Yup, Godwin's Law . And no, Mao isn't mentioned. 
Tobacco Nonsense
- Thread starter Kim
- Start date
- Status
Strings
Member
So we can safely call 'em "anti-smoking Chinese Communists", but not "anti-smoking Nazis"? Y'all is confusing me... 
I hate to admit this, but...
I was once shot in the foot...with a pellet gun
. I didn't bother goin' to the hospital for a couple days, figured no way a .177 hole in my hoof was going to kill me. I decided (well, actually, my wife decided) that once I had red lines running up my leg and a massively swollen foot, I oughtta go get it checked out.
NEVER AGAIN...NEVER, I SAY!
After sitting in a little room for almost 13 hours after being summarily inspected and admitted (against my wishes, just give me some penicillin in the big honkin' pill form and turn me loose) I was shown to my cell on the third floor. I stayed there to receive intravenous antibiotics, as the dox said I didn't need a bone infection, and gunshot wounds drag boot and sock and foot funk into the hole (and subsequently into the bone, I've got a great X-ray of it).
I didn't receive any antibiotics (or breakfast) that morning, and saw nobody until I rang the buzzer to remind them it was 4 hours past time to get the much vaunted intravenous antibiotics, and an hour past lunchtime. I tried to nap some that afternoon, but with the IV still stuck in my arm (even though the bag was empty) I didn't sleep so well. Of course, the nurses beating the crap out of the violently demented old lady next door didn't help, either.
The doctor who admitted me went on vacation the next morning, the nurses once again forgot I was there to recieve antibiotics, and I was getting tired of having an empty needle jammed in my arm (oh yeah, the elderly nurse sternly warned me about pulling the damned thing out). I'd quit smoking months before this, but about this time (3 hours after I was told the physical therapy lady would be in shortly to teach me to walk on crutches) I needed a Marlboro or a Semtex vest. :banghead:
I got up, snagged my bottle of Vicodin, my pants and shoes, and went to the cigarette machine (ironic, eh?) by the magazine stand, and went outside to light up (had to ask a fairly demented looking old lady for a light...made me wonder). Called the wife from a gas station and went to work the next day.
I guarantee that if any hospital personnel had told me I couldn't go outside, I would have beaten them to death with the nearest wheelchair/IV stand/potted plant/patient. Seriously.
I recommend you tell them to let the patients smoke.
I was once shot in the foot...with a pellet gun
. I didn't bother goin' to the hospital for a couple days, figured no way a .177 hole in my hoof was going to kill me. I decided (well, actually, my wife decided) that once I had red lines running up my leg and a massively swollen foot, I oughtta go get it checked out.NEVER AGAIN...NEVER, I SAY!
After sitting in a little room for almost 13 hours after being summarily inspected and admitted (against my wishes, just give me some penicillin in the big honkin' pill form and turn me loose) I was shown to my cell on the third floor. I stayed there to receive intravenous antibiotics, as the dox said I didn't need a bone infection, and gunshot wounds drag boot and sock and foot funk into the hole (and subsequently into the bone, I've got a great X-ray of it).
I didn't receive any antibiotics (or breakfast) that morning, and saw nobody until I rang the buzzer to remind them it was 4 hours past time to get the much vaunted intravenous antibiotics, and an hour past lunchtime. I tried to nap some that afternoon, but with the IV still stuck in my arm (even though the bag was empty) I didn't sleep so well. Of course, the nurses beating the crap out of the violently demented old lady next door didn't help, either.
The doctor who admitted me went on vacation the next morning, the nurses once again forgot I was there to recieve antibiotics, and I was getting tired of having an empty needle jammed in my arm (oh yeah, the elderly nurse sternly warned me about pulling the damned thing out). I'd quit smoking months before this, but about this time (3 hours after I was told the physical therapy lady would be in shortly to teach me to walk on crutches) I needed a Marlboro or a Semtex vest. :banghead:
I got up, snagged my bottle of Vicodin, my pants and shoes, and went to the cigarette machine (ironic, eh?) by the magazine stand, and went outside to light up (had to ask a fairly demented looking old lady for a light...made me wonder). Called the wife from a gas station and went to work the next day.
I guarantee that if any hospital personnel had told me I couldn't go outside, I would have beaten them to death with the nearest wheelchair/IV stand/potted plant/patient. Seriously.
I recommend you tell them to let the patients smoke.
joab
Member
Then a diabetic shuld have enough sense not to smoke
Personally I would love to see an enforced govermental crackdown on all tobacco product.
I'm too weak to quit on my own
JPM70535
Member
Having just returned from a vacation in Alaska, I am a bit behind in my reading of treads on THR, howver, this is one I just have to respond to.
Every time the right to smoke comes up, regardless of the location, certain responses are a given, one, that Smoking will most certainly be equated to Gun Rights. and that any action taken that restricts smoking is just another example of runaway Govt, and next on their list will be (insert your own pet peeve). What I almost never hear regarding smokers rights is an old response that is, I feel, most appropriate. Your freedom to smoke ends where my freedom to breathe clean air begins. Certain locations being excluded (bars, Pool halls, Cigar Bars, etc.) I have the right to expect smoke free air whereever I choose to travel, and that certainly includes Hospitals and their surrounding grounds.
As a former smoker I sympathize with those who still smoke. It is a very hard addiction to beat, however, my right to clean air trumps your right to smoke, and it has absoutely nothing to do with guns.
JPM
Every time the right to smoke comes up, regardless of the location, certain responses are a given, one, that Smoking will most certainly be equated to Gun Rights. and that any action taken that restricts smoking is just another example of runaway Govt, and next on their list will be (insert your own pet peeve). What I almost never hear regarding smokers rights is an old response that is, I feel, most appropriate. Your freedom to smoke ends where my freedom to breathe clean air begins. Certain locations being excluded (bars, Pool halls, Cigar Bars, etc.) I have the right to expect smoke free air whereever I choose to travel, and that certainly includes Hospitals and their surrounding grounds.
As a former smoker I sympathize with those who still smoke. It is a very hard addiction to beat, however, my right to clean air trumps your right to smoke, and it has absoutely nothing to do with guns.
JPM
jefnvk
Member
That was never explained to me. You know this for a fact, because no one has ever mentioned so much to me? I've gotten the dangers of alcohol many times, but never the dangers of smoking.
As for farnham, you obviously thought that the medical attention wasn't important enough to sit areound not smoking. Obviously the fact that you are sitting here telling us the story (assuming that you aren't footless) proves that. If the lady doesn't think that not smoking is not a good idea, and smoking is more important that getting her 900 mg/dl sugar fixed, she should be free to walk out that door, just as you did. Now, this is assuming her mind was working.
When I first went to the hospital, I was at 530. I was more out of it than someone higher than a kite. Chances are, this lady wasn't thinking straight. Letting her go out and smoke probably isn't the solution, just as letting her walk out the door isn't the solution if she was not thinking straight. I dunno what hospitals can legally do in a case like this regarding restraints or drugs that would knock her out, but that was probably the right answer.
And I have yet to figure out just how you get to 900, there is usually negligence or neglect involved in that. 200-300, yeah, that could happen accidently. But 900? That must involves not taking insulin for a long time.
This is a national trend among hostpitals right now. They have ZERO problem with the potential of someone dying as a result of this. You see, they honestly believe that they will make countless people quit, and 1000 lives "saved" from cancer trumps the odd patient who walked out on their medical care.
Im gonna save some time on this argument that has been happening here for a long time.
A) I have a right to smoke, just like with guns.
B) You dont, the constitution doesnt say you do.
A) Banning cigarettes is like banning guns and we should be against it.
B) You 'right' to smoke violates my right to clean air.
A) The constitution doesnt say anything about clean air either...
B) You dont have the right to give me cancer
A) cars give you more cancer, ban them first
B) Your a nazi
A) your a nazi
Moderator = Thread locked
Who calls who a nazi first is actually based on a random element and doesnt really matter.
Im gonna save some time on this argument that has been happening here for a long time.
A) I have a right to smoke, just like with guns.
B) You dont, the constitution doesnt say you do.
A) Banning cigarettes is like banning guns and we should be against it.
B) You 'right' to smoke violates my right to clean air.
A) The constitution doesnt say anything about clean air either...
B) You dont have the right to give me cancer
A) cars give you more cancer, ban them first
B) Your a nazi
A) your a nazi
Moderator = Thread locked
Who calls who a nazi first is actually based on a random element and doesnt really matter.
Tobacco Stuff
jefnvk;
Narrowed arteries/sticky red blood cells/too many red blood cells -- Yes I do know this for a fact, it is the common result of smoking with diabetes. It is probably the leading cause of amputations, heart attacks, stroke, and believe it or not impotence. You cannot pick which blood vessel clogs with the sticky cells. If the clog occurs in your neck on the way to the brain we call it a stroke. If the clog occurs in an artery on the way to your heart, we call it a heart attack. If it occurs on the way to your genitals we call it a tragedy! Viagra will work well for diabetics unless there is a major blockage of the blood supply.
Diabetes is a tremendously complex disease and I don't have sufficient education to fully understand all of it. Almost all my education hinges on smoking and it's interaction with health. You might want to call your local hospital and ask for the Heath Education Department. You can also check
<www.diabetes.org> or <www.diabetesscv.org> these people are free and will have the information for you.
Good Luck
jefnvk;
Narrowed arteries/sticky red blood cells/too many red blood cells -- Yes I do know this for a fact, it is the common result of smoking with diabetes. It is probably the leading cause of amputations, heart attacks, stroke, and believe it or not impotence. You cannot pick which blood vessel clogs with the sticky cells. If the clog occurs in your neck on the way to the brain we call it a stroke. If the clog occurs in an artery on the way to your heart, we call it a heart attack. If it occurs on the way to your genitals we call it a tragedy! Viagra will work well for diabetics unless there is a major blockage of the blood supply.
Diabetes is a tremendously complex disease and I don't have sufficient education to fully understand all of it. Almost all my education hinges on smoking and it's interaction with health. You might want to call your local hospital and ask for the Heath Education Department. You can also check
<www.diabetes.org> or <www.diabetesscv.org> these people are free and will have the information for you.
Good Luck
Last edited:
Sindawe
Member
If ya'll excuse the topic drift for a moment, what about diabetes produces the sticky out layer of RBC? Do them come out of the bone marrow that way, or does it occur after the RBCs have been circulating for awhile?
Crosshair
Member
*raises hand*
Everyone realises that car exhaust is much more harmfull than tobacco smoke since most people are exposes to it for much longer periods of time than tobacco. I don't think the poor air quality in some big cities is from tobacco either. Technicaly the most damaging substance to the human body are Oxygen radicals. That is correct, breathing oxygen is hazardous to you're health.
http://www.squattle.com/oxidation.html
Everyone realises that car exhaust is much more harmfull than tobacco smoke since most people are exposes to it for much longer periods of time than tobacco. I don't think the poor air quality in some big cities is from tobacco either. Technicaly the most damaging substance to the human body are Oxygen radicals. That is correct, breathing oxygen is hazardous to you're health.
http://www.squattle.com/oxidation.html
jefnvk
Member
106, thanks, I'll have to check into that.
Sindawe, probably the incredible increase in sugar levels is what causes it. No insulin means that your body isn't able to use the glucose floating around in the blood stream, so it just floats around. Thta woul be my guess, anyways.
Sindawe, probably the incredible increase in sugar levels is what causes it. No insulin means that your body isn't able to use the glucose floating around in the blood stream, so it just floats around. Thta woul be my guess, anyways.
We really should do something about this out of controll sugar consumption in America. Diabetes is starting to become an epidemic, not to mention obesity. Anyone wanna pass some laws? I think the best place to start is restaraunts, they are licensed and that makes them easy to regulate. (familier?)
ravinraven
Member
And we can...
...force everyone to buy public eating licenses. They can have no-notice check points along the road, or along the sidewalk, and weigh you. If you weigh too much, they suspend your license and send you to diet/nutrition class.
If you show up at a restaurant, a special diet team has to check your license for past eating violations before they find you a seat. If you are obviously overweight and they serve you, they get closed for a year.
That should take care of the fat problem.
Now. What can we do about all the time that's being wasted in the country by old fuds like me playing Free Cell on this damn machine. Someone should be sued for that!
rr
...force everyone to buy public eating licenses. They can have no-notice check points along the road, or along the sidewalk, and weigh you. If you weigh too much, they suspend your license and send you to diet/nutrition class.
If you show up at a restaurant, a special diet team has to check your license for past eating violations before they find you a seat. If you are obviously overweight and they serve you, they get closed for a year.
That should take care of the fat problem.
Now. What can we do about all the time that's being wasted in the country by old fuds like me playing Free Cell on this damn machine. Someone should be sued for that!
rr
peacefuljeffrey
member
Well, the reason, as is apparent to me, is that this is not about protecting non-smokers from having to smell/inhale smoke -- it's about the hospital folks expressing their moral outrage, alongside their arrogance and contempt.
If all they were trying to do was keep the smoke away from those who don't want to experience it, they would simply set up a designated smoking area or two. And they would do it in a place that was not so out-of-the-way and inconvenient that its selection was not a clear slap in the face of the human dignity of the smokers who wish to use it. (So, in other words, if the hospital admin puts the smoking section right out behind the garbage dumpsters, they are saying in no uncertain terms, "We think you're $#it. Kiss off."
Obstinate refusal to treat even those horrid smokers as human beings gives lie to the idea that doctors are compassionate and humanist. The ones in charge, apparently, are contemptuous, arrogant, and spiteful. They are making an AGENDA-DRIVEN POLITICAL-IDEOLOGICAL STATEMENT, here. And they are attempting to dictate the lifestyles of others who are not necessarily like them. It's an abuse of power. Just imagine if they had the political or economic clout to bar fast food restaurants from your town. Imagine if they had the power to ban streetbikes, or skydiving, or anything else that brings damaged humans to them for emergency care. Their attitude is, "We know what's best for you, and we're going to force it on you."
Sound familiar?
-Jeffrey
peacefuljeffrey
member
JPM,
Please relate what you said above with the notion that the hospital could, without much trouble, designate a smoking area that is guaranteed far enough away from traffic areas as to keep anyone who doesn't want to breathe smoke from having to.
They are clearly refusing to do so.
Designating a far-from-the-front-door smoking area does not deny you your "right" (please cite where this right is codified and guaranteed, btw) "to clean air."
Assuming that you even have such a right, I don't see why you would not still be able to breathe clean air if there were a small area at the far end of the parking lot where smokers could light up. There is no reason for the hospital to ban ALL smoking from ALL of the property unless their reason is simply to vindictively spite, harass, intimidate, condemn, belittle, abuse, and $#it on smokers.
BTW, I'm a lifelong non-smoker. I am not saying this stuff because I am personally affected by it. But as with the issue of constitutional rights, if I stand by while others lose rights that I don't personally used, I am still harmed by the loss of those rights.
-Jeffrey
Jeffrey has it right. The only reason they are banning smoking accross the entirety of their property is because they dont have the authority to ban it over the span of the entire country. The goal isnt to provide clean air, its to not let people smoke.
jefnvk
Member
And it is Type 2 Diabetes that you need to control. That is the sweeping epidemic due to sugar use. Type 1 just happens, nothing you can do about it.
Perhaps we have a Nanny State issue here. The government, other authorities, etc. have decided people shouldn't smoke because in their view smoking is harmful. They are probably right, and if the truth were known probably many smokers would agree. But they are addicted, and as is often the case with Nannies they are long on dictating about what people should do, but short on helping them accomplish what they are demanding. Obviously ending the addiction is easier for some then others.
I do see a relationship between firearms and smoking. The anti-gun Nannies have decided that guns are bad, and therefore having or using them should be prohibited. In a sense some people are addicted to guns (I know I am). This means nothing to the anti-gun Nannies who have decided what's best.
There is an attitude here, on the part of some anti-smokers, that they have a right and responsibility to impose their views on those who smoke. They have all the rights; the smoker's have none. What they say, the rest must do. End of discussion.
I am not a smoker. But I don't know if that in itself give me a right to demand that others don't smoke - any more then the Democrats in California have any right to tell people that live there what kind of guns they can or can't own.
Last but not least, if in the Government's view smoking is so bad why don't they flat out prohibit growing tobacco, manufacturing cigarettes, and smoking them? The answer is simple - they don't want to give up the tax money they're collecting. Sort of a double standard isn't it?
I do see a relationship between firearms and smoking. The anti-gun Nannies have decided that guns are bad, and therefore having or using them should be prohibited. In a sense some people are addicted to guns (I know I am). This means nothing to the anti-gun Nannies who have decided what's best.
There is an attitude here, on the part of some anti-smokers, that they have a right and responsibility to impose their views on those who smoke. They have all the rights; the smoker's have none. What they say, the rest must do. End of discussion.
I am not a smoker. But I don't know if that in itself give me a right to demand that others don't smoke - any more then the Democrats in California have any right to tell people that live there what kind of guns they can or can't own.
Last but not least, if in the Government's view smoking is so bad why don't they flat out prohibit growing tobacco, manufacturing cigarettes, and smoking them? The answer is simple - they don't want to give up the tax money they're collecting. Sort of a double standard isn't it?
Nathaniel Firethorn
Member
Overheard in the :Statename: legislature:
- pdmoderator
Repeat until everything that is not prohibited in :Statename: is compulsory.
- pdmoderator
Please remember that they are not prohibiting tobacco. They prohibit setting tobacco on fire in a public place. You can easily use snuff, patch or nicotine gum.
The nanny state objection is hitting home. I wonder how far they can go with this. Mostly it is driven by economics, In Canada, where they have socialized medicine, the tax on cigs is set at a level that pays for the medical care of smokers. They cost about $10.79 Canadian a pack. The smokers pay their own way instead of freeloading on the other insured as they do in the USA. One of the major objections to smoking in the USA is that smokers use an inordinate amount of medical resources. Indeed smoking seems to age the body about 15 years. All of the organs seem to respond like they are 15 years older than their actual age. So if the smoker is 50 years old the organs respond as though they are 65.
The motorcycle helmet laws were also based on insurance issues. Motorcycle accidents are the single greatest cause of quadriplegia. When people are totally crippled they lose their insurance and become a burden to the state. Bikers complain about the nanny state too.
The nanny state objection is hitting home. I wonder how far they can go with this. Mostly it is driven by economics, In Canada, where they have socialized medicine, the tax on cigs is set at a level that pays for the medical care of smokers. They cost about $10.79 Canadian a pack. The smokers pay their own way instead of freeloading on the other insured as they do in the USA. One of the major objections to smoking in the USA is that smokers use an inordinate amount of medical resources. Indeed smoking seems to age the body about 15 years. All of the organs seem to respond like they are 15 years older than their actual age. So if the smoker is 50 years old the organs respond as though they are 65.
The motorcycle helmet laws were also based on insurance issues. Motorcycle accidents are the single greatest cause of quadriplegia. When people are totally crippled they lose their insurance and become a burden to the state. Bikers complain about the nanny state too.
Type Two and Sugar
Jeffnvk;
There is a recent study that indicates high fructose corn syrup as the probable culprit in the type two epidemic. We have had sugar for centuries and we have not had this much trouble with type two Diabetes before. Some years ago, many soft drink companies "reformulated" their product to use HFCS instead of sugar. HFCS is far far cheaper than sugar and is not subject to price fluctuations like sugar.
The per capita consumption of HFCS skyrocketed. It is now incorporated in bread, cereal, soft drinks, candy and many so called fruit drinks. The only reason it is used is to increase profits. The rise of type two diabetes and the consumption of HFCS seem to be in parallel motion.
I do understand that your post was sarcastic and I appreciate the style. Banning sugar instead of letting the people make a choice is stupid. I'll bet California puts a tax on it first! We lead the nation in nanny stupidity!
BTW -- Veterans who served on the ground in Vietnam who get diabetes are entitled to compensation. The Agent Orange screwed up your pancreas and caused diabetes. Check with your local VA.
Jeffnvk;
There is a recent study that indicates high fructose corn syrup as the probable culprit in the type two epidemic. We have had sugar for centuries and we have not had this much trouble with type two Diabetes before. Some years ago, many soft drink companies "reformulated" their product to use HFCS instead of sugar. HFCS is far far cheaper than sugar and is not subject to price fluctuations like sugar.
The per capita consumption of HFCS skyrocketed. It is now incorporated in bread, cereal, soft drinks, candy and many so called fruit drinks. The only reason it is used is to increase profits. The rise of type two diabetes and the consumption of HFCS seem to be in parallel motion.
I do understand that your post was sarcastic and I appreciate the style. Banning sugar instead of letting the people make a choice is stupid. I'll bet California puts a tax on it first! We lead the nation in nanny stupidity!
BTW -- Veterans who served on the ground in Vietnam who get diabetes are entitled to compensation. The Agent Orange screwed up your pancreas and caused diabetes. Check with your local VA.
Waitone
Member
No, actually the level of taxation is such that it breeds a black market in cigarettes. Long before 911 the FBIbATFEDEA stung a cell of Hezbolah. They were smuggling cigarettes out of north and south Carolina where taxes are minimal and into Detroit IIRC. Not known if they were then shipped across to Canada but I'd be surprised if at least some didn't make it. Buy low, sell high. Use the margin dollars to sponsor terror activities. Keep raising taxes on socially acceptable products and at some point the black market takes over. If government was smart it would try to figure out the optimum level of taxation and go no farther. But no, we want to tax the snot out of social pirahs. . . . .today its cigarette smokers, then cigar smokers, then snuff dippers, then candy bars, and milk duds, Coke Coler, then moon pies, then nabs, then sling shots, then bb guns, then .22lr, then .38spl. then, then, then, and then.
Start down this road and there is no logical barrier to including other legal products.
Jammer Six
member
Got that right.
Here in Seattle, it's now banned in a number of public places, (I can never keep it straight if it's banned in bars or not, it seems to me that it is, but only in a few suburbs, or something.) it's banned in my home, and smoking on one of my crews during the work day will get you laid off.
Slowly, but surely, we're gaining.
auschip
Member
Pretty harsh. What about on their breaks? What about if they don't smoke, but you know they are smokers? Are you against dipping also?
Matthew748
Member
Second hand smoke can be annoying. I smoke, but there are times when I refrain out of choice. I hate poorly ventilated, closed rooms filled with smoke as much as most non-smokers.
Since society is taking the stance that one person must abstain from a behavior because it violates another person's rights, there are a lot of things I would like to see changed. Chief among them is alcohol consumption. I am of the belief that alcohol should only be consumed at home and only when the person will not be out driving. I have had a lot of near misses on the roads due to drunkards. I find it odd that most people get whooped up into a fury over smoking while casually poisoning their liver and brains with booze and creating unsafe situations for others on the road.
Since society is taking the stance that one person must abstain from a behavior because it violates another person's rights, there are a lot of things I would like to see changed. Chief among them is alcohol consumption. I am of the belief that alcohol should only be consumed at home and only when the person will not be out driving. I have had a lot of near misses on the roads due to drunkards. I find it odd that most people get whooped up into a fury over smoking while casually poisoning their liver and brains with booze and creating unsafe situations for others on the road.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked