In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Carefull, there. I can often tell, sitting at a traffic
light, if the car next to me contains smokers. When both our
vehicles have the windows closed. On the highway? It's very
possible.


Earlier response whose initiator I managed to lose, sorry.
Hmmm. Interesting since half the crap contained in
cigarettes is also
present in automobile exhaust. I surly hope you're not
serious about that
statement. If not, that is the dumbest thing I've heard from
the anti-
smoking camp. What tops that? On a motorcycle at 70+ maybe?
Blindfolded
too?


Of course he might be sensitive to the "half of the crap" in
cigarette smoke that isn't in highway stuff. REAL bad analogy, shows a
fundamental misunderstanding of how allergies work, and is probably
about the dumbest thing I have ever heard from the pro-smoking camp.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

Red Green wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Red Green" wrote
Oh well, in a few weeks I'll probably have to bail on newsgroups due
to a relocation where the ISP doesn't carry NG's. You should feel
better there's one less heathen smoker posting.
Hey, that's no excuse. Just sign up for a free account at
eternal-september or a $2.99 account at giganews.com Most ISPs have
dropped NGs recently but the die hard are still here. If we didn't
have access, we'd have to get a life.



we'd have to get a life.

Oh...eweeee...no way man. Have to check them out on that note.

Hey, I resemble that remark. If it wasn't for you guys and the folks on
the comic strip newsgroup making fun of me, I'd have no non-job-related
social interactions at all, mostly. Or is that TMI?

But seriously- My ISP also dropped news (and they are now also dropping
toy web site hosting, as part of moving to the Yahoo server farms), so I
also signed up with giganews. No problems so far, only three bucks a month.

If I didn't have my e-mail address out there so many places (more than I
can remember), I'd pull the plug on my ISP. I get my connectivity from a
different company, so all they are now providing me is email and back-up
dial-up capability. (I could care less about the 'features' on their
silly home page.) If I had a wi-fi netbook, I could just go down to
local coffee shop when the DSL was down.

--
aem sends...

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I had a contractor a couple weeks ago, who said he didn't
smoke. I went to chat with him, and he opened the door of
his truck. Well, the tobacco auora was really obvious to me.


The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote in news:hmtogl
:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I had a contractor a couple weeks ago, who said he didn't
smoke. I went to chat with him, and he opened the door of
his truck. Well, the tobacco auora was really obvious to me.


The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

TDD


should be mad at the asshole smokers

Oh yea. They **** me off. Like the ones who flip butts on the ground when
there's a disposal nearby. Heck, if I'm in someones yard and there's no
disposal around, I knock the head off and carry it with me.

The Daring Dufas wrote:
....

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

I don't think the reason behind present spate of smoking bans is much at
all related to attitudes/behavior of smokers rather it is the
nanny-state mentality the do-gooders have engendered. I don't think the
folks passing these laws give a flip about attitudes one way or t'other;
they're all for we know better.

--

dpb wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
...

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

I don't think the reason behind present spate of smoking bans is much at
all related to attitudes/behavior of smokers rather it is the
nanny-state mentality the do-gooders have engendered. I don't think the
folks passing these laws give a flip about attitudes one way or t'other;
they're all for we know better.

--
It has a lot to do with money, as well...cost to employers and M'caid in
covering health issues. Of course, we will all die someday, so the "end
of life" rise in health costs eventually tolls. Personally, those with
bad habits save the gov't. money (SS benefits) by dying sooner ) OTOH,
not justifying smoking but I'm wondering when the huge increase in
obesity (many non-smokers and quitters) will overcome the savings in
illness and/or dollars brought about by smoking cessation. Smoking (and
some other really bad habits) came about, in part, to decrease appetite.

The US has lots of insane practices that cost us dearly, like "sex
sells"...sexually explicit ads geared to teens, crap food ads geared to
toddlers, and pharmaceuticals that nobody in their right mind would use.

Of course, three of the four major resources that built this country are
outlawed or unpopular....sugar, tobacco, slavery and cotton.

In article ,
" wrote:

It has a lot to do with money, as well...cost to employers and M'caid in
covering health issues. Of course, we will all die someday, so the "end
of life" rise in health costs eventually tolls. Personally, those with
bad habits save the gov't. money (SS benefits) by dying sooner ) OTOH,
not justifying smoking but I'm wondering when the huge increase in
obesity (many non-smokers and quitters) will overcome the savings in
illness and/or dollars brought about by smoking cessation. Smoking (and
some other really bad habits) came about, in part, to decrease appetite.
There are a fairly large number of studies suggesting that smoking
is actually a money maker for governments. While they lose money in the
short run to higher medical costs, etc., they more than make it back
from the savings related to their dying younger.



--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:40:19 -0500, Kurt
wrote:

In ,
wrote:

It has a lot to do with money, as well...cost to employers and M'caid in
covering health issues. Of course, we will all die someday, so the "end
of life" rise in health costs eventually tolls. Personally, those with
bad habits save the gov't. money (SS benefits) by dying sooner ) OTOH,
not justifying smoking but I'm wondering when the huge increase in
obesity (many non-smokers and quitters) will overcome the savings in
illness and/or dollars brought about by smoking cessation. Smoking (and
some other really bad habits) came about, in part, to decrease appetite.
There are a fairly large number of studies suggesting that smoking
is actually a money maker for governments. While they lose money in the
short run to higher medical costs, etc., they more than make it back
from the savings related to their dying younger.

I doubt there are even that many short term medical costs. Most
smokers avoid the doctor because they get preached at to stop smoking.

They live in denial about their ailments until they are on death's
door and die soon after that.
Hi,
No wonder. It is proven smokers have quite a bit lower IQ compared to
non-smokers. They are big burden to our health care system.

Bob F wrote the following:
Red Green wrote:


I was born in the middle of the last century and both parents were
regular army during WWII, everybody smoked. GAAAK! COUGH! HUFF!
WHEEZE! You may have heard of a snot nosed kid, I was a green slime
kid. One of my generation who is allergic to the smoke from idiots.
They didn't know any better back then but people do now so there's
no excuse.

TDD

Non smokers I will go out of my way not to infringe on. Anti-smokers
are just idiots who just like to whine to make themself feel better
and think they are better.


Just another clueless smoker. Just the kind that forced the imposition of smoker
control laws, because when someone honestly bothered by their exhaust said
something about it, they took it as a personal affront and refused to be
considerate.

The world is sure nicer now that it was 30 years ago. Smoke is only an
occasional problem, instead of the continual attack it was then. Let's hear it
for smoke free workplaces, restraunts, etc.

In NY there is. No smoking in government buildings, no restaurants, no
workplaces, and any enclosed spaces occupied by other people..
You can't even smoke in the stands of Yankee Stadium, which is an open
air stadium.
I don't know about the other NY/NJ stadiums.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

Red Green wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote in news:hmtogl
:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I had a contractor a couple weeks ago, who said he didn't
smoke. I went to chat with him, and he opened the door of
his truck. Well, the tobacco auora was really obvious to me.

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

TDD


should be mad at the asshole smokers

Oh yea. They **** me off. Like the ones who flip butts on the ground when
there's a disposal nearby. Heck, if I'm in someones yard and there's no
disposal around, I knock the head off and carry it with me.

It sounds like you're being respectful of others. I'm reminded of some
experiments with the honor system, some newspapers will be put out on
an unlocked rack with a coin box listing the price. A certain class of
people with class (no pun) will unfailingly pay for the paper they take
but inevitably, the papers and or coin box is stolen. I think the number
of jerks in the population is increasing. That's why I like the concept
of two legged vermin traps.

TDD

wrote:
dpb wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
...

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

I don't think the reason behind present spate of smoking bans is much
at all related to attitudes/behavior of smokers rather it is the
nanny-state mentality the do-gooders have engendered. I don't think
the folks passing these laws give a flip about attitudes one way or
t'other; they're all for we know better.

--
It has a lot to do with money, as well...cost to employers and M'caid in
covering health issues. Of course, we will all die someday, so the "end
of life" rise in health costs eventually tolls. Personally, those with
bad habits save the gov't. money (SS benefits) by dying sooner ) OTOH,
not justifying smoking but I'm wondering when the huge increase in
obesity (many non-smokers and quitters) will overcome the savings in
illness and/or dollars brought about by smoking cessation. Smoking (and
some other really bad habits) came about, in part, to decrease appetite.

The US has lots of insane practices that cost us dearly, like "sex
sells"...sexually explicit ads geared to teens, crap food ads geared to
toddlers, and pharmaceuticals that nobody in their right mind would use.

Of course, three of the four major resources that built this country are
outlawed or unpopular....sugar, tobacco, slavery and cotton.

Hell, tobacco does indeed enslave people!

TDD

wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:08:09 -0700, Tony
wrote:

They are big burden to our health care system.

That is the myth but not true in the long run because they die before
they have all the expensive old age procedures like cataract
operations, hip replacements and all those pills old folks take.
The burden on "entitlements" is far less. Non-smokers may live to be
100 but a smoker might not even get to Social Security and Medicare.
Hi,
We have to look at it two ways. Even tho they live mostly shorter life
they have more ailments of various kinds than non-smokers. How many fire
is caused by careless smoking resulting in loss of life and property?
They stink. Their house inside stink, their draperies don't last long.
And second hand smoking is as deadly. In my city only place they can
smoke is inside their house.

In article ,
Tony Hwang wrote:


We have to look at it two ways. Even tho they live mostly shorter life
they have more ailments of various kinds than non-smokers. How many fire
is caused by careless smoking resulting in loss of life and property?

Most of the fire deaths, though, are the person doing the smoking. Also
fire related deaths from smoking run about 2300 a year. Hardly a major
contributor to overall deaths. The loss in property is

They stink. Their house inside stink, their draperies don't last long.
hardly a cost to society or government.

And second hand smoking is as deadly. In my city only place they can
smoke is inside their house.

I am skeptical of some of the second hand smoke proclamations, largely
because the first big one (appeared in JAMA or New England Journal of
Med.. I'd have to dig it out) cooked the books. They used a 90%
confidence interval. Most studies (including almost all of them used in
the analysis) use a 905% CI.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

The Daring Dufas wrote:
wrote:
dpb wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
...

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

I don't think the reason behind present spate of smoking bans is much
at all related to attitudes/behavior of smokers rather it is the
nanny-state mentality the do-gooders have engendered. I don't think
the folks passing these laws give a flip about attitudes one way or
t'other; they're all for we know better.

--
It has a lot to do with money, as well...cost to employers and M'caid
in covering health issues. Of course, we will all die someday, so the
"end of life" rise in health costs eventually tolls. Personally, those
with bad habits save the gov't. money (SS benefits) by dying sooner
) OTOH, not justifying smoking but I'm wondering when the huge
increase in obesity (many non-smokers and quitters) will overcome the
savings in illness and/or dollars brought about by smoking cessation.
Smoking (and some other really bad habits) came about, in part, to
decrease appetite.

The US has lots of insane practices that cost us dearly, like "sex
sells"...sexually explicit ads geared to teens, crap food ads geared
to toddlers, and pharmaceuticals that nobody in their right mind would
use.

Of course, three of the four major resources that built this country
are outlawed or unpopular....sugar, tobacco, slavery and cotton.

Hell, tobacco does indeed enslave people!

TDD
Hmmm,
In my house we treat 3 things like poison. Sugar, Salt, Milk.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:05:35 -0500, "
wrote:

dpb wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
...

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

I don't think the reason behind present spate of smoking bans is much at
all related to attitudes/behavior of smokers rather it is the
nanny-state mentality the do-gooders have engendered. I don't think the
folks passing these laws give a flip about attitudes one way or t'other;
they're all for we know better.

--
It has a lot to do with money, as well...cost to employers and M'caid in
covering health issues. Of course, we will all die someday, so the "end
of life" rise in health costs eventually tolls. Personally, those with
bad habits save the gov't. money (SS benefits) by dying sooner ) OTOH,
not justifying smoking but I'm wondering when the huge increase in
obesity (many non-smokers and quitters) will overcome the savings in
illness and/or dollars brought about by smoking cessation. Smoking (and
some other really bad habits) came about, in part, to decrease appetite.

You're close; think TAXES.

The US has lots of insane practices that cost us dearly, like "sex
sells"...sexually explicit ads geared to teens, crap food ads geared to
toddlers, and pharmaceuticals that nobody in their right mind would use.

Of course, three of the four major resources that built this country are
outlawed or unpopular....sugar, tobacco, slavery and cotton.

The Daring Dufas wrote:
wrote:
dpb wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
...

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

I don't think the reason behind present spate of smoking bans is much
at all related to attitudes/behavior of smokers rather it is the
nanny-state mentality the do-gooders have engendered. I don't think
the folks passing these laws give a flip about attitudes one way or
t'other; they're all for we know better.

--
It has a lot to do with money, as well...cost to employers and M'caid
in covering health issues. Of course, we will all die someday, so the
"end of life" rise in health costs eventually tolls. Personally,
those with bad habits save the gov't. money (SS benefits) by dying
sooner ) OTOH, not justifying smoking but I'm wondering when the
huge increase in obesity (many non-smokers and quitters) will overcome
the savings in illness and/or dollars brought about by smoking
cessation. Smoking (and some other really bad habits) came about, in
part, to decrease appetite.

The US has lots of insane practices that cost us dearly, like "sex
sells"...sexually explicit ads geared to teens, crap food ads geared
to toddlers, and pharmaceuticals that nobody in their right mind would
use.

Of course, three of the four major resources that built this country
are outlawed or unpopular....sugar, tobacco, slavery and cotton.

Hell, tobacco does indeed enslave people!

TDD
On that note, let's discuss alcohol and narcotic medications....

Tony Hwang wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:08:09 -0700, Tony
wrote:

They are big burden to our health care system.

That is the myth but not true in the long run because they die before
they have all the expensive old age procedures like cataract
operations, hip replacements and all those pills old folks take.
The burden on "entitlements" is far less. Non-smokers may live to be
100 but a smoker might not even get to Social Security and Medicare.
Hi,
We have to look at it two ways. Even tho they live mostly shorter life
they have more ailments of various kinds than non-smokers. How many fire
is caused by careless smoking resulting in loss of life and property?
They stink. Their house inside stink, their draperies don't last long.
And second hand smoking is as deadly. In my city only place they can
smoke is inside their house.

Let's outlaw fireplaces while we're at it...they stink up the whole
neighborhood. As for second hand smoke, I doubt it does more harm than
gas-guzzling SUV's.

" wrote in
:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:05:35 -0500, "
wrote:

dpb wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
...

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

I don't think the reason behind present spate of smoking bans is
much at all related to attitudes/behavior of smokers rather it is
the nanny-state mentality the do-gooders have engendered. I don't
think the folks passing these laws give a flip about attitudes one
way or t'other; they're all for we know better.

--
It has a lot to do with money, as well...cost to employers and M'caid
in covering health issues. Of course, we will all die someday, so the
"end of life" rise in health costs eventually tolls. Personally,
those with bad habits save the gov't. money (SS benefits) by dying
sooner ) OTOH, not justifying smoking but I'm wondering when the
huge increase in obesity (many non-smokers and quitters) will overcome
the savings in illness and/or dollars brought about by smoking
cessation. Smoking (and some other really bad habits) came about, in
part, to decrease appetite.

You're close; think TAXES.

The US has lots of insane practices that cost us dearly, like "sex
sells"...sexually explicit ads geared to teens, crap food ads geared
to toddlers, and pharmaceuticals that nobody in their right mind would
use.

Of course, three of the four major resources that built this country
are outlawed or unpopular....sugar, tobacco, slavery and cotton.

cotton isn't "unpopular" or outlawed....just not profitable compared to
foreign sources.
Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Now,in addition to the secondhand smoke problem....
People who smoke are overwhelmingly LITTERBUGS;
they toss their cig butts all over the place,along with the rest of their
smoking trash like disposable lighters,wrappers and empty cig packs.
The scumbags empty their ashtrays in parking lots.
Now,some fool is going to say that it's only a few bad ones who toss their
cig trash,but the vast amount of evidence alongside our roads and outside
building entrances says otherwise.

They also start fires.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:23:03 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:05:35 -0500, "
wrote:

dpb wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
...

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

I don't think the reason behind present spate of smoking bans is
much at all related to attitudes/behavior of smokers rather it is
the nanny-state mentality the do-gooders have engendered. I don't
think the folks passing these laws give a flip about attitudes one
way or t'other; they're all for we know better.

--
It has a lot to do with money, as well...cost to employers and M'caid
in covering health issues. Of course, we will all die someday, so the
"end of life" rise in health costs eventually tolls. Personally,
those with bad habits save the gov't. money (SS benefits) by dying
sooner ) OTOH, not justifying smoking but I'm wondering when the
huge increase in obesity (many non-smokers and quitters) will overcome
the savings in illness and/or dollars brought about by smoking
cessation. Smoking (and some other really bad habits) came about, in
part, to decrease appetite.

You're close; think TAXES.

The US has lots of insane practices that cost us dearly, like "sex
sells"...sexually explicit ads geared to teens, crap food ads geared
to toddlers, and pharmaceuticals that nobody in their right mind would
use.

Of course, three of the four major resources that built this country
are outlawed or unpopular....sugar, tobacco, slavery and cotton.

cotton isn't "unpopular" or outlawed....just not profitable compared to
foreign sources.

There is still a *lot* of cotton farmed in this country.

Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

Now,in addition to the secondhand smoke problem....
People who smoke are overwhelmingly LITTERBUGS;

Some people are immoral, that isn't to be denied.

they toss their cig butts all over the place,along with the rest of their
smoking trash like disposable lighters,wrappers and empty cig packs.

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.

The scumbags empty their ashtrays in parking lots.
Now,some fool is going to say that it's only a few bad ones who toss their
cig trash,but the vast amount of evidence alongside our roads and outside
building entrances says otherwise.

Not to mention fast food wrappers and a whole host of other things. Let's
shut 'em all down!

They also start fires.

So does lightning. Let's ban that too.

dpb wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
...

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

I don't think the reason behind present spate of smoking bans is much
at all related to attitudes/behavior of smokers rather it is the
nanny-state mentality the do-gooders have engendered. I don't think
the folks passing these laws give a flip about attitudes one way or
t'other; they're all for we know better.

But we can fight back.

My favorite retort when some granny lady starts flailing me with her
umbrella all the while screaming "You godless Communist! You can't smoke
here!" is "It's all right madam. I'm French."

Sometimes I say: "Put it out? You've got to understand, punk, I'm a grenade
and this cigarette is my pin. So you have to ask yourself one thing: 'Do I
feel lucky?' Well, do you punk?"

On occasion I use the Nixon Response: "Put it out? We believe that it IS
out."

" wrote in
:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:23:03 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:05:35 -0500, "
wrote:

dpb wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
...

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

I don't think the reason behind present spate of smoking bans is
much at all related to attitudes/behavior of smokers rather it is
the nanny-state mentality the do-gooders have engendered. I don't
think the folks passing these laws give a flip about attitudes one
way or t'other; they're all for we know better.

--
It has a lot to do with money, as well...cost to employers and
M'caid in covering health issues. Of course, we will all die
someday, so the "end of life" rise in health costs eventually tolls.
Personally, those with bad habits save the gov't. money (SS
benefits) by dying sooner ) OTOH, not justifying smoking but I'm
wondering when the huge increase in obesity (many non-smokers and
quitters) will overcome the savings in illness and/or dollars
brought about by smoking cessation. Smoking (and some other really
bad habits) came about, in part, to decrease appetite.

You're close; think TAXES.

The US has lots of insane practices that cost us dearly, like "sex
sells"...sexually explicit ads geared to teens, crap food ads geared
to toddlers, and pharmaceuticals that nobody in their right mind
would use.

Of course, three of the four major resources that built this country
are outlawed or unpopular....sugar, tobacco, slavery and cotton.

cotton isn't "unpopular" or outlawed....just not profitable compared
to foreign sources.

There is still a *lot* of cotton farmed in this country.

A "lot"?
whatever,it doesn't negate my statement about cotton.

Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be addictive,toxic
and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good use.

Now,in addition to the secondhand smoke problem....
People who smoke are overwhelmingly LITTERBUGS;

Some people are immoral, that isn't to be denied.

they toss their cig butts all over the place,along with the rest of
their smoking trash like disposable lighters,wrappers and empty cig
packs.

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.

Irrelevant. one wrong does not make another 'right'.
and you certainly do not see cans in the quantities that cig butts are
found by the roadsides.

The scumbags empty their ashtrays in parking lots.
Now,some fool is going to say that it's only a few bad ones who toss
their cig trash,but the vast amount of evidence alongside our roads
and outside building entrances says otherwise.

Not to mention fast food wrappers and a whole host of other things.
Let's shut 'em all down!
In that example,it clearly is not the MAJORITY of fast food consumers that
toss their trash improperly,as is the case with smokers.
Cig butts are a major problem for wastewater treatment plants.


They also start fires.

So does lightning. Let's ban that too.

Use some common sense,will ya? The sort of statements you posted here makes
you appear to be stupid.
Lightning is a NATURAL phenomenon.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:34:41 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:23:03 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:05:35 -0500, "
wrote:

dpb wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
...

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

I don't think the reason behind present spate of smoking bans is
much at all related to attitudes/behavior of smokers rather it is
the nanny-state mentality the do-gooders have engendered. I don't
think the folks passing these laws give a flip about attitudes one
way or t'other; they're all for we know better.

--
It has a lot to do with money, as well...cost to employers and
M'caid in covering health issues. Of course, we will all die
someday, so the "end of life" rise in health costs eventually tolls.
Personally, those with bad habits save the gov't. money (SS
benefits) by dying sooner ) OTOH, not justifying smoking but I'm
wondering when the huge increase in obesity (many non-smokers and
quitters) will overcome the savings in illness and/or dollars
brought about by smoking cessation. Smoking (and some other really
bad habits) came about, in part, to decrease appetite.

You're close; think TAXES.

The US has lots of insane practices that cost us dearly, like "sex
sells"...sexually explicit ads geared to teens, crap food ads geared
to toddlers, and pharmaceuticals that nobody in their right mind
would use.

Of course, three of the four major resources that built this country
are outlawed or unpopular....sugar, tobacco, slavery and cotton.

cotton isn't "unpopular" or outlawed....just not profitable compared
to foreign sources.

There is still a *lot* of cotton farmed in this country.

A "lot"?

Yes.

whatever,it doesn't negate my statement about cotton.

If it were "unprofitable" it wouldn't be grown. There are other crops.

Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be addictive,toxic
and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have good use,
by definition.

Now,in addition to the secondhand smoke problem....
People who smoke are overwhelmingly LITTERBUGS;

Some people are immoral, that isn't to be denied.

they toss their cig butts all over the place,along with the rest of
their smoking trash like disposable lighters,wrappers and empty cig
packs.

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.

Irrelevant. one wrong does not make another 'right'.

Not irrelevant. Why aren't you supporting a ban on everything that people
discard or may have discarded illegally? The truth is, you're just another
statist.

and you certainly do not see cans in the quantities that cig butts are
found by the roadsides.

By volume?

The scumbags empty their ashtrays in parking lots.
Now,some fool is going to say that it's only a few bad ones who toss
their cig trash,but the vast amount of evidence alongside our roads
and outside building entrances says otherwise.

Not to mention fast food wrappers and a whole host of other things.
Let's shut 'em all down!
In that example,it clearly is not the MAJORITY of fast food consumers that
toss their trash improperly,as is the case with smokers.
Cig butts are a major problem for wastewater treatment plants.

You've shown no evidence that the MAJORITY of smokers toss their butts
improperly.


They also start fires.

So does lightning. Let's ban that too.

Use some common sense,will ya? The sort of statements you posted here makes
you appear to be stupid.
Lightning is a NATURAL phenomenon.

As far right as you are, I'm just pointing out your statist beliefs. There is
nothing that separates you, ideologically, from the Obaminables.

In article ,
" wrote:


Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be addictive,toxic
and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have good use,
by definition.
Whose definition. All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person. No discussion of
goodness or badness. Just because something is being sold doesn't mean
anything in this area, by definition.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:13:50 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be addictive,toxic
and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have good use,
by definition.

Whose definition.

Was the money good? It was traded for something of equal value, BY
DEFINITION.

All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand that he, and
the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who mattered.

No discussion of
goodness or badness. Just because something is being sold doesn't mean
anything in this area, by definition.

I see you didn't take even Econ 101. what a moron

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:34:41 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:23:03 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:05:35 -0500, "
wrote:

dpb wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
...

The nice people who smoke are respectful and understand but
there are those afflicted with that "**** you" attitude who
have caused the rash of laws to be passed affecting the right
of all adults to damage their bodies any way they choose.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, you will
suffer the consequences for bad behavior, not just your own
bad behavior but the bad behavior of like minded people.
People who smoke who feel their rights are being violated
should be mad at the asshole smokers who have brought about
the crackdown. It's such a simple concept to understand.

I don't think the reason behind present spate of smoking bans is
much at all related to attitudes/behavior of smokers rather it
is the nanny-state mentality the do-gooders have engendered. I
don't think the folks passing these laws give a flip about
attitudes one way or t'other; they're all for we know better.

--
It has a lot to do with money, as well...cost to employers and
M'caid in covering health issues. Of course, we will all die
someday, so the "end of life" rise in health costs eventually
tolls.
Personally, those with bad habits save the gov't. money (SS
benefits) by dying sooner ) OTOH, not justifying smoking but I'm
wondering when the huge increase in obesity (many non-smokers and
quitters) will overcome the savings in illness and/or dollars
brought about by smoking cessation. Smoking (and some other
really bad habits) came about, in part, to decrease appetite.

You're close; think TAXES.

The US has lots of insane practices that cost us dearly, like "sex
sells"...sexually explicit ads geared to teens, crap food ads
geared to toddlers, and pharmaceuticals that nobody in their right
mind would use.

Of course, three of the four major resources that built this
country are outlawed or unpopular....sugar, tobacco, slavery and
cotton.

cotton isn't "unpopular" or outlawed....just not profitable compared
to foreign sources.

There is still a *lot* of cotton farmed in this country.

A "lot"?

Yes.

whatever,it doesn't negate my statement about cotton.

If it were "unprofitable" it wouldn't be grown. There are other
crops.

Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have
good use, by definition.

False logic.you wrongly ASSume it's a "good" use.

Now,in addition to the secondhand smoke problem....
People who smoke are overwhelmingly LITTERBUGS;

Some people are immoral, that isn't to be denied.

they toss their cig butts all over the place,along with the rest of
their smoking trash like disposable lighters,wrappers and empty cig
packs.

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.

Irrelevant. one wrong does not make another 'right'.

Not irrelevant. Why aren't you supporting a ban on everything

"everything"??? hyperbole. a sign your argument is weak.
that
people discard or may have discarded illegally? The truth is, you're
just another statist.

it harms people,and there's NO good use of the crap.


and you certainly do not see cans in the quantities that cig butts are
found by the roadsides.

By volume?

check with any wastewater treatment plant.(I had a tour of one)

The scumbags empty their ashtrays in parking lots.
Now,some fool is going to say that it's only a few bad ones who toss
their cig trash,but the vast amount of evidence alongside our roads
and outside building entrances says otherwise.

Not to mention fast food wrappers and a whole host of other things.
Let's shut 'em all down!
In that example,it clearly is not the MAJORITY of fast food consumers
that toss their trash improperly,as is the case with smokers.
Cig butts are a major problem for wastewater treatment plants.

You've shown no evidence that the MAJORITY of smokers toss their butts
improperly.

The evidence lies alongside most any roadway or street,and at wastewater
treatment plants.Or wait outside any office where the smokers stand around
outside the entrances and flick their butts away after they're done. the
parking lots where smokers empty their ashtrays.You have to be willfully
BLIND to not see it.



They also start fires.

So does lightning. Let's ban that too.

Use some common sense,will ya? The sort of statements you posted here
makes you appear to be stupid.
Lightning is a NATURAL phenomenon.

As far right as you are, I'm just pointing out your statist beliefs.
There is nothing that separates you, ideologically, from the
Obaminables.


Uh,yeah,there is. "reasonable" is the key.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:13:50 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good
use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have
good use, by definition.

Whose definition.

Was the money good? It was traded for something of equal value, BY
DEFINITION.


faulty logic;
as if paying "good" money for something automatically makes the product
"good".


All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand that
he, and the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who
mattered.

perhaps in an anarchy. in civilized societies,no.

No discussion of
goodness or badness. Just because something is being sold doesn't mean
anything in this area, by definition.

I see you didn't take even Econ 101. what a moron


Namecalling is a good sign of a lost argument.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[snip]

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.

Sometimes I walk around, picking up aluminum cans. Once I checked and
found twice as many beer cans (including a few full ones) than soda
cans.

[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." --
Bertrand Russell

[snip]

They also start fires.

I know someone who almost lost a house on Christmas 2008. The cause of
the fire was never determined, but it was likely smoking in bed, or a
candle used to hide the stench.

BTW, the FPE electrical panel didn't help.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." --
Bertrand Russell

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 12:25:20 -0500, willshak
wrote:

[snip]

In NY there is. No smoking in government buildings, no restaurants, no
workplaces, and any enclosed spaces occupied by other people..
You can't even smoke in the stands of Yankee Stadium, which is an open
air stadium.
I don't know about the other NY/NJ stadiums.

There's a restaurant I was considering going to, but decided otherwise
after finding out it's the only one in this town that still allows
smoking. "No Smoking sections" are useless when the smoke won't obey
signs.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." --
Bertrand Russell

In article ,
" wrote:



All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand that he,
and
the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who mattered.


Which of course is not what you were arguing. The response was to
the immorality of tobacco. You suggested that just because "good money"
(whatever that is) was spent that tobacco by definition was a good
thing. Econ only talks to the utility of the people involved and
doesn't make any moral (or heck even legal) distinctions.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

[snip]

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.

Sometimes I walk around, picking up aluminum cans. Once I checked and
found twice as many beer cans (including a few full ones) than soda
cans.

[snip]

FULL BEER CANS!?!?!?! Oh, the humanity. (g)

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:57:56 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:13:50 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good
use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have
good use, by definition.

Whose definition.

Was the money good? It was traded for something of equal value, BY
DEFINITION.


faulty logic;
as if paying "good" money for something automatically makes the product
"good".

Are you taking DimBulb lessons?

All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand that
he, and the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who
mattered.

perhaps in an anarchy. in civilized societies,no.

The purchase is perfectly legal; no anarchy at all.

No discussion of
goodness or badness. Just because something is being sold doesn't mean
anything in this area, by definition.

I see you didn't take even Econ 101. what a moron


Namecalling is a good sign of a lost argument.

Facts are facts. Your argument is no better than the leftist losers'.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:47:04 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand that he,
and
the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who mattered.


Which of course is not what you were arguing.

Of course it is. Just because you refuse to understand...

The response was to the immorality of tobacco.

Tobacco *CANNOT* be immoral, any more than your car is immoral. They are
inanimate objects.

You suggested that just because "good money"
(whatever that is)

i.e. no fraud involved; everyone is playing above-board here...

was spent that tobacco by definition was a good
thing.

Both people in the transaction both benefited. It was good for them, yes.

Econ only talks to the utility of the people involved and
doesn't make any moral (or heck even legal) distinctions.

Wow! He gets it (even though he claims not to).

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:54:04 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:34:41 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

snip

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have
good use, by definition.

False logic.you wrongly ASSume it's a "good" use.

Wrong. It is a "good" use because it was "good" for the people in the
transaction. It's not illegal, and is only "immoral" in your mind. The
morality of "tobacco", which is just silly, has nothing to do with it. You're
the one making the judgment, which is fine FOR YOU but has nothing to do with
anyone else. IOW, you're just as bad as the leftist statists you rail about.

Now,in addition to the secondhand smoke problem....
People who smoke are overwhelmingly LITTERBUGS;

Some people are immoral, that isn't to be denied.

they toss their cig butts all over the place,along with the rest of
their smoking trash like disposable lighters,wrappers and empty cig
packs.

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.

Irrelevant. one wrong does not make another 'right'.

Not irrelevant. Why aren't you supporting a ban on everything

"everything"??? hyperbole. a sign your argument is weak.
that
people discard or may have discarded illegally? The truth is, you're
just another statist.

it harms people,and there's NO good use of the crap.

Water harms people. Better ban swimming. Again, YOU are making a value
judgment and wanting to force others to walk lockstep with your values. IOW
you're nothing better than the lousy statist you hate.

and you certainly do not see cans in the quantities that cig butts are
found by the roadsides.

By volume?

check with any wastewater treatment plant.(I had a tour of one)

If you can't move the ball, move the goal posts a little further. Typical
statist argument.

The scumbags empty their ashtrays in parking lots.
Now,some fool is going to say that it's only a few bad ones who toss
their cig trash,but the vast amount of evidence alongside our roads
and outside building entrances says otherwise.

Not to mention fast food wrappers and a whole host of other things.
Let's shut 'em all down!
In that example,it clearly is not the MAJORITY of fast food consumers
that toss their trash improperly,as is the case with smokers.
Cig butts are a major problem for wastewater treatment plants.

You've shown no evidence that the MAJORITY of smokers toss their butts
improperly.

The evidence lies alongside most any roadway or street,and at wastewater
treatment plants.Or wait outside any office where the smokers stand around
outside the entrances and flick their butts away after they're done. the
parking lots where smokers empty their ashtrays.You have to be willfully
BLIND to not see it.

No, it's you who made the claim (MOST smokers...). Prove it.



They also start fires.

So does lightning. Let's ban that too.

Use some common sense,will ya? The sort of statements you posted here
makes you appear to be stupid.
Lightning is a NATURAL phenomenon.

As far right as you are, I'm just pointing out your statist beliefs.
There is nothing that separates you, ideologically, from the
Obaminables.


Uh,yeah,there is. "reasonable" is the key.

No, it's clear that you're one of them, just in a different color shirt.

In article ,
" wrote:

Econ only talks to the utility of the people involved and
doesn't make any moral (or heck even legal) distinctions.

Wow! He gets it (even though he claims not to).

I have come to the conclusion that we weren't discussing the same
thing, even though be both obviously thought we were. Which probably
explains why neither thought the other was getting it.. probably because
neither of us was...

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:50:12 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Econ only talks to the utility of the people involved and
doesn't make any moral (or heck even legal) distinctions.

Wow! He gets it (even though he claims not to).

I have come to the conclusion that we weren't discussing the same
thing, even though be both obviously thought we were. Which probably
explains why neither thought the other was getting it.. probably because
neither of us was...

Tobacco has utility/value, which is *makes* it good (at least in the mind of
the purchaser). Tobacco is inanimate so it cannot have morals of any sort.
Whether you wish to place a moral value on it is *your* issue and has nothing
to do with the "morality of tobacco".

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

[snip]

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.
Sometimes I walk around, picking up aluminum cans. Once I checked and
found twice as many beer cans (including a few full ones) than soda
cans.

[snip]

FULL BEER CANS!?!?!?! Oh, the humanity. (g)

Likely discarded by teenagers that saw a cop car going the other way,
and expected him to turn around and pull them over. Back in the day, I
heard more than one local LEO say they never had to buy beer, just pull
a Friday or Saturday night shift on road patrol, and act like he was
being a good guy by confiscating the booze instead of writing them up,
and letting the most sober one drive the rest of them home. Of course,
this was all well before dashboard cameras, and cops being wired for
sound, and teenagers being able to call their parents from the side of
the road.

--
aem sends...

Jim Yanik wrote:

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good use.

Neither does designer water, Versacci gowns, auto tail fins, one color paint
over another, or anything beyond, as Mao Tse-Tsung said, a watch and a
bicycle. "Good use" or "need" is not the determining factor; WANT is the
only thing that counts.


Irrelevant. one wrong does not make another 'right'.
and you certainly do not see cans in the quantities that cig butts are
found by the roadsides.

Or leaves. Cigarette butts are completely biodegradable.

In that example,it clearly is not the MAJORITY of fast food consumers
that toss their trash improperly,as is the case with smokers.
Cig butts are a major problem for wastewater treatment plants.

Well, if we should conform our actions to the requirements of the municipal
waste-water treatment plant, we've got some serious work to do regarding,
for example, condoms.

Mark Lloyd wrote:
[snip]

They also start fires.

I know someone who almost lost a house on Christmas 2008. The cause of
the fire was never determined, but it was likely smoking in bed, or a
candle used to hide the stench.


Or an electrical short. Or an arsonist. Or a lightning strike. Or a squirrel
gnawing through a wire. Or a cat on fire brushing past the drapes. Or
spontaneous combustion.

Or, and don't discount this, a miracle (think Moses and the burning bush).
Did the homeowner start a church?

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:57:56 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:13:50 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good
use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have
good use, by definition.

Whose definition.

Was the money good? It was traded for something of equal value, BY
DEFINITION.


faulty logic;
as if paying "good" money for something automatically makes the product
"good".

Are you taking DimBulb lessons?

All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand that
he, and the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who
mattered.

perhaps in an anarchy. in civilized societies,no.

The purchase is perfectly legal; no anarchy at all.

it IS anarchy;
you would allow anything as long as "good" money is exchanged,no
rules,anything goes.
Societies DO have rules,and behaviors that are prohibited.
smokers trample all over other people.They pollute the air,leave big
messes,start fires.THOSE are FACTS.

No discussion of
goodness or badness. Just because something is being sold doesn't mean
anything in this area, by definition.

I see you didn't take even Econ 101. what a moron


Namecalling is a good sign of a lost argument.

Facts are facts.

you have no facts.just allegations.

Your argument is no better than the leftist losers'.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com