Smoking Back in the Day

[DutchIndo]

I was at work once years ago and for some reason said " Call for Phillip Morris ! " My boss an old Navy man was rolling on the floor he was suprised I knew who "Little Johnny" was. I read about fuming Land Lords in England during the war coming to Bases demanding payment. It seems some of the Soldiers were skipping out on rent. The Land Lords demanded payment from a certain "Chester Fields" and a "Phillip Morris".

 

[Stoney]

Stoney - I might agree with you more if smoking impacted only the smoker, but it has a negative impact on those around the smoker who breath in the smoke.

And, unless you're kidding, I think saying that the next thing banned will be free thought is a little over the top.

I have no problem with having no smoking in enclosed public places, just for that reason and agree wholeheartedly with you. My problem is that the ban has reached the point that there is no where that smokers have a place to smoke. It entirely unfair to these people to make them leave the city limits to smoke a cigarette.

Case in point... Airports used to have designated smoking rooms with separate ventilation, to ensure that non smokers were not affected by second hand smoke. This solved the problem for both non smokers and smokers alike. Now these smoking rooms have been closed. And even worse..you are not allowed to smoke anywhere near the airport, even outside. Not that you could go outside anyway once you've been screened by Homeland Security.

IMHO:

This has gone too far.. now the rights of those that smoke have been adversely affected. Try being addicted to nicotine and have to fly from 5 am until 8 pm with no smoking allowed the entire time. Sure it's fine for those that don't smoke. But for someone that smokes those 15 hours are a grueling experience. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances and the withdrawal symptoms hit them very hard. I don't think you'll get any smokers to agree that forcing them to go 18 hours without a cigarette is fair treatment for them.

Bear in mind that when someone implements a ban like this that there will be some people that are adversely affected. You have to consider the rights of all Americans when you start messing with our freedoms.

I'm not kidding about other things being banned.

My point is that this type of ban does not apply only to smoking. Now that smoking bans have been so successfully implemented, whats next? I for one am not ready for the man to tell me how to live my life, what I can read and can not, Who I can associate with , and who not and most importantly what we are allowed to teach our children vs what they are being force fed by the established powers that be in our public schools.

There have been many Americans that have paid the price to ensure that we are free to make our own choices. It really chaps my hide when I see the those that govern step all over our personal freedoms. If you let them get away with taking a little freedom, sooner or later they will take a lot more.

I don't have to spell it out any more that that. Think Stalin, Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini to start with... the list goes on and those are only a few that took free people and enslaved them in the 20th century. One thing that they all have in common is they started out by telling the people they were going to end oppression and make things better for the citizens. Once they were in power... well say no more.

Just because we live in the USA does not mean that we can take our freedoms for granted. Freedom must be defended each and every day or it will be lost to those that seek to enslave us. And believe me there are plenty of folks that would like nothing better than to be in total control of us. If you don't think so then you may want to take a closer look at what's happening each day. Today's America is a far cry from the free America I was born into.

And remember .. just because you're called a paranoid, someone may really be out to get you anyway.

 

[Blackjack]

My sentiments exactly Stoney. It's all too easy for people to support bans on things they don't personally care for, BUT the price on that eventually gets paid with their own freedoms being stepped on. So if all Americans were "smart", smokers or not they should be screaming for the rights of smokers. Divide and conquer is not just an old saying, it's how were going to lose our way of life...

 

[univibe88]

It's already spread. Bans of foie gras, trans fats. Proposed taxes on sugared drinks. I also agree that smoking restrictions in enclosed areas that shield non-smokers from smoke are fine. However look at what Boston has just done. Boston wide spread smoking bans had allowed a few cigar bars to stick around. The only people who would go there are smokers. No non-smokers are effected. But Boston will be phasing them out. They will be putting a few small businesses out of business. :rage:

 

[LordBest]

It's already spread. Bans of foie gras, trans fats. Proposed taxes on sugared drinks. I also agree that smoking restrictions in enclosed areas that shield non-smokers from smoke are fine. However look at what Boston has just done. Boston wide spread smoking bans had allowed a few cigar bars to stick around. The only people who would go there are smokers. No non-smokers are effected. But Boston will be phasing them out. They will be putting a few small businesses out of business. :rage:

Well, with transfats it is worth remembering that until several decades ago most countries had some form of Pure Food Act which prevented the use of such things anyway. Transfats are horrific in all honesty, and often snuck into foods without the consumers awareness. Banning sugared drinks is daft, I just stopped drinking them myself (coincidentally, losing weight).

The fois gras bans really make my blood boil, but thankfully the trend seems to be turning against the bans, with Chicago overturning it and many other US states rejecting calls for a ban, and France enshrining fois gras in law. People need to remember that geese and ducks have hard, cartilage based throats (unlike ours) and routinely swallow pebbles, small stones and even whole fish, which they keep there for considerable periods of time. .
Rant over, back to topic...

 

[just_me]

Stoney - I agree that there should be areas where smokers can smoke that don't infringe on nonsmokers. I don't know why they got rid of smoking rooms in airports.

But, if you're worried about rights being taken away in the US, you should be concerned about our constitutional rights that have been stepped on in the past eight years.

I often don't agree with some of the causes that ACLU takes on, but I realize they have to stand up for even the most disagreeable causes if rights are involved.

But comparing things that are banned or legislated based on health causes (smoking, wearing seat belts, etc.) to censorship of books, control of who you can associate with, and what you can teach your children is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Stoney]

I can see your point, and understand your perspective. As I stated before it's really not that it is about smoking, but rather governing bodies taking away the right to choose for ourselves. When something is banned, then it's officially not allowed and punishable by law. Univibe made some great points about smoking bans in Boston and how it is affecting people.

Remember prohibition? That was supposed to be for the good of the public and it is only a small step from banning smoking to banning drinking.

Marijuana is already illegal and as a result we have more people in our prisons on Marijuana charges than anything else. I think we would be better served to let those folks out of jail, legalize the pot, that people are smoking anyway, and tax the sales to generate revenue that could be used for the public good, as opposed to spending tax dollars to keep folks in jail for selling pot, while it's perfectly legal to sell booze. Allowing Marijuana sales would take the product out of the hands of "criminals" and place it into the hands of business.

When the intent of the government is to tell the citizens how to live their lives, then there is something wrong with the governing process. Allowing the officials to dictate how we behave in any fashion ultimately leads to the loss of other freedoms.

I'm not saying that we should not have laws to protect our citizens. But when the it's about banning a freedom of choice ,then it should never be made into a law.

Here's an interesting page on book banning you might enjoy.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14624


And yes, I am worried about our constitutional rights being stepped on via means like the Rico act and Patriot act. This is exactly that type of government craziness that I was referring to.

 

[Blackjack]

Marijuana is already illegal and as a result we have more people in our prisons on Marijuana charges than anything else. I think we would be better served to let those folks out of jail, legalize the pot, that people are smoking anyway, and tax the sales to generate revenue that could be used for the public good, as opposed to spending tax dollars to keep folks in jail for selling pot, while it's perfectly legal to sell booze. Allowing Marijuana sales would take the product out of the hands of "criminals" and place it into the hands of business.
.

Not to mention a safer less tainted weed.

 

[Stoney]

Not to mention a safer less tainted weed.

No stems no seeds that you don't need....

Alcopulco Gold is.... <toke>


bad ass weed.


lol

 

[KY Gentleman]

...and that was what smoking was like "back in the day"!

 

[Blackjack]

We've sort of gotten off track...sorryfftopic:

 

[ArrowCollarMan]

Well, you can't really defend smoking. If you smoke you smoke I guess. As long as you can smoke outside I don't see why it should matter.

 

[staggerwing]

Well, you can't really defend smoking. If you smoke you smoke I guess. As long as you can smoke outside I don't see why it should matter.

I smoke because I enjoy it. I don't need to defend it. As for smoking in semi-public places (bars, restaurants, etc.) it should be up to the owner. What get you more business? Maybe some owners will opt for non smoking establishments. Maybe not. It's their business. You have no more right to tell a business owner he can't allow smoking in his place of business that he does coming to your house and lighting up in your living room. Unfortunately, things have gone badly haywire in this once proud country. Now, truly public places or places you're compelled to go (your office, the DMV, etc) are another matter and there i have to agree with the ban.

 

[ArrowCollarMan]

As far as attitudes go, I'm almost certain smoking will be non-existant in the near-future.

 

[LordBest]

Just remember, there is always snuff. All the joys of nicotine, without the smoke.

 

[Steinbockhase]

Hi
Just came back from a trip to Washington D.C.
Concerning smoking the hypocrisy at the airport is almost unbearable.
Several large, beautiful and clean Duty-Free shops with walls full of cigarettes and tabaco. The atmosphere is "feel comfortable and buy'".
Of course they are happy to make profit with smokers.
But if you actually want to smoke a cigarette, you are restricted to hard to find small, windowless and filthy rooms with run-down furniture.
The atmosphere is "you are not really welcome here, be ashamed of yourself" :-(

 

[Turnip]

Back in the days when I was smoking I normally used to smoke filter tipped Rothman ´s. But as often as possible I chose filterless Player ´s Navy Cut and NIL. The NIL came in a etui like flat flip top Box and even still had that old time lens shape.

Cheers

Turnip

 

[1961MJS]

I think that the 19 will put an end to smoking because I commonly see people driving a van with the window up, the AC on, and wearing a mask. I've been walking without a mask and haven't gotten the 19 yet, but I keep socially distant. I live in Oklahoma where we can get cheaper cigarettes from the Tribes, I think, don't smoke.

Just my $0.02.