Posts by Jessica Kelly4

dustycanyon6 said:...demanding the right to breathe air that isn't thick with cigarette smoke is more than fair. 😉 Rights always trump privileges.

I wish I could explain this to our local leadership and force them to shut down the plant whose stench I breathe in every single day, all for the greater good of everyone in America! But I doubt this government would be nearly as protective or concerned about public health.

dustycanyon6 said:5. Cigarettes aren't a necessity—they're used strictly for the user's own pleasure...

Pleasure is a huge part of being alive. We'd all live much longer if we gave up everything we enjoy, but...

dustycanyon6 said:Would it be okay if we met up at a bar three or four times a week, you smoke a cigarette, and I drop a little bit of Ariella or Charlie into your beer for you to drink? How about that? To me, cigarette smoke is just as annoying as you'd find Ariella in your beer—probably more (besides, it makes my nose bleed).

First off, I don't smoke and the smoke bothers me. Second, you won't get anywhere by trivializing this discussion.

brighteagle38 John Perez85 said:It’s honestly wild how smokers just can't wrap their heads around the fact that their habit actually bothers everyone else.

It’s not really that shocking; everyone fights for their own interests. Until recently, smokers and Big Tobacco had enough lobbying power to stay untouchable. The medical community did a massive job by making sure the dangers of smoking are discussed so openly and frequently, but I still think the tug-of-war over smoking trends is far from over.

Fighting smoking requires strategy, because banning everything just makes the forbidden fruit sweeter. You can't change the minds of old smokers anymore; they already know exactly what those cigarettes are doing to them, so at this point, it’s purely a matter of willpower. But you actually have leverage with the younger generation. Just don't try to control them through bans—that's the fastest way to turn a cigarette into the ultimate tool for rebellion. For what it's worth, my wife works at a high school in Rhode Island, and the reality is that there's plenty of "smoking" going on there. All this hysteria about cancer feels misplaced for kids that age; I think we need a different approach. If we can consistently drive down the number of young smokers, both the habit and the tobacco industry will eventually just fade away on their own. 🙂

Look, there's no need to act like we're in a war zone digging trenches. At the end of the day, we're talking about our neighbors, friends, and family. Smoking is just one small issue in a sea of things people deal with; there’s no reason to overreact or spiral into hysteria. Most importantly, don't fall for the fairy tales politicians feed their voters.

dustycanyon6 John Perez85 said:Don't tell me you don't watch the news or anything on TV. You clearly have no idea about the consequences of smoking. I couldn't care less if you end up getting cancer—but I sure as hell don't need to get it just because of you.

It’s only natural to fear cancer; it’s one of the biggest phobias in the European Union. But an obsession with it is its own kind of sickness that just ruins your life. There's a decent chance you'll face some form of cancer at some point, but there's also a massive chance it can be cured. Cigarettes—whether you're smoking them or breathing in the secondhand stuff—are just one small piece of the puzzle. I'm not trying to downplay how much smoking causes lung cancer, but I really don't think anyone needs to panic.

John Perez85 said:So now you want to fix every global crisis all at once? Or are you going to tie smoking bans to solving every other mess on Earth? In the real world, things happen one step at a time. Right now, we're talking about smoking. You’re trying to argue that we can't ban it in public spaces until we stop the deforestation of the Amazon. Who’s actually stalling here? Banning smoking isn't just some passing fad; it's social and civilizational progress. Even if our government is just following trends, it's a good thing they're picking up on positive ones instead of just the negative ones.

Oh, so you think life works in a neat little sequence? That’s not how the real world operates. 😁
I already covered this in my last post, so consider it an answer to you too. My point about overlapping issues is simple: I'm arguing that governments—the political and economic elite—don't give a damn about the health of the general public.

Let me wrap this up: If there were a referendum asking whether smoking should be unconditionally banned in every single public space, I'd vote no. However, if the question was whether we should ban smoking in public while still providing designated areas for smokers (with rare legal exceptions), and letting businesses decide based on market needs whether they want to be smoking, non-smoking, or mixed venues, then I’d support that. Of course, that would have to include mandatory education from a young age about the dangers of smoking.

Chris Mitchell11 said:The thing that bothers me is the immediate impact of being in a smoky room, since I have respiratory issues.

That’s a fair point. Cigarette smoke irritates me too, so I stick to non-smoking areas and never allow smoking in my apartment or car.

Smoking is a massive social phenomenon; you can't just shut it down overnight. Especially not through some hypocritical regulations from a "concerned" government. We need systematic education spanning generations, not just a few years, to gradually reduce the number of smokers. For decades, Big Tobacco has been a massive cash cow for the federal budget. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you; that's not news. It's wrong to flip the script instantly. Life should be organized so both smokers and non-smokers have their own spaces whenever possible. No need for the drama—trends are already moving toward non-smoking. This is just a transition period.

Ronald Jones26 said:On the flip side, those other "harmful activities" are things people do to themselves without bothering everyone else—at least not directly. Smoking is the first target because it clearly annoys the huge number of people who don't do it. Forget smoking health for a second; the bigger issue is how they attack the health of EVERYONE around them.

Ronald Jones26, I’m talking about the hypocrisy of the ruling class chasing whatever trendy moral crusade is in style this week. Those "other harmful activities" aren't just individual choices; they're actively killing everyone on this planet. I can't tell if you're messing with me or if you genuinely can't see the forest for the trees. For example, it’s pure hypocrisy to pass laws trying to demonize smokers while turning a blind eye to industrial waste being shipped off to developing nations that lack the tech to handle it. You are directly killing people who don't even live near you just so you can enjoy the luxury of a "clean" country. If that isn't blatant hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

fadedtrucker19 said:To me, you guys aren't any different from heroin addicts.

Cut the crap. I get that you hate smoke and you're on some crusade against Pusac, but making claims like that just makes you look unreliable.

Sarah Miller26 said:PS////Look, if we're going to pivot from discussing cigarettes to talking about bombs, then why stop there? Let's talk about how the moon affects our dreams or whatever. Stick to the topic: cigarettes. Bombs are a completely different issue, and claiming they're linked just to defend smoking is a massive stretch... Let's face it, we aren't living on Mars.....
PSS And no, I'm not saying anyone should quit if they don't want to. If they want to smoke, fine, but they shouldn't force me to breathe that air, period.....

I'm doubling down: these government anti-smoking policies are pure hypocrisy. They greenlight—and often encourage—activities that are way more lethal than cigarette smoke, yet they play politics by banning something else to score easy points.

dustycanyon6 said:Nice touch using the past perfect tense there! Who even uses zero percent anymore?

People talk about it all the time. I could name at least ten people right now—myself included—for whom that question will be a deciding factor in the next election.

Nicely put, Scott Smith. These endless restrictions aren't even funny anymore—they were back in the day, at least to me. I don't smoke, but this whole thing feels like straight-up anti-smoking fascism, and there's no way I can get behind it. It’s pure hypocrisy, too; they selectively pick their battles. So many things we use daily just for luxury are pumped out of factories that pollute the environment way more aggressively than any smoker ever could, yet I don't see a single movement fighting to curb the waste from all those unnecessary luxuries. Honestly, this feels less like genuine health concern and more like politics, money, and following a fad. Suddenly, tobacco is being blamed for every modern ailment. Give me a break. Meanwhile, our air, water, and food quality are tanking.

BTW, those same Western governments acting like moral paragons won't say a word while their militaries are dropping depleted uranium bombs all over the place (hint: the Gulf). Or when their massive corporations dump ultra-hazardous waste in developing nations that lack the oversight or knowledge to handle it safely.

nimbleskipper13 said:Look, an X-ray, just like any test involving ionizing radiation, isn't "nothing." It has its own set of limitations and risks. 😈

Ouch, that hit home. Sorry for the tangent, but is there actually a reasonable limit on X-rays? I had 15 of them done in just two weeks (!!!). When I pushed back, my doctor basically told me they do up to 50 if they need to! I could have fought harder, but when you're doubled over in pain, you aren't exactly playing lawyer—it only hits you later. So, is there a point where this actually becomes dangerous?

Thanks for the input.
My bad, I messed up. The diagnosis actually rules out focal liver lesions; instead, the results point toward vascular sequelae from a liver segment infarct.

Someone close to me was just diagnosed with focal liver lesions (specifically a vascular sequela from a segmental liver infarct). I tried Googling it, but I can't find a clear explanation or description anywhere. Can anyone translate this into plain English for me?