Smoking . . . (Slow Motion Suicide)

1 view
Skip to first unread message

d...@iedl02.uucp

unread,
Jun 13, 1983, 9:40:08 PM6/13/83
to
References: unc.5325

Tim
IT HAS BEEN PROVEN that **Second hand** smoke is also
a leading cause of cancer. PROVEN.
I don't care to have someone accelerate my death through their
own inconsiderate actions.
--------
Duff

kl...@ihuxu.uucp

unread,
Jun 14, 1983, 12:55:10 PM6/14/83
to
Tim Maroney has for no particular reason decided to misrepresent
me out of context across newsgroups, also misspelling my name
in the process. The statement he was referring to was originally
used in an attempt to show by example the fallacy in a
particular form of argument. Its purpose was clarified in
a subsequent submission, which Tim read and responded to
prior to his submission in this newsgroup,
so he was aware of my intent when he made his reference here.

This appears to be just another example of how Tim spends all
of his time: making submissions to the net for the purpose of
causing trouble. For those of you who haven't been following
the discussion on net.religion, Tim has been demanding proof
for all kinds of things there, too, and castigating those who
offer evidence counter to his position. Tim probably wouldn't
believe it's raining outside without going out and getting wet
(possibly not even then), and certainly not if someone just
told him so. It's amazing how in discussions with Tim,
the "burden of proof" always falls on those who disagree
with him.

In regards to the discussion here, as far as I know
it has been widely accepted for some years that cigarette
smoke is harmful, both to smokers themselves and to those
who breathe the smoke secondhand; the question is only
one of degree, that is, how great the danger is.

Vickie Klick (with a K, not a C, Tim)
Bell Labs - Naperville
ihuxu!klick

rw...@5941ux.uucp

unread,
Jun 14, 1983, 3:27:57 PM6/14/83
to

Smoking will shorten your life. If you smoke you may only live for 100 years
instead of 110 years.

Why be a burden to your heirs, die early!

t...@unc.uucp

unread,
Jun 14, 1983, 3:28:48 PM6/14/83
to

Tim
IT HAS BEEN PROVEN that **Second hand** smoke is also a
leading cause of cancer. PROVEN. I don't care to have someone
accelerate my death through their own inconsiderate actions.

Duff

I repeat: Let's see it! Am I supposed to take your word for it?
That's a pretty feeble basis for legislation, or for "proof".

Tim Maroney

rw...@5941ux.uucp

unread,
Jun 14, 1983, 3:57:54 PM6/14/83
to

One important fact to remember, "Cancer cures smoking".

g...@watarts.uucp

unread,
Jun 15, 1983, 4:25:08 PM6/15/83
to
In a recent article Tim Maroney has this to say about smoking:

"Well, I'm glad you at least got some amusement out of it, since
you seem to have missed its content. The point is that the link
between public smoking and danger to healthy people nearby is
currently only tenuously proven. Certainly there is some danger;
after all, you do breathe a few smoke particles. I expect that
the ambient pollution from cars and other internal combustion
machines in a large city is somewhat more dangerous than public
smoking. Can you disprove this? If not, then it seems to me
that you're throwing away people's freedoms in a pretty cavalier
way.

"Someone smoking near a person who has a health hazard that would
be worsened by any inhalation of smoke is extremely vile,
provided of course that the person is asked to stop, the
situation is explained, and the person contiues to smoke. Such
idiots should be prosecuted for charges commensurate with
physical assault, because that is just what they are doing."

Well I would agree with Tim that legislation is not a worthwhile
way to try to resolve this issue.

I don't think your description of how much consideration smokers
should exercise goes nearly far enough. I am not more allergic to
cigarette smoke than most people, I just don't like it. If I have
been near someone who smokes, in a poorly ventilated place, my clothes
SMELL, my hair STINKS.

I think that I should be able to have a reasonable expectation of
being free from cigarette smoke in the public places I have to
frequent. I generally don't go to bars because I know that I will
smell afterwards. But sometimes I choose to do so, perhaps because it
is a friends birthday, or some reason like that. But in a public
place, like a public terminal room for instance, I may not have any
choice about going there.

Tim, you tell us that it is your intuition that compared with
pollution from cars and factories, the smoke smokers add to my
environment is negligible. When did I surrender my right to decide how
much pollution I should be surrounded by? If I had just been mugged,
would that mean that you should then feel free to take a newspaper I
was carrying, on the grounds that it was of negligible value next to
my money? If I had been raped, would that mean that I no longer had
any right to choose my sexual partners?

Are you aware how trying it can be to ask someone, particularly a
stranger, not to smoke in a public place? I do this sometimes. I ask
politely, and sometimes it is OK, because the smoker didn't realize
what they were doing, or something like that. Most smokers though,
act very childishly, they tell you they are almost finished, or they
say they will stop, and then they don't, or all their cronies start
smoking too. Commonly, you politely ask them to stop, they take one
last big drag, and say something condescending like, "All right, just
this once", meanwhile exhaling that last big drag right in your face.

Do you think I should regard smokers abstention from smoking as some
kind of favour they are condescending to do for me? Well I don't. I
regard people who smoke in public places as little more than school-
yard bullies, who are daring me to do something about it.

I would like smoking in public places to be as socially unacceptable I
would like other non-smokers to quit pleading with smokers and start
being more forthright about how much it bothers them.

Cordially, Geo Swan, Integrated Studies, University of Waterloo
(allegra||ihnp4)!watmath!watarts!geo

la...@utcsstat.uucp

unread,
Jun 16, 1983, 4:23:17 AM6/16/83
to
Okay, this is net.flame so things can get a little wild.
I have a few suggestions about arguing with Tim Maroney, okay?

First: Tim is not a terrible old ogre out there who hates everybody
and everything and gets his jollies out of screaming and yelling.
Tim is a rather reasonable person who has some strong opinions. I agree
with some of them ( that government is best which has the minimum number
of laws) <i fear i have misquoted, didnt save the article>, and disagree
with others (it is possible to read Shadow of the Torturer) <I have
tried 6 times>. Please remeber that he is not making a stand on the
smoking issue so much as he is making a stand against unececessary
government intervention and government attacks on personal freedoms.

the next time the government takes away some of your personal freedoms
(or tries to)
remember that Tim Maroney is a rather good person to have around since
he is fighting precisely that.

now as to how to argue with Tim Maroney (and also with me, by the way).
Dont yell at him. He can yell back (so can I). It just makes it noisier
for everyone, and the strength of your conviction or anger is not going
to intimidate him. After all, he is a long way away and can probably lock
his office door. Beat him at his own game, on his own terms.

If the person with the statistics on smoking harming non-smokers who
breathe second hand smoke would post it (or a reference we could look up)
and it has been proven then I would say we have beaten him.

This works. I remember that once the issue of whether strings and other io
should be part of the C language got pretty well discussed without anyone
hating Tim and I sent him a reply about why I thought that he was mistaken
about part of his claim about strings and I didnt get told off.

There are certain people for whom it is a waste of time having a discussion
or argument with. Other people can have a lot of fun. I believe that I can
have a lot of fun with this one.

Ok Tim: How about -- there are certain practices in our countries which
are only allowed in private because they might affect "impressionable"
children and others. Movie restrictions by age come to mind. Other
practices such as nudity are similar in that it is generally frowned
upon or illegal outside of the home, but I can walk around nude in
my apartment. How about we apply the same strictures to smoking?
then we can have the freedom to smoke at home, or maybe in designated
smoking areas, but not where impressionable children and teenagers can
learn the bad habit.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura

mar...@auvax.uucp

unread,
Jun 20, 1983, 7:20:50 PM6/20/83
to

I've been reading the net on and off recently and have a few comments
to make.
Firstly I'm a non-smoker although I was addicted in the past - Yes
thats 'addicted' like any 'DRUG ADDICT'.
You want disgusting, I recently purchased a desk and chair for an
office at home - the furniture had been in an office where for some reason
they allowed ADDICTS to practise their habit. Two months later and the chair
still stinks.
you want radical?
1. Establish a law making it against the law to smoke anywhere
except the privacy of your own home (impossible).
2. First offence - VERY large fine.
3. Second offence - Line em up against a wall and ...

Well I'm glad I got that off my chest, Seriously though, some people
are very annoyed with other people smoking.


(FLAME OFF)

Randy Haskins

unread,
Jun 23, 1983, 1:58:50 PM6/23/83
to
The Carolina's have given us Sen. Jessie (sp?) (Clothes-hanger-spokesman)
Helms and the cigarette lobby. Does anyone know if it's true that
they're working on a form of herpes that is trasmitted over the
arpanet?
-Randy
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages