Anti-Smoking Commercial

[Robert Hairless]

It's impossible to respect anyone who condemns so-called "secondhand smoke" from tobacco smoking but uses any form of transportation powered by an internal combustion engine.

Although people smoking cigarettes in a restaurant can be annoying, the fumes from even one automobile are immediately deadly in the same enclosed space and inevitably dangerous to us all who breathe the air outdoors after you've polluted it.

Object to the personal choice of other people to smoke in that restaurant all you want but when you go there in a car, taxi, or bus you have no credibility and become a hypocrite. You and others like you are responsible for spewing far more deadlier fumes into the atmosphere from your vehicles than smokers do from their cigarettes. Your pleasure jaunts do nothing I want but you force me to inhale the toxins you generate. I mind very much if you drive.

I am, however, a most reasonable person. I'll volunteer to sit in an enclosed garage that has no air conditioning while a cigarette burns steadily for an hour if someone who objects to cigarette smoke will take his or her turn in that same enclosed garage while one automobile engine runs for an hour.

Now to make this message gun related. I hope that none of the anti-smoking participants in this thread will ever use a firearm that spews fumes from its propellants or toxic metals from its projectiles into the atmosphere. Far worse than "secondhand smoke" from cigarettes is "secondhand lead" from bullets. Put away your guns before you criticize other people for their choices. You do nothing for me when you shoot your firearms. Find another hobby, one less dangerous to the environment and those of us who must share it with you.

In your face inevitably provokes the same.

 

[M1 Shooter]

Robert Hairless, good post.

I read that according to the EPA's own statistics, a smoker would have to smoke about a half pack a day for 40 years to equal the amount of pollution put out by the average car in just one day. Something to think about, huh?

The anti-smoking movement is just like the anti-gun movement. It is just another form of control.

For more information do a google search of "pro smoking". You will get a wealth of information and studies that refute all the anti-smoking propaganda and studies. You could just do a search on "smoking", but then you'd have to sort through all the anti-smoking stuff to get to the information I'm talking about.

 

[Prince Yamato]

You know, people smoked for YEARS in the old days and had nary the problems we do today. I think it's because of an inactive lifestyle. Europeans smoke as much as we do, but they walk more. I do not smoke myself, but I don't care that others do. It is an attack on personal liberties. I also miss the smoking culture. They had neat commercials. Go to YouTube and look up commercials for "Hamlet" Cigars from Britain. Pure genius.

BTW, some of you have mentioned that these commercials make you "want to smoke". A couple years ago the tobacco companies were involved in a billion dollar lawsuit and now they have to fund anti-smoking programs. My feeling is that they fund things like these, as they are reverse psychology. The "don't smoke" message annoys you so much, that you smoke.

It's like the painting "Ce n'est pas une pipe" by Magritte. Eventually, it just gets to you and you rebel against the message.

 

[230RN]

This is not a grain of salt

Actually, it looks like about 450 grains.

 

[JimmerJammerMrK]

Robert Hairless, that's an interesting post you made.

It's impossible to respect anyone who condemns so-called "secondhand smoke" from tobacco smoking but uses any form of transportation powered by an internal combustion engine.

Why? By stating the fact that ETS is harmful, I have somehow become impossible to respect? Of course I use an automobile; I couldn't get anywhere without one. I do not, however, deny the harmful effects of automobile exhaust. Yes, you read that correctly. I understand that exhaust fumes are deadly. I also understand that second hand smoke is deadly, and, for that matter, that firearms can be deadly. Two of these three items I use. I couldn't get to places I need to be in a reasonable amount of time without my truck. Shooting is fun, and I take steps (namely following the four rules) to ensure that any risk involved is minimized. I don't smoke as, for me personally, the consequences outweigh the benefits.

Now to make this message gun related. I hope that none of the anti-smoking participants in this thread will ever use a firearm that spews fumes from its propellants or toxic metals from its projectiles into the atmosphere. Far worse than "secondhand smoke" from cigarettes is "secondhand lead" from bullets. Put away your guns before you criticize other people for their choices. You do nothing for me when you shoot your firearms.

Nowhere did I criticize anyone. I've simply stated the facts. I've even said I'm not against smoking.

Please, for anyone who is going to respond negatively to my posts again, actually read the following (which I have stated before): My purpose in posting was not to condemn smokers to hell, nor do I believe that smoking is inherently "bad". I posted in response to one user's post which inferred that research done on the harmfulness of second hand smoke is "B.S."

The fact I want to get across is this: second hand smoke is dangerous. Period.

Now go smoke, shoot, and drive a car. I won't stop you, and I don't want to.

Find another hobby, one less dangerous to the environment and those of us who must share it with you.

Come on. That can't be the message we want to send on THR.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Thanks.

The trouble with people who know The Truth is that their little truths often turn out to be whatever magic they devise to serve their own agendas. Far too often the main agenda is to dominate and control other people.

When I was younger we tended to tolerate those evil wizards unless they got out of hand. Sometimes, as in the case of Adolf Hitler and the disciples of his magic, we waited much too long and had to work hard to get them back into the bottle. But for the most part we tried to accept other people's divergences and generally did not approve of extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan, America First, and assorted Little Endians and Big Endians. Now and for too many years, though, screwball extremism seems to have become the norm. These are the generations of the True Believers. The mark of social acceptance now seems to be the kind of tyrannical overreach that used to be the province of Hitler, the Klan, two year olds, and spoiled creatures that barely qualified as adults and then only chronologically. They were recognizably sociopaths then. Now they are all over the place and proud of it.

Of course the anti-smoking tyrants are exactly like the anti-gun bigots, the animal rights activists, and every other association of cranks, bigots, and tyrants whose feelings of self worth depend upon forcing their bizarre values on others.

If I mind very much that you smoke, it is my problem and not yours and the appropriate corrective is for me to remove myself as quietly as possible. In situations where such a corrective is impossible mutual compromise is appropriate. What is never appropriate is for any group to force its magical beliefs on others. Such behavior invites eruptions of sequential reprisals: I get you because you smoke, you get me because I shoot guns, we get each other over whatever other nutsy issue it is contrived by or for us. Such issues are contrived, and those issues fluctuate in a kind of rhythmic craziness.

There is no need for adults to become lunatics for the sake of social acceptance and the appeasement of whatever demons possess them. That is not a healthy way to live, not for the individual or for any society. When nutsy behavior becomes the norm, accepted and approved, society is in deep trouble. We need to get a grip on ourselves instead of trying to grab other people and shake them to pieces. The man who thinks he killed his wife by smoking in her presence has problems that can't be resolved by insisting that everyone share the guilt he assumes.

 

[Robert Hairless]

JimmerJammer ... I read your latest message after posting mine.

Perhaps I seem ungrateful for rejecting your facts and your judgments about the world, but the world you describe is yours and the facts you share are yours too. Your world has no relevance to mine. Yours no doubt is a comfortable world for you, centered as it is on you yourself. "Of course I use an automobile; I couldn't get anywhere without one," is a perfectly reasonable approach to such a world because it is the only available approach to it. Its benefit, of course, is that it will provide an inexhaustible supply of similar facts, judgments, and ways to measure what is useful.

Nevertheless, I have no respect for people who focus on the mote in other people's eyes while neglecting the beam in their own. That comment has no use in your world.

You could satisfy your need for transportation in many ways other than a truck. A horse would provide you with companionship as well as a conveyance, it would be a green approach, and certainly would decrease to some extent the depletion of the planet's fossil fuel supply. After its death you could flog it too. If it is only or mainly you in that truck, instead of driving it hither and yon you should consider using a bicycle. A bike is good for you in many ways. If you are incapable of using your muscles to power it, at least use a small car or share rides with your friends.

If you must satisfy your urges by striking things with projectiles, consider an air powered pistol that propels corks. Corks are a renewable resource and do not risk injury to others. It is true that they do not make loud noises but the desire for them is easily satisfied by saying "Bang!" each time, but not so loudly as to annoy the neighbors.

I am not criticizing you, of course, merely commenting and sharing great wisdom that would benefit you as yours benefits those to whom you address it. I'm appreciative of the glimpses you've given me into your world.

 

[JimmerJammerMrK]

Perhaps I seem ungrateful for rejecting your facts and your judgments about the world, but the world you describe is yours and the facts you share are yours too. Your world has no relevance to mine. Yours no doubt is a comfortable world for you, centered as it is on you yourself.

There's only one world, pal, and it's the one we all live in. Your meaningless comments about "my world" have no relevance to this thread. If you want to respond to something I've said, either make a logical argument against mine or agree with me. I'm done with the psycho-babble BS.

Here, I'll give you another chance if you'd like:

The fact I want to get across is this: second hand smoke is dangerous. Period.

If you have an argument that can refute that statement, by all means share it with us. If not, feel free to ramble on about whatever you want, but don't expect me to retract my statement because of your inability to form a coherent argument.

 

[Robert Hairless]

No no, JimmerJammer, I don't want to live in your world and you can't make me go further into it than these brief glimpses. There really are many worlds other than the one you've constructed for yourself. In your world it is sufficient for you to make assertions that are facts only because whatever you say is so. Non-acceptance of your facts is indeed psychobabble in your world because it just is and that's a fact for sure. I'm sure of it because you said so and you wouldn't say so if it werent so.

In your world you set the rules about what people must do before responding to you, even when they're not talking about you, and you determine what is acceptable in this forum and all sorts of other things too.

I'd bet that most people reading this thread can figure out why you don't think it's inconsistent to say that you knowingly pollute the atmosphere with deadly fumes from your truck but it's a "fact" that cigarette smoking is bad and not okay. Easy: you drive the truck but you don't smoke, and it's your world anyway, so you make the rules.

You illustrate the problem many of us are discussing. A lot of people impose their worlds on everyone else and don't tolerate violation of their rules.

I understand that you think there is only one world and that you know all about it. That's the problem. There are a great many worlds, though, and it's important for each of us not to impose our world on other people. Life is tough. It's much tougher when you don't get it.

Think seriously about the horse and the popgun. I won't insist that you get them. They would be much better for you, though, and that's a fact. I read it in one of the messages before this one so it's incontrovertible fact.

 

[Picknlittle]

Robert Hairless sez:

The trouble with people who know The Truth is that their little truths often turn out to be whatever magic they devise to serve their own agendas. Far too often the main agenda is to dominate and control other people.

Yessiree, on this here internet you can find any number of fruitcakes living in denial, using fictional rationale to support behaviors that are scientifically and medically proven to be wrong, using evidence that cannot intelligently be refuted. It seems Sir Robert, that this is where your truth lies.

You can jump on the hydro-carbon kick if you like, but fossil fueled transportation will be with us until we find a better alternative. I for one am a landscaper and lawn care professional. If I banned ICE powered equipment the cost of my services would skyrocket due to the increase in time and labor necessary. I can see me charging $200 for a $35 lawn. While I'm sure that you in your self sufficient, pioneer world, free of modern implements powered by fuel or electricity, tend to your own lawn, there are many who can't do for themselves, so there are people like me who do it for them.

I am, however, a most reasonable person. I'll volunteer to sit in an enclosed garage that has no air conditioning while a cigarette burns steadily for an hour if someone who objects to cigarette smoke will take his or her turn in that same enclosed garage while one automobile engine runs for an hour.

I'm not so sure this can be called reasonable. There is no place to my knowledge that requires you to sit in a confined space being filled with exhaust. If such a thing is happening, laws are being broken.

Smoking is a voluntary behavior that is forced on others inside or out. There is no relevance between the two.

Of course the anti-smoking tyrants are exactly like the anti-gun bigots, the animal rights activists, and every other association of cranks, bigots, and tyrants whose feelings of self worth depend upon forcing their bizarre values on others.

There are no tyrants here. Only people who have given an opposing view or "your" truth.

The man who thinks he killed his wife by smoking in her presence has problems that can't be resolved by insisting that everyone share the guilt he assumes.

If you're speaking of me, I didn't kill my wife, but the second hand smoke did cause permanent harm. I ask no one to share my guilt, but it was the event that made me look deeper into facts and dismiss the myths I'd supported for twenty three years.

There is no need for adults to become lunatics for the sake of social acceptance and the appeasement of whatever demons possess them.

You are absolutely right Sir Robert! I hope you find suitable help very soon. You clearly have issues. I wish you well.

 

[JimmerJammerMrK]

No no, JimmerJammer, I don't want to live in your world and you can't make me go further into it than these brief glimpses. There really are many worlds other than the one you've constructed for yourself. In your world it is sufficient for you to make assertions that are facts only because whatever you say is so. Non-acceptance of your facts is indeed psychobabble in your world because it just is and that's a fact for sure. I'm sure of it because you said so and you wouldn't say so if it werent so.

I won't even bother responding to that.

In your world you set the rules about what people must do before responding to you, even when they're not talking about you, and you determine what is acceptable in this forum and all sorts of other things too.

I realize you can respond in any way you wish. I was simply trying to give you another chance to provide some evidence. Now, however, I see that you're trying to avoid arguing against my statement. Instead of providing reasonable, logical evidence that contradicts my own, you're relying on an emotional argument. My friend, that is what we call a fallacy of logic.

I'd bet that most people reading this thread can figure out why you don't think it's inconsistent to say that you knowingly pollute the atmosphere with deadly fumes from your truck but it's a "fact" that cigarette smoking is bad and not okay. Easy: you drive the truck but you don't smoke, and it's your world anyway, so you make the rules.

Have you read anything I have posted?! Nowhere did I say cigarette smoking is bad and not "okay". In fact, I've made it unequivocally clear that my purpose here is not to denounce smokers, and that I will never try to infringe on the freedom of smokers to do whatever they choose. I just want people to realize that second hand smoke is dangerous. What they do after understanding that is their own business.

I have also said that I understand automobile exhaust is just as deadly as cigarette smoke. It would be inconsistent only if I told people to stop smoking, and then continued to drive. The fact of the matter is, I never told anyone to stop smoking.

As far as my situation goes (not that it is any of your business): I'm a college student, and I have things I need to get back and forth from school to my parent's house, which is about 150 miles away. This can be as often as every few weeks. The most practical method of accomplishing this is to own a truck, so I bought one. It's a Ford Ranger with a 4 cylinder, and probably pollutes less than 75 percent of the motor vehicles out there.

Think seriously about the horse and the popgun. I won't insist that you get them. They would be much better for you, though, and that's a fact. I read it in one of the messages before this one so it's incontrovertible fact.

When everybody on THR turns in their firearms for pop-guns, I will too.


Sir, you hit the nail on the head:

Yessiree, on this here internet you can find any number of fruitcakes living in denial, using fictional rationale to support behaviors that are scientifically and medically proven to be wrong, using evidence that cannot intelligently be refuted.

 

[trueblue1776]

"danger" is relative.

Jimmer, I don't think my refutations conflict, but I don't mind if you think they do.

 

[JimmerJammerMrK]

"danger" is relative.

Yes, of course that's true. But so is this:

Of the estimated 480000 smoking-related deaths that occur every year in the United States, 53000 have been attributed to ETS (second hand smoke).

Jimmer, I don't think my refutations conflict, but I don't mind if you think they do.

Your arguments are somewhat logical. You are attempting to refute the main point of my argument, at least. Unfortunately, it is slightly illogical to attempt to refute an argument by trying to poke holes in its wording. As you can see, I can easily define what I mean by dangerous. In this case, that would be 53000 deaths each year.

Don't get me wrong though. I respect you for defending your position with arguments that actually make sense. Unlike other posters, you realize that avoiding the question is not arguing, it's simply babbling.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Right lets see if I can steer this topic back on course before the mods close it
is the commercial anti-gun?(it seems half and half to me without reading into it).

 

[Autolycus]

For everyone who talks about their right to smoke and give the government no say,would you say the same thing about marijuana use?

 

[trueblue1776]

For everyone who talks about their right to smoke and give the government no say,would you say the same thing about marijuana use?

absolutely

 

[Picknlittle]

is the commercial anti-gun?(it seems half and half to me without reading into it).

I really don't think so. If anything it is pointing out the dishonesty or at least the lunacy of the tobacco companies trying to make a dangerous product sound less dangerous while ammo manufacturers call their products what they are.

Not anti gun at all.

 

[JimmerJammerMrK]

For everyone who talks about their right to smoke and give the government no say,would you say the same thing about marijuana use?

Yes. I've looked hard, and I can't find any research that reports marijuana to be more dangerous than cigarettes. The only deaths noted are by people who fall into a pool or something after getting high. These are the types of deaths that one might associate with drinking alcohol.

The difference is that cigarettes and alcohol do bodily damage, while alcohol results in an impaired mental state. Marijuana apparently does very little bodily damage, though it can severely impair judgment. Still, in my opinion, so long as alcohol and tobacco are legal, marijuana should be too.

Right lets see if I can steer this topic back on course before the mods close it
is the commercial anti-gun?(it seems half and half to me without reading into it).

I don't think it is. Honestly, the commercial doesn't make much sense, but I don't think it's anti-gun.

 

[Autolycus]

Lets pretend that second hand smoke is not harmful to us. But it still causes our clothing to smell.

And some people are allergic to smoke. Is it fair to them? Does anyone here smoke next to a person with an oxygen machine? Tell them that it is not harmful to them/

 

[Prince Yamato]

And some people are allergic to smoke. Is it fair to them? Does anyone here smoke next to a person with an oxygen machine? Tell them that it is not harmful to them/

I have a friend who is deadly allergic to peanuts and legumes. She just stays away from them. Allergic to cigarette smoke, stay away from bars. The whole world should not have to conform to one person's handicap. That's why it's called a handicap, because you differ from "normal" in some way.

 

[Picknlittle]

I have a friend who is deadly allergic to peanuts and legumes. She just stays away from them. Allergic to cigarette smoke, stay away from bars. The whole world should not have to conform to one person's handicap.

This is just too freakin funny! This is almost as funny as some of the mall ninja episodes!

If you can get smoke restricted to bars, then you got yerself a deal. I think some of your smoker counterparts might object though.

Yes, one can choose to consume or not consume, or wear or not wear something that causes an allergic reaction, but smoke is like stupid, you just can't escape it. It's freakin everywhere!

 

[yesit'sloaded]

I'll take the bait and play devils advocate here. I can fully understand their message. It is that a cigarette by any other name is still a cigarette and that naming them something else is silly if not misleading. They illustrate this by comparing a product known to cause death (cigarettes) to something else that can cause death. They point out how silly it would be to have "lite" bullets in the same way as a "lite" cigarette can still cause damage. I don't think they want to ban cigarettes as much as they want to inform consumers. Think about how many warnings came with your new gun as opposed to your smokes.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Was there gun or RKBA-related content here? OT.