Dogman 2009-04-06 11:38:57
Lets face it, most people who complain about people smoking around
them are just a bunch of puerile brats with nothing better to do than
make a nuisance of themselves (as is so clearly shown by some
participants in this NG). I have known a few people who are genuinely
bothered by ETS but in most cases, they tend to be more tolerant than
We are all familiar as well with the ‘reformed’ smoker who suddenly
can’t stand to be around smoke. I used to work in a private research
lab. One of the technologists decided to quit smoking. He turned into
a real a****** after that. He was probably a real a****** before that
but I didn’t know him that well so he didn’t bother me until my
smoking became an urgent concern of his.
After he quit smoking though he would pull the usual s*** whenever
anyone happened to be around enjoying a smoke; coughing and squinting
and turning up the nose. One day while I was enjoying a Camel while
working in an office down the hall. I heard the door to his office
slam shut. Not very subtle was he.
I had another encounter with a holier than thou non-smoker at the same
facility. A young woman was being re-located to my lab. We were
allowed to smoke in the labs in those days so long as we confined it
to our desks. The day she moved in she put up a ‘no smoking’ sign. It
was so typical of the Anti-Smoking Zealot (ASZ) ilk. Even though she
was just an employee, same as me, her religious anti-smoking zeal
allowed her to believe she could behave as though she owned the place.
Of course, I ignored her edict. The two of us ended up at loggerheads.
In those days, before the government really started going hog-wild on
the issue, the matter of accomodating smokers and non-smoking zealots
was left up to the property owner or it’s agent, the management.
Notice I did not say, non-smokers – most of the rest of my non-smoking
co-workers were tolerant, reasonable individuals as are most
non-smokers in general, except when they enter a voting booth. Though
I can no longer remember the response of management to this issue I
can say the matter was promtly resolved to *everyone’s* satisfaction.
This is one reason interloping politicians are beneath mere contempt.
They think they have all the answers. They clearly do not. And worse,
their “solutions” are always inferior to those arrived at by private
negotiation between parties directly involved with the issues. This is
one reason they have to justify their ignorant impositions with bland,
dishonest advertizing campaigns like the one in Hamilton, Ontario
right now. It describes the coercive and unwelcome interference with
the operation of private businesses, the replacement of voluntary
negotiation and accomodation between the people who are actually
involved, with “one size fit’s all” dictates as a situation in which
“everybody wins”. But Canada is now a land of sheep and this type of
crass manipulation proceeds without one person in a thousand even
being aware of it’s bald mendacity.
Unlike market solutions, where all transactions are voluntary and all
participants walk away better off than before, government acts,
coercive by nature, are *always* zero sum. Those who benefit *always*
benefit at someone else’s expense. This resonates nicely with the
bratish ASZ for whom freedom and property rights are fine so long as
they do not interfere with the duty of the plebian hoards to satisfy
their so called *right* to enjoy the property of others on terms only
The nannies in this newsgroup exhibit all of the same characteristics
as the “me first” brats. Without exception they reject the sanctity of
private property. This makes sense. Private property implies that
control rests with the owner. The antis cannot pursue their agenda in
a world where others are allowed a sphere of control. They *must* be
allowed to barge into places where other people are congregated and
set the rules.
Freedom of association, once considered important on an almost
universal basis, is just another obstacle to the brat tyrant. Nothing
must be allowed to stand in the way of the brat tyrant’s *right* to
breathe tobacco smoke-free air.
What unmitigated greed!
Yup, just a bunch of puerile f****** jerks, slamming doors like nine
year olds demanding satisfaction without paying for it. Like I say,
the most radical ASZ’s are the kind of arses who truly think the world
revolves around them. It is absolutely the mentality that demands
privately owned establishments be coerced by the might of the
government to accommodate their alleged ‘right’ to breathe ‘clean
air’. It is a sad commentary on the state of our governments where
political scoundrels cater to the whims of those constituents
motivated by nothing more than basic human greed for the unearned.
Marvin Caplan, architect of Hamilton’s pandering bylaw reminded me in
an email, “in the last municipal election over two thirds of those who
voted supported the by-law in a referendum.” Just roll this over in
your mind a bit to consider the implications. While doing so remember
H.L. Mencken’s quip, “Elections are nothing but an advance auction in
stolen goods.” See what I mean?
It takes hard work, saving, planning, dedication to build a business.
In our system of government all it takes is for some ignorant a******
in a voting booth to spend an erg of his own energy marking an “X”
which, when replicated by enough other a******* turns into a number
big enough to represent two-thirds of those who voted. The cumulative
effect of a large number of shallow a******* with voting rights is
translated into control of someone else’s property. Even more
insulting is the fact that the majority of those voting to expropriate
will never even set foot in most of the places they so blithely
dispose of. What a f****** disgrace.
Not all ‘reformed’ smokers behave this way. Again, puerile bratism is
not confined exclusively to the non-smoking population. The brat
former smoker is often the one responsible for so much of the rudeness
attributed to all smokers.
One brat smoker I knew thought nothing of lighting up after a meal
before everyone else had finished even in spite of being asked not to.
Now an ex-smoker he had bought into the ETS horseshit and prohibits
smoking in his house. Then he gets terribly offended when smoking
friends choose not to visit him socially.
The narcissist, again, thinks the world revolves around him. It is the
purpose and function of everyone else to serve as the means to his or
her ends. This is why the ASZ’s feel no qualms whatsoever about
expropriating private property for their own personal enjoyment of a
In a free country, those ASZ’s who have the courage of their
convictions would put their own time and money at risk by opening
their own smoke-free bars and restaurants. The issue is *so* important
to them they will think nothing of marking an “X” on a ballot, or
whining and complaining, or spending hours engaged in a mindless
exchange of insults in usenet but obviously not nearly important
enough to employ their own resources to provide themselves with the
accommodation they desire. As with all socialist whiners, the real
work is always left to someone else.
The marketplace is a level playing field where people get what they
want by production and voluntary trade. The dearth of smoke-free bars
and restaurants prior to prohibition is a salient indicator of just
how many ASZ’s possess the kind of integrity and conviction required
to achieve the goals they claim to value so highly…. none… zip,
zero, zilch. The best they can summon in pursuit of the smoke-free
accommodations they claim are so important is to whine, moan and put
an “X” on a ballot.
There’s an old saying, “Pay attention to what I do, not what I say.”
If you pay attention to what the ASZ’s actually *do* you cannot fail
to get a clear view right into their souls. Like broken people in a
car wreck, it ain’t a pretty picture.
No, they wait until someone else has done all the work, and then barge
in loudly demanding their “rights”. What a sorry bunch of worthless
bums. What system other than one designed by and for these sniveling
low-lifes, I.E. socialism, would allow such depravity to prevail?
Ipad 2009-04-06 11:39:20
Good post U.B.,
Perfect analogy, Nannies = Brats.
And you are correct, most people people are tolerant of those who smoke. Oh
sure once in awhile you get an annoyed look or an under-the-breath comment
but, most often, no big hassle.
There are, at least, two reasons for this:
1. Most people aren’t indicative of the raging, low self-esteem, neurotic
control freaks who, on this news group, represent the nanny patrol.
2. Nanny extremists are generally bullies who vent their spleens via their
keyboards. And, as bullies are generally cowards, they aren’t going to risk
the consequences of carrying on, eyeball-to-eyeball, in the real world.
When a nanny enters your space, be certain to leave them with a cloud of
smoke. You walk away happy while they stand there with their stomach in
knots. Gotta love it.
Anon3c67 2009-04-06 11:43:21
Please do. If they weren’t completely dedicated to eradicating
tobacco smoking in public, they will be.
Keep up the good work. Smoking bans are slow to be enacted. Such
behavior will greatly speed them up.
Robert woodbur 2009-04-06 11:43:40
Did just that while I was smoking at a bus stop the other day. An elderly nanny
stared at me stony eyed and said, “Don’t smoke around me.” When I inquired why
she was making that request, she said, “because I don’t like it.” I pointed out
there were no “No Smoking” signs anywhere present. (Nor would I obey one outside
if it WERE present. I’d take the ticket, and fight it in court. I don’t think
anyone here doubts I’d win, too, after careful comparative chemical analysis of
the traffic pollution at that area were undertaken – including, of course, that
emanating from the bus for which we were waiting.)
I then pointed out that she had a rather easy choice I didn’t have. She could
wait for the bus at any of the fine dining areas (about 500 or more yards
away)…at territory where my cigarette was forbidden to encroach.
I wonder why she had such an annoyed look on her face? *snicker* I also wonder
why she didn’t decide to “step inside”?
Felt nice to put the tight shoes on HER feet for a change, as she’s obviously
been doing to people for years.
Ipad 2009-04-06 11:50:46
Said the frustrated, Nits:
Fortunately, I wouldn’t have to resort to that. Most nannies, in knowing
their place, stay clear of my smoke.
Slow to be enacted, but stick around for the string to be played out to see
how quickly they unravel.
Ipad 2009-04-06 11:50:52
My one and only response would have been; “Not good enough nanny “because I
don’t like it'”, doesn’t cut it. We all must live with things we don’t like.
Find a way to avoid, or adjust. “I don’t like it”, means nothing to me. Have
a nice day.”
Robert woodbur 2009-04-06 11:50:58
I’m waiting for either a total prohibition or a ban at busstops. That won’t
unravel the string…it’ll burn it amidst the fire of rationale.
“He that doeth evil hateth the light”, says the Bible. Say I, “Gotta light?”
Uni 2009-04-07 03:50:55
Well said, UB!
Anon3c67 2009-04-09 06:24:09
Where do you see evidence of unraveling? Ohio, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin communities are really taking up the pace now that
the eastern states have passed statewide bans and thus obviating
the need for local bans there.
Anon3c67 2009-04-09 06:24:15
Your community is way behind the times. The bus stops here
have been nonsmoking for longer than I’ve been riding the bus.
Kevin 2009-04-09 06:27:24
Why in the h*** would anyone ride the bus with all of those losers,
unless they were poor.
Robert woodbur 2009-04-09 06:27:34
Long story, but it has to do with slowed motor coordination and C.P. and
the standard of proof when determining negligence where a disabled person
is the defendant in the action.
The question they would ask from plaintiff’s side about me driving is,
“Would a reasonable person with Spastic Cerebral Palsy have driven under
the same or similar circumstances?”
This, after, of course, showing off every photo from every C.P. telethon
they could find of people who have severe Spastic Quadraplegia, rather
than the mild Spastic Diplegia which I have…
You tell me: If you were me, would YOU drive?
Debhem 2009-04-09 20:15:09
H*** no………after all, if the public transportation system was
close enough to where I live or work, I wouldn’t drive either.
Heaven Doesn’t Want Me, and H*** is Afraid I’ll Take Over