pldennison,
Fair enough, he made an error by pulling you up for spelling. Now answer the rest of his post.
Now, on to the alcohol/tobacco diversion. People aren’t addressing it not because Sentinel is right, but because it is a foolish apples/oranges analogy of the most egregious kind.
–To begin with, they are two different products with different methods of use, different chemical effects, and differing levels of safe use. Nothing logically demands that they be treated the same. We may as well ask like cigarettes aren’t treated like crack or marijuana.
–The simple fact is, if we are seated next to one another, I can drink without you feeling ill effect. You, on the other hand, cannot smoke without filling my lungs. This is a difference important enough to merit different treatment. If I sat next to you and sprayed a perfectly legal can of Lysol in your face, you’d be pretty pissed, wouldn’t you?
–Sentinel continues to fall into the logical fallacy, “If you don’t complain about X, you cannot complain about Y.” Well, I don’t hear Sentinel complaining about the continuing civil wars throughout sub-Saharan Africa, therefore he cannot complain about his treatment at the hands of nonsmokers.
–His contention that “hysteria” over alcoholism and/or drunk driving does not match that over smoking is his perception, for which he has provided no objective evidence. Let’s look at some facts:
-
The advertising issue. He is conflating two different issues–the presence of advertising and the style of advertising. The second one is easily dismissable. So alcohol ads show beautiful, cool, sexy people using alcohol? Big deal. So do the ads actually designed to sell cigarettes. So, for that matter, do car ads, food ads, clothing ads and, well, everything. How many sales do you think they would get is they used toothless barflies or Skid Row rummies in their ads?
As for the presence issue, cigarette advertising disappeared from television in 1971. The FTC had required that, because of the claims of cigarette advertisers, the Fairness Doctrine required a balance of anti-smoking messages along with cigarette ads (in this specific case a 3-to-1 ratio of anti/pro.) Broadcasters failed to comply, because they didn’t want to offend their high-paying advertisers, so the FTC said, “Well, then you can’t advertise them at all.” Personally, I don’t much care whether it is or isn’t banned from TV. I can’t smell it there.
Alcohol manufacturers do not, by their own voluntary agreement, advertise on television any product containing more than what, 7 percent alcohol? There was in fact quite a bried little tempest when Kahlua advertised their “mudslide” product on TV.
Both alcohol and tobacco, in their print ads and billboards, contain messages about potential ill health effects. So, in effect, the playing field is relatively level. -
Tobacco companies have spent the last five decades claiming that their product is not addictive, does not contain harmful poisons, and does not cause ill health effects. In reality, they have known of the ill health effects for about as long, have purposefully manipulated the amount of addictive nicotine in their products, and have added such exciting substances as ammonia.
Alcoholic beverage manufacturers have never claimed that their products don’t contain alcohol. In fact, the products that they explicitly state don’t contain alcohol don’t sell very well. -
It’s only in the last decade-and-a-half that the Federal government, by threatening to withhold highway funds, forced all the states to raise their drinking age to 21. Several states currently are considering bills to lower the BAC for DUI to 0.08 from 0.10.
Despite the fact that the average person can have a beer or a glass of wine or two over dinner without, as HpstrDufuz used to put it, turning his car into a flaming missile headed for a busload of nuns and orphans, there is an increasing tendency to lower legal BAC levels, increase penalties, and widen the circle of liable parties in the event of alcohol related accidents. -
You don’t suppose all the random checkpoint/4th Amendment furor in recent years has something to do with smoking, do you?
-
The amount of airtime devoted to stories on binge drinking, especially among minors, is growing.
-
I don’t know what planet Sentinel lives on that people don’t disapprove of habitual drunks in the same way they do smokers. If anything, my experience has been quite the opposite.
-
The car emissions issue is another unrelated canard, but in point of fact, I do bitch about it. I bitch about the fact that Cleveland has some of the most stringent clean-air standards in the country, yet the costs are borne not by the big polluters, the diesel shipping and RTA vehicles, or the factories, but by the drivers of passenger vehicles.
This whole thing stems from the fact that Sentinel is a weak-minded doofus who got addicted to drugs because he saw all his friends and favorite movie stars doing it, and now expects people not to think badly of him. Tough shit. Do I bitch at smokers constantly? No. I do my best to avoid smoke and smokers. If someone smokes in a designated nonsmoking area, do I say something? You bet your sweet ass I do.
It’s a fact of my experience that most smokers are not very polite, that they rarely ask in mixed company or in closed spaces if anyone minds, that they litter their butts and ashtrays all over the street, and that they generally don’t exercise any courtesy in public whatsoever.
Sentinel’s contention that a safer product would be jumped on by smokers is bullshit. Nicotine gum and other smokeless nicotine delivery systems are available now, but are pretty much only used by people trying to quit. If he really is one of that rare breed of smokers who is courteous and polite and makes an effort, more power to him. Based on his behavior here, I doubt he is. You can be addicted to whatever drug you want–I don’t give a shit. When you begin filling my lungs with it, though, I do give a shit.
Hmm. The spelling error remains, the post gently correcting it completely ignored in favor of continued long, redundant rants.
Sentinel’s signature line takes on an entirely new meaning to me now.
yosemitebabe
I stand corrected and I apologize. Back then, as a teen, I, along with many others, paid little attention to the information and while I read Readers’ Digest, I probably skipped over anything to do with smoking as boring, being then more interested in the adventure stories.
While I have said that peer pressure and advertisement encouraged me to start smoking, I have also said that I enjoy it, which is why I continue.
pldennison
What a conceited ass you are. The current alternates to smoking are not all that good. The gum probably would appeal more to tobacco chewers than smokers. Smokers enjoy the flavor of the cigarette plus get the much faster delivery of the nicotine through the smoke. I used the gum as an alternative to cigarettes for a brief period and found it insufficient.
Cigar smokers enjoy the flavor of the smoke and pipe smokers do the same. Those who chew like the flavor also, which is why chewing tobacco is often flavored with molasses. There are many different brands and types of cigarettes out because of the same reason. One associates the flavor with the nicotine which is why so many people will stick to one brand of cigarette or tobacco.
I don’t know what race, religion or descent you are, but no doubt I could apply a similar ludicrous example to yourself for any number of a hundred reasons based on nationality, ancestral acts, and disagreements concerning your beliefs. Moron. Besides, how dare you to attempt to state that you know all that I do in my private life, which is what that imbecilic disclosure implies?
What PLDennison said. Yeah.
[peeking out from behind PL and bravely sticking her tongue out]
Oh, the irony is so delicious . . .
In other words, you can’t get your fix any other way. But, then again, you’re a drug addict, so who cares?
You big fucking jackass, could you miss the point any more? That statement was made in the context of ridiculing your continuing logical fallacy, which has been going on since page one of this thread. On every single page, you’ve said, “I don’t hear you complaining about blah blah blah blah blah, therefore you can’t complain about smoking.” Furthermore, you’ve gone ON AND ON AND ON AND ON ad nauseam throught the ENTIRE GODDAMNED THREAD about “you” do this and “you” do that, making all sorts of accusations about what “we” do, only to be shown wrong time and time again. To wit:
Get it, fucko? I could go on and on and on, but no need. That last one is especially instructive. Since your conditions, apparently, are that if one is not complaining about every possible toxin and emissions danger, one cannot complain about smoking. My condition is that if you are not complaining about the far more pernicious political strife in the world, such as the Afghani Taliban, or the African civil wars, you cannot complain about the political treatment of American smokers.
Oh, yes I can. You’re still a dimwitted asshole.
You fuckoffs gripe like hell about smokers but tend to ignore everything else. The current trend is to concentrate more on smokers than any of the other things I have mentioned. While people do gripe about noxious emissions from cars, they don’t go up to the owners and bitch at them about it and most don’t even contact the manufacturers.
Sure there are ads about alcoholics, but again more people concentrate on smokers and while alcoholics are less offensive because they don’t emit ‘noxious fumes’ they can still kill you in the streets. I haven’t observed ‘TRUTH’ calling up breweries to make sarcastic statements about their products.
You are nothing more than a fanatic.
Prove it, you cocksucker. For all you know, I spend all my free time writing nasty letters to polluters and to government regulatory agencies. Let’s go, Kreskin. Show me. Apparently you don’t follow your own rule about making assertions concerning people’s personal lives. What a dummy. I mean, you may just be the stupidest person posting here. Others are more annoying, but your complete lack of internal consistency betrays a level of cognitive dissonance that is simply breathtaking.
Breweries have never lied to the public or the government about their products containing alcohol and getting people drunk. Tobacco companies have.
Accuse me of bandwagon-jumping all you want, ass-licker. I’ve been antismoking all my life, and will continue to be antismoking for the rest of my life. And if you don’t like it, too bad.
Hey, has anyone noticed how you can always find an open table in the smoking section, but have to wait for nonsmoking? Looks like more and more people are getting some sense.
So on page four of an unfocussed, spurious diatribe from a hate-filled, deluded fuck-knuckle who can’t get past the fact that everyone agrees that one can over-emphasise the ill-effects of the weed but objects to the fact that everyone is pulling him up on using this as an excuse to wank on about everyone who he hates for no other reason than he’s drowning in his own poisonous inadequacies, we get:
Well, at least this makes you something, saddo.
picmr
Oh no you can’t. Mom!!
Prove it, you cocksucker. For all you know, I spend all my free time writing nasty letters to polluters and to government regulatory agencies. Let’s go, Kreskin. Show me. Apparently you don’t follow your own rule about making assertions concerning people’s personal lives. What a dummy. I mean, you may just be the stupidest person posting here. Others are more annoying, but your complete lack of internal consistency betrays a level of cognitive dissonance that is simply breathtaking.
For all you know, I spend all my free time writing nasty letters to polluters and to government regulatory agencies. Let’s go, Kreskin. Show me.
Breweries have never lied to the public or the government about their products containing alcohol and getting people drunk. Tobacco companies have.
Accuse me of bandwagon-jumping all you want, ass-licker. I’ve been antismoking all my life, and will continue to be antismoking for the rest of my life. And if you don’t like it, too fucking bad. If I give you a dirty look, tough shit. If I make comments about you, blow me. If it bothers you that much, maybe you should quit, you filthy drug addict.
Hey, has anyone noticed how you can always find an open table in the smoking section, but have to wait for nonsmoking? Looks like more and more people are getting some sense.
Hey, Phil . . . May I have your permission to quote your line
?
I have a really annoying coworker that that gem would be perfect for. . . .
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One month, one week, one day, 16 hours, 42 minutes and 22 seconds.
1547 cigarettes not smoked, saving $193.48.
Life saved: 5 days, 8 hours, 55 minutes.
Oh Lord, this is priceless. What a retard.
I say we all pitch in an by Serlin a few cartons of cigarettes, maybe it will speed up his death.
I have to agree completely with pldennison. I would agree with him whether he was right or wrong, for one simple reason. His arguement actually makes sense! Sentinal, you should try it sometime. Maybe more people will be inclined to agree with you if they could follow your asinine arguments.