| Sunday, June 22, 2008 | | · | Sponge and Marcy Playground to Rock Carnival Cruise | | Wednesday, June 18, 2008 | | · | MB Welcomes The Whiskey Rhythm Band | | Sunday, June 15, 2008 | | · | Badynee's Bogdon Bass In The Freep | | Saturday, June 14, 2008 | | · | Emergenza Showcase Review by Severance | | Thursday, June 12, 2008 | | · | Michigan Bands Join Two-Time Grammy Winner Ozomatli & Modest Mouse in New Movie | | Tuesday, June 10, 2008 | | · | Video Comments Problem Fixed | | Monday, June 09, 2008 | | · | The Next Great American Country Star Competition | | · | Long Branch Saloon | | Friday, May 30, 2008 | | · | MB Welcomes Lauderdale | | Sunday, May 25, 2008 | | · | Orbitsuns Host Fun Filled Round of Rock-n-Roll Bingo |
Older Articles |
|
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by Mitch on Saturday, July 07, 2007 @ 09:36:14 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message | Journal) http://www.michiganbands.com | Obviously, we hit a nerve.
Speaking of personal profit (and I'm really not sure how one profits from banning workplace smoking), the Heartland Institute you cited, even though the are listed as a non-profit, recieve money and support from big tobacco and big oil and other interests who stand to profit big-time from Heatland's agenda ( SourceWatch.org [www.sourcewatch.org]). There's a lot of big polluters out there who would love nothing better than to shut the EPA down for good, kill the Clean Air and Clean Water acts and unregulate all business once and for all - that is, unitl some Chinese sweatshop slips ethylene glycol into their toothpaste. Then the regulations and the science suddenly seems good enough.
I know how you feel though, up until five years ago I was smoking 2.5 packs a day. Quitting was a BITCH and I still miss it sometimes. But I got it in my head that I wasn't going to reward these companies anymore for keeping me addicted to their product and making me feel like shit for the
using it properly.
My mother has emphesyma, my brother has emphesyma - so I was going to do whatever I could to prevent it from happening to me. Yeah, yeah, it was my choice to smoke, but there's definitely an addictive and unhealthy side to it as well. Believe what you want, but I never get bronchitis anymore and that used to happen to me at least twice a year. And I don't cough in the morning and spit up chunks of my lungs anymore either. In the breathing department, I'm 100% better. But now I'm fatter -so you just can't win!
So as a non-smoker now, I understand how those non-smokers felt coming to the bars I was playing in. I used to make fun of their whining too. But now I can smell things again and when I come home from a night out my clothes stink, my hair stinks, my eyes are red and my throat feels like it's been coated with yak. When you're a smoker, you can't smell it - I don't know why. So it may turn out that MORE people go out to bars because of the increased benefit.
On the flip side, I think people who want to ban smoking in public spaces OUTDOORS are going way too far. In fact, I think if clubs and bars want to build a smokers room w/proper ventillation and a vestibule (inspected, etc..) indoors they should have that option and get a one-time fat tax write-off for it as well. New construction and new businesses in existing buildings wouldn't get that cut though.
Just my opinion....let's hear from you lurkers out there!
|
| Parent
|
|
Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by chrismccall on Sunday, July 08, 2007 @ 13:25:03 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message) |
Dear Wiki,
First of all I don’t consider myself an anti-smoking advocate. I support your right to smoke. Personal freedom is almost a religion to me. I think you should smoke, eat, drink and have sex with whatever you want, without causing harm. And this is where you and I part ways. The basis of my support of the HB 4163 rests on the health issues that I and many fellow musicians who make our living working in bars and restaurants, have suffered from. I’d like to get to your second posting which is a lengthy treatise written by a Lawyer who works for a right wing think tank in Chicago called the Heartland Institute. But before I do, I have to question why you posted this piece by Maureen Martin which claims, based on highly disputed science, that the health effects of smoking are inflated, when you yourself are trying to quit smoking. Why quit if it isn’t harmful? It’s sexy, it’s fun and it’s cool. Who doesn’t love that? That’s why I did it.
I preface my remarks with this because it feels disingenuous to me to argue over whether smoking is bad for your health. As you say, “Come on.”
Maureen Martin refers to “professional anti smoking advocates” making personal profit. Can we really deal with this with a straight face. I’m laughing, hysterically.
She says, “The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas.”
This is an interesting spin. “Tax payers”, are the people, who generally cause the grassroots movements. Whereas the Tobacco Lobby is funded by corporations. If you’re going to throw a grassroots party, who are you going to invite? Phillip Morris?
I testified a couple of weeks ago at hearing at the capital on this issue. Many people with severe health problems took the time to come to Lansing to speak, these were people who were hooked up to oxygen tanks, and people carrying pictures of dead loved ones. If you really want to argue that the second hand smoke is benign, I’m sure you can find some paid off scientist to back you up, but you can’t argue that people are profiting from advocating for the ban. I’m not selling anything. This claim just proves the absence of sincerity on part of Maureen Martin and others who are fighting on behalf of Tobacco.
I’m ashamed of this cliché, kind of, but I think virtually all of Maureen Martins arguments are “Smoke and Mirrors” and far too tedious to address seriously. In her praise of John Stuart Mill’s “slender book”, she makes my point for me.
“Another reason to oppose the current campaign against smokers is because it violates the legitimate rights of smokers. John Stuart Mill, in a slender book published in 1859 titled On Liberty, wrote: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
Harm to others. This is the point. If you want to put a little drop of carcinogen in your own glass of water, go right ahead, but I don’t believe you have a right to put your carcinogen, in my water. This ban is not for the purpose of “protecting smokers from themselves.”
This ban will not hurt business. It works in New York and Ireland of all places. You may find this hard to believe, but the Irish still drink in the pubs. Everyone wasn’t happy about passing the ban in Ireland, but they have it now, and they’re just fine and they smell better. I was there in the Fall and the debate on all talk radio at that time, was whether 8 or 9 pints was too many to drive on.
The one point made by Maureen Martin that I agree with is that raising the taxes on cigarettes will not inhibit smoking by children. I conquer, most children are thieves and liars and they will steal cigarettes from their older sisters purse, as I did when I was eight years old. Thus avoiding any contribution to the tax base. Furthe
Read the rest of this comment... |
| Parent
|
|
Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by Rocko on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 @ 11:47:12 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message | Journal) | | I don't give aq crap about not being able to smoke inside! I just want a designated place to smoke outside! The abil;ity to go in and out of the bar without problems or having to repay. Personally... I think if you don't like smoke... then don't go into a bar or go places where there is smoking. It's called freedom of choice. |
| Parent
|
|
|
