Smoking Mad

America’s most despised minority is under attack again in America’s most intolerant city. Can someone please explain exactly what the justification is for these repeated displays of hatred? Cigarette smoke may be annoying to some, but it certainly isn’t a health issue. Dog bites and playground accidents have measurable statistics of harm to city residents. Smoke, on the second hand, has none. Methinks this is just another act of class warfare by the Supes.

I’m glad we have such a huge surplus of funds that we can afford to dedicate police resources to yet another victimless crime.

8 Comments so far

  1. brian lam (unregistered) on January 13th, 2005 @ 4:58 pm

    what do you mean it isn’t a health issue?

  2. Morey (unregistered) on January 13th, 2005 @ 5:21 pm

    For starters, it’s OUTSIDE. You would have to be standing over the person to get a whiff. Secondly, it’s well established that even if you live with a smoker, your chances of contracting smoking-related illness is no different from that of any other non-smoker. The only significant statistic found was that children raised in a smoking household are 22% less likely to develop lung cancer.

    The EPA report that started this rumor was debunked in 1998. Unfortunately, the health Nazis don’t want facts to get in the way, and many media outlets are on their side.

  3. Kristian (unregistered) on January 13th, 2005 @ 7:04 pm

    America’s most intolerant city? Gee, hyperbole much? Darlin’, I was born and raised in the Bay Area, and then had to move to TEXAS. You don’t KNOW intolerant. Be grateful for what you’ve got.

  4. Morey (unregistered) on January 13th, 2005 @ 8:35 pm

    From one native to another, I’m telling you that aura of tolerance is only skin deep. When the Thought Police finally arrive, baby, this city will be first in line for the beta test.

  5. brian lam (unregistered) on January 15th, 2005 @ 10:31 am

    yeah, its outdoors, I don’t see a problem. I think any smoking issue is a health issue, however – at least as much as it is an issue about the right to smoke. my great uncle died of lung cancer. Guess what? he smoked.

    and I would say there the tolerance is a little better than the rest of the country here.

  6. Morey (unregistered) on January 15th, 2005 @ 12:47 pm

    OK, I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the myth of second-hand smoke in your original comment. Yes, smoking can kill you. Those who still smoke today have made a conscious decision that the trade-off of increased health risk versus pleasure is acceptable. We all (should) have the right to make what some will consider “bad” decisions for ourselves. If not, we should be shutting down the coffee houses, bakeries, liquor stores, butcher shops, motorcycle factories, casinos…

  7. crackerjack (unregistered) on January 17th, 2005 @ 8:14 am

    One smoker around and everyone else has no choice but breathe in second hand smoke. Health issue or not (I believe it is one, there are so-called “well-established facts” on both sides, so who do you believe, the people who want to sell you their product or those who warn you of smoking?), the smoker limits the choices for non-smokers.

    Based on this fact, I wonder how smokers always complain about others being intolerant?

  8. Morey (unregistered) on January 17th, 2005 @ 9:09 am

    Hey Cracker, do you drive a car? Do you ask the pedestrians and bicyclists whether they want to breathe your exhaust? Every anti-smoker I know displays this blatant hyposcrisy.

    And no, there are no established facts on the other side. The report I linked to is the only large scale study done on the subject. It was not funded by tobacco.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.