I am grateful to have quit many years ago but I am even more grateful I don't have to ever gamble with any of you sanctimonious pain in the ass non smokers.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The long term economic effect of smoking bans
I am grateful to have quit many years ago but I am even more grateful
I don't have to ever gamble with any of you sanctimonious pain in the
ass non smokers.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Their not all bad, John. I support their right to agitate for change.
But the rhetoric of a few is distressing. Their stereotyping is beyond
the pale. I heard all of this same rhetoric many years ago, in my
youth in Mississippi. Except, they weren't talking about smokers
then. Just substitute the N word for the word smoker when reading
their posts and you will see what I mean.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John Nonnweiler Jr." <jrnjr@...> wrote:
I am grateful to have quit many years ago but I am even more
grateful I don't have to ever gamble with any of you sanctimonious
pain in the ass non smokers.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yes, we all dislike smokers and smoking because we're sanctimonious
pains in the ass. Not because your habit is disgusting, intrusive,
annoying, rude, thoughtless, and dangerous to our health. No--we just
like getting upset about things for no good reason. Yep. That must be
it.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John Nonnweiler Jr." <jrnjr@...> wrote:
Their not all bad, John. I support their right to agitate for
change.
But the rhetoric of a few is distressing. Their stereotyping is
beyond
the pale. I heard all of this same rhetoric many years ago, in my
youth in Mississippi. Except, they weren't talking about smokers
then. Just substitute the N word for the word smoker when reading
their posts and you will see what I mean.
Horrible analogy. Being of a particular race harms no one. Cigarette
smoking in public causes ACTIVE HARM. A person cannot choose to be or
not to be of a particular race--a person CAN choose not to smoke.
The "rhetoric" you refer to is of the same character as that directed
against polluters, dumpers of toxic waste, etc.; those who callously
endanger others' health because they won't change their antisocial
behavior. If you can't see the difference between getting angry at
that and expressing racial intolerence, well.....
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tralfamidorgooglycrackers"
<tralfamidorgooglycrackers@...> wrote:
The "rhetoric" you refer to is of the same character as that directed
against polluters, dumpers of toxic waste, etc.; those who callously
endanger others' health because they won't change their antisocial
behavior. If you can't see the difference between getting angry at
that and expressing racial intolerence, well.....
You mention polluters here. Are you referring to automobile exhaust?
Should I, as a non-driver, have to continue to breath your automobile
exhaust?
You mention polluters here. Are you referring to automobile
exhaust?
Should I, as a non-driver, have to continue to breath your
automobile
exhaust?
I'll answer this question with perhaps more thought than it deserves.
The answer is YES--because the benefit of having roads to drive on
accrues to ALL members of society, even those that DON'T drive
themselves; you might take a cab or bus, or ride in someone else's car
(or ambulance, or police car). Therefore, the social cost--that of
automobile exhaust in the atmosphere--is balanced by the social
benefits. Plus, there are efforts to ameliorate automobile exhaust,
such as smog controls and newly formulated fuels. Clearly, there is a
cost-benefit relationship. In the case of cigarettes, however, the
harm done by the smoker is not balanced by any compensatory benefit,
except the selfish pleasure of the smoker himself. Society no longer
considers that pleasure to adequately balance the harm caused.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tralfamidorgooglycrackers"
<tralfamidorgooglycrackers@...> wrote:
> You mention polluters here. Are you referring to automobile
exhaust?
> Should I, as a non-driver, have to continue to breath your
automobile
> exhaust?
>
I'll answer this question with perhaps more thought than it
deserves.
The answer is YES--because the benefit of having roads to drive on
accrues to ALL members of society, even those that DON'T drive
themselves; you might take a cab or bus, or ride in someone else's
car
(or ambulance, or police car). Therefore, the social cost--that of
automobile exhaust in the atmosphere--is balanced by the social
benefits. Plus, there are efforts to ameliorate automobile exhaust,
such as smog controls and newly formulated fuels. Clearly, there is
a
cost-benefit relationship.>
Spoken like an oil glutten. 