Conquer Club

mpjh wrote:He is not deluding himself, he is fucking with you.

Funny, I dont feel fucked with. We are talking about health risk are we not?

mpjh wrote:So long as he doesn't expose you, what do you care what his delusion is, anyway.

I don't care, that's not the point. I never said he couldnt smoke, or I didn't want him to smoke. How did you get this impression?

mpjh wrote:It is a lot like religion. People can believe whatever they want, so long as they don't try to shove it down my throat or use my tax dollars to support it.

What? Nice try but pointing out that cigarettes are addictive and could kill you is nothing like a religion. There is no myth here, smoking related illness is a proven fact and not based in faith. Just as I don't care if you Skydive, but should you claim that there is no risk since you only jump a few times a year as opposed to every day, I can still point out the danger is just as real.

mandalorian2298 wrote:My point exactly! I would just like to add that a person who applies for a job of waiter in a bar that has a big 'SMOKING ALLOWED' sign in front is, to my mind, a consenting adult. Laws should protect people's right to choose whether or not they are going to expose themselves to tobacco smoke. But, today, it is more popular to design laws that protect people by taking away their right to choose and absolving them of responsibility for their own choices. Some people may like to live in a brain-optional society, but, personally, I don't feel morally obligated to respect the laws enforced by such a society.

I am not sure where this law talk came from...I never said anything about the legal issues. Only that it is extremely bad for your health, 2 cigs a week or 20, or 200. That is all.

Backglass wrote:
I am not sure where this law talk came from...I never said anything about the legal issues. Only that it is extremely bad for your health, 2 cigs a week or 20, or 200. That is all.

And that is my point. I am sick of all these people who simply dismiss smoking off hand because of the health risks. No one is denying that smoking is a hazard to your heal... But so is High Fructose Corn Syrup, Big Macs and talking on your cell phone. Everything in excess will be bad to you.

In the mean time... I will enjoy my cigar tonight at my friends birthday...

(The funny thing is that the wings and beer that I will consume tonight will have a more adverse affect on my health than the tobacco.)

nmhunate wrote:

Backglass wrote:
I am not sure where this law talk came from...I never said anything about the legal issues. Only that it is extremely bad for your health, 2 cigs a week or 20, or 200. That is all.

And that is my point. I am sick of all these people who simply dismiss smoking off hand because of the health risks. No one is denying that smoking is a hazard to your heal... But so is High Fructose Corn Syrup, Big Macs and talking on your cell phone. Everything in excess will be bad to you.

In the mean time... I will enjoy my cigar tonight at my friends birthday...

(The funny thing is that the wings and beer that I will consume tonight will have a more adverse affect on my health than the tobacco.)

You eat them more?

nmhunate wrote:

Backglass wrote:
I am not sure where this law talk came from...I never said anything about the legal issues. Only that it is extremely bad for your health, 2 cigs a week or 20, or 200. That is all.

And that is my point. I am sick of all these people who simply dismiss smoking off hand because of the health risks. No one is denying that smoking is a hazard to your heal... But so is High Fructose Corn Syrup, Big Macs and talking on your cell phone. Everything in excess will be bad to you.

In the mean time... I will enjoy my cigar tonight at my friends birthday...

(The funny thing is that the wings and beer that I will consume tonight will have a more adverse affect on my health than the tobacco.)

I believe the issue some of us are taking with what you're saying, is that you seem flippant towards smoking as a health issue simply because it won't hurt much, if done in moderation. Nicotine is a highly addictive substance. Much more addictive than Big Macs, or corn syrup. It is not nearly as easy to smoke in "moderation", as you seem to think.

Timminz wrote:

nmhunate wrote:

Backglass wrote:
I am not sure where this law talk came from...I never said anything about the legal issues. Only that it is extremely bad for your health, 2 cigs a week or 20, or 200. That is all.

And that is my point. I am sick of all these people who simply dismiss smoking off hand because of the health risks. No one is denying that smoking is a hazard to your heal... But so is High Fructose Corn Syrup, Big Macs and talking on your cell phone. Everything in excess will be bad to you.

In the mean time... I will enjoy my cigar tonight at my friends birthday...

(The funny thing is that the wings and beer that I will consume tonight will have a more adverse affect on my health than the tobacco.)

I believe the issue some of us are taking with what you're saying, is that you seem flippant towards smoking as a health issue simply because it won't hurt much, if done in moderation. Nicotine is a highly addictive substance. Much more addictive than Big Macs, or corn syrup. It is not nearly as easy to smoke in "moderation", as you seem to think.

That is a good point, Timminz... I am not take into consideration the addictive qualities of nicotine. You also made a good point earlier about the "honeymoon" stage of smoking too...

I personally am not addicted to smoking so I cannot comment on to how addiction affects those addicted.

If only one can divorce smoking from its addictive qualities. Oh well... Because, honestly if smoking were done in moderation there wouldn't be as many long term health affects, like those shown in the pictures here.

mandalorian2298 wrote:

mpjh wrote:Who cares what he believes. The only concern I have is if he has children and smokes in the house and car exposing the children. There are states that have laws prohibiting smoking in a car with children in the car. But if he only exposes himself and adults who consent, let him smoke.

My point exactly! I would just like to add that a person who applies for a job of waiter in a bar that has a big 'SMOKING ALLOWED' sign in front is, to my mind, a consenting adult. Laws should protect people's right to choose whether or not they are going to expose themselves to tobacco smoke. But, today, it is more popular to design laws that protect people by taking away their right to choose and absolving them of responsibility for their own choices. Some people may like to live in a brain-optional society, but, personally, I don't feel morally obligated to respect the laws enforced by such a society.

Sorry, jobs are hard to come by and everyone should expect a safe work place regardless. So I think it appropriate that laws governing a workplace making it safe for employees is reasonable. Furthermore, bartenders who objected to smoking in bars would be hard pressed to find work if the law did not extend to such workplaces, so there is a element of coercion in the employee/employer relationship that flows from the power differential.

Smoking is bad. Mm'kay

I spent the weekend between Xmas and New Year in Lambertville.
This is an NJ town on the banks of the Delaware. a short walk across the bridge takes you to New Hope, in PA.
NJ has a "no smoking" rule in bars, restaurants, etc.
PA doesn't.
We ate in New Hope at least once, 'cos they ask you "smoking or non-smoking". But we didn't use a bar there, cos they were all smoky. Probably not as smoky as the bars I used to frequent in the UK, especially when I still smoked myslef (and before they changed the law there), but it was a shock - PA is the only place I've visited since 2006 where you could smoke in the bar at all. I couldn't believe how unpleasant it was. We left, walked over the bridge, and got a pint in NJ.

Its just selfish, because it makes you feel better but others around you dont like it.

mpjh wrote:

mandalorian2298 wrote:

mpjh wrote:Who cares what he believes. The only concern I have is if he has children and smokes in the house and car exposing the children. There are states that have laws prohibiting smoking in a car with children in the car. But if he only exposes himself and adults who consent, let him smoke.

My point exactly! I would just like to add that a person who applies for a job of waiter in a bar that has a big 'SMOKING ALLOWED' sign in front is, to my mind, a consenting adult. Laws should protect people's right to choose whether or not they are going to expose themselves to tobacco smoke. But, today, it is more popular to design laws that protect people by taking away their right to choose and absolving them of responsibility for their own choices. Some people may like to live in a brain-optional society, but, personally, I don't feel morally obligated to respect the laws enforced by such a society.

Sorry, jobs are hard to come by and everyone should expect a safe work place regardless. So I think it appropriate that laws governing a workplace making it safe for employees is reasonable. Furthermore, bartenders who objected to smoking in bars would be hard pressed to find work if the law did not extend to such workplaces, so there is a element of coercion in the employee/employer relationship that flows from the power differential.

By that logic, a soldier should also expect to work in a safe, bullet-free environment and he should be able to sue the army for using real weapons.

Actually, a soldier should expect to work with appropriate training, armor, and support. Furthermore, the military's facilities are non-smoking.

mpjh wrote:Actually, a soldier should expect to work with appropriate training, armor, and support. Furthermore, the military's facilities are non-smoking.

Yeah, but bullets are far worse for your health than cigarettes.

The point is: You know what you are getting into and what the risks are, so why would you be able to complain about it afterwards?

Sorry, jobs are hard to come by

Which is why there are so many job-openings everywhere?

Snorri1234 wrote:

mpjh wrote:Actually, a soldier should expect to work with appropriate training, armor, and support. Furthermore, the military's facilities are non-smoking.

Yeah, but bullets are far worse for your health than cigarettes.

The point is: You know what you are getting into and what the risks are, so why would you be able to complain about it afterwards?

Probably more to the point, society has an interest in getting young people to die in wars. Might be good to ban wars along with tobacco.

Snorri1234 wrote:

mpjh wrote:Sorry, jobs are hard to come by

Which is why there are so many job-openings everywhere?

Maybe in Denmark, but not here. Unemployment now at 13% if you count those who have given up looking, and higher if you count those forced into part time.


Out of curiosity I looked up the ten most dangerous jobs. They are:

The 10 most dangerous jobs
Occupation Fatalities per 100,000
Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2002

Cops and firemen don't evern make the top ten.

Due to the health risks associated with smoking, it is not cool.

Joodoo wrote:Due to the health risks associated with smoking, it is not cool.

Tell me Joodoo, what are the health risks of smoking a cigar 3-4 times a year?

nmhunate wrote:

Joodoo wrote:Due to the health risks associated with smoking, it is not cool.

Tell me Joodoo, what are the health risks of smoking a cigar 3-4 times a year?

I'm not sure, but it would be quite an insignificant effect. However considering the fact that nicotine is very addictive, most smokers would smoke more than 3-4 cigars a year and may turn to other types of tobacco such as cigarettes.

Yes, smoking is cool. And the more places smoking is banned, the worse the news about the health risks of smoking, the more transgressive the act of smoking will become, thus further enhancing smoking's coolness.