If smokers did bend over backwards they populace would not be eager to join those who want to impose social engineering on smokers habits. The facts are that the social engineer's are a small but vocal minority who could not ban twinkee's with support of the larger majority. On the smoking issue they get this majority because most people have been subjected to smokers who "intentionally offend the sensitivities of all non-smokers and their aversions thereto."
If smokers truly acted as you say, these bans would be a non-issue.
As for the taxes, smokers are an easy target because they are addicted and do not reduce their consumption when the tax is increased. They can always cut their tax in half but they choose not to.
Corrected version:
If smokers did bend over backwards the populace would not be eager to join those who want to impose social engineering on smokers habits. The facts are that the social engineer's are a small but vocal minority who could not ban twinkee's without the support of the larger majority.
On the smoking issue, they get this majority because most people have been subjected to smokers who "intentionally offend the sensitivities of all non-smokers and their aversions thereto."
If smokers truly acted as you say, these bans would be a non-issue.
As for the taxes, smokers are an easy target because they are addicted and do not reduce their consumption when the tax is increased. They can always cut their tax in half but they choose not to.
"As for the taxes, smokers are an easy target because they are addicted and do not reduce their consumption when the tax is increased. They can always cut their tax in half but they choose not to."
WTF does this mean? It's OK to tax smokers inordinatly but how can they cut thier taxes in half if they are "addicted"?
Please expain!
BTW I wonder if anyone could open up a class action lawsuit against Hollywood for "glorifying" smoking and smokers that got me "addicted" when I was very young (about 35-40 years ago).
That would be the liberal solution if any out there still smoked, but, being a strong beleiver in personal responsibility, I would not go that route.
The vicious attack on smokers and smoking have only made it harder to quit something that deep down inside I know is not good for me, but,(there I go again) being fed up with someone trying to tell me what to do and how to live My life, I still smoke.
AND, I am very curtious when lighting up sitting next to someone in a smoking environment, I always ask if it would bother them if I smoked! I have yet to get a "yes" answer! I think if I did I fantisize about saying to them "Then GTF out of the area then!" No not really, I would move if I really wanted to smoke or refrain from lighting up.
JMHO
"Seasoned" rereading the post after the time it took to type this , Thanks, you put it much more elegantly and faster than I could.
And another thing, "Youse" is in the colloquial domain of people from the "World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers" so don't youse use youse if not entitled... Please