never said that every drunk driver WOULD kill somebody.

Your asthmatic friend is an exception to the effects of one-time smoke exposure, but the other people sharing a road with a drunk driver are at a much greater risk of being harmed by that drunk driver-- far more than most people who are exposed to cigarette smoke -- that's my point -- cigarette smoke doesn't result in significant behavioral changes for the smoker, but alcohol sometimes does for the drinker, and the resultant actions of these particular drinkers who do choose to drive have a much greater potential effect upon others.

[ComerPerro]

129. I blow out smoke, I don't give a fuck where it goes, if you got a problem with it, go screw, right?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

131. Good god, man.

Did you miss my post where I said I personally would never light up in a non-smoking area or around someone with a lung condition?

I know you're blinded by anger, but at least learn to read properly.

[TAPat]

2. But, but , but

I drink AND smoke!

Man, better jump on the next handbasket to HELL :)

heehee

[Bake]

8. It's getting crowded in that handbasket!

:rofl:

Bake

[JHB]

3. You don't actually expect this do do anything, do you?

It never does. Come clean, you're just venting. Here, have one :beer:

[mongo]

14. Yeah, I'm venting

but anyone who agrees with the "you can't be progressive if you smoke" meme is a hypocrit.

[ananda]

5. oh please

Give me a break.

I drink organic red wine without sulfites... one glass a day.
I like it and it likes me. smiling smiley

[seabeyond]

11. i love red wine but the sulfites kill me and had to stop.

where do you get yours?

[jgraz]

6. "the liqueur companies give big donations to Republicans too"

Oh yeah -- I hear the Creme de Menthe lobby is pretty fuckin scary

[leftofthedial]

9. you smokers make me want to

well, cough.

[LynneSin]

10. You make about as much sense as an Ice Machine in the Arctic

:eyes:

Not all alcohol donates to repukes which is why I do not drink any of the mass-produced crap like Coors or Budweiser

[mongo]

16. Not all the tobacco companies donate to repukes either.

Ligget in particular gives to Dems.

If you can't see the analogy to the other thread, then you're a hypocrit.

[LynneSin]

34. Last time I checked

It's illegal for me to drive while under the influence and even in my state if it's less than than the legal limit (they call that buzzed driving)

It's also illegal for me to beat the crap out of someone whether sober or not.

But if you and I sat next to each other and I drank only and you smoked only, you would stink something fierce plus my allergies would kick in pretty major to the point I could barely keep my eyes open from all the watering whereas at least the only person being hurt by my drinking is my own liver.

[mongo]

43. Last time I checked

I can't smoke within 20 feet of the enterance to anywhere you might be sitting and drinking.

But some in the anti-smoking camp aren't satisfied with that.

Your liver costs me money through increased insurance costs.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mongo]

87. You're running out of coherant arguments

and are down to emotional pleas and name-calling.

And your smoking has cost us plenty including the life of my father and the health of my lungs from working in a restaurant where smoking was permitted. And we haven't even gotten into the medical costs of smoking!

Afaik, I have never been in a restuaurant you worked in, and if MY smoking killed your father, then every drink YOU ever had killed someone in a drunk driving accident. See the analogy now?

I am all for reasonable public restrictions on smoking - as are most smokers. thing is, it is all the rage to vilify smokers by saying the can't be progressive, and to try to ban smoking altogether, even outside or in your own home.

Why are your choices somehow worthy to be protected no matter what the cost to society, but my choices shouldn't have the same protections?

But go ahead and just reply and call me more names. So you don't repeat, here's the ones you used in the last post: disgusting, whine, baby, nasty, stupidity, fucked up, weak, pathetic, loser, filthy, bad.

Maybe if your choices were constantly vilified on DU tou would be starting threads too

[LynneSin]

88. What argument - just another smoker pissed because no one wants to smell that crap

What you do in your home & car is none of my business. What you do in public, no one should ever be forced to smell that stuff if they choose not to want to smell it. Just like no person should ever worry about getting behind the wheel of a car and worry if the person coming towards them is drunk off their ass.

Might as well get use to it because the smoking bans are pretty much going to get better (at least for us non-smokers)

[mongo]

99. No, you're just another hypocrite

who needs a group to hate, and smokers are a convenient target.

Where have I said I want to be able to smoke indoors in public in this thread?

But that will never be enough for some of our nanny-staters who will defend their own vices, but would outlaw others.

[LynneSin]

106. Who says I hate you

:shrug:

Some of my best friends are smokers. And they are the most considerate people around. Many of the great DUers I've met are smokers and yet I rarely see them starting or posting in these threads again, most considerate people.

There are two types of smokers - those who accept the fact that their smoke stinks and not really appreciated by non-smokers and those who think somehow the whole world against them and somehow they're being judged as horrible people. I never put you in that second group - you did.

And no one is keeping you in that group - enjoy smoking in the privacy of your home and car but appreciate that in public that there are many of us who do not want to smell it. And there must be plenty for the number of states & metropolitian areas that have enacted ban. You'd think if the smokers outnumbered us non-smokers these laws would go away

[trumad]

12. God, the rationalizations and the whining of some smokers is laughable

...

[mongo]

21. It's a valid analogy and you know it

Alchohol and Alchoholics do way more harm to other people than smokers do.

But "progressives" will line up around the block to hate smokers. I guess it's human nature. That's why right wing hate radio does so well.

[trumad]

I don't hate smokers but I do feel sorry for them...

Because I know deep down inside they know they are hurting themselves but can't stop....It's quite sad actually and even sadder when they continue to rationalize their destructive habit.

[Psephos]

28. A fascist is a fascist whether red or blue

I find the blue subspecies slightly more obnoxious because I think progressives should know better.

Good observations as usual, mongo.

Peace.

[The Deacon]

68. God The Whining & Rationalizations Of People Who Get Off

Telling other people how to live their lives are just laughable.

[Bake]

97. Gee, trumad, I thought you were offering us smokers an olive branch yesterday.

Today you're being one of the offensive anti-smokers.

Sigh.

Bake

[longship]

13. Dancing!!! If you dance, you lose all progressive cred.

Dancing puts one on the fast track to Hell.
No self respecting progressive would ever dance.
:evilgrin:

[porphyrian]

18. It's so irritating when people define themselves by excluding others...

Oh well, what're you gonna do?
:shrug:

[Double T]

19. Drinking red wine helps me live and cope with the bush administration's..........

destruction, failures and gross incompetence. And if THEY continue to rule much longer, I will take up smoking TOO!

[xultar]

32. Ditto and I'm sure I'll move on to crack.

[SacredCow]

20. OMG!!! You're DEFENDING Big Tobacco??????

:sarcasm:

Truly, I find much of the anti-smoking propaganda offensive and chock full of highly questionable statistics. That said, I'm looking forward to the new year since all local restaurants will have to be smoke-free unless they have a completely separate smoking room. It's not that I like seeing smokers' rights being trampled on, but at the same time I should have the right to go to a restaurant and not be sickened by 2nd hand smoke.

[BoneDaddy]

22. I realize this

is venting but it seems some folks want to replace the republican fascists with liberal fascists.

Growing real tired of the "perfect police" out there criticizing everything people do.

[johnnie]

23. I see the analogy, and agree with it

The vigilant anti-smoking crowd will not be able to think beyond their clothes smelling or trying to get plastered at a bar with all that damn smoke. It's hip to bash people addicted to nicotine these days.

[dubykc]

31. Indeed it is..the neo-prohibitionists certainly are vocal.

[LynneSin]

36. Why do you assume any of us drink are out at a bar getting shitfaced?

In the state of Delaware along with many other states, drink & driving is even harsher even if your blood-alcohol limit is below the legal limit. Although it is not illegal for a smoker to stand next to me trust me, if they're nearby I have to move because my allergies will start wheezing something fierce plus five minutes next to a smoker will make myself and clothing smell like I'm a smoker.

I mean if you're happy to smell like something dragged through an ashtray everyday, that's fine with me. I'd rather smell clean. Hell I'd rather smell a skunk or Body odor than being next to a smoker

[johnnie]

60. You don't think that *any* of you are out to get shitfaced?

And if you don't want to smell like smoke, then don't stand by a smoker. I don't like the smell of bad breath, baby's diapers, women who bathe in "perfume", fish, wet animals, speghettios, vanilla, pot smoke, old beer, moth balls, people's gas, body odor, car exhaust in the winter and more. But, the world doesn't spin around my ass and I have to accept that.

[LynneSin]

69. Once again another fucked up analogy

There are alot of things I don't like to smell either, hell my nose is one of the most sensitive ones out there. But unlike all those other things that are offensive and cigerette smoking is the fact that smoking produces a carcinogenic by-product that I prefer to not inhale.

So answer me this - who put a gun to your head and forced you to start smoking? Was it so you could look cool in front of your friends? So you could impress some chick? Or perhaps it was to rebel against your parents? No one forced you to take up the habit just like no one forced me to take up any of my bad habits. So if you're unhappy about the laws the perhaps you should consider quitting. I mean, you don't want to end up like my uncle, who had part of his jaw and tongue removed because of the effects of cigerette smoking. Or perhaps you prefer it like my father - he just died of it at age 41.

Something is bound to kill me out there but smoking-related illnesses are so fricking destructive.

So go ahead - light up another one, light up a dozen. Just because you want to kill yourself slowly doesn't mean I have to smell it!

[johnnie]

77. That's the problem with a lot of anti-smokers

You attack people who smoke like they are second hand citizens.

If this was a thread on any other "addiction" or disease, people wouldn't treat others this way.

Foe example if this was a thread about AIDS, I doubt very much I would see a post saying "who put a gun to your head and forced you to have unprotected sex? Was it so you could look cool in front of your friends? So you could impress some chick?"

"So go ahead - light up another one, light up a dozen. Just because you want to kill yourself slowly doesn't mean I have to smell it!"

I can 100% guarantee you that you have never smelled my smoke.

[mondo joe]

83. Of course AIDS doesn't surround people and cling to people standing

nearby.

[johnnie]

94. True

But it's the way that people treat others that pisses me off. The poster above has never smelled my personal smoke, but has no problem bitching at me for it because it is accepted. I was pointing out that smoking is an addiction, but it isn't an acceptable choice as other choices with bad results are.

[LynneSin]

86. Well did you read the title of the thread

I don't appreciate being yelled at because I've chosen to keep my lungs clean.

Again, with the dumbass analogy - I have said that to someone who insisted she wasn't at risk for getting AIDs and was having tons of unprotected sex with multiple partners. In this day and age, we have a good idea how to prevent AIDs so for anyone still insisting they want to go out there and have unprotected sex with someone they don't know - hell, that's what it is.

You're a second class citizen because you choose to smoke. I haven't kicked you out of anywhere, just asked you to please smoke elsewhere and yet once again we have another thread started by another person who doesn't get the fact that the bulk of the population doesn't want to breathing their secondhand smoke.

And I can guarentee that I will never smell your smoke because I very rarely go someplace where smoking is allowed indoors. You know, I had to watch a father and uncle go through smoking related illness, watching that was enough to make my chain-smoking grandmother & aunt give up smoking cold turkey. Have you ever seen someone die of lung cancer? It only took about 4 months and an 185lb pound man shivelled to about 90lbs as the cancer just ate him away. So don't mind me if I don't want to ever smell your smoke

[mongo]

92. You do realize this thread was a direct response to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2944097

[Bake]

101. Are we addicts or do we "choose" to smoke?

Which one is it today?

Bake

[LynneSin]

109. You can't become addicted to smoke if you never pick up a cigerette

And as far as I know, no one goes around forcing people to start the habit. And there isn't a school out there that teaches kids that smoking is fun and healthy to do. They start early on the anti-smoking stuff.

[Bake]

112. No one forces anyone to have unprotected sex, either, but they still do ...

Of course, they weren't as strong on the anti-smoking stuff when I picked up the first cigarette decades ago. It was considered COOL back then. (Or was it Kool?) Plus, parents were against it, so us kids were bound and determined to do it. And they advertised on TV back then too. And the Marlboro Man hadn't died of lung cancer then either.

So I guess it wasn't really a free "choice," huh. And now we're addicts.





Nahhhhhhhhhhh. I could quit if I wanted to. I just don't want to.

Bake

[LynneSin]

114. You're absolutely right - and I flamed a close friend of mine for doing so

I mean, in the begining of college we did it because at the time we thought AIDs was a 'Gay Disease' - hell we were stupidly misinformed. But by the end of college it was "No Glove No Love". Ten years after college I still had a college roommate who assumed because she was from a good upper-middle class home and hanging out with 'upper-middle class types' that she would be fine without using protection. We did a serious intervention with her.

[johnnie]

103. Who yelled at you?

:shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

30. I drink and I smoke while clubbing baby seals with a stick made by Project Rescue.

But seriously, folks.

I drink and smoke, often at the same time.

Anyone want to question my cred?

[mongo]

37. Exactly.

Except you forgot the part about watching porn -- that is what you meant by the reference to "clubbing your baby seal", right?

:toast:

[seabeyond]

102. "clubbing your baby seal", right?.... lamo.... ah hahha. right n/t

[youthere]

118. You still have cred. with me...

unless you bought the club at Wal-Mart.

[mondo joe]

35. Isn't it illegal to beat someone whether you are drunk or sober?

Just wondering.

[LynneSin]

39. Stop it - you're making too much sense

It's also illegal to beat someone while smoking.

Spousal abuse is not always related to alcoholism, drug use or smoking. Getting shitfaced & driving in the bar will result in a criminal sentance and possible jailtime. Smoking in a place where smoking is prohibitive is nothing more than a fine.

Just because there are assholes out there who still insist on driving while drunk doesn't mean the rest of us who enjoy an occasional glass of wine or cold beer are out there getting trashed off our asses at a bar each night. I was out last weekend with a friend. I knew she had a bad day and for some reason started drinking a bit more than what I was. I suggested I drive. Outside of the Don Patron I had before the concert start (which after 3 hours was pretty much through my system), I spent the night at the bar nursing a beer.

[DaveJ]

40. Smoking a a vice that other people see, unlike most

Who knows what non-smokers do. There are a lot of other vices and addictions, and nobody is perfect. I believe in duality.

[Dora]

44. But there is no duality. All is one.

We are all together.

[DaveJ]

49. There is no duality?

There is duality. In order to maintain balance people have a negative trait for every positive one.

Anyway, I know non-smokers who are self righteous yet they are riddled with STDs, for instance, an continue having unprotected sex. My wife's ex was a non-smoker, and he beat her regularly. Anyone who wants to judge others should be more forthright with their imperfections while they're at it.

[johnnie]

62. As I stated above

It is hip to bash smokers. And when most people are given the go-ahead to bash other people, they will jump on the chance. If they are trained to be sympathetic, they will, but as soon as they are told it's cool to bash others, then it's all systems go.

[Dora]

72. I apologize for the confusion.

I saw a moment and spoke. I apologize for not being clear. I was referring to the Zen belief (to which I do ascribe) in non-duality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonduality

IMO, we judge others because it reinforces our system of dualities, and these are sometimes rational, sometimes utterly dysfunctional and destructive. "If he is bad then I am good." "If you're a loser then I'm a winner." "I disagree with you so I am righter."

I'm not arguing with you, just showing a different side of the stone that everybody's kicking around today. We agree: self-reflection before judging others is essential.

[The Deacon]

46. Okay

I smoke.
I drive an SUV.
I watch hockey (and minor league hockey at that - much more violent than NHL.)
I have one beer (at the end of second period) when I watch hockey.
I don't own a gun or hunt, but don't object to those who do (provided they keep them away from small children & burglers.)
I eat red meat & have been known to leave a light on when no one is in the room.

But I consider myself a progressive. Why? Because fundamental to my personality is letting others live their lives pretty much as they see fit, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. Does this mean I think people should be allowed to smoke in bathrooms? No, because people have no choice as to whether they go into a bathroom or not. Same with offices. Do I think the Government has the right to ban smoking in restaurants? No, I happen to think that is an UnConstitutional extention of their power. If I own a restaurant where smoking is allowed & you are bothered by smoke then it is your perogative not to patronize my (privately owned) establishment. The current anti-smoking trend is nothing more than fascism disguised as public health.

Flame away, but realize that you are saying that you believe in freedom only sometimes, and only for some people.

[mongo]

104. You DID see the SARCASM tag, right???

we're on the same side here. This thread was in response to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2944097

[The Deacon]

120. Yeah

I was sorta supporting your point of view - that Progressives shouldn't be about judging other people, but about defending freedom.

[truebrit71]

55. I drink AND smoke...I must be a TERRIBLE progressive..

..except for that whole pesky, Liberal thing that guides my life...

:eyes:

[ProfessorGAC]

89. You Are. Next Question!

See how simple it is when we don't have to take a broader perspective? You smoke and drink and say it makes you a bad liberal, and i help you out by agreeing! Simple. Of course, since that requires a judgment on my part, that makes me a bad liberal too! Simple again! Nice, neat, two dimensions, and all.
The Professor

[JacksonWest]

91. Who cares?

What a stupid debate. It must be nice to have the requisite negative energy to attack people for smoking,drinking, driving an SUV...ect

There is nothing that we do in life that doesn't have some sort of negative consequence or crisis attached to it. All of this Utopia chasing is insane. If you truly want to live in a country where are actions are free of any consequence or negative cause, we'd have to nail ourselves into tiny boxes.

We are not going to ban smoking. We are not going to ban alcohol. We are not going to ban SUV's.

[cadmium]

100. Now I know that I am a liberal and not a progressive

I was wondering.

[Psephos]

135. Couldn't have said it better myself n/t

[Bake]

105. All this time I thought I was a Democrat!

Turns out I'm a Republican just because I smoke (oh, and because I drink, too?). Oh wait. You CAN drink and be a Democrat but you can't smoke.

Damn. I've really enjoyed being a Democrat. I guess I'll have to see if they'll take me in over at Freeperville.

Bake

[Moderator]

137. locking....

This is flamebait and a copycat thread.
Copycat threads are not allowed in the
GD forum.