Smokers find oasis on the greens

generalsn1234567 wrote:

<quoted text> Many Chicago cops are hoping for a change too with the crowds outside the bars getting larger with the appproaching warmer weather.

You make a great point I hadn't even considered. Alcohol + 20-somethings + outside on a sidewalk having a bog will result in some higher assault rates. The old days are gone, but the smoking areas are interesting to observe.

nova0311 wrote:

<quoted text>
You're confused. Actually, very few smokers are fat because nicotine is an appetite suppressant. You said that fat people don't affect anyone. Again, you are confused. Obese people take many medications, and guess who is covering the cost? If you think that the insurance companies are paying for all the obese people to take 10 pills a day out of the goodness of their hearts, you are not only confused, you are also naive.

Alcohol contributes to countless negative health, cultural, and societal effects. Obviously a ban on alcohol from bars, baseball stadiums, and golf courses is next.... then fatty foods... then all other unhealthy lifestyle choices.

Only then will we have our government-imposed utopia in which we have absoluteley no freedom of choice.

crafty b wrote:

<quoted text>
Alcohol contributes to countless negative health, cultural, and societal effects. Obviously a ban on alcohol from bars, baseball stadiums, and golf courses is next.... then fatty foods... then all other unhealthy lifestyle choices.
Only then will we have our government-imposed utopia in which we have absoluteley no freedom of choice.

Meanwhile, millions of otherwise healthy people will contract lung cancer and other lung diseases from breathing in the toxic fumes from factories and internal combustion engines in metropolitan areas. But we certainly don't want to anger the oil barons or the auto industry.

Generic wrote:

Why do smokers insist on denigrating others they don't know?

BTW, I don't smoke. Why do anti-tobacco zealots automatically assume that anyone who disagrees with them is a smoker? Take your own advice, pal. You don't know me, so stop insulting and denigrating me.

nova0311 wrote:

<quoted text>
You're confused. Actually, very few smokers are fat because nicotine is an appetite suppressant. You said that fat people don't affect anyone. Again, you are confused. Obese people take many medications, and guess who is covering the cost? If you think that the insurance companies are paying for all the obese people to take 10 pills a day out of the goodness of their hearts, you are not only confused, you are also naive.

I have insurance. I know what you are talking about. Show me the insurance company studies. Even if you are right, I am stillmore concerned about smokers blowing smoke in my face then fat people causing a few more dollars in insurance premiums. Plus, if you believe there are no fat smokers, I would be careful in the use of the term naive. You need to get out more and look at people.

Generic wrote:

<quoted text>
I have insurance. I know what you are talking about. Show me the insurance company studies. Even if you are right, I am stillmore concerned about smokers blowing smoke in my face then fat people causing a few more dollars in insurance premiums. Plus, if you believe there are no fat smokers, I would be careful in the use of the term naive. You need to get out more and look at people.

It's useless to try and reason with you because you have been drinking the Kool-Aid too long. You still don't get it. The second-hand smoke myth is just that, a myth. If you are really, REALLY concerned about breathing "clean air," get rid of your gasoline powered vehicle and lobby Congress to outlaw them completely. That is what is killing us all, not a few people smoking on a golf course (OUTDOORS). Wake up.

nova0311 wrote:

<quoted text>
It's useless to try and reason with you because you have been drinking the Kool-Aid too long. You still don't get it. The second-hand smoke myth is just that, a myth. If you are really, REALLY concerned about breathing "clean air," get rid of your gasoline powered vehicle and lobby Congress to outlaw them completely. That is what is killing us all, not a few people smoking on a golf course (OUTDOORS). Wake up.

How about second hand smoke stinks. I mean it really stinks. I'm very glad to come home from a bar, diner, or restaurant and no long reek of second hand smoke. Your rights to inflict disgusting on yourself extend right up to the point when your disgusting odors begin to affect me.

Also, you're wrong about second hand smoke. If you really believe the research sponsored by tobacco companies (isn't if fun they aren't referred to as cigarette companies?) you need to check your delusions.

Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
How about second hand smoke stinks. I mean it really stinks. I'm very glad to come home from a bar, diner, or restaurant and no long reek of second hand smoke. Your rights to inflict disgusting on yourself extend right up to the point when your disgusting odors begin to affect me.
Also, you're wrong about second hand smoke. If you really believe the research sponsored by tobacco companies (isn't if fun they aren't referred to as cigarette companies?) you need to check your delusions.

Thank you Jim. We've finally found an honest person here. You don't want to smell the cigarette smoke and you like going to a bar with no smoke in it. Thank you. That's the answer I was looking for.

BTW, you haven't been paying attention, haven't you? You are in no danger from smelling bad at my hand. I don't smoke, and I shower and use deodorant.(I wish I could say the same for the majority of people on the bus and train with me, they reak!)

Lastly, please feel free to offer any scientific evidence that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. Of course, you will need to produce evidence that has not previously been disproven, so anything based on the original fraudulent 1993 EPA "study" is out. That's everything in the ACS, ALA, Smoke Free Illinois, and Surgeon General's sites. They all used the fraudulent data and repeated it as fact.

Personally, I looked at data from the CDC and came to a completely different conclusion. That's why I keep reminding everyone that their gas guzzlers are killing us all and they need to stop now. But it's much easier to tell a few people they can't smoke, rather than tell every soccer mom in the U.S. not to drive the minivan everywhere.

nova0311 wrote:

<quoted text>
It's useless to try and reason with you because you have been drinking the Kool-Aid too long. You still don't get it. The second-hand smoke myth is just that, a myth. If you are really, REALLY concerned about breathing "clean air," get rid of your gasoline powered vehicle and lobby Congress to outlaw them completely. That is what is killing us all, not a few people smoking on a golf course (OUTDOORS). Wake up.

It is useless to try and reason with a nicotine addict. They toss away scientific studies. Then they try and compare smoking to cars. Cars can be used to get from place to place. What is the positive use for cigarettes? You take a bunch of weeds, treat them with chemicals, wrap them in paper, stick them in your mouth, and set them on fire. Try and expalin what is positive about this act. Oh, I forgot, they are legal. Eventually we came to our senses and outlawed cocaine and other drugs. Or are you suggesting we make everything legal? Don't try talking sense to me, because addicts don't use it.

Generic wrote:

<quoted text>
It is useless to try and reason with a nicotine addict. They toss away scientific studies. Then they try and compare smoking to cars. Cars can be used to get from place to place. What is the positive use for cigarettes? You take a bunch of weeds, treat them with chemicals, wrap them in paper, stick them in your mouth, and set them on fire. Try and expalin what is positive about this act. Oh, I forgot, they are legal. Eventually we came to our senses and outlawed cocaine and other drugs. Or are you suggesting we make everything legal? Don't try talking sense to me, because addicts don't use it.

Generic.... NOVA DOESN'T SMOKE!(are you dense?)

Alright mayne... ban legal activities you don't like today. It'll be something you do like tomorrow, and you'll be the first one here b*tching about the ban.

That's the biggest problem with this debate. Most of those for the ban are just unprincipled and selfish. I personally don't smoke and prefer a smoke free restaurant or bar. But that doesn't mean I want the government to ban this legal activity in private establishments. It just means I frequent one of the many places that serve food and alcohol but choose to not allow smoking (see how easy that was?).

Generic wrote:

<quoted text>
It is useless to try and reason with a nicotine addict. They toss away scientific studies. Then they try and compare smoking to cars. Cars can be used to get from place to place. What is the positive use for cigarettes? You take a bunch of weeds, treat them with chemicals, wrap them in paper, stick them in your mouth, and set them on fire. Try and expalin what is positive about this act. Oh, I forgot, they are legal. Eventually we came to our senses and outlawed cocaine and other drugs. Or are you suggesting we make everything legal? Don't try talking sense to me, because addicts don't use it.

If and when they outlaw smoking, and the taxes that are generated by their sale, and the government asks you to dig deeper than you already are, I hope you are able to keep your holier-than-thou attitude!

Generic wrote:

<quoted text>
It is useless to try and reason with a nicotine addict. They toss away scientific studies. Then they try and compare smoking to cars. Cars can be used to get from place to place. What is the positive use for cigarettes? You take a bunch of weeds, treat them with chemicals, wrap them in paper, stick them in your mouth, and set them on fire. Try and expalin what is positive about this act. Oh, I forgot, they are legal. Eventually we came to our senses and outlawed cocaine and other drugs. Or are you suggesting we make everything legal? Don't try talking sense to me, because addicts don't use it.

Apparently one of the side effects of the Kool-Aid is that it makes you assume anyone who disagrees with you must automatically be a smoker. Yet another reason that it's useless to try and have an intelligent discussion with you.

Again, you're confused. My saying that fossil fuel burning is contributing to the instances of cancer in non-smokers does not equate to "make everything legal." That was a leap worthy of an Olympic gold medal.

You seem to show the same "addict" qualities concerning your gas guzzler. You refuse to accept the fact that you are killing everyone around you with your toxic fumes. Instead you blame everything on smokers, which is illogical. You deny the evidence and make up facts as you go along. When someone gets cancer and is a non-smoker, you will find any excuse you can to link it to a smoker, while ignoring the facts. You and the rest of the car/truck/SUV/minivan owners are killing everyone. Until you get used to that fact, people will continue to die even after tobacco has been banned completely. What will you blame then?

Wisconsin Badger wrote:

There are so many iconic Chicago places that I just can't imagine being smoke free.
The bars on Rush Street.
The Jazz and Blues Clubs.
The Division Street Russian Baths.
I haven't been to any of those places since well before all these smoking bans kicked in. But even though I'm not a smoker myself, I'm afraid that a big part of the essence of these places must have been lost. For me at least, smoke seemed an essential part of their characters - of Chicago's character.

I know what you mean. None of those places would seem right sans smoke.

Maybe they could use theatrical smoke machines to restore the proper atmosphere.

crafty b wrote:

<quoted text>
Generic.... NOVA DOESN'T SMOKE!(are you dense?)
Alright mayne... ban legal activities you don't like today. It'll be something you do like tomorrow, and you'll be the first one here b*tching about the ban.
That's the biggest problem with this debate. Most of those for the ban are just unprincipled and selfish. I personally don't smoke and prefer a smoke free restaurant or bar. But that doesn't mean I want the government to ban this legal activity in private establishments. It just means I frequent one of the many places that serve food and alcohol but choose to not allow smoking (see how easy that was?).

Let me see. Someone I don't even know says I am unprincipled because I oppose tobacco and I approve of bans on a dangerous material. I'll have to think about that for awhile. I don't think I'm insulted. I always laugh at the argument that "just wait until the government bans something you like." Let's see. I get up and go the washroom and take a shower. I eat breakfast and go to work. Sometimes I take in a ballgame and sometimes I watch television. Hmmm... wonder what they'll ban.

i can't believe it!!! people complaining about a little smoke from a cigarette but you never hear them say anything about the black cloud that hangs over o'hare

greg wrote:

i can't believe it!!! people complaining about a little smoke from a cigarette but you never hear them say anything about the black cloud that hangs over o'hare

These people should have lived near the steel mills when they were all active.

Generic wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me see. Someone I don't even know says I am unprincipled because I oppose tobacco and I approve of bans on a dangerous material. I'll have to think about that for awhile. I don't think I'm insulted. I always laugh at the argument that "just wait until the government bans something you like." Let's see. I get up and go the washroom and take a shower. I eat breakfast and go to work. Sometimes I take in a ballgame and sometimes I watch television. Hmmm... wonder what they'll ban.

I didn't say anything about you.. but hey, if the shoe fits....

And what kind've food do you eat? What kind've car do you drive? Use fertilizer on your lawn? Wanna paint your house? What industry do you work in?

I know the idea that something you may be doing today may be banned in the future sounds ludicrous... But if you had told anybody (anybody) 20 years ago that they'll be banning smoking in bars they would've laughed at you and called you insane.

If you honestly think that, now that we've given them this power to ban legal activities on private property, that the Government will stop banning things at smoking, you're just living in la-la land.

There has ALREADY been legislation floated to ban swearing in bars in certain areas. It only sounds ridiculous when the idea is floated, ten years later, it's law.

"There has ALREADY been legislation floated to ban swearing in bars in certain areas. It only sounds ridiculous when the idea is floated, ten years later, it's law." It's already here. Now they go outside to do their swearing while they smoke with the kids, panhandlers, hookers, and drug dealers that mingle with the smokers. The neighbors can hear it all.

addicted slobs? nice..real nice.. tell me friend.. are you aware that the vehicle you drive emits more toxins than my cigarette and the tires you drive on leave rubber dust EVERYWHERE???
Just thought I would clue you in...

zoxim wrote:

Jean,smokers are addicted slobs. Their "rights" include tossing their butts wherever they please and someone else is supposed to clean up after them. They're whining addicts. They can't even stop to play golf.

What if they ban opinions? What then?

Generic wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me see. Someone I don't even know says I am unprincipled because I oppose tobacco and I approve of bans on a dangerous material. I'll have to think about that for awhile. I don't think I'm insulted. I always laugh at the argument that "just wait until the government bans something you like." Let's see. I get up and go the washroom and take a shower. I eat breakfast and go to work. Sometimes I take in a ballgame and sometimes I watch television. Hmmm... wonder what they'll ban.