Audrey Silk, Smoker's Rights Advocate, Weighs In On Today's Smoking Ban Poll

audrey silk.jpg
Facebook
Audrey Silk
NY1 and Marist released a poll today about the two-month-old ban on smoking in public parks, beaches, and plazas. Sixty nine percent of respondents said they were in favor, although opinions were split on whether the new measures are actually working. More surprisingly, 40 percent of smokers said they like the ban. We turned to smoker's rights advocate Audrey Silk, an ex-cop who runs New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (NYC CLASH), for her perspective on the poll as one of the foremost champions of smoking in the city. Silk grows her own tobacco, which she says saves "thousands," and wouldn't tell us how long she's been smoking ("that's part of the anti-smoker's tactic to stigmatize").

Runnin' Scared: Doesn't it seem surprising that 40 percent of smokers supported the ban in this poll?

Audrey Silk: I don't know about these polls. I don't trust them. I don't know how it was worded. When they were doing polls about indoor bans they lumped it all together: offices, bars, restaurants. And of course less people would want smoking in offices than bars. I can't imagine that 69 percent is accurate. It's so lopsided.

As far as smokers who go along with this, a lot of them have been so beaten down into submission that they think they have to say that. They've accepted stigmatization, and i have no respect for my fellow smokers who do that.

What kind of effect has the ban had on your life?

None. I have no respect for this law whatsoever. It's unjustifiable on so many levels. They might as well have legislated discrimination. I will continue to smoke at parks and beaches.

My general feedback I'm feeling with this poll, which I don't trust, is that nobody cares. This law will fade into obscurity the same way spitting on the sidewalk has. There was a ban on smoking in playgrounds for years but nobody knew it existed.

Do people generally smoke in playgrounds?

Probably not, but you've got basketball courts right next to the playground area. I don't know, I don't have kids so I don't spend a lot of time in playgrounds.

They've planned to incrementally ban smoking for 30, 40 years. First airplanes, because who can complain. Even that was incremental. Then half-restaurants. We got used to that, then there was a full restaurant ban because they acclimated the public to that idea. Then offices. Again, it's acclimation. Who's going to complain? We got used to not smoking indoors. They knew they couldn't just go right to bars. Then once they had all the indoors, then they went for doorways. Then parks, beaches, and homes are next. This is what they've been planning to do. It's a slippery slope -- they won't skip over anything. I could not go along with when we testified at City Council hearing, they asked if we could agree to a partial ban. Maybe years ago I would have said yes, but not anymore. I have to keep them behind the line.

What kind of relationship does your group have with the city?

As far as I'm concerned now, I've severed any relationship I've had with the city. We've been invited, the City Council has reached out to me inviting me to testify. They're putting on a show of a fair and democratic process.

We've reached the point where there's no way -- I'm not about to go and be part of this charade. Be the victim of their charade. That's why we engage in civil disobedience. We've reached our Rosa Parks moment. We're taking back the front of the bus.

If it ever got way too difficult to be a smoker in New York, would you consider quitting?

No. Then I would be their lab rat. They're using the force of law to socially engineer the public. If i wanted to quit on my own, I would. We're not pro-smoking, we're smoker's rights. It should be up to each individual. It's a legal product. For a government to step in and make it as difficult and expensive as it is, they are more than overreaching in their role. They've stretched, they've perverted their role.

I'm not yelling at you, but that question gets me so angry. Who made them boss over how I live? What I do is not go where I can't smoke.

Do you see this as a kind of civil rights struggle?

Oh absolutely it's a civil rights struggle. This is bigotry. It's not about health anymore. They lie about secondhand smoke. I agree that smoking is risky. I accept that it's a risky choice. But now leave me alone! It's a legal product.

[rgray@villagevoice.com] [@_rosiegray]

My Voice Nation Help
46 comments
smoke shop Long Beach
smoke shop Long Beach

Many of those who advocate the rights of smokers are really into pushing for equality. Just like the one featured in this article, many are promoting the society's acceptance or understanding of this habit. Hopefully, they will be successful in such endeavor and may those who are smoking will be responsible as well.

Matt Miscreant
Matt Miscreant

Regardless of how many support the bans, they're wrong. Let the owners of the property decide the rules of their property. Mob rule is simply dictatorship of the majority. People have a right to smoke, it's not illegal, and if you don't like it you have a right to leave.

Jdhayes
Jdhayes

NHA PLANNING MASS EVICTION OF 18 SENIORSby: J.D. Hayes (a tenant)The New London Housing Authority, under the supervision ofthe Executive Director at Outagamie County HousingAuthority, is planning to change all of the rental agreements,for all of the tenants, in an effort to make theFranklin Park Apartments, at 505 Division Street, a nonsmokingfacility, leaving 18 tenants in jeopardy. "Signthe new lease with the no smoking clause or be evicted."Papers that they handed out, issued by HUD state thatHUD "strongly encourages" all of the assisted livingfacilities change to this no smoking policy.It DOES NOT say "according to the law title number such andsuch, section so and so, we are implementing this policy inall our buildings". They are unable to do that because theproblem with this plan is, that the Wisconsin Act 12, alsoknown as the Clean Indoor Air Act (Section 101.123 WisconsinStatutes) clearly states that the smoking ban DOES NOTAPPLY to 1.) A private residence and 2.) A room used as aresidence by only one person in an assisted living facility.It is very specific, as it in fact states "assisted livingfacility" which is what the Franlin Park Apartments are.The legislation took effect on July 5th, 2010, and can befound online at the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau,should anyone wish to confirm what the law says and whereMASS EVICTION page 2 of 4smoking bans apply.This bill was meant to ban smoking in places that are opento the general public, and places of employment, in an effortto eliminate 2nd hand smoke causing illness to non-smokers.As it pertains to the above mentioned facility, there is ano smoking policy, that everyone agreed to upon moving intothe building, which prohibits smoking in the elevator, halls,lobby and community room. However, at the time when thesepeople moved in nothing was ever said that the whole buildingwould become non-smoking, even in someone's own apartment.These apartments are not open to the general public. Therefore2nd hand smoke is not an issue with anyone else that may bein the apartment. Some of the tenants, including myself, havebeen living in the building for 7 years or more.Even within the last 6 months, prior to this writing, themanagement allowed people to move into the building withoutadvising them of these new changes, knowing full well thatthey would be implementing this policy in the very near future.Upon survey of these people, each has said that if they had beentold, they would not have moved in, in the first place.The building manager, has said, "this is for everyone's safetyand well being". However, she does not think that plumbingshould be safe, because she hired her "friend" (a non certifiedMASS EVICTION page 3 of 4un-licensed plumber) to install new water heaters. The buildingmaintenance man (who is also an official with the New London FireDepartment), had to report the non-code instalation to thecity building inspectors, and a fine was imposed. The Manager ofthe building then threatened the maintenance man with reprisal.All he did was his job. Rather do it now than later in his capacityas a fireman, wouldn't you think? It is hard to keep things likethis a secret in a building like this. Word gets around.It is, also, no surprise, that the Assistant Administrator of thebuilding's ex-husband, New London City Attorney, is the attorneythat is giving the building the go ahead with implementing the newnon-smoking policy.They are also trying to bully the tenants into signing new leasesearly, before the old ones expire, so they can make this changeas fast as possible.When does it become ok to instruct people what to do in their ownhome? When does it become ok for an apartment manager to become awarden or dictator?So, what gives them the right to dictate to seniors, of thisapartment building what they can and can not do? Who electedthese people? If they were not elected, then who hired them?It is not even a question as to whether or not seniors shouldsmoke or not. Most of them, myslef included, would loveto be able to quit smoking. The sad fact is that there isMASS EVICTION page 4 of 4no absolute sure fire way to quit, that works for everyone,all the time. I personally have tried all of the currentremedies, including the E-cigs, and nothing has worked.I still want to quit, but I should be able to do that onmy own time and in my own way, and not be dictated to withultimatums and deadlines, set by others.The business practice, of this housing authority sub divisionis shady and back handed, if not totally unethical, unprofessionaland reprehensible.Once these people are allowed to make changes like this and bananything that they don't like, where will it stop? Will theyban candles next? I am alergic to cats, yet my neighbor has acat. Should I get the building to ban pets? Or, do I juststay away from the cat? No brainer, right. So, if you don'tsmoke, don't come into my apartment, it's simple.It is a shame that the seniors are not permited to hire orelect the people that are to be in charge of their living facility.In the end, where do the seniors go, when the Housing Authority(HUD) throws them out into the street, for doing what the statelaw clearly says they are allowed to do?END

Nicholsoncar
Nicholsoncar

If you own a home you can basically do whatever you want as long as it is legal. So how come if you rent a home or an apartment landlords can refuse you rent if you are a smoker. Next thing you know you will not be able to make love to your wife if you rent. What has happened with human right in your own home. If you cannot afford to buy like most americans today you have to rent. i thought this was a free country, guess i am wrong better move to a new one.

Eva
Eva

why do they not BAN traffic? everybody forgets the terrific risk of the traffic .... PEOPLE!!!! this is X times more dangerous as smoking..... and second hand smoke DOES NOT EXIST!!! this is a lie and a lie does not even existif you repeat it fora mission times !!! all of yo who applausing now this law... all of you will not understand, that the next time it is YOU who will be forbidden something you want to do ... have much fun with your bigotted live....

Michael J. McFadden
Michael J. McFadden

Drabbler?  Still waiting for you to name the things I asked for below to back up your contentions.

- MJM

ericc
ericc

1950- 50% of the population smoked, no restrictions, 20,000 lung cancer deaths. 2006- 20% of the population smokes (60 million, 75 million in 1950), 160,000 lung cancer deaths, heavily taxed and restricted.

I rest my case.

Maya Native
Maya Native

From where tis woman still get still the power, perhaps deep she had Native roots, so i'am now sinds the first of 1 july the new nasi's take in Belgium Europe  the last place where  smokers and no smokers coming together Bars and Dancings.What happend in the USA and the rest of the stil more made world: all the junkpapers run, run and run to tell NOW ther is again a new hope, the smoking  ban wil give what bars and dance place so need, the wille smile againe, this is a new golden time!! Afher one mount of this new fashishe lawe, bars and dance place's had lossing about 40% of ther costumors and money, Anti smokers no, no the still not come. Neibours call the cops becours in the night smokers making to mutch noise. The last words in the deepest of my heart to a legend, thank you so mush again to signe you petion Keith. Keith Richards: what happend now I  had hope like before in the USA  the alcohol ban, never again, never the human will be somthing like that, NEVER!! Now even my had to be out, my old balls freesing off, Anti smokers are like nasi's  I hate them,  fuck them!! My last messege Soon your group will move frome FB why? more and more also the try to stop us, I'm a smoker and perhaps even with Native American roots, you can try again to kill us all, we will never; never give up, the freedom to say what whe think never you will win your game!!  Audrey Silk a richt name I think,  in one of a other way she has a something from silk, in name from Belgium, in name from Europe thank you Audry Silk!! 

JOHN S
JOHN S

On getting the 'right result' in a poll (from the British sitcom 'Yes Prime Minister', 1986): Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."Bernard Woolley: "How?"Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Michael J. McFadden
Michael J. McFadden

Excellent point John!  And exactly the way the game is played.  A good bit of the results from this poll are probably simply due to folks wanting to appear educated, responsible, and concerned.  And thus, they'll support virtually anything against smoking and against Big Tobacco when asked.  Their REAL opinions might be a bit different, but they don't want to look ignorant, irresponsible, or uncaring for "the children" who they've heard such bans are going to "protect."

There's also the factor of "It's not my pig being gored" at play.  75% of the population doesn't regularly smoke.  Many of those people have basically been brainwashed by 30 years of propaganda into believing that even the barest, smallest, merest whiff of a scent of tobacco smoke is "harming" them and figure, "Hey, why the hell not support a ban?"  They never hear anything from the other side normally (This article featuring Audrey Silk's views is certainly far more the exception than the rule.) and even more rarely do they hear respectable questioning of the science and health claims.  It was to promote that sort of questioning and an awareness of the way things have been twisted that I wrote "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" and encourage people to freely print it out and share it.  You can read it and download it by googling "V.Gen5H" and clicking on "The Health Arguments" and you'll see the actual studies these bans are based on fully referenced and analyzed.

- MJM

JOHN S
JOHN S

I agree, Michael, but the main point I was making is that the un-reported 'lead up' questions influence the response to the headline-grabbing one. And I would imagine that the responses to the 'lead up' questions are just as important to Anti-Tobacco - to identify deficiences in their propaganda!

Michael McFadden
Michael McFadden

Thanks John! :)  Yes, lead up questions and general "staging" of a poll are very important.  There's a whole science behind how to create and manipulate polls. Those little "accurate to within x points" notes are VERY deceptive: the ONLY issue they address is the raw statistic generated by the particular wording and presentation of that exact poll to a certain defined population.  Without an understanding of those variables poll results are meaningless.

- MJM

Iro
Iro

Second hand smoke is not a significant health hazard even indoors, nevermind outdoors.  It takes a minimum of 20 years for a heavy smoker to maybe develop a ''smoking related'' disease.  How long do you think it takes someone getting occasional whiffs of smoke outdoors or even indoors? 

Thank goodness there are people willing to see that these legislations have absolutely nothing to do with other people's health and everything to do with a tiny minority wanting to control our everyday  lives, usually for profit. The polls are not to be trusted.  Most ordinary people with no vested interest in the anti-smoking agenda could care less about a few whiffs of second hand smoke outdoors, those who do should seek treatment for their hypochondria and olfactophobia and let normal people get on with their lives. 

A Time Traveler From 1938
A Time Traveler From 1938

My own personal experience is that smoking Camels with my meals and afterwards builds up a sense of digestive well-being. Say, who is Rosa Parks? And how is it possible that this dame was a copper? Aw, rats.

MsCitizen2
MsCitizen2

 Rosa Parks - refused to take a seat at the back of the bus... civil rights heroine.

Audrey Silk is the former NYC cop.

There is absolutely no scientific justification for banning "outdoor" smoke.  It harms no one but "Nanny Staters," who want to force their own personal preferences upon the rest of society. 

And Oh yes, the folks who buy up all that air time and "press release" space to hammer the message home?  They've got some expensive (and dangerous) pharmaceutical "quit products" they'd like to sell to ya!   As always, follow the money folks ... and you will know who bankrolls these new "Jim Crow" laws.

Member: www.smokersclubinternational.c...

Drabbler
Drabbler

 The idea that this is bigotry is absurd on its face.  This isn't about restricting individuals' access to public places, but about restricting an activity.  Smokers still have all the same rights as nonsmokers; they can still visit the parks and dine in restaurants and go all the same places everyone else can.  They just aren't allowed to engage in this particular activity everywhere they might like. [And technically, neither are the nonsmokers.]  It's not even like this is something unique to smoking.  There are a great many otherwise legal -- and in some cases biologically necessary -- activities that are similarly restricted.  Everybody poops, but you can't do it on the sidewalk.

Michael McFadden
Michael McFadden

Drabbler, name a few other activities that are perfectly legal but which you can be legally fired for if do them even at home and in private in most states.

Name a few states that allowed smokling in bars and restaurants for a hundred years or more and name the same number that allowed you to poop on the sidewalk. 

Name a few other activities or products that are taxed at anywhere from 100% to 500% of their base product cost.

Name a few other activities that are perfectly legal to do in public in sight of everyone but which are virtually forbidden to exist on television shows and are being pushed to earn an R rating in movies.

Name a product besides loose tobacco where the base tax can be increased by over 2,000% while the President goes on national TV and denies that the tax increase exists on any "people."

And with those as starters, then we'll talk about discrimination, OK?

- MJM

Drabbler
Drabbler

Okay, let's take these one at a time, though I'll skip the taxation ones just because I don't have the information necessary.

In most states, employers can legally fire employees for almost any reason (or no reason whatsoever), the only exceptions being the obvious legally protected ones like gender, race, or religion.  We see stories all the time of people being fired for blogging or for running adult websites.

Second, well, this is just an absurdity.  I used defecation as an example because it's an activity that is far more restricted than smoking, even though it's much more common (being, as I mention, biologically necessary).  Those restrictions have been in place a long time, which demonstrates that there's a longstanding tradition of limiting otherwise legal behaviors in public places.  But you're demanding examples from within an arbitrary timeframe as though that means something.  Yes, the smoking restrictions are new, but that doesn't make them more discriminatory than older ones.

Skipping to the television one, again you give the arbitrary limitations, but even with them, I can give one obvious example: profanity.  It's legal to drop an F-bomb on the street but not on broadcast TV, and just a couple will net your movie an R.

Michael J. McFadden
Michael J. McFadden

Drabbler?  No response to my detailed answer and questions?  It's been three days....

- MJM

SueT
SueT

You really don't know anything do you?  In 30 states it is illegal to discriminate against smokers, drinkers and those who enjoy sky diving, motorcycles and a host of other politically incorrect legal behaviors.  There is a federal law that prohibits discrimination against obese people.  The other 20 states have pending legislation.  If you are going to continue to post your nasties then you better bone up on your education which is seriously lacking.

Michael J. McFadden
Michael J. McFadden

Thank you for the responses Drabbler. 

0) You skipped the taxation question, so I'll supply the answer: There are *NO* other products in the U.S. that suffer the discriminatory levels of taxation that tobacco products do.  You're welcome to find contradictory examples if you can.

1) I believe at this point there are roughly 200 companies in the US that refuse to hire smokers as a matter of policy.  How many refuse to hire bloggers or those who run adult websites?  There is a distinct difference that I think you are refusing to acknowledge.

2) You used defecation because that's the classic example (along with urination) that Antismokers always use.  Do some Googling on the relevant terms and you'll find literally thousands of examples of their strange excretory fascination.  You brought up pooping so I responded.  You claim that aside from pooping "There are a great many otherwise legal ... activities that are similarly restricted."  Name three.

2b) You claim I demand examples from "an arbitrary timeframe."  I suggested a hundred years.  Would you prefer a thousand?  A million?  A trillion?  Pick your own time frame for states that allowed smoking in bars and pooping on the sidewalk: I don't think it'll make a difference because there are none.

3) Your point on profanity regarding TV has some weight, but "bleeped or muted" F bombs increased by over 2,000% (from 11 instances to 276 instances) in the "Family Hour" on broadcast TV between 2005 and 2010.  In terms of movies, Antismokers are seeking an R rating for virtually ANY movie that shows even minimal smoking or implied smoking.  Meanwhile moderate profanity is fine in PG-13 movies and "some" profanity is fine even in PG movies. 

- MJM

Michael McFadden
Michael McFadden

Audrey Silk's concerns about the poll are quite valid.  When you see the little thing at the end of an article saying "The poll was accurate to within +/- 5%" you should realize that the figure says *NOTHING* about the meaning of the poll.  All it says is that, given the poll's wording, and the population surveyed, and the way in which it was administered, that 95% of the time a duplicate of the poll would come up with the same figures within 5% of the original.

Meanwhile, simply by changing a word or two, the results can swing widely and be interpreted all over the place.  The classic example in this area are polls asking if people approve of "banning smoking in all workplaces to protect workers' health" and polls asking the same question but specifying "Bars and Strip Clubs" as being the workplaces to be covered.  People answer "Yes" to the former question without even thinking about the fact that it will be interpreted and used as if it was a "Yes" to the latter question.... one which many would have actually said "no" to. 

In addition to wording, there's the population to be surveyed.  Have you EVER seen a poll of the workers in bars and clubs before a ban came in to "protect" them?  Of course not: the people with all the money to pay for these surveys are usually the Antismokers... and they know darn well that the workers would vote them down in an instant.  Of course after a ban has been in place for five years the results may change: the folks who lost the jobs are now out of the workforce and the folks who kept their jobs or started since then are afraid of rocking the boat or don't believe a return to Free Choice would make muich difference.

Don't believe the polls you see and hear on this issue: the results are bought and paid for by polling organizations that openly promise "to deliver the results our clients want."

- MJM

Octomom
Octomom

I don't have kids

Thank God! Her genes should not be in the gene pool.

zayats Liontamer
zayats Liontamer

...and poor, poor your children. I can imagine what they will become with a mom full of hatred."The most dangerous evil is ignorance."

Michael McFadden
Michael McFadden

So OctoMom, perhaps you'd like to see the smokers and drinkers safely sterilized?  How about the fatsos?  A lot of our healthcare budget is going to get sopped up by the heart disease and cancer caused by poor diets you know. 

As for Epac saying "I'm happy to get my fascist on" about smoking, ever hear of Niemullers poem?  "First they came for the ..."   Wait'll they knock on YOUR door Epac: then you may learn what the word "fascist" actually means.  As for "cancer causing (expletive)" being blown into your face, I gather that you're not a New Yorker -- do you live and bicycle on an island off the coast maybe?  Hopefully by yourself, since you exhale poisons and carcinogens with every breath you realize: it's one of the four ways our bodies get rid of waste products.

To see the "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" just google "V.Gen5H" and click on "The Health Arguments" entry to see an openly and admittedly one-sided, but honest and accurate assessment of how the lies around secondhand smoke have been deliberately spun up and publicized by hundreds of millions of dollars pumped every single year into "Tobacco Control" from the MSA agreement.

Michael J. McFaddenAuthor of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Epac
Epac

I love the way everyone has completely ignored the discussion re: 2nd hand smoke, and that if you get it blown in your face, well - you must have done something wrong! Like the woman who gets raped walking down a dark alley...it was her fault for being there.

Sorry, but I'm standing my ground. If the results of smoking were that the individual alone was affected by whatever disease they got, then I wouldn't even be posting here. But that's not the case - 2nd hand smoke is known to cause cancer. By the "rationale" exhibited above, cops shouldn't be able to pull people over for driving drunk...that would violate the drunk's rights!

I can only assume that Mr. McFadden is nothing but a shill for the cigarette industry.

Michael J. McFadden
Michael J. McFadden

OK... without links...  :)

You can assume what you like Epac, but if you do even a minimal amount of research on me (for example just Googling my name and reading the third sentence of the "Author's Preface" at the book site) you'd find your assumption is incorrect.  When tossing around aspersions, even "assumed" ones, in a public forum like this you should be more responsible. You're also welcome to view my full bio at that site or at the SmokersClub site.   I could make all sorts of assumptions about who you might be a shill for as well, but since you’re hiding behind an anonymous internet handle it’s clear that people will just have to decide for themselves without any way of checking. 

Your example of the woman being blamed for her rape rings a bell though.  A few years ago a San Francisco man suffered multiple stab wounds in an attack by his roommate because he smoked two cigarettes out on their apartment balcony.  The reaction of the investigating police sergeant to the media?  "Well, it's just another good reason not to smoke."

You say you want to get back to talking about "Secondhand Smoke."  Well, that's why I sent you to the "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans!" above. Feel absolutely free to attack it for all you're worth with any substantive and specific criticisms.  Simply trying to ignore or dismiss it as a whole will of course mean that the passersby who read this thread will simply dismiss YOU as well... so give it your best anonymous shot.

By the way, I've been around smokers in many situations for a good number of years.  Aside from one or two very rare accidents I don't recall anyone blowing smoke in my face.  But you've used that example in three of your four postings.  I'm wondering if perhaps you might be suffering from ASDS (AntiSmokers Dysfunction Syndrome)?  Google "Recovery From ASDS" to see if you can get some help with that.  Equating the threats of yelling fire in a movie theater or driving drunk to a "threat" from outdoor smoking goes beyond ridiculous and enters the realm of pathological. 

- MJM

Sue T
Sue T

And who are you Epac, hiding behind a pen name?  Who do you work for the ACS, AHA or ALA?  Who pays you to be so nasty or it that just your personality - you are a reprobate.

Michael J. McFadden
Michael J. McFadden

Epac, my response to you has a link in it so it's in the moderating queue.  Meanwhile I'd simply suggest that you Google my name and then consider revising your comment about me.

- MJM

Michael J. McFadden
Michael J. McFadden

You can assume what you like Epac, but if you do even a minimal amount of research on me (for example Googling my name and/or reading the third sentence of the "Author's Preface" of my book at www.Antibrains.com) you'd find your assumption is incorrect.  When tossing around aspersions, even "assumed" ones, in a public forum like this you should be more responsible. You're also welcome to view my full bio at that site or at SmokersClub.com  

I could make all sorts of assumptions about who you might be a shill for as well, but since you’re hiding behind an anonymous internet handle it’s clear that people will just have to decide for themselves without any way of checking.

Your example of the woman being blamed for her rape rings a bell though.  A few years ago a San Francisco man suffered multiple stab wounds in an attack by his roommate because he smoked two cigarettes out on their apartment balcony.  The reaction of the investigating police sergeant to the media?  "Well, it's just another good reason not to smoke." By the way, I've been around smokers in many situations for a good number of years.  Aside from one or two very rare accidents I don't recall anyone blowing smoke in my face.  But you've used that example in three of your four postings.  I'm wondering if perhaps you might be suffering from ASDS (AntiSmokers Dysfunction Syndrome)?  Google "Recovery From ASDS" to see if you can get some help with that.  Equating the threats of yelling fire in a movie theater or driving drunk to a "threat" from outdoor smoking goes beyond ridiculous and enters the realm of pathological.- MJM

Bigtimenarc
Bigtimenarc

Smoking will eventually be illegal in North America circa 15 years from now. If you continue to smoke in public, you will be fined. You make me sick to my stomach and I hope you get Cancer.

SueT
SueT

Bigtimenarc and Epac are sub-humans with not a brain cell working between the two of you.  How dare you wish someone would get cancer!  What is wrong with you? You are what is wrong with this country small minded pea brained twits.

The Baker
The Baker

So...being you don't smoke that somehow makes it acceptable to say such horrid things?  Do you honestly think that being an anti smoker makes you somehow pure...well it's true...you are pure evil,  That's what puffing on Bloomberg's pole gets ya.

zayats Liontamer
zayats Liontamer

"Smoking will eventually be illegal in North America circa 15 years from now"Hopefully the fascism will become illegal in America much sooner.

Stetchr
Stetchr

you are ridiculous, you must be living some successful life when your answer to an intellectual comment is to wish cancer on someone, maybe you have bigger problems than who is smoking around you, and p.s. beware of karma Bigtime

Appalled
Appalled

That is a horrible, horrible thing to wish on anybody!  

Epac
Epac

Fully agree - this is one subject where I'm happy to get my fascist on. If it was something where only they were affected, I wouldn't care...let them puff themselves into oblivion. But for how many years did everyone have to put up with cancer-causing sh*t being blown into our faces? FOAD.

MarshallKeith
MarshallKeith

Shows how much you know about the subject.  The highly hyped health risks were faked.  The majority of the studies include 1 in the CI which means "statistically insignificant."  They had to cheat and use Meta-analysis to get any results and even then the results were extremely weak.http://veritasvincitproliberta...

Audrey is 100% correct compairing this to the civil rights fight.  This is government mandated discrimination.http://peoplesrepubmadison.wor... 

The Baker
The Baker

Perhaps you should of stepped back.  In order to have smoke being blown in your face you'd have to be in someone's face.  Ya couldn't figure that out?  For a bunch of people who think you're so smart...you sure don't use your brains.

Matt Miscreant
Matt Miscreant

I agree. The WHO study found the only significant effect of SHS in children of smokers was a ~20% LESS chance of getting lung cancer. The fact of cancer is it's cause is still unknown. Smoking is only one of MANY risk factors for it.

MsCitizen2
MsCitizen2

 And I do not believe in YOUR right to cry "fire" when there is NONE.  The statistics purporting to validate the so-called "dangers" of second-hand smoke were so manipulated (by the folks who founded "tobacco free"), that a U.S. District Court Judge threw them out of their bid to win a  smoke free society via OSHA law.   Judge Osteen said that it was obvious that their statistics were "cherry-picked."

Yet these same antis are quoting this same BOGUS STATISTIC of 50,000 "deaths" from "SHS" for DECADES SINCE!  They are unabashed effing LIARS.  And they restrict MY CITIZENSHIP with their lies!

Next - they will be after yours!

The Baker
The Baker

Oh yes...yes...that magical number of 50,000 deaths a year caused by second hand smoke.  Goodness with all these bans going on for so long we still have 50,000 deaths....ha ha hahahahahahaha!  What will tomorrows total be? Hmmmmm?  It's bs!  It's scare tactics for the gullible but all the same BS!  I'm not done nor will I ever be.  Why?  Because these bans are now being pursued on private property starting with bars and looking for homes.  It's SEGREGATION AND DISCRIMINATION!  I come from a time when segregation and discrimination was frowned upon. 

Epac
Epac

Despite what you think, limiting anyone's rights is the last thing I want to do. However, I do not believe in absolutes...anyone who does is a fool. For example, I do not believe in the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, I'll assume you do too. You can say that those are 2 completely different scenarios, and I would agree with you...especially when you look at the # of people who die every year as a result of second-hand smoke (I believe the # is > 50,000). Most people wouldn't object to arresting someone who started a stampede in a theater because he felt like it. Sorry, but when someone chooses to do something that not only impacts their life, but threatens the life of someone next to them (like drunk driving), I have zero sympathy. Anyone who thinks this is a "rights" issue has the brain of a pea. I'm done...

The Baker
The Baker

Oh yes...the children again.  How it must upset you that you can't limit individual households too.  Tell the children to stay off of sidewalks, out of parking lots, and to not go outside pretty much anytime because the air is unhealthy and here's the clincher...the most dangerous air is the one that emits no smoke as a warning unless one is in need of a new muffler.  It's a retarded law to ban smoking outdoors period. 

Epac
Epac

The Baker - I suppose your reply goes for little kids that get smoke blown in their faces by their parents or other adults??? I won't speak for everyone, but I recall when smoking was permitted publicy, it wasn't possible to be in a crowded place and know who-was-doing-what. More often than not, you'd be subject to a cloud of noxiousness being blown in your face, no matter how hard you tried to avoid it. Sorry, but you're the one who needs to use their brain.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...