Paraphrased:
“And so, after briefly dipping their toes in the waters of reason, they happily retreat to insanity beach to frolic along with the rest of the brain dead shrimps.”
Humanity Rocks !
Personally, I’m not afraid of mime-trained pit bulls. They would never get past my invisible wall.
Fence, Jack. Invisible Fence.
Can you provide a link to that?
You’re probably too far away. Otherwise, even if I came over and had to eat crow, what the hell - BBQ makes everything better. Om nom nom
Seriously. It’s cigarette smoke, not mustard gas. People… You. Must. Chill.
Smoking inside almost any building (except private homes, really) is illegal in the UK now, so the fuckers stand right in the doorway and smoke. I mean, in the door hole, where the wooden thing. Door. goes. At the train station, there’s a big under cover area out the front, but they still stand right in the fucking door. It should be legal for me to cock drop them
Must chill? Nah. Much more enjoyable to not have to be bothered by smoke in the first place. Drafting no-smoking legislation is satisfying too.
While I hesitate to expose you to the hazard of further ocular trauma by continuing this subject, I have to wonder: What exactly was it about this February 2010 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that you found so absurd?
I’m not really getting the severe ophthalmic-rotation effects from those statements that you appear to find in them. Where’s the absurdity?
I certainly would agree in general that we shouldn’t interpret every new study of a potential health hazard as demonstrating a proven health hazard, and that US news media tend to be over-eager to jump to those sorts of conclusions. However, I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with noting that there might be possible health hazards from surface residues of environmental tobacco smoke (or what the authors refer to as “thirdhand smoke”). Nor do I see any reason why scientists shouldn’t study such possible hazards, nor do I see any reason why news media shouldn’t report on their studies.
If you have a specific criticism of this research study or its media coverage, then by all means state it. But to be honest, your post kind of sounds as though what’s bothering you about it is nothing but your own ignorant knee-jerk assumption that anything called “thirdhand smoke” must automatically be some kind of made-up PC bullshit.
And while I deplore made-up PC bullshit as much as anybody, I don’t see why I should accept that something is made-up PC bullshit just on your say-so. Especially when, by your own admission, you couldn’t even be bothered to read the entire news article describing the research in question.
I’m so with you on this. My neighbor has wind chimes. Gah!!!
I now hope Sapo’s neighbor is banging on the keyboard about the wind chimes and getting more traction in his Pit thread. No wonder he’s blowing smoke at Sapo’s house. It’s all becoming clear.
Hey, if you’re okay with admitting that it’s really a puritanical, bitchy “I don’t approve and everyone should just learn to enjoy the stick up their ass the way that I do” thing, good on you. Just skip the hysterical “YOU’RE KILLING ME WITH THAT THING!!!” shit.
Hey, fuck you all! I’ve got 2 sets of wind chimes.
And I don’t even need the wind for mine - I can set them tinkling with a well-aimed bout of coughing.
But what Muffin’s saying is not that he (she?) doesn’t approve of smoke, but rather that smoke bothers him. Pretending that it’s all about puritanical disapproval, rather than a natural and reasonable dislike of having to breathe other people’s stinky pollutants, is disingenuous.
I quite agree that people shouldn’t automatically holler “Your smoke is killing me!” when a more accurate statement would be “I don’t like breathing your smoke!” But I don’t see Muffin doing that here.
And I also think that smokers shouldn’t respond to statements such as “I don’t like breathing your smoke” with dismissive accusations of puritanical bitchiness or hysterical delusion or “it’s all in your head and you’re just enjoying the stick up your ass”.
It’s not delusive or unreasonable for non-smokers to be annoyed at breathing other people’s smoke, even when the effects of the smoke as a physical health hazard are scientifically negligible.
I don’t like lots of people’s perfume. It bothers me. Hell, LOTS of smells bother me.
So I get up and move, I don’t draft legislation.
But when the policies put in place make it more likely that non-smokers are compelled to breath in other people’s smoke, such as taking smokers out of bars and putting them on the street outside the bar, forgive me for believing that the purpose behind said legislation wasn’t to prevent people from breathing in second hand smoke, but instead was based on a puritanical dislike for other people’s pleasure.
I travel a fair bit on business over the course of a year; PM me a general location (like north of Indy) and I may just take you up on your offer. Keep specifics like the town to yourself until you feel comfortable. If it works out I’ll bring the beer and brats and you can supply the fire.
Lets say that even what we got here is a narrow rural lane, little more than a tractor path, with little traffic - I would contend that it is virtually impossible for the smell to reach inside your house in any meaningful manner. We’re talking at least 15 feet and a wall that will block much of the odor even with the window open. I’ve dealt with people who “smell” for a living; that would mean you have a snawze more sensitive than that used by professionals in the perfume and food industries.
I may not be an expert on senses but I an a certified counselor; are you sure part of your reaction isn’t partly psychosomatic? That the dude just annoys you by being there? Are you saying that you can tell when he is actually smoking without some other clue; be it visual or auditory? We can set up a couple experiments pretty easily. I know this is the pit but I’m not just busting your chops - annoying neighbors are annoying neighbors. I am just curious what the actual thing is here.
You may be forgetting that a large part of the rationale for the ban on smoking in bars was to allow bar staff to avoid breathing in other people’s smoke.
I really don’t think the “they just don’t like our enjoying ourselves” argument is going to fly, except as a comforting rationalization in smokers’ own minds. Very, very few people would give a single solitary damn one way or the other about your enjoying yourselves by smoking if you could only manage to keep your smoke to yourselves.
That’s not an argument against drafting legislation against excessive fragrance use or other intrusive pollutants. Just because you personally aren’t sufficiently bothered by perfumes to go to the trouble of doing so doesn’t mean that nobody else should.
And indeed, things like fragrance bans and scent-free workplace policies are much in the news these days, especially since chemical sensitivities fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act and thus provide anti-fragrance positions with some legal clout.
I don’t see anything at all wrong or puritanical about saying that it’s fine if people want to wear perfume as long as they keep their perfumes to themselves. It’s not about trying to repress other people’s enjoyment of fragrances; it’s about not having to be bombarded with other people’s fragrances in the air that you personally are trying to breathe.
Except compromise proposals where limited numbers of bars could stay smoking were rejected. Even given the fact that this would permit bartenders who wanted to work in non-smoking bars to work in non-smoking bars (and vice versa). The complete refusal to compromise at any step of the way suggests to me that driving the laws was a semi-religious fervor, aimed at stamping out smoking regardless.
The non-smoking laws have increased the forced exposure of many people to cigarette smoke. Which makes me think that protection of those people wasn’t the intention.
I disagree. I don’t know about you, but personally I’m not remotely interested in government by the whiniest.
That’s nice. I presume you also oppose laws against littering, because after all, if people are bothered by encountering other people’s trash on the sidewalk where they’re trying to walk, they can just step over or around it, or walk somewhere else. Only whiny types would complain about other people spewing their litter into the shared environment.
And naturally, you also oppose noise ordinances, because after all, if people are bothered by other people’s persistent loud music or whatever when they’re trying to hear something or enjoy quiet, they can just put on some noise-canceling earmuffs, or go live somewhere quieter. Only whiny types would complain about other people spewing their noise into the shared airspace.
In reality, though, I rather suspect that you’re just fine with enjoying the benefits of the efforts of “whiny” people to enact such laws. I doubt that it really bothers you that individuals who like loud music or don’t like having to carry trash to a trash can are legally prevented from spewing their intrusive pollutants into shared space.
In short, I doubt that you really complain about “government by the whiniest” except when the “whiniest” happen to be trying to prevent you from spewing your intrusive pollutants into shared space. So forgive me if I’m not terribly impressed by your bragging about your stoical tolerance and your disdain for “whiny” types who can’t put up with a little inconvenience.