Your tagline says it all, Irene. And someone who believes that second hand smoke or any cigarette smoke is not bad for you has something wrong with their brain. Oh yeah, likely the effects of second hand smoke.

@JASFLALMT wrote:

Your tagline says it all, Irene. And someone who believes that second hand smoke or any cigarette smoke is not bad for you has something wrong with their brain. Oh yeah, likely the effects of second hand smoke.

My beloved Father couldn't give me away at my wedding or live to see the birth of my daughter...thanks to smoking....such a sore spot for me, how can anyone in their right mind.....

Again, with the emotional armed forces... It is unfortunate when people we love become ill or die. We miss them. Maybe they suffered due to the conditions of their own lives. Their lives do not have to become our burdens. We can simply grieve and move forward in our own lives, leaving others free to be in their lives and experience the consequences of their own actions. We do not need a movement that is wallowing in emotional burdens that were self-inflicted. I surmise that we needed a universal "smokers anonymous" group instead of grief played out over years in courts. Mind you, this is an unpopular viewpoint. I put on my cyber anti-tomato suit, just in case.

Is there an EQ issue here, and not an IQ issue? This, too, is unpopular. But it's okay. I am wearing the cyber anti-tomato suit.

???? missing someone doesn't just disappear..we all live our life's, and I've had a good one. Suppression of a real situation wouldn't be my way of living. Responding to a post honestly isn't in any way emotional, just dealing with feelings that one has experienced. I'm thankful I don't live in a bubble, pretending nothing matters and am able to express myself, helps get it out, while suppression grows inside and causes other problems, like health.
Whatever works, difference makes the world go round...hope your having to wear your "cyber anti-tomato suit"
isn't too uncomfortable.....

Thank you, Irene. There actually is a widespread EQ component of this issue. Emotional battling did not belong in policy-making. It overpowered reason, known/current health measures, and personal responsibility. Yes, smokers had/have personal responsibility. Why do some people who try smoking never want more than a puff? Why do some smoke for a short while and drop it cold turkey? Why do some smoke for a lifetime? The smoking products for all generations were/are the same for cohorts of smokers, so the differences in smoking/quitting probably are somewhere within the people who ever have smoked, even just a puff or two. These are individual differences. In an insightful perspective, individual differences are the stuff of personal inquiry and possible personal evolution or transformation.

In an unhealthy context or instance, such as emotional battering, individual differences may be overlooked while the grieving blame anyone handy for their losses. Irene, you and JAS have implied that I am mentally deficient due to cigarette smoke. These wild and unsubstantiated accusations are a form of emotional battering. Are they cyber-bullying? I do not know. I do not study that issue, and that is not my immediate concern. You are grieving and angry for reasons that I do not know because I do not know you personally. I understand this. Other people might not understand it and they might have taken a far different stance during this discussion that I have done. That is another example of individual difference.

On a larger scale, and regarding all smokers worldwide across time: Even with smoking bans and anti-smoking policies in place, individual smokers must perform individual work in their quitting processes. They had to do that work before bans and policies. Many become stuck, many times, and never completely quit. The existence of bans and attitudes has not made it possible for these people to quit.

I understand that folks here do not want to examine, in depth, any potential flaws in widespread and far-reaching bans and policies. I find the responses interesting and, sometimes, entertaining.

Next you're going to say that global warming is a myth, too.

There is actual science so denying it is really silly. I've never seen anyone jump through so many intellectual hoops in order to defend the indefensible. And that is even probably beside the point. I'm quite sure that the woman in question was not supposed to be smoking while her charges were present. That is a basic requirement of every job these days.

@CoffeeQueen wrote:

There is actual science so denying it is really silly. I've never seen anyone jump through so many intellectual hoops in order to defend the indefensible. And that is even probably beside the point. I'm quite sure that the woman in question was not supposed to be smoking while her charges were present. That is a basic requirement of every job these days.

Actual science? There have not been a sufficient number of double blind studies (the gold standard) or other effective means of identification of factors, causes, and effects. Without that, interpretation of available information is iffy at best. In time, studies might reveal information that can inform us about smoke as it interacts with other conditions or factors. I have read some study results which were based upon loaded questions. That data is not actual science. It is the product of suggestion and social engineering. These studies are related to the social sciences, which are real fields of study. However, they cannot provide other needed information, which is related to other sciences and other considerations. Note well that some social science research is well-designed and usable.

What is indefensible about fact-finding? Do some people merely find fact-finding objectionable?

Are you sure that every job has that as a requirement? An IC can smoke in permitted spaces while reading shop guidelines, for example.

How is that some people will continue to argue when they are dead wrong and other people start ignoring anything and everything that they have to say (or write) in the future? For quite some time now I have not gotten further than a few sentences of any of your posts before I move onto something else. Keep it up. Soon you will find the only one reading your posts is you.

Are you threatening me? Anyway, people have the right to learn or not. It is always up to each person. Do you choose to take the challenge presented in my posts? Do you choose to read a few lines, get irritated, and issue threats? Do you have what it takes? Do you, JASFLALMT, have the courage to use that toggle feature? Well, do ya'? I dare you.

No, I don't get irritated, I get bored. Yawn.

So... umm... why don't you find something else to do? I hear that smoking is not necessarily bad for you, provided you have certain genetics, eat well, and do a few other things to offset the smoke.

Threats? You are delusional.

Personally, I'll listen to what Doctors say mine included. but thanks for your "well informed" (right) information.
Perhaps, just guessing, you want to reduce your life, "you can't change what you don't acknowledge"...Dr. Phil.

Thanks for the 'baccy industry propaganda but I actually prefer science. At any rate, I don't know where you live but in my state there is not one place anyone can smoke in public. Well, you can if you are outside but you will get dirty looks. I'm not anti-smoking, I think adults should do whatever they want, but neither do I deny the facts.

Anyway, have a great night.

@JASFLALMT wrote:

Next you're going to say that global warming is a myth, too.

If she did, she would be in good company.

There is less than 100% agreement among scientists about global warming. Some question data collection methods. This results in varying interpretations of different data sets. Do humans contribute to it, or do they not? Scientists do not know. Well, some think that they do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2017 10:08AM by Shop-et-al.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

There is less than 100% agreement among scientists about global warming. Some question data collection methods. This results in varying interpretations of different data sets. Do humans contribute to it, or do they not? Scientists do not know. Well, some think that they do.

There is rarely 100% agreement about anything among scientists. Using that as a platform to further your point, is worse than the scientists that publish iffy results from poorly conducted experiments and/or the new outlets that choose to report the iffy results.

Thank you to everyone for jacking my thread! JAS had a point and people decided to jump, for the sake of jumping.

I needed to vent because my dog has an innate clue that I might have some extra cash. this time of year and gets his little body hurt in a way that I will drive to the vet.
I needed to vent because various computing equipment is all stupid as well.

For all of you that had to keep it going and ignore the op. Good for you!. Why would anyone try to stick to the point?

I am sorry, MA. I hope your dog is feeling better.

I apologize for responding to others in addition to the OP.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2017 01:05PM by Shop-et-al.

Developmental disability. Used to be MR, ( Mental retardation). We've changed the terminology but not the stigma. I have a daughter that could have been one of those on that woman's van and I for one am glad you called.

@MA Smith wrote:

@Shop-et-al wrote:

There is less than 100% agreement among scientists about global warming. Some question data collection methods. This results in varying interpretations of different data sets. Do humans contribute to it, or do they not? Scientists do not know. Well, some think that they do.

There is rarely 100% agreement about anything among scientists. Using that as a platform to further your point, is worse than the scientists that publish iffy results from poorly conducted experiments and/or the new outlets that choose to report the iffy results.

An assumption was made in this post which follows the OP's understandable expression of indignation regarding the hijacking of this thread. The OP has "kept it going" and I am eligible to respond to them.

What platform?

In response to a taunt about what I may or may not believe about global warming, I merely summarized how scientists view global warming (they do not agree that humans cause or contribute to it). I did not share my personal view of global warming, and I did not mention any other issue in my post. Another poster introduced global warming into a discussion about smoking, which a third poster introduced into this thread which began about you, your beloved pooch, and a few frustrations.

I did not link my post about scientists & global warming to any posts or views about smoking. You did that.

Both my kids have special needs, so I knew exactly what you meant without explanation.

@JASFLALMT wrote:

Yes. Sigh. I get that. But if you read what the post is about it should be pretty obvious, griff. If I was talking about a payment situation, DD would be direct deposit, etc. I will be verrryyy careful to spell everything out for you in the future, LOL (laugh out loud) no matter how obvious it is so I don't confuse you anymore

Fortunately, it is not too late for sensitive persons. The large world of health with or without medicine and with or without tobacco provides a variety of options for many persons who experience sensitivities. People can study themselves and their lives. They can identify triggers and sensitivities, with or without a doc. They can choose inputs and activities that will reduce triggers and sensitivities. They have options. They may or may not experience complete relief. But they have options. It is their responsibility to find out which options are best for them. Health specialists can match nutrition plans, exercises programs, stress management skills, and other techniques to individual situations.

I am aware that lobbying techniques are still active in this thread. I also know how to find the information that indicates how psychologically sick the anti-tobaccos use efforts were/are.

These efforts are filled with inaccuracies, blame, denial, and over-control. Where was the healthy approach to coping? Who made tobacco users accountable for their own selves, leaving the rest of the world free to deal? Where were the knowledgeable people who could have stepped up to the plate and announced, "I am so-and-so and I know someone who smokes. That is their issue and I no longer carry the burden of their personal choice. It is difficult, sometimes, to acknowledge that their choices impacted my life in ways that I would not have chosen. But here I am, among others who have loved and lost. I allow myself to be willing to find out how the choices I make from now on will be healthy and prevent me from spilling my emotional traumas into an entire nation which does not deserve this from me. I am willing to find out how I can be an upright soul and citizen despite what has happened to me". Even today, there is no strong support for "Tobacco Survivors". Their concerns for living and dead persons are real. Where is the support for them? Why is there no strong and attractive program such as "Tobacco Anon" for persons who know or knew tobacco users? Such a program would attract the grieving, denying, and over-controllers to insight and practical help and keep these real, life-impacting emotional concerns out of the lobbying and legislative arenas. Let the government rule from accurate and balanced information, and not be strong-armed by special interests, including those who can seek help in other arenas.

It is shameful that the governments in this country showed its insanity (yes, the literature uses this term) when banning the use of tobacco instead of demanding a clearer picture of needs and helps. The process which culminated in the banning of tobacco use showed us our national psychological illness but did nothing to treat it. Today, the question is: What kind of country allows this insanity, passes a national health bill without reading its clauses, fails to schedule follow-up appointments/legislative sessions to evaluate the plan, and then balks at changing the obviously flawed system?!? Oh, yeah. It's the one where no one has to take ownership of their own issues any more and can blame anyone or everyone else for their problems. It's the one where tobacco survivors can co-opt the government instead of taking appropriate measures in their own behalf and for their own selves.

Fortunately, there is hope for the future. Other people know what I know, and they work in fields where they can utilize the information. Perhaps the lobbying arena can be expanded from entrenched special interests and include wide-reaching individual responsibilities and how these may reduce or eliminate the need for special interest lobbies. Then, our legislators can have a different type of input for their consideration.

Again and as always, incalculable apologies and kudos to the OP, who took an appropriate meaSures in their own behalf and in their own interest. They wanted to vent, and they did. You go, OP! The rest of us should be sent to "Hijackers Anonymous", or something...

Thank you Shop-et-al for your kind thoughts.

I'm over my ChiX having issues when I finally have a decent amount of discretionary income. He's my boy. He's getting old and stuff is going to happen. I will not say it doesn't blow when 1/3rd of the discretionary is spent on him. I love him, but I need an new IPad and a new phone.

He's not a tax write off! He is old and chooses not to make white/Hispanic/black guys jump anymore.

He's become the border patrol guys dismiss. Since he doesn't feel the need to bark o bite, Border Patrol guys laugh him off. He's just a puppy/