Opponents of Indianapolis smoking ban to unite in court

Jun 13, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Indianapolis Star

Opponents of Indianapolis's smoking ban are uniting in court. Indianapolis-based attorney Mark Small plans to file a motion today in federal court that would combine several lawsuits filed against the ban.

Comments
301 - 320 of 345 Comments Last updated Jul 31, 2012

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#307 Jul 3, 2012
Just because you got a negative score on the SAT analogy portion doesn't mean analogies are bogus.

"Addiction is all the industry is selling"--a true statement ONLY if all smokers are or become addicts. But they do not.

It's amazing how far you will go to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions or for the actions of other smokers.
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, a whole STRING of bogus analogies! Old bad-luck-Cee-pee's got some catching up to do!
Oh and yes, of course, the definitive test for a viable suggestion is how well it fares on the Topix smoking forum.
One of the major "selling points" for the smoking regulations and the taxes going into place is that they will help reduce the smoking rate. Zero seems like a pretty good sign of success there, I'd say.
The reason given in the Senate for NOT shutting down the tobacco industry was NOT "Our citizens need to be able to choose to kill themselves and others this way". It was "There are too many addicts that would be cut off from their fix".
Addiction is all the industry is selling. Their own documents make that clear.
The FDA now has the authority to require that tobacco companies reduce the nicotine content in their products. That could be used to reduce the level of addictiveness and reverse some of the damage the industry has done.
The medical science community is shifting gears and is now looking at how to neutralize nicotine addiction instead of how to appease it via alternative sources of nicotine. That approach will continue to provide more effective methods of reducing the pervasiveness of nicotine addiction.
How much of a reduction in addiction and in addictive potential will it take before the industry begins to lose the 2/3 or so of their customers/victims that have been trying to quit but can't beat that addiction? How far do you think they can jack up their per-piece price to make up for lower quantity sales before they lose the rest of that customer base?
Or, to bring it back into the specific channel you favor, how low can the instance of addiction go before our Congress decides that treating their withdrawals of THOSE addicts is less damaging than allowing the industry to continue creating more?
<quoted text>
Stop whining. There are smokers on the forum with far worse denial problems than yours. Of course, theirs are arguably chemically induced. Maybe you SHOULD see a doctor about that after all.

Since: Jun 12

Toronto, Canada

#308 Jul 3, 2012
The worse addiction in the world is the government's addiction to spending money they have not got. Maybe the anti smokers could loan them some from their unlimited supply.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#310 Jul 3, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I see it here every day while I laugh.
Let's see: What I advocate is the way it IS.
What y'all advocate is the way it will never be. Might want to look up the definition of Denial, chump.
"The way it is"? That would be, with virtually global movement to continuously tighten restrictions on tobacco and smoking?

Or do you fantasize that the moment involves no change at all? I agree that it is denial to claim things are going to turn around and go backwards, but it is also denial to believe that because you sit and laugh, so solid a global trend is going to go away. Change is happening, and change is going to continue to happen. Sorry for your luck--but happier for that of the next generation, in this context.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#311 Jul 3, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Just because you got a negative score on the SAT analogy portion doesn't mean analogies are bogus.
"Addiction is all the industry is selling"--a true statement ONLY if all smokers are or become addicts. But they do not.
The product isn't perfect? That's a shame. They did their best--and it is STILL all they are selling, however they package it and however the packaging may fool some people.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#312 Jul 3, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
The constitution does not give the government carte blanche concerning industry. Blah-de-blah-blah blaaaahh
And just where in the Constitution do you find your little gem? Or are you just having an Azmac moment?
ItsAFact

Frederick, MD

#313 Jul 3, 2012
Idiot wrote:
<quoted text> Some people shovel bullshit, this guy uses a front end loader.
And you use your hands and mouth.

Since: Jun 12

Toronto, Canada

#314 Jul 3, 2012
ItsAFact wrote:
<quoted text>And you use your hands and mouth.
It's a Fact detected it !!!
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#316 Jul 3, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Pretending that we now have cause to shut down an entire industry is ridiculous.
Indeed.
He forgets it took Amending the Constitution to shut down the alcohol industry before...when it didn't work.
Nine countries out of 196 on Earth prohibit Alcohol. Prohibition has not curbed the societal problems related to alcohol in any of them. All of those countries 'just happen' to 'coincidentally' be regimes that brutally oppress freedom. No link whatsoever between oppression of freedom and Prohibition....

ONE country out of 196 Prohibits Tobacco.

That's a 'global movement' in the mind of a delusional zealot.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#317 Jul 4, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
Nine countries out of 196 on Earth prohibit Alcohol.
How about you clarify your red herring a bit and tell us how many ABSOLUTELY prohibit alcohol and how many prohibit, say, the use of alcohol by members of a religion that runs the country? Or the use of alcohol by natives--but not foreigners?

And when you're done with that, perhaps you can tell us how many of those laws are based on medical science and NOT simply a "God said so" approach?

Oh, wait, that's right. You want to be able to pretend that has something to do with my premise, so you can scoff and say "it isn't working" when you point to religious totalitarian regimes and even to the religion-based US Prohibition movement in the early 1900s.

To do that, of course, you have to completely ignore that my initial statement was that outlawing the liquor industry in the US made long-term sense both for the economic and for the health care system, support of it for those reasons would provide a solid base that was not to be found if it were approached as a religious issue.

Oh, but that would mean that the world would change, and poor little Frisbee would be left sitting all alone with Azmac singing "Nothing's gonna change my world".

Sorry, bub, but folks that oppose the tobacco industry are changing your world every day. The industry is stalling, and scrambling to come up with products that will keep people addicted but fall short of drawing the axe that is swinging toward smoking.

You keep saying "It hasn't happened yet" as if you were somehow proving that it wasn't going to, or that it wasn't in the process of happening now, and even as if you were proving that it shouldn't. Go ahead and beat your chest till it bleeds and bellow yourself hoarse. I'm not impressed.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#318 Jul 4, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
ONE country out of 196 Prohibits Tobacco.
Oh? Which one is that? I don't know of one yet.
Frisbee wrote:
That's a 'global movement' in the mind of a delusional zealot.
How many countries had strong regulation of tobacco use twenty years ago? How many have them today?

How many countries are trying to bring down their smoking rates?

Here are some things that happen as the smoking rate goes down:

More people oppose smoking and the tobacco industry--particularly now when it is so widely known that the industry DELIBERATELY made their products so hard to quit;

The industry loses quantity sales;

The industry raises unit price;

Even more people stop smoking because of the price hikes.

When the smoking rate falls low enough, the sociopaths that run the industry will move on to some other endeavor where their experience at criminal conspiracy serves them well, and the tobacco industry will fold without the need for legal proscription, if governments haven't moved first.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#319 Jul 4, 2012
The dipshit is sitting in front of a computer and can't figure out the one kingdom that actually implements his fantasy. Complete with squads that kick in the doors of subjects to raid tobacco and five years in prison for the offense of having smokes. Of course, it doesn't work. People still smoke. Just another in the list of Prohibition failures.
HowzBoutDat

Frederick, MD

#320 Jul 4, 2012
ImAFart wrote:
<quoted text> You're the expert, I'll take you those shit sandwiches.
You go ahead and stuff your face.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#321 Jul 4, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
The dipshit is sitting in front of a computer and can't figure out the one kingdom that actually implements his fantasy. Complete with squads that kick in the doors of subjects to raid tobacco and five years in prison for the offense of having smokes. Of course, it doesn't work. People still smoke. Just another in the list of Prohibition failures.
You claim it exists. Whatever.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#322 Jul 4, 2012
Unbelievable. Someone is this stupid in this day and age. The dipshit is sitting in front of a computer and can't figure out the one kingdom that actually implements his fantasy. Complete with squads that kick in the doors of subjects to raid tobacco and five years in prison for the offense of having smokes. Of course, it doesn't work. People still smoke. Just another in the list of Prohibition failures.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#323 Jul 5, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
"The way it is"? That would be, with virtually global movement to continuously tighten restrictions on tobacco and smoking?
Frisbee wrote:
ONE country out of 196 Prohibits Tobacco.
That's a 'global movement' in the mind of a delusional zealot.
Well, well. Finally something I can agree with. YOU have proclaimed it to be the "global movement". I certainly didn't.

You can read for yourself what I said about a global movement just before you took this stance. So, delusional zealot, how's tricks?
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#324 Jul 7, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
YOU have proclaimed it to be the "global movement". I certainly didn't.
Once again, when he talks himself into a corner with denial and Drama, he resorts to outright bald-faced lie. Over something so easy to confirm, no less.
Hugh Jass wrote:
with virtually global movement ....so solid a global trend....Change is happening, and change is going to continue to happen.
It's a shame that he lacks the integrity to stand by his words like a man. His zealotry has precedence over his honesty. No matter. This is why he fails.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#325 Jul 7, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, when he talks himself into a corner with denial and Drama, he resorts to outright bald-faced lie. Over something so easy to confirm, no less.
<quoted text>
It's a shame that he lacks the integrity to stand by his words like a man. His zealotry has precedence over his honesty. No matter. This is why he fails.
Are you talking about yourself in third person, or are you simply hoping that I won't notice your libel of me if you don't address me directly?

The "global trend" I cited was toward stronger and stronger laws against smoking and tobacco. Are you saying that is NOT happening? You have certainly IMPLIED that it was not.

Your delusion that change is NOT taking place and that your little world is just like it is and "built to stay that way" is pretty pathetic.

Calling me a bald-faced liar just so you can sustain your denial is worse.
Get A Clue

Freetown, IN

#326 Jul 7, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
In 1776, they knew nothing about the connection between various cancers and smoking, or the dangers of second-hand smoke.
Public helth has been shown to be an effective reason to overrule "rights".
This is an impressive battle over allowing addicts to feed their jones in public, I have to admit.
Get over it! smokers are rude and inconderate. You have a right to smoke and I have a right not to breath your smoke!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#327 Jul 8, 2012
Get A Clue wrote:
<quoted text>Get over it! smokers are rude and inconderate. You have a right to smoke and I have a right not to breath your smoke!
The tobacco industry did NOT have the right to conspire to addict so many children over half a century, though. Wherefore the RICO conviction. Why wasn't the industry forced to directly fund rehab for their victims?
My wife shes a no undrsta

Freetown, IN

#328 Jul 8, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
The tobacco industry did NOT have the right to conspire to addict so many children over half a century, though. Wherefore the RICO conviction. Why wasn't the industry forced to directly fund rehab for their victims?
Simply, because they did not make their voices heard!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Smoking Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Wichita Falls Smoking Ordinance Goes Into Effect 13 hr FatLadyMe 17
Why can't smokers quit? 13 hr FatLadyMe 4
Ohio approves state smoking ban (Nov '06) 14 hr FatLadyMe 75,881
How Bad Is Your Breath? 14 Simple Tips For Redu... (Feb '06) 14 hr FatLadyMe 596
Kokomo City Council to approve smoking ban 14 hr FatLadyMe 4
'Marlboro Boys': Photographing Underage Smoking... Aug 26 N8 the Grrr8 4
Charity welcomes ban on smoking in cars with ch... Aug 26 N8 the Grrr8 4
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Smoking People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••