Could we soon see the end of smoking?

Could we soon see the end of smoking?

There are 18 comments on the The Florida Times-Union story from Feb 18, 2014, titled Could we soon see the end of smoking?. In it, The Florida Times-Union reports that:

They have long wished for a cigarette-free America, but shied away from calling for smoking rates to fall to zero or near zero by any particular year.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Florida Times-Union.

DUH IM A SMOKER

Winnipeg, Canada

#1 Feb 19, 2014
Over my dead body...

“Opposing Evil, Helping Good”

Since: Feb 14

EVERYWHERE!!!

#2 Feb 19, 2014
This article was stupid, on so many levels!

For starters, it is clearly antismoking propaganda. It serves no other purpose. Just some lame journalist trying to kiss up to the Pharmaceutical Industry.

I tried to count how many true or reasonable statements it contained. I struggled to find even a few.

And let me make something clear: Marijuana is DIFFERENT from tobacco. They are not the same thing. For one, marijuana is a INTOXICANT, which means in can impair you're ability to drive, work, operate machinery, etc. It should be done only in private, or in special buildings and the such (that are set up strictly for it).

Tobacco, on the other hand, should be allowed in most pubic places, except places (usually "sections"; although upto the owner in most cases) which are reserved for antismokers. However it SHOULD NOT be allowed in like, for example, government-owned buildings (except in a separately-ventilated room), because those are places which a antismoker could legitimately claim that he/she MUST be.

Another thing it mentioned were e-cigarettes. These are also DIFFERENT. Not the same thing (Anyone who has used both should know what I'm talking about.) Therefore any comparisons would more or less be "apples-to-watermelons ".

And btw, all those bans and taxes they kept mentioning WILL be repealed eventually. They keep mentioning like 2050 and stuff... by then, most of the bad laws (including those related to Tobacco Control, although not exclusively) will have been repealed.

The people are pretty much p!ssed off about all of the unnecessary government control (again, including Tobacco Control, although not exclusively). Take a look at all the movements the past 5 or 10 years. Tea Party Movement, Occupy Movement, etc., and it's only the beginning!

The people are sick and tired of it. And of lowlifes like this journalist (I couldn't find a name, but something was covering part of it, and I don't feel like turning on javascript just to find the name...)

Again, it is NOT ONLY within the Tobacco Control sphere. However, it is a textbook example of it.

For the record, the entities which take funding for medical research, etc., such as the American Cancer Society, the American Heart/Lung/etc Association and others like them are supposed to have the cures and vaccines for all of these conditions. Their's no excuse for it. They've had plenty long enough to get it done.

If they can't (or won't) they should just commit suicide and leave everything where I can find it, and I'll get it done for everybody!

(I have posted that statement COUNTLESS TIMES, on forums like this one, SINCE LAST CENTURY, and NOBODY has, as of yet, shown me any imperfections within that solution.)

The only problem is, that they "have power" and unfortunately they aren't going to just turn everything they have over to me. Not without some kind of court order (or something forcing them to), which unfortunately I have no legal grounds for anything like that, because unfortunately the system is on they're side.

So at the moment the cures and vaccines still don't exist and their's nothing I can do about it.

But like I said, it won't last forever. People like them who deliberately do bad things to good people WILL be dealt with, through a thing called KARMA!

Furthermore, I will reiterate that things are changing and the populace is no longer willing to put up with wrongful actions on the part of persons in power. Be they of this issue, or otherwise. People are also realizing that if they (the "powers that be") will do something lame to someone else (in this case, persons who use tobacco products), they'll do the same thing to YOU at some point. Almost EVERYONE gets that nowdays. So yes things are changing, and will continue to change.

And people like the ones who run the Florida Times-Union and the Associated Press, can goto Hell! And that's all I've got to say about this, or that article.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#3 Feb 19, 2014
N8 the Grrr8 wrote:
This article was stupid, on so many levels!

And people like the ones who run the Florida Times-Union and the Associated Press, can goto Hell! And that's all I've got to say about this, or that article.
We all know YOU are a smoker. Which makes you an addict that sold his soul to the big tobacco devil. People have been predicting an end to the bans for year. They are getting ever more restrictive because the majority of people WHO DO NOT SMOKE do not wish to inhale toxic gasses because some nicotine addict needs a fix before he finishes a meal. You are a social pariah. We will continue to effect methods which will reduce smoking such as higher taxes and more bans because smokers are basically inconsiderate dolts. They need to be told how to behave, much like a two year old. Think about it; WHY WOULD WE WANT TO INHALE YOUR SMOKE??????? There are only a few of you and lots of us. We are now making the rules you have to abide by.

I win. You lose.

“Opposing Evil, Helping Good”

Since: Feb 14

EVERYWHERE!!!

#4 Feb 19, 2014
Ok, I'll take the bait (this time; I usually don't reply much to trolls but I am this time).
bud_schmones wrote:
We all know YOU are a smoker.
Have we met?
bud_schmones wrote:
Which makes you an addict that sold his soul to the big tobacco devil.
I have never like most tobacco companys, nor the Tobacco Industry in general, which I have always been very vocal about.
bud_schmones wrote:
They are getting ever more restrictive
Actually if you check, and put them on a timeline, less are passing since the mid/late 00s, furthermore, some are getting more lenient, some have been repealed, many have been softened. I can post links if you would like.
bud_schmones wrote:
majority of people WHO DO NOT SMOKE
Yes but #1 those figures are imperfect concerning things like occasional smokers. I'll elaborate on that if anyone is interested. Which is why I'm posting this, btw, I know that "bud_schmones" is just a troll (I've been reading this board, plus I know the type), but I did want to address some of these points on this site. That is why I'm posting this. And then I probably won't reply to "bud_schmones" anymore (unless I feel like it).

Although you are basically correct, most people don't smoke. However #2, more may be NONsmokers, however only a small amount are ANTIsmokers and that amount is going down year after year, as the populace learns more about things like Libertarianism and stuff.
bud_schmones wrote:
do not wish to inhale toxic gasses ...
If you don't like it, you can go to places that don't allow it. Did somebody point a gun at ur head and force you into the place?
bud_schmones wrote:
You are a social pariah.
#1 dumb; #2 Netiquite violation. Which you undoubtedly know that, "bud_schmones", since you just post for attention.

I just want to make sure THE OTHER USERS (who have been treating you seriously) know what you are so they can behave appropriately.
bud_schmones wrote:
...some nicotine addict needs a fix...
People do it because they enjoy it. Not because they "need" anything. Maybe some people but most do it because they enjoy it, no other reason.
bud_schmones wrote:
I win. You lose.
You win what? ROFLMMFAO! Are you kidding?

Again, this poster is nothing more than a troll.

A serious user wouldn't come on so belligerent or violate Netiquette (name calling, personal remarks, etc.) Because they know that the populace will not take them seriously if they do.

So basically this means that he/she isn't serious about a word he/she says. Is only doing it to upset and annoy people (you). Probably some bozo from GNAA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAA (NOTE: Link contains strong content; it's about a troll-group, where people like "bud_schmones" go around to different sites and herass people, although I'm not positive he/she is from that site. I just know he/she is like them.)

And I just want to be sure everybody on the forum knows that you shouldn't treat people like him/her seriously. "Don't feed the trolls".

However, in THIS ONE CASE, it's different, because I actually got some use of him/her. As I said these are points about the Tobacco Control issue I wanted to address on this site. I don't post on Topix that much, and I really don't plan to.


But uh, yeah, I'll bet any amount that "bud_schmones" is either gonna come back with some kind of insult (or some other stupid crap of the sort), or goto another thread and do it to someone else. Who wants to bet? I'll bet $20. Make it $100. Make it $1000. Who wants to bet? Watch and see what happens!

So yeah just don't reply. When you stop replying they go away ;)

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#6 Feb 20, 2014
N8 the Grrr8 wrote:
#1 dumb; #2 Netiquite violation. Which you undoubtedly know that, "bud_schmones", since you just post for attention.
Just going to respond to the name calling one- You referred to the writers of the story as
N8 the Grrr8 wrote:
This article was stupid, on so many levels!
For starters, it is clearly antismoking propaganda. It serves no other purpose. Just some lame journalist trying to kiss up to the Pharmaceutical Industry.
.
And people like the ones who run the Florida Times-Union and the Associated Press, can goto Hell! And that's all I've got to say about this, or that article.
So, you hold no netiquette high ground. None at all. You are a hypocrite.

Again, I win. You lose.
not quite

United States

#7 Feb 20, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
Just going to respond to the name calling one- You referred to the writers of the story as
<quoted text>
So, you hold no netiquette high ground. None at all. You are a hypocrite.
Again, I win. You lose.
a comment "about" the writers is not the same as a comment "toward" a fellow user. so netiquette rules don't apply in that way. making your argument false. just saying.

I have no real interest in this issue I'm just pointing out a fact about this comment. I couldn't care less either way about the smoking ban

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#8 Feb 20, 2014
not quite wrote:
<quoted text>
a comment "about" the writers is not the same as a comment "toward" a fellow user. so netiquette rules don't apply in that way. making your argument false. just saying.
I have no real interest in this issue I'm just pointing out a fact about this comment. I couldn't care less either way about the smoking ban
Actually, commenting towards the author in a story like this is much worse.He actually knows who he is tearing apart and knows his comments are likely to be read by that person. That makes it personal.
not quite

United States

#10 Feb 21, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, commenting towards the author in a story like this is much worse.He actually knows who he is tearing apart and knows his comments are likely to be read by that person. That makes it personal.
Once again the difference is "toward" a user, verses "about" a public figure.

if you CHOOSE to be a writer, a politician, or any type of a celebrity, you have put yourself in the position to be judged by the public. if Michael Vick hosts a dogfight, he gets judged by the public. if Britney Spears almost drops her son, she gets judged for it. if Chris Brown beats up his girlfriend, he gets judged for it. If a newspaper, and/or its staff members publish articles which are rubbish, they get judged for it by the people. Which they should be.

all of them usually get forgiven at some point, but they do get judged by the people, for what they did, at the time they did whatever they did. this is to be expected. again they are persons or entities who have chosen to be public, and well known by ordinary people

I have no idea if the article was good or bad or even what it was about, except for the title. Nor do I care. I did not comment on the article. I commented on a forum user who posted incorrect information about netiquette and forum posting.

once again the difference is "toward" vs. "about". Companies and public figures have things posted "about" them. as is expected. after all they have chosen to make themselves public. But that's different from walking into the office of the company and causing a scene. criticism of companies should be kept on internet forums where it belongs. or you can send them email if you wish to make sure they read it. Or call them. if you do call them or send them email, you should be civil, because it is directed "toward" them, not "about" them. And because an employee who is not responsible for the article will most likely receive the email

In general, nothing pertaining to a company or public figure pertains to netiquette unless you are emailing them. on the other hand, when dealing with peers, one should always be civil. when posting "about" a public figure, one can be a little more blunt, as long as such comments are never directed directly toward another user, or users, who believe differently about that person, entity or company.

If a user is a celebrity or represents a company, and they expect to be treated in that manner, they need to make that fact known and verifiable. After which most of the rules of netiquette would, in some cases, apply, toward that entity.

“Unions are still scum ”

Since: Dec 07

Atlanta

#11 Feb 21, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
Just going to respond to the name calling one- You referred to the writers of the story as
<quoted text>
So, you hold no netiquette high ground. None at all. You are a hypocrite.
Again, I win. You lose.
You seem very concerned about winning, or at least telling us you won.

But I do agree, idiots like that addict and smoker Obama are nothing but trash.

Since: Mar 14

Magnolia, TX

#12 Feb 21, 2014
I would love to see the end of smoking. When people smoke, they stain their teeth and even increase the risk of oral cancer ( http://cerritosdentalsurgery.com/oral-patholo... ).
Dan

Omaha, NE

#13 Feb 21, 2014
DrShawnHofkes wrote:
I would love to see the end of smoking. When people smoke, they stain their teeth and even increase the risk of oral cancer ( http://cerritosdentalsurgery.com/oral-patholo... ).
More business for you, then, unless you think you can live off coffee/tea/soda drinkers who's teeth are also stained.
DUH IM N8

Winnipeg, Canada

#14 Feb 21, 2014
Anti-smoking propaganda? Why would we not want to be against this vile, destructive habit/ disease? Only a stinker with a horrible addiction would be pro, but you'd also be another victim and another lost cause.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#15 Feb 21, 2014
DUH IM N8 wrote:
Anti-smoking propaganda? Why would we not want to be against this vile, destructive habit/ disease? Only a stinker with a horrible addiction would be pro, but you'd also be another victim and another lost cause.
It's a habit.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (that you exhibit) is a disease. I'm against OCD.
Dont be such a DAN

Winnipeg, Canada

#16 Feb 22, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a habit.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (that you exhibit) is a disease. I'm against OCD.
whatever

“Opposing Evil, Helping Good”

Since: Feb 14

EVERYWHERE!!!

#17 Mar 13, 2014
not quite wrote:
<quoted text>
a comment "about" the writers is not the same as a comment "toward" a fellow user. so netiquette rules don't apply in that way. making your argument false. just saying.
I have no real interest in this issue I'm just pointing out a fact about this comment. I couldn't care less either way about the smoking ban
Absolutely correct, both Post #7 and Post #10! Not only that, you said it better than I could have said it. I was going to post earlier but I didn't wanna do it while the trolls were going on.

They were actually watching my account on 2/21, when I replied to other threads but not this on. That was when the Winnipeg person/proxy came on with that name (in Post #14), and then started using that "format" with other users after that...

Oh, and right after that, they did this thread:

http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoking/T5S...

ROFLMMFAO!!! They didn't realize anyone was watching this forum ;) With people watching you must do it slower for it too look real ;)

Get a load of that: "Hi, when I lived in the US, I worked at Burger Klone and we would masterbait onto people's food" Then the other one comes on "Yeah, I worked at Beefcake Charley's and we did the same thing!"

"And we know that Food Tampering is a federal crime in the US, and that countries like Italy and many South American countries have treaties with the US (think 1980s Mafia), yet we were both stupid enough to post this."

Which CAN HAPPEN, yes! In fact their was a story about some girl that robbed a bank and posted a video about it on YouTube. Yes some people are that stupid, but let's crunch numbers. Let's say the odds are about 3:100, that's 3%. To get the odds of it happening twice you would say 3% of 3% which is 0.09% and then stuff like the odds of both posting within a hour of each other ;) Then do a search for like "bypass proxies" and look at the country the top 2 are located (on 2/22; could be different right now).

Oh and then they brought on a registered account, set up months ago but never used. That's common for ones who troll many forums on the same site. They can set it up and keep it handy to use for whichever purpose later.


Don't get me wrong, GNAA's are NOT stupid! However they do mess up. Usually by doing things that a serious user who espouses that position wouldn't do. For example, claiming that "[smoking bans] are getting ever more restrictive..." which is so easy to prove wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_...

And a real antismoker would be furious about it, and complain bitterly about it. Goto the ACS or ANR's site to see what a real antismoker says about that.

Also keep in mind that GNAA-style trolls are APOLITICAL. In other words they don't give a flying crap about the issues. They take which ever side most people are against. In this case most are pro-rights, so they take the antismoking position.

However they DO know Netiquette, in the same way a crooked lawyer knows Law. Same thing, same principal. And they'll bring things that sometimes confuse people, such as (in that case) the difference between a celebrity-entity verses a forum-user. It's a "cloud and confuse" technique.

And you did the right thing. In fact you're 2 posts were absolutely awesome! And I wanted too be sure I mentioned that.

However, I just wanted too be sure I mentioned that GNAA-style trolls know that. You don't have too show them nothing! They know full well what their doing is incorrect.

However, I, like most people (including you, I presume), don't post for any one specific user. I post for the purposes of educating the populace. Also learning from other persons and discussing political and social topics, open-mindedly.

Anyway I just wanted to say right on! Your awesome! and TY :)
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#18 Mar 14, 2014
"5% by 2050"?

That isn't "anti"-smoking propaganda. That is a ridiculously long time to get to that point.

New Zealand is pledged to 0% by 2025.

“Opposing Evil, Helping Good”

Since: Feb 14

EVERYWHERE!!!

#20 Apr 8, 2014
Hugh Jass wrote:
"5% by 2050"?
That isn't "anti"-smoking propaganda. That is a ridiculously long time to get to that point.
New Zealand is pledged to 0% by 2025.
I think I see what your saying. Like that "it could be worse", kinda thing. Yeah, that's true, but it still is anti-smoking, and definitely propaganda. I'll cite examples (from the article):

- "Polls show that cigarette smoking is no longer considered normal behavior..."

Those polls are either rigged, taken from people who live in areas with many antismoking laws (who are statistically more likely to agree or concede to such things), or just downright fabricated. The source is, according to them, the Associated Press, who is the epitome of the Mass Media, who has very significant ties to antismoking orgs (I'll provide examples if anyone wants).

- "Health officials have begun to predict the end of cigarette smoking in America."

If that is not antismoking propaganda, please tell me what is!!!


And a bunch of other stuff... I don't fell like going into all of it (although I will if anyone wants).

One of the main things I kept noticing is that they kept bringing up marijuana.

Let's get something strait: Marijuana is not "the same as" tobacco. I 100% support it's legalization, don't get me wrong. And I don't wanna sound like I'm saying otherwise.

However, because it is a INTOXICANT, in other words, you might make a different decision and/or exhibit different behavior after you do alot of it, then you would have maid before (Anybody who has ever done it should know what I'm talking about. That's why they call it "getting stoned", lol.)

It should be legalized, yes, however it should not be done while driving, working, using machinery, etc. And it should not be done in pubic places, except for a place designed for it. Such as a "marijuana bar" if you will. Basically it should be treated as ALCOHOL, NOT TOBACCO. Is what I am saying. But yes it should be legalized! Absolutely 100%, yes!!!

And e-cigarettes, which are kinda cool, but its not the same thing. It gives you the "drug" (nicotine) but it doesn't give you the you know, "physical sensation". I mean yes, it has it's own physical sensation of it's own, but it's DIFFERENT, which is precisely what my point is, about that.

So the article is clearly trying to push marijuana and ecigs as ALTERNATIVES to cigarettes.

And I say, why do we need ANY alternatives, whatsoever?

I say KEEP ALL 3!!! And then EACH PERSON can decide which, if any, of them, he or she chooses to use.

Now tell me, is that a perfect solution, or is it not?

If anyone can find any fault whatsoever with that solution, please do inform me. I think I'm right, but if I do happen to be wrong (which happens every now and then), all you have to do is SHOW me WHERE I'm wrong! That's all you have to do!

I have no axes to grind, and I never, ever POV-push, ever! Furthermore, I am probably one of the most open-minded persons in human existence! If I am incorrect about anything, I would rather know it than not know it. And I have always found that you can learn just as much from persons whom you disagree with, as persons who you agree with. In fact, it's best to have some of each, for best results.

Anyway, like I said, if anyone disagrees with anything, please inform me and we can discuss it :)
I smoke therefore I stink

Winnipeg, Canada

#22 Apr 14, 2014
Factories are shutting down ,but theTobacco Mafia will move to poor countries and destroy the knuckle draggers there.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News West Virginia man faces felony charges for anim... 3 hr concerned 2
News Civil rights groups challenge Alabama county's ... 6 hr Joyce hamilton 1
News 'No charges can be filed' in JonBenet case with... 6 hr Revelations 4
News Sheriff Cory Hutcheson Vowed to Clean Up His Ru... 8 hr Please say no 133
News Man takes drone out for a sunset flight, drone ... 8 hr annoying 90
News ICE Has Made Over 41,000 Arrests in Trump's Fir... 9 hr UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 17
News Republicans already giving Trump's budget a col... 9 hr CodeTalker 5
More from around the web