[barfly]

The Extreme Selfishness of Antismokers
Blad Tolstoy
8th July 2007


“Oh smokers are so selfish!” is a common cliché - and one of many - trotted out regularly by the anti-smoker lobby. However, who is truly selfish, the smokers or the anti-smokers?


The first thing to consider is the significant element or retroactive judgment for it is as though society at large always had the same view of smoking which it has not. In 1947, for example, smoking was considered very fashionable and many non-smokers claimed to like the smell. Even up until the 1970s and 80s many women used to say they liked the smell of a man who smoked a pipe or cigar and the pipe smoking man was usually presented as being more manly than the ordinary run of the mill cigarette lover. Moreover, and importantly, until the 1980s smoking was considered normal and many non-smokers would have ashtrays on hand for smoking guests and some even bought their own cigarettes to offer them too.



Subsequently, when something is not considered offensive, engaging in it and particularly after the polite request: “mind if I smoke” could not be, and was not, considered selfish. It was only as smoking became unfashionable and the anti-smoker lobby’s campaigns and propaganda acquired momentum that the notion that smokers were selfish took hold and accelerated in popularity.



As this change unfolded smokers gradually began to find themselves being edged out of public venues. For example and in working environments, first they were relegated to smoking rooms and then outside. Many smokers in the UK took this in good part and were willing to consider their colleagues’ comfort up until fairly recently – about 2003 onwards - when the anti-smoker activists stepped up their campaigns to have smoking banned from all public places.



An interesting aspect of this is that now that people have been banned from smoking in pubs, clubs, bars, restaurants and cafés, there is the complaint that smokers are making life difficult by creating a curtain of smoke at the entrances to these establishments so inflicting their “vile and filthy habit upon others.”



Should smokers worry about this? The answer is plainly “no” for the problem is not of their choice or of their making. The answer to the anti-smokers in this context should obviously be: “you created this problem now live with it,” and there should be no remorse of hesitation in providing that response for the anti-smoker lobby has indeed become overbearingly selfish. In other words, if it is true that smokers were the selfish ones the boot is now most definitely on the other foot.



However, the anti-smokers’ response to this perceived problem is to demand that smokers be banned from the entrances of pubs and clubs and even the beer gardens. How many landlords have now thrown up their hands in despair and annoyance as anti-smoker zealots go out of their way to move amongst the smokers in outside areas whilst making those pathetic little coughing noises and loud rude remarks about “how awful all this tobacco smoke is.” How many times have we heard accounts from friends about how, when sitting peacefully smoking on some outside café patio where there are lots of empty tables, a couple have deliberately made their way to the next table and started to complain and “ercoff, ercoff, ercoff.”


Selfish ignoramuses like these should be ignored and treated with the contempt they deserve but if only the catalogue of anti-smoker sins ended there. Unfortunately, the anti-smoker has become the supreme selfish egotist with little regard or concern for the momentous damage that they inflict upon others. So let’s consider some of that damage.



For example, the Irish smoking ban is usually touted as an enormous success when in fact it is a fiasco. To date, and according the LVA some 1,200 pubs have closed since the ban’s inception. When the figure reached 1,000 in about March of this year even The Times commented upon it. The LVA also estimates some 25,000 jobs lost because of the ban. True, there are pubs that have been enormously successful, but many survive too by providing outside areas some of which have been described as being even more luxurious than the facilities available inside. Add to that the secret back rooms, smokeasies and lock-ins all of which are popular.


In addition, there have been numerous press reports about the growth of a rampant black market in cigarettes in Ireland plus Gallaghers have announced increased profits in cigarette sales for two years running. Similarly, R.J. Carroll also announced profits up for last year. Even Luke Clancy of ASH Ireland admits that the number of smokers has gone back up to 1% below what it was before the ban, but a number of commentators have stated that it may be even higher than the pre ban figure due to the fact that the Irish government is unable to track such matters accurately any more as it cannot properly estimate the extent of black market buyers.



The negative effect of smoking bans are not confined to Ireland either, for Scotland already reports over two hundred pubs and fifteen bingo halls closed since its ban. In fact, the pattern of damage appears the same worldwide with enormous losses sustained by the hospitality industry plus clubs (from working mens’ to night clubs) bingo halls and bowling allies and also by small local charities dependent upon the goodwill of these establishments in providing funds. Add to this the job losses and the economic and social costs run in to billions. Still, the anti-smoker lobby is unconcerned and presses on ruthlessly to pursue its goal of a smoke free world – whilst completely ignoring the fact that smoking rates frequently go up after bans and not down - and demands now that smokers be denied the benefits of health treatment despite the fact that smokers, through taxes levied directly upon the sales of cigarettes and corporation tax levied upon the profits of the tobacco companies, probably contribute more to any economy than any other social group paying their medical care costs many times over thereby benefiting lots of non-smokers as well.



A particularly worrisome and very recent instance of anti-smoker evil pertains to Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. These two allegedly keen anti-smoker gentlemen have announced a proposal to increase the federal cigarette excise tax from thirty-nine cents to one dollar per pack in order to fund the State Children’s Health Insurance (S-Chip) programme which is up for reauthorisation this year. Whilst on the surface it may appear that this is a great idea that serves two purposes - reducing smoking and providing revenues to fund health insurance for children - a closer examination reveals that the idea is severely flawed and unacceptable from a public health perspective.



Essentially, what the proposal does is make the coverage of children's health care dependent upon the continued sale of cigarettes. In other words, it asks smokers to take on the responsibility of funding children's health care and it depends on smokers continuing to smoke in order to continue the funding whilst, at the same time, they continue to be vilified by Kennedy and Hatch and other individuals and public bodies. In addition, it greatly reduces any incentive for the federal government to take any action that might substantially reduce smoking rates and therefore cigarette tax revenues.



The tax is an unfair one because it places the burden of funding children's health care entirely on smokers, yet the benefits of the tax do not accrue to smokers at all.



Furthermore, many states in America are now dependent on extra tax on smokers to balance their state budgets. This being the case, the continued vilification of a group of people upon whom so many depend is hypocrisy of the first rank and it carries with it the concept that smokers are a sub class to be used and bled and who are expendable.



Upon whom can we pace the blame for this outlook? There is no other answer except that the blame lies squarely with the anti-smoker lobby. It is corrupt and immoral and its sheer unregulated selfishness is now boundless. So next time some anti-smoker zealot has the gall to say that you, a smoker, are selfish, laugh at them and point out a few home truths. If anybody stinks and creates problems, they do!

[CamelMan324]

Originally Posted by barfly An interesting aspect of this is that now that people have been banned from smoking in pubs, clubs, bars, restaurants and cafés, there is the complaint that smokers are making life difficult by creating a curtain of smoke at the entrances to these establishments so inflicting their “vile and filthy habit upon others.” Should smokers worry about this? The answer is plainly “no” for the problem is not of their choice or of their making. The answer to the anti-smokers in this context should obviously be: “you created this problem now live with it,” and there should be no remorse of hesitation in providing that response for the anti-smoker lobby has indeed become overbearingly selfish. In other words, if it is true that smokers were the selfish ones the boot is now most definitely on the other foot. However, the anti-smokers’ response to this perceived problem is to demand that smokers be banned from the entrances of pubs and clubs and even the beer gardens. How many landlords have now thrown up their hands in despair and annoyance as anti-smoker zealots go out of their way to move amongst the smokers in outside areas whilst making those pathetic little coughing noises and loud rude remarks about “how awful all this tobacco smoke is.” How many times have we heard accounts from friends about how, when sitting peacefully smoking on some outside café patio where there are lots of empty tables, a couple have deliberately made their way to the next table and started to complain and “ercoff, ercoff, ercoff.” Selfish ignoramuses like these should be ignored and treated with the contempt they deserve but if only the catalogue of anti-smoker sins ended there. Unfortunately, the anti-smoker has become the supreme selfish egotist with little regard or concern for the momentous damage that they inflict upon others. So let’s consider some of that damage.

Agreed, I absolutely hate this about non smokers. Like I will just be sitting by myself somewhere smoking a cigarettea and minding my own business, and then all of a sudden, a group of people sit right next to where I'm smoking and start complaining about the smell. How stupid can they possibly be?? It's like you do realize that there are many other seats open, yet you choose to sit by the person who's smoking??? Go sit somewhere else if the smell bothers you so much! I swear, people these days need to grow a damn brain.

[Southern Smoker]

Originally Posted by barfly The Extreme Selfishness of Antismokers the anti-smoker has become the supreme selfish egotist with little regard or concern for the momentous damage that they inflict upon others. So let’s consider some of that damage. A particularly worrisome and very recent instance of anti-smoker evil pertains to Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. These two allegedly keen anti-smoker gentlemen have announced a proposal to increase the federal cigarette excise tax from thirty-nine cents to one dollar per pack in order to fund the State Children’s Health Insurance (S-Chip) programme which is up for reauthorisation this year. Whilst on the surface it may appear that this is a great idea that serves two purposes - reducing smoking and providing revenues to fund health insurance for children - a closer examination reveals that the idea is severely flawed and unacceptable from a public health perspective. Essentially, what the proposal does is make the coverage of children's health care dependent upon the continued sale of cigarettes. In other words, it asks smokers to take on the responsibility of funding children's health care and it depends on smokers continuing to smoke in order to continue the funding whilst, at the same time, they continue to be vilified by Kennedy and Hatch and other individuals and public bodies. The tax is an unfair one because it places the burden of funding children's health care entirely on smokers, yet the benefits of the tax do not accrue to smokers at all.

Our Politicians are soooo ignorant! And Gullible! They are told HUGE falsehoods by the Anti's and they believe all that they hear! A good example would be Eliot Spitzer - who was AG for the state of NY in 2006 and then Governor of NY - he was told that kids are able to get cigarettes and other tobacco products easily from the internet! That is absolute HOGWASH. Kids CAN'T get cigs from the internet anymore. Spitzer told the US Postal Service that they were responsible for shipping millions of illegal cigarettes to Kids! He tried to say that the Post Office don't need the revenue from all these shipments to people (smokers like me who order online)! That revenue amounts into the BILLIONS of dollars! The USPostOffice asked congress for 300 billion dollars to cover the shortfall they have for this year! Of Course they DO NEED THAT REVENUE or else they become what? Joe the plumber? Need a huge bailout? Take away the shipments of cigarettes from over 700 online retailers from around the globe and that is a lot of missing Priority Mail and Global Priority Mail revenues!!! Now add to that the "New" cost of enforcement of HR5912 (the PACT act) and you have a Postal Service that is strapped for revenues even more!

Spitzer clearly had it wrong! The whole time he was spouting off for the Anti's, Mr. Spitzer was involved in a "REAL" criminal enterprise - Prostitution! Look at the corrupt politician trying to put the KO on online tobacco orders with ridiculous lies about who can get tobacco shipments and how much revenue the USPS can afford to lose. Thank god the Post Office don't think its a good idea to be messing with First Class Mail matter. Other delivery companies though have been "Black-mailed" by State officials into stopping deliveries of legitimate tobacco shipments to consenting adults (like ME). I voted for McCain because he is a friend to tobacco. Obama already appointed a high-ranking Anti-smoker. So what now, Obama gonna keep smoking in private, but get rid of a bunch of online tobacco jobs. Just because its online, don't mean there is nobody working there.

[cooldude]

Smoking is legal. Prohibition didn’t work in the ’20s with alcohol and it won’t work now. If you think the county can afford to pay ‘‘smoke police’’ then you have another thing coming. Why don’t you pay to have people arrested for smoking on the streets that ALL people pay for? I am a tax payer as well as hundreds of other people. And guess what??? NON-SMOKERS are not the only people that walk down the streets of Jamestown or any other street in this country.
If you believe all the hype, rhetoric, and false statements about the dangers of second-hand smoke then I guess you believe what ever you want to believe.
Why doesn’t the government outlaw cigarettes completely? Why does the government subsidize the tobacco industry? Why is it that the smokers pay one more extra tax that non-smokers pay? Where did all the money go from the Tobacco Settlement Agreement? What is all the money from the American Cancer Society, Lung Association and Heart association spent on. Do some research. I have been researching these questions for more than four years now.
If the government were to outlaw tobacco, where do you think they would go to make up the loss from the taxes?? Your pocket. Watch what you wish for because it might come back and bite you. This smoke law is social engineering, engineered by do-gooders and special interest groups. With all the money spent on television ads from these groups and the pharmaceutical industry, every American citizen would have health insurance.
The elected officials in government were not put in office to protect us from ourselves. Everyone is an individual. This is not a perfect world nor will it ever be. Smoking is a legal product and smokers are not social outcasts. We are not second hand citizens.
Look around this county and see how many bars, bingo halls, and restaurants have closed or are struggling. How many clubs can you say are doing well since the ban. I can tell you: none. If anyone wants to research this just ask the establishments if they have lost revenue and how many donations they can give now to the differents organizations that they used to give to. It’s really pathetic when the market place can’t dictate what is good for their business. We are not ‘‘publicly owned.’’People come to these places by CHOICE. This is AMERICA. LAND OF THE FREE. Yeah, right, free to pay taxes and let the government dictate our lives. We're all monkeys in a barrel to people like Spitzer and Bloomberg and they are getting away with such BS. Really sux man!

[cooljay788]

As long as governemnts, politicians and antismoking orgs like the American Cancer Society all live off of smokers' money (via tobacco sales), keep on dreaming if you think the govt will ever make tobacco illegal.

If more smokers switched to making their own cigs or Native brands, at least they wouldn't be giving politicians and anti orgs money anymore...since they would stop buying BT brands.

I agree tobacco should be illegal based on how anti this society is towards smoking. But if they make tobacco illegal, then you might see a Big Mac costing as much as 10 bucks, to make up for the fact the govt couldn't collect money off of smokers anymore.

I guess the only tobacco that WOULD be illegal are the big name brands...those are the brands the govt lives off of in terms of sales. Not Native brands or tobacco used to make your own.

[Eddie H]

Originally Posted by cooljay788 As long as governemnts, politicians and antismoking orgs like the American Cancer Society all live off of smokers' money (via tobacco sales), keep on dreaming if you think the govt will ever make tobacco illegal. If more smokers switched to making their own cigs or Native brands, at least they wouldn't be giving politicians and anti orgs money anymore...since they would stop buying BT brands. I agree tobacco should be illegal based on how anti this society is towards smoking. But if they make tobacco illegal, then you might see a Big Mac costing as much as 10 bucks, to make up for the fact the govt couldn't collect money off of smokers anymore. I guess the only tobacco that WOULD be illegal are the big name brands...those are the brands the govt lives off of in terms of sales. Not Native brands or tobacco used to make your own.

I agree they won't make tobacco illegal down at the convenience stores but, they have outlawed online sales from non-indians (except for a few foolish sites like carolinacartons). They continue to try to put the brakes on American Indian sites though. They got rid of the delivery companies like DHL, UPS and FedEx and they even got rid of the credit card companies to try to shut the Indians down. This new bill that is coming, if passed by Mr. wonderful Obama, will stop the post office from delivering for the Indians. Order all you can now and stock up people. If you won't fight these challenges, you will be going to the corner store to get cigs and the prices won't be too pretty.

[cooljay788]

I heard of that Carolina store from the negativity I read on FSCs. I neva will purchase from em though. The price for a Newport non-FSC carton over there is no different from me buying Newports in Indiana, when I factor in the shop's shipping fee. That aint saving money to me when a Newport carton is 47 bucks online from that shop.

I'd NEVA recommend any smoker to buy from that dumb shop. agoodcigarette.com has cheaper prices for ALL cig brands, and much lower shipping fees.

How do we know if Carolina shop sells fresh cigs? We don't. Buying stale cartons is a waste of money. agoocdcigarette sells fresh cartons of every brand. I know cause I've been a customer with em since Sep. 2007. And their shop reps are very friendly and not liars when it comes to reporting orders. Took me only 2-3 work days to receive my orders from agoodcigarette afta I placed em over the phone.

[bobbyT]

Amen, as long as they tax it, they'll keep us smokers going until they squeeze every last penny out of us and then tell us it isn't their fault we got hooked on a legal product...what a sham. having said that, i'm an adult, i understand the dangers, i acknowledge that i'm hooked, and still choose to smoke...either make it illegal or stop unfairly JUST taxing me...

[barfly]

The anti-smoker lobby is corrupt and immoral and its sheer unregulated selfishness is now boundless. So next time some anti-smoker zealot has the gall to say that you, a smoker, are selfish, laugh at them and point out a few home truths. If anybody stinks and creates problems, they do!

Below is the quoted text of my post last year on this topic after the apology in small text.

I apologize to any ladies on here that saw my smoking ladies' pix on the Community link above. The hackers changed it to public. I deleted all the pix I had uploaded. Please forgive me; I'm not a freak. All those pix were copy and paste from the internet. Of the eighteen pictures, only one showed nakedness and that is the one I am apologizing for. Some users on here may still have smoking ladies' pix as long as the ladies have all their clothes on. Again, I apologize for the infraction.

Originally Posted by barfly The Extreme Selfishness of Antismokers Blad Tolstoy 8th July 2007 “Oh smokers are so selfish!” is a common cliché - and one of many - trotted out regularly by the anti-smoker lobby. However, who is truly selfish, the smokers or the anti-smokers? The first thing to consider is the significant element or retroactive judgment for it is as though society at large always had the same view of smoking which it has not. In 1947, for example, smoking was considered very fashionable and many non-smokers claimed to like the smell. Even up until the 1970s and 80s many women used to say they liked the smell of a man who smoked a pipe or cigar and the pipe smoking man was usually presented as being more manly than the ordinary run of the mill cigarette lover. Moreover, and importantly, until the 1980s smoking was considered normal and many non-smokers would have ashtrays on hand for smoking guests and some even bought their own cigarettes to offer them too. Subsequently, when something is not considered offensive, engaging in it and particularly after the polite request: “mind if I smoke” could not be, and was not, considered selfish. It was only as smoking became unfashionable and the anti-smoker lobby’s campaigns and propaganda acquired momentum that the notion that smokers were selfish took hold and accelerated in popularity. As this change unfolded smokers gradually began to find themselves being edged out of public venues. For example and in working environments, first they were relegated to smoking rooms and then outside. Many smokers in the UK took this in good part and were willing to consider their colleagues’ comfort up until fairly recently – about 2003 onwards - when the anti-smoker activists stepped up their campaigns to have smoking banned from all public places. An interesting aspect of this is that now that people have been banned from smoking in pubs, clubs, bars, restaurants and cafés, there is the complaint that smokers are making life difficult by creating a curtain of smoke at the entrances to these establishments so inflicting their “vile and filthy habit upon others.” Should smokers worry about this? The answer is plainly “no” for the problem is not of their choice or of their making. The answer to the anti-smokers in this context should obviously be: “you created this problem now live with it,” and there should be no remorse of hesitation in providing that response for the anti-smoker lobby has indeed become overbearingly selfish. In other words, if it is true that smokers were the selfish ones the boot is now most definitely on the other foot. However, the anti-smokers’ response to this perceived problem is to demand that smokers be banned from the entrances of pubs and clubs and even the beer gardens. How many landlords have now thrown up their hands in despair and annoyance as anti-smoker zealots go out of their way to move amongst the smokers in outside areas whilst making those pathetic little coughing noises and loud rude remarks about “how awful all this tobacco smoke is.” How many times have we heard accounts from friends about how, when sitting peacefully smoking on some outside café patio where there are lots of empty tables, a couple have deliberately made their way to the next table and started to complain and “ercoff, ercoff, ercoff.” Selfish ignoramuses like these should be ignored and treated with the contempt they deserve but if only the catalogue of anti-smoker sins ended there. Unfortunately, the anti-smoker has become the supreme selfish egotist with little regard or concern for the momentous damage that they inflict upon others. So let’s consider some of that damage. For example, the Irish smoking ban is usually touted as an enormous success when in fact it is a fiasco. To date, and according the LVA some 1,200 pubs have closed since the ban’s inception. When the figure reached 1,000 in about March of this year even The Times commented upon it. The LVA also estimates some 25,000 jobs lost because of the ban. True, there are pubs that have been enormously successful, but many survive too by providing outside areas some of which have been described as being even more luxurious than the facilities available inside. Add to that the secret back rooms, smokeasies and lock-ins all of which are popular. In addition, there have been numerous press reports about the growth of a rampant black market in cigarettes in Ireland plus Gallaghers have announced increased profits in cigarette sales for two years running. Similarly, R.J. Carroll also announced profits up for last year. Even Luke Clancy of ASH Ireland admits that the number of smokers has gone back up to 1% below what it was before the ban, but a number of commentators have stated that it may be even higher than the pre ban figure due to the fact that the Irish government is unable to track such matters accurately any more as it cannot properly estimate the extent of black market buyers. The negative effect of smoking bans are not confined to Ireland either, for Scotland already reports over two hundred pubs and fifteen bingo halls closed since its ban. In fact, the pattern of damage appears the same worldwide with enormous losses sustained by the hospitality industry plus clubs (from working mens’ to night clubs) bingo halls and bowling allies and also by small local charities dependent upon the goodwill of these establishments in providing funds. Add to this the job losses and the economic and social costs run in to billions. Still, the anti-smoker lobby is unconcerned and presses on ruthlessly to pursue its goal of a smoke free world – whilst completely ignoring the fact that smoking rates frequently go up after bans and not down - and demands now that smokers be denied the benefits of health treatment despite the fact that smokers, through taxes levied directly upon the sales of cigarettes and corporation tax levied upon the profits of the tobacco companies, probably contribute more to any economy than any other social group paying their medical care costs many times over thereby benefiting lots of non-smokers as well. A particularly worrisome and very recent instance of anti-smoker evil pertains to Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. These two allegedly keen anti-smoker gentlemen have announced a proposal to increase the federal cigarette excise tax from thirty-nine cents to one dollar per pack in order to fund the State Children’s Health Insurance (S-Chip) programme which is up for reauthorisation this year. Whilst on the surface it may appear that this is a great idea that serves two purposes - reducing smoking and providing revenues to fund health insurance for children - a closer examination reveals that the idea is severely flawed and unacceptable from a public health perspective. Essentially, what the proposal does is make the coverage of children's health care dependent upon the continued sale of cigarettes. In other words, it asks smokers to take on the responsibility of funding children's health care and it depends on smokers continuing to smoke in order to continue the funding whilst, at the same time, they continue to be vilified by Kennedy and Hatch and other individuals and public bodies. In addition, it greatly reduces any incentive for the federal government to take any action that might substantially reduce smoking rates and therefore cigarette tax revenues. The tax is an unfair one because it places the burden of funding children's health care entirely on smokers, yet the benefits of the tax do not accrue to smokers at all. Furthermore, many states in America are now dependent on extra tax on smokers to balance their state budgets. This being the case, the continued vilification of a group of people upon whom so many depend is hypocrisy of the first rank and it carries with it the concept that smokers are a sub class to be used and bled and who are expendable. Upon whom can we pace the blame for this outlook? There is no other answer except that the blame lies squarely with the anti-smoker lobby. It is corrupt and immoral and its sheer unregulated selfishness is now boundless. So next time some anti-smoker zealot has the gall to say that you, a smoker, are selfish, laugh at them and point out a few home truths. If anybody stinks and creates problems, they do!

[jlong]

Anti smokers bitch Obama plans to raise taxes. We smokers take tax burden off their shoulders and they bitch about our smoking. Bitch, bitch, bitch. What sorry miserable lives they live.