Posts by fadedtrucker19

John Palmer4 said:don't even get me started... 😠

Honestly, what is wrong with everyone here?

I never ran into a single issue using either my Cisco firewall or John Doe, and frankly, I’m still running Nvidia hardware today.
While it might not be anything groundbreaking or revolutionary, it gets the job done for me.

I’ve been wearing mine for at least five years now... and they’re still holding up quite well, provided I give them a little polish about once a year.

My cleaning routine is pretty basic: just some water and dish soap—I believe it’s the new Jar 😁 if my memory serves me—and then I store them in a saline solution that seems to last an absolute eternity...

I’m fairly certain they’re Allergan products... though I can’t for the life of me remember if my ophthalmologist is still practicing at the same clinic...
Perhaps I’ll actually bother to pay him a visit one of these days...

Ryan Ruiz said:Yeah, I am 😁 Guess what—they absolutely loathe me 😬

Oh, please... you're all about that Gothic aesthetic, so I assume you're quite used to having the entire world despise you... 😁

So... did you tell your parents yet? 😁

Jessica Wright said:let the kid lick them if he wants to.

You actually misspelled "inflated."

Paul Lopez49 said:Look, I don’t smoke, but Scott Smith actually made some decent points here. 👍
It’s the same logic you’d apply to a local pub; if you start dictating how a business owner should run their establishment, you're essentially stripping away the very foundations of free-market capitalism.

Unless they start rebranding voters as "smoking lounges," I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with that premise.

But until then... well.

Jose Miller3 said:You just have to face the reality that having a stated wish doesn't actually change a thing in practice (in about 95% of cases).

If you were currently sitting in the shoes of an ICU patient with a verbalized, signed, and notarized "wish" like that, you’d still find yourself hooked up to machines, and nobody would be able to pull the plug.

It's a grim truth, but it's the truth...

Look, if I fall ill, there isn't some cosmic force forcing me to stay in a hospital bed; I have every right to refuse treatment.

In the event of an accident—where I might be rushed into an ER whether I like it or not—I can only hope the doctors don't waste a bed on me when someone else actually needs it more.

I suppose I could go through the whole trouble of putting it all in writing once and for all... but then again, I'm still young and far too full of myself for that level of foresight.

Everyone who knows me—and I suspect future generations will find out too—is well aware of my one true desire: just let me go when the time finally comes.

Scott Smith said:but it’s frankly ridiculous to suggest that smoke-free zones possess superior market potential compared to smoking areas, or that they're inherently more profitable or capable of thriving. If that were actually the case, we’d be seeing a massive boom in smoke-free cafes and clubs right now, but the reality on the ground tells a much different story. To anyone convinced otherwise, I say this: go ahead and open a smoke-free cafe—I’d gladly visit, though I remain deeply skeptical about its ability to survive the competition.

You can't really judge market potential in a monopoly; you need actual market competition where there's something tangible to compare it against. 🙄

As long as smoking is permitted, it remains a monopoly. Typically, a single smoker will end up pulling the entire non-smoking crowd along with them, simply because everyone else is being polite and letting the guy have his way.

So, what we have here is a forced shift from one side to the other; by changing the laws, you're just moving the coercion to the opposite camp. It is highly probable that those currently smoking in dive bars won't suddenly stop just because the rules change, given that they frequent those spots for the vibe, not specifically for the smoke. At least, that's my theory.
On the flip side, people like me will likely find themselves frequenting those dive bars a bit more often... mainly because, quite frankly, I can't stand them. Primarily due to the smell of the smokers... and the inevitable scent of stale cigarettes that clings to me after hanging out there for any significant amount of time.

Nicole Wood86 said:I don't even smoke, but these smoking bans are absolute nonsense.
When you look at all the other ways we pollute the air, cigarettes are practically a rounding error; people were smoking a hundred years ago, and somehow the air managed to stay clean enough.
If we actually put some pressure on American corporations to stop polluting the entire planet, maybe the air would actually be cleaner!

In the grand scheme of global pollution, cigarette smoke is likely a negligible factor.
If we decide to drag manufacturing emissions into this conversation, the scale shifts significantly—but let's not derail the thread just yet.

The issue at hand is indoor air quality. We’re talking about a stench that permeates everything and smoke that simply cannot be ventilated out fast enough, not to mention the literal reduction of oxygen in confined spaces.

Smokers really need to face the reality that they are unpleasant and they smell, and frankly, I am certainly not the only person who feels that way.

John Perez85 said:fadedtrucker19, you’re being incredibly slippery here. I’ve provided plenty of instances where a minority acts to the detriment of others, and you didn't suddenly start preaching about individual liberties then, did you?

The debate isn't actually about those other examples... though I have already clarified why they don't apply to this specific situation.

It sounds to me like you believe that by banning smokers, we'll somehow trigger some sort of golden age of prosperity across America! 😁

No, it won't, but at least people will be able to breathe easier.

While smoking might just be a vice to you, for someone else, it's a legitimate lifestyle choice. By taking these various stances, you are inevitably infringing upon one another's freedoms (and frankly, your medical arguments carry very little weight in this context).

That is incorrect.

As long as someone else's smoke is directly impacting my health, my argument remains perfectly valid.

Just as it is my right to create a draft, call the health inspectors, spend my time eating garlic and onions, or simply pacing around aimlessly...

So, the only logical path is to gather enough like-minded individuals to build a powerful enough lobby to bend trends and legislation to your own advantage.

It seems to me we have more than enough people for that.

Smokers are going to have to face reality. Very soon.

And all this whining about freedom... leave that to the elementary school kids.

Hey now... I wasn't the one who brought it up.

It is the pathetic smokers whose "rights" are being stripped away.

John Perez85 said:It's quite simple: there are a massive number of smokers out there, making them a statistically significant portion of the population. It’s just basic math—the law of large numbers at work. Plus, I constantly hear people on this forum lecturing me about how protecting minorities is the bedrock of democracy. Well, fine then, let's call smokers a minority (are they? maybe they are, if you count the occasional smoker alongside the actual majority 😁).

The problem is that this particular "minority" acts in a way that actively harms everyone else. End of story.

Your personal freedom ends exactly where someone else's begins.
Just look at the smokers in this thread who argue, "If the smoke bothers you so much, why the hell did you even come to the pub?"
Do those same smokers respect the rights of a minority when there are five of them and just one non-smoker who can't stand the fumes? When they're all sitting in a bar?

Of course they don't.
So, sorry, but it's just not happening.

John Perez85 said:Sure, absolutely, but we really need laws that guarantee smokers have their own designated space where they can actually light up.

Why on earth would we do that?

Look, being addicted to cigarettes is a private matter.
Why should a corporation be forced to provide specialized smoking lounges just to accommodate them?

And honestly, here’s another thing that gets under my skin: when a non-smoker takes a five-minute breather, they’re suddenly "slacking off." Meanwhile, the smoker uses that exact same window to finish a cigarette, and somehow that’s perfectly acceptable.

Gross.

nimblestag31 As specified by John Perez85:
If nothing else, we really ought to see some legislation mandating proper ventilation in any room where smoking is still allowed. 😁

To be perfectly honest, I’d still be significantly more satisfied even back then than I am right now. 🙂
I’m doing the exact same thing here at home; the moment the old folks light up a cigarette, I’m already heading out to open the balcony.
Even if it’s negative five degrees outside. 😁

🙂

Exactly.

What goes around comes around—you reap exactly what you sow, whether it's a cloud of smoke or a sudden frost.

Gerald Rivera17 said:5. Exhaust fumes shouldn't be used—they are utilized strictly for the personal pleasure of the driver, at the expense of everyone else in their vicinity.

At this particular moment, exhaust fumes are, unfortunately, an unavoidable byproduct of any internal combustion engine.

Some people—actually, quite a lot of them—drive because they simply have to, not because they’re looking for a thrill.
It isn't to say we shouldn't tighten up traffic enforcement... for instance, if the police actually bothered to do their jobs in the morning and ticket the idiots flying through yellow lights, there would probably be about 40% fewer cars on the road once people realized taking the subway is actually more efficient.

Again, driving usually serves some practical purpose. Smoking does not.
So sod off.

Scott Smith Scott Smith said:The fundamental issue here is that both you and I are under no illusions about what’s actually going to happen, because the government is far too comfortable with the massive revenue they rake in from cigarette excise taxes—which, if you look at the data coming out of other Western nations, provides a staggering amount of funding. More. The government could rake in more than enough revenue by taxing smoking-related illnesses, essentially squeezing money out of smokers to offset the costs. Under such a scheme, we’d still be collecting their tax dollars, but they would find themselves legally barred from consuming those products anywhere except within the privacy of their own homes.

You people are nothing more than addicts, and by indulging those compulsions, you are actively causing harm to everyone else around you.
You should honestly be grateful that you actually have the freedom to use your substances wherever you please; in reality, even heroin addicts don't enjoy that kind of luxury.

So far, not a single soul on this thread has managed to justify the blatant hypocrisy baked into this reform, and frankly, I highly doubt anyone ever will.

Even you couldn't quite manage to dismantle the sheer hypocrisy of the situation.

I would offer my unconditional support for this reform if only it were actually consistent, but I simply cannot get behind something that is so blatantly riddled with hypocrisy. Perhaps this level of duplicity aligns perfectly with your particular value system, but personally, I find it utterly intolerable. While I think we can all agree that smokers deserve certain protections, in my estimation... Not more, and certainly not stronger. From Pusac.

Let’s be honest and stop pretending otherwise: cigarettes are nothing more than a legally sanctioned drug.
Under the current legal framework, it’s available to any adult citizen in the country.

If we’re talking about her legal users—meaning adults who are fully capable of making their own calls—then if they choose to use that drug, that is entirely on them. They are grown, they are adults, and under American law, they are responsible for their own actions. The purpose of the law should be to protect everyone else from them; if they want to make the choice to poison themselves, that's their business, provided they aren't poisoning anyone else in the process.

It’s fundamentally absurd to criminalize the act of suicide, yet we all know that murder remains one of our most heavily prosecuted offenses; this particular case follows that exact same logic.

Besides, you claim that everyone is in total agreement about the necessity of protecting non-smokers—but have you actually stopped to consider... And exactly who, I wonder, are we actually protecting them from?Well, you hit the nail on the head there... bravo. Honestly, coming from someone like Pusac, I shouldn't be surprised, but it still manages to sting just a little bit. And because of that, it’s got me thinking... Yours. This entire comment is absolutely dripping with hypocrisy.

I haven’t heard a single smoker calling for a ban on smoking, nor have I ever stumbled upon a smoker leading some crusade against smoke-free zones.

It’s a curious little truth about human nature, isn't it? It seems that nobody ever bothers to fight for rights they already possess.
And they aren't even fighting against anything that actually exists.

On the other hand, a significant portion of non-smokers tends to act with much more aggression—which is clearly evidenced by the posts we’re seeing in this thread—and rather than looking for a middle ground or a sensible compromise, they simply demand total victory. I suppose I should have seen this coming, given how predictably everything tends to unravel, but there’s still something deeply unsettling about facing a complete and total mess like this. It eventually reaches this level of sheer absurdity where you realize that those who simply sit back with a smirk on their faces actually end up being more tolerant toward everyone else's voting choices than the people actually fighting to ensure their own life decisions aren't hijacked by someone else's agenda.

Are we really going to sit here and maintain this level of tolerance toward our choices while the smoke is billowing right in front of our faces and we’re being poisoned by the very decisions we made?

You all are just so incredibly generous to let us refrain from smoking in your presence, even though we are clearly nothing more than disgusting, hypocritical, and aggressive jerks who absolutely cannot stand the sight of you doing the exact same thing right in front of our faces.
You people aren't any less toxic or morally decayed than those who refuse to touch a cigarette.

I believe we have to acknowledge that what we’re looking at here is a total, rather than a partial ban, which clearly signals an attempt to play favorites with one segment of the population while leaving everyone else to deal with the stigma.

Frankly, you lot don't look much different from heroin addicts to me.

P.S. Waving chainsaws around in the grocery store aisles is illegal. That is precisely the fundamental flaw in this reform—the fact that cigarettes themselves remain perfectly legal.

Chainsaws aren't illegal; it's the act of swinging them through downtown that gets you arrested.
The exact same logic applies to cigarettes.

Scott Smith said:Purely demagogic, moralistic nonsense.

🙄

A total ban on consuming a legal product in shared spaces cannot, by definition, be framed as a fight for freedom.

How so? The whole thing hinges on that word "shared."

If you’re using some kind of poison and just poisoning yourself, fine. Honestly, I couldn't care less.
But if you use that poison to poison me or drive me away, you are essentially expanding your own freedom by infringing upon mine—and at that point, I am fighting for my own liberty. Or, in an ideal world, some representative of mine in the government fights for me because that is literally their job description.

On the other hand, restricting smoking by providing truly separate areas for smokers and non-smokers could indeed be defined as a fight for freedom since it isn't discriminatory.

It is discriminatory.

What happens then to people from different groups who actually want to socialize?
Either one side has to hold back and refrain from smoking, or the other side has to endure the smoke.

Of course, it’s an entirely different matter why this isn't implemented (one reason being that the market dictates supply—if non-smoking areas were truly as in-demand as most non-smokers claim, businesses like coffee shops and clubs with absolute non-smoking policies would be absolutely thriving, but clearly, that isn't the case).

It's because if there's only one smoker in a group of five people, nobody is going to that bar.

Smoking is an addiction, and smokers can't simply stop.
Since nicotine addiction is arguably more potent than heroin addiction, I am firmly in favor of a total ban on smoking.

A complete ban on smoking in public spaces deprives those who have chosen to consume a legal product of that choice, so it can't be defined as a fight for freedom—which is evident from the fact that no government in countries that have introduced such bans has been crazy enough to call it a "fight for freedom"; instead, they pivoted toward health aspects (both active and passive).

It "deprives" people of consuming a legal poison in front of those whom that poison might harm, even if they didn't choose to use it themselves—or, worse yet, chose specifically *not* to use it.

I can't get any further right now; I'll pick this up later.

Scott Smith said:That’s a fair point. But you could say the exact same thing about car exhaust, yet nobody is demanding mandatory catalytic converters for every single vehicle on the road. It’s simply a matter of inconsistent enforcement—though, if we really wanted to go down that rabbit hole, one could argue over just how much secondhand smoke actually harms people, given that scientific studies haven't exactly provided a definitive, final answer to that question!

Don't change the subject.

In my view, banning smoking in public places only makes sense if tobacco is made illegal at the same time. Any other approach is nothing short of hypocritical, stigmatizing, and wildly inconsistent. To target smokers and criminalize them while simultaneously lining the government's pockets with tax revenue from their habit is truly predatory. Trying to "protect" people from the harmful effects of a product that is perfectly legal is absolute nonsense.

Incorrect.

While I happen to agree that tobacco should be banned entirely, you're missing the mark here.
Let smokers indulge as much as they please—just not where non-smokers are present or might be present (and by that, of course, I am referring to public spaces).

Furthermore, these kinds of bans shouldn't be viewed in isolation as a simple black-and-white debate about smoking. What we are actually seeing is part of a growing trend of restrictions and prohibitions on things that are arguably low-risk (take zero-tolerance drunk driving laws, for instance) or, more frequently, things that merely cater to the sensibilities of a certain preaching moral elite—a few representatives of whom have already popped up in this thread. The state is increasingly attempting to dictate how individuals live their daily lives and how, or where, they consume legal goods.

If smokers were decent enough to avoid smoking where it bothers others, this kind of regulation wouldn't even need to exist.

Even if one accepts the smoking ban as a positive step, the broader context in which this ban is occurring is undeniably negative.

The negative part is that such regulation is necessary in the first place.

Those who support this kind of ban must realize they are also endorsing the concept of a nanny state—one that claims the final word on what is good or bad for adults who are otherwise responsible and free.

🙄

Could you perhaps elaborate on that? Your logic is tripping me up just a little...

I’m all for banning smoking in every single public space, but honestly, I think we should just stop selling tobacco altogether.

I mean, if we’ve collectively decided this stuff is a lethal poison that shouldn't be inhaled in public, then why not just make it illegal and call it a day?

Maybe then our police departments could actually spend their time chasing down cigarette dealers instead of essentially acting as their customers.

I am an American. As I have previously observed, there is a certain undeniable, if somewhat exhausting, truth to what John Palmer4 is suggesting here.
Well, I suppose you wouldn't find it quite so irritating since you aren't currently being harassed by pop-ups every five minutes begging you to download some malware, but for those of us actually running an antivirus, this whole situation is a relentless nightmare.👍

Of course I have antivirus software installed.

And if they try to tell me I’m just out here attempting to download some malware—fine, let's say I didn't.

Oops.