Think Anti Smoking is Nice, or Anti Corporate? Think Again. : Pittsburgh Indymedia

Think Anti Smoking is Nice, or Anti Corporate? Think Again.
by Watchdog Tuesday, Sep. 12, 2006 at 3:45 AM

Odd that so many progressives/lefties etc believe and join the Corporate Promoted Smoke bans. Few remember Refer Madness...the previous Smoke Ban. Few notice that the proposed laws are fraudulent.

A point by point debunking of Philadelphia'a Smoke Ban law...that serves not only Big Cig but Big Pesticides and far more. Since most laws are almost identical, this applies to other legislation. It's about abuses of law and medical science that affect us all, not just those darn smokers that we have been told to hate.
This was written to address the Philadelphia Smoke Ban legislation, but it applies to just about all other municipalities...including Pittsburgh and Allegheney County.

TWENTY REASONS WHY VIRTUALLY ANY
“SMOKING BILL”, IS UNNACCEPTABLE

1) It accepts deceptive, misleading, unqualified cigarette industry marketing language about the products being just tobacco, or being tobacco at all. (See US Patent Office for "tobacco substitute material", for info on cigs that contain NO tobaco, and can causse no dreaded "tobacco smoke".)

2) It accepts EPA material on “secondhand” smoke despite that very material having been declared “fraudulent” in Federal Court years ago. (Though the judge was later ruled to have been outside of his jurisdiction, the substance of that condemnation of EPA tactics remains intact. Even the EPA has not done anything to challenge.)

3) The bill fails, as much as the cigarette industry does, in describing what, exactly, is meant by “cigarette”, “tobacco” or “smoke”, words integral to the issue.
a) “cigarette” is a catch-all term, like “sandwich”. It can contain just about anything.
b) “tobacco” is just a category. Qualifications regarding Contaminated Tobacco, or
Un-contaminated Tobacco, or Pesticide-Contaminated Tobacco, or Radioactive
Tobacco, etc., are crucial in matters relating to medicine and science.
c) “Smoke” can be from an infinite number of things and combinations. Smoke from
natural plants or incense may be either an irritant or pleasant. Smoke from industrial
chemicals and other substances can be and often is deadly.

4) The bill speaks of “69 known or probable carcinogens in tobacco smoke”, yet some of those carcinogens cannot possibly be from a tobacco plant or its smoke.

5) The bill speaks of “4000 known chemical compounds” in” tobacco smoke” and in “secondhand smoke”. Staff at a Council Member's office 3 days before this hearing did not know what these chemicals were or where to find a list. We do not know how many of the “chemicals” are natural to tobacco, how many are natural in smoke from any plant, how many are exclusively in tobacco smoke, or how many are INDUSTRIAL chemicals that contaminate tobacco in most cigarette products.

6) It proposes the Most Burdensome “solution” to the health problems. Instead of addressing the SOURCE of the problem at the cigarette production end with the many pesticide residues, chlorine contamination, radiation contamination from certain fertilizers, and the over 1000 un-tested cigarette additives, the bill would involve thousands of businesses, more thousands of workers and even more thousands of patrons. It would involve the time and cost of police, health officials, prosecutors, courts, jurors, and on and on. This bill just “swats the flies”, so to speak, created by the garbage sneaked into typical cigarettes with full approval of government officials. The bill fails to take the Least Burdensome route of addressing the garbage.

7) The burdens and costs of this law are to be unjustly put on the victims and uninvolved parties, those who had no part in recklessly making typical pesticide- and radiation-contaminated products, had no part in approving those and other contaminants, and had no part in keeping the information from consumers.

8) The bill refers to fire dangers but ignores the matter of still-legal Burn Accelerants added to typical cigarettes in order to speed up use of the products for the sake of maximized sales and profits--- and “sin” tax revenues.

9) The bill persistently refers to “smoking”---that is, the behavior of the defrauded, uninformed, unprotected, insufficiently-warned, secretly poisoned, and uncompensated smokers---victims of products they think, and are told, are just “tobacco”. The bill does not address Reckless, Homicidal, Public-Endangering Product Manufacturing.

10) The bill creates inconvenience and nuisance to neighbors of “no smoking” establishments by a) pushing smokers out doors to smoke, and b) by pushing them in some cases onto sidewalks and proximity to neighbors who are just outside the 20 foot no-smoking zone around entrances. We also do not know if the 20 ft. measurement is taken from the edge of a door, the woodwork, the center, or what.

11) The bill, as written, could snare any smoker walking past an unidentified “no smoke” building, and even those in cars on the street within the 20 feet. As written, the bill forbids even smoking on one’s own property in areas that may be within the 20 ft. limit.

12) Many theatrical plays involve smoking characters. So may films or TV programs being produced in the city. Some magic and circus acts involve cigarettes and flames. The bill, as written, would cancel all such performances. This may constitute a Free Speech issue. If there is no enforcement in these artistic areas, while there is enforcement elsewhere, an injustice will be taking place.

13) The bill is so vaguely and generally written that it would prohibit church candles and incense, candles in any of the “no smoke” places, Bunsen burners, welding equipment, stoves and even fire places.

14) The Bill is extensively arbitrary and selective in “protecting workers” from air pollutants. Nothing in the bill protects workers from exhaust in indoor parking lots or auto repair shops. Nothing protects workers from fumes from plastic and other synthetic building and furnishing materials. Nothing protects workers from chlorine disinfectants and cleansers or indoor pesticides…or from sawdust, paint fumes, welding fumes and on and on. And the bill does nothing to protect workers or anyone from pollutants unconscionably permitted in tobacco products and the smoke.

15) The bill, ostensibly crafted out of concern for worker’s health and well being, fails to address the matter of worker compensation for being unknowingly exposed to smoke from cigarette contaminants known to the world to be among the worst industrial pollutants. Nor are workers even yet advised or warned about the dangerous non-tobacco components of most (not all) cigarettes.

16) Nothing in the bill offers the Constitutionally Guaranteed compensation for such a Public Interest “takings” (as per Fifth Amendment) of profits or business…not that a public interest has been adequately proven. Supporters of this bill claim that bans are “good for business”, yet at the same time call for bans in neighboring areas to prevent bar, restaurant and bowling patrons from flocking to the still-smoking establishments.
No method of determining business losses has been established, yet widely criticized claims of business gains due to bans are accepted without scrutiny.

17) Nothing in the bill offers compensation to business proprietors for the expense of posting signs and perhaps even training employees to police any smoking violations on the premises.

18) The bill creates the endangerment of employees who are compelled to step 20 feet away from the safety of entrances, sometimes in dark alleys, to legally catch a smoke. Increase of muggings in such instances are being reported.

19) Supporting testimony for the bill from certain entities must be questioned or dismissed. The NCI (National Cancer Institute) is notorious for being composed almost exclusively of members of the chemical/chlorine/pharmaceutical industries, the very entities that make and supply non-tobacco cigarette ingredients…and who understandably do not care to be implicated. “Tobacco Free Kids” (who testified in 2005) had as its first president the founder of a top pesticide PR firm. TFK accepts funding from top chlorine AND alternative nicotine delivery product interests. TFK, therefore, fails to say or do anything about pesticide residues in typical cigarettes, about chlorine content, about the resultant dioxin in the smoke, OR about how these things are especially harmful to children (i.e., “kids”) and fetuses and pregnant mothers...and etc.

20) The bill ignores these facts:
* According to other material by the EPA, there is dioxin in cigarette smoke.
* According to that same material, dioxin is “anthropogenic”, man-made, a by-product of industrial chlorine, and “not likely in nature”. That is, it is not from tobacco.
* Although this is public government information, the NCI failed to list dioxin as one of the “69 carcinogens” in cigarette smoke. (Think...National Chlorine Institute.)
* Typical cigarettes contain residues of chlorine pesticides, and are and have been wrapped in chlorine-bleached paper. A third source of chlorine and dioxin is the added agricultural products, likely contaminated with pesticides. A fourth source would be any chlorine-treated paper waste cellulose used to make fake tobacco.
* Many, if not most, “smoking related” diseases are identical to symptoms of dioxin exposure…and are impossible to be caused by tobacco or any plant, even burned.
* Inhalation of dioxin is the worst possible exposure route---because of the efficiency of the lungs. (If there’s one place dioxin ought NOT be it is cigarette smoke.)
* The notorious case of Agent Orange was a dioxin matter. Few learned people can be unfamiliar with the harmfulness of dioxin.
* The U.S. classified dioxin as a Known Human Carcinogen…the worst class. There is no safe dose. (Note that anti-smoking forces use the same terminology regarding “tobacco”. They mean Chlorine-Contaminated Tobacco, but forget to say so.)
* The U.S. signed the Stockholm Convention to rid the world of dioxin and 11 other of the worst industrial pollutants. (Fully 9 of which are or have been tobacco pesticides and/or cigarette contaminants!…dioxin being the worst.)

This bill accepts that it is legal to make and provide such deceptively marketed, secretly toxic, carcinogenic and fire-causing products, and that the perpetrators may avoid exposure, scrutiny, liability and criminal charges, and that it is right to make it more and more illegal for uninformed, unprotected, insufficiently-warned, poisoned, defrauded, and uncompensated consumers to use them. This is pure Backwards-Land. This bill, like its clones around the world, greatly supports the very industry it purports to condemn. It does a great disservice to the public at large, be they smokers or consumers of any products “regulated” in this manner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Few More Reasons the Bill is illegitimate….for good measure:

* The bill claims that “nearly 75% of Pennsylvanians do not smoke”.
- Is that really 74%, or some fraction beyond or below?
- Does this refer to all Pennsylvanians, including babies, prisoners, elderly and infirm, religious groups who do not smoke, etc?
- Is this to pretend that this 75% therefore disapprove of smoking and therefore support ban legislation?
- How many non-smokers disapprove of smoke ban laws?
- How many do not smoke because of the effects of contaminated tobacco, tobacco that the persons do not know is contaminated?
- How many of those ex-smokers have been checked for body-burdens of dioxin, radiation, and the various tobacco pesticide residues? (How many of their doctors have economic links with chlorine industries or their insurers and investors?)
- Is this to imply that such matters ought be left to a vote…by uninformed, mis-informed
voters?
- Did we outlaw murder because “nearly” 99% of Pennsylvanians are not killers?
- How many Pennsylvanians would vote to outlaw toxic, cancer-causing product adulterants? “Nearly” 100%, one would hope. Too bad they aren’t asked.
- Likely, 75% of Pennsylvanians do not play classical music.

* The bill prohibits smoking of not only tobacco but also “other smoke producing products” that are not named nor, apparently, studied in order to show a public interest purpose for the prohibition. Understand that one can be fined or arrested for allegedly endangering others with material that is not named or studied, and for which no victim can be found.

* The bill, mysteriously, exempts functions where people are “seated at tables”.
- Does this therefore exempt poker establishments and other sit-down gambling operations, bingo parlors, etc?
- What if one gets up from the table to go to the bathroom, to get a drink, to visit other tables, or to dance?

* The bill exempts beauty parlors with ventilation. Can customers have drinks and watch TV football while sitting under hair dryers?

* The bill makes no exemption for Rastafarians who years ago won the Constitutional right to smoke ganja for religious purposes…as Roman Catholic children are permitted to have wine with communion.

* Smoking is prohibited within 20 ft. of “entrances”. Exits seem to be exempt.

* Though called the “Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Act”, the bill sneaks in prohibitions of smoking in various OUTDOOR areas such as sports/entertainment venues, and decks, patios, and sidewalks associated with bars and restaurants…not to mention that 20 ft. no-smoke area outside of entrances. No studies have been presented, and no victims have come forth, to show a public interest justification for outdoor bans of tobacco smoke OR Contaminated-Tobacco smoke OR smoke from fake tobacco.

Legitimate Ban
by Doug Thursday, Sep. 21, 2006 at 1:46 AM

First of all, I think that people should have the right not to have to breath in anyone elses smoke, carcinogenic or not. I think that everyone has a general comprehension of what cigarettes, tobacco, and smoke are, and I have never enjoyed breathing in secondhand smoke from these sources.

Burning any organic matter (whether tobacco, pesticide containing tobacco, gasoline, etc.) releases carbon monoxide (which irreversably binds to hemoglobin, lowering the oxygen-carrying capacity of your blood) and many complex carcinogenic compounds.

Most cigarettes are not made purely from tobacco, and if made with solely tobacco, may contain pesticides. I completely agree that those manufacturing processes are unethical, but it is the user's choice to purchase those products and bystanders shouldn't be forced to deal with the consequences of that choice. Even if all cigarettes were completely organic, the smoke would still be carcinogenic.

The list given is flawed and nitpicky, and doesn't take into account the inherent unpleasantness and carcinogenicity of even pure tobacco cigarettes - which very few smokers use anyway.

Corporate Crime VS. Personal Unpleasantness
by Watchdog Thursday, Sep. 21, 2006 at 4:17 AM

No denying that some people don't like smoke...even though they make exceptions for bar b ques and candles and incense and fireplaces and so forth.

It remains that individual smokers have been not only defrauded and duped, and poisoned by non-tobacco cig elements that they were never warned or informed about, and even killed by those things...and that it was their own paid and sworn Public Regulators who let that happen for the sake of sin-taxes and campaign funding and perhaps personal investment income.

To ignore the massive scope of that mass homicidal crime to focus instear on the personal discomfort or whatnot caused by a "rude" smoker is...beyond my comprehension.

To ignore that our public law is being used to perpetrate the cigarette industry lie that products are tobacco at all, or just tobacco, as if the same thing used by ten thousand years of indigenous use of this native plant, is...beyond comprehension again.

It seem that you're saying that one can secretly poison a product, but one ought be penalized for then USING it.
That is like penalizing rape or shooting victims, but letting the rapists or shooters off the hook. Maybe they should have known better than to dress that way or walk in dangerous areas. Nice.

Missing the point
by Doug Thursday, Sep. 21, 2006 at 12:28 PM

You are failing to see that people who must endure secondhand smoke are even more victimized than the smokers. Not only are they breathing in those toxic fumes, but they are doing so not of their own free will - unlike the smokers themselves.

I completely agree that our 'public regulators' should ensure that no products are poisonous. There should be no food (or tobacco) containing pesticides or harmful additives. To ensure that no toxic products are on the market however, there should also be no tobacco period, as its consumption is harmful to both smokers and bystanders. There you get into issues of free will infringement - if smokers are addicted enough to willingly harm themselves, they should be able to do so, but not if that habit harms those around them.

The ban is doing little to "perpetrate the cigarette industry lie that products are tobacco at all, or just tobacco" other than using the words "cigarette" and "tobacco". Its main purpose is to improve air quality for people who shouldn't have to suffer the negative health impacts of breathing in other people's cigarette smoke.

I'm sure that there are many people like you, Watchdog, who realize that most cigarettes contain large amounts of additives and pesticides that are significantly more harmful than the tobacco itself. Cigarette carcinogenicity and additive practices are well known; mainstream media has reported on them for years. You can find a list of most of these additives at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes So be responsible and buy only 100% tobacco cigarettes.

Your equation of smoking bans to penalizing rape victims is absurd. Smokers voluntarily choose to smoke cigarettes, thus harming themselves and those around them.

Lastly I would like to point out smoker's lack of consideration not only for other people's lungs, but for the environment. Every day I see thousands of cigarette butts lining the city streets. Filters take 1-12 years to biodegrade. During that time they act as an eyesore and leach those complicated toxins into our water supplies.

If you must smoke, choose organic tobacco cigarettes, don't smoke them in proximity to non-smokers, and dispose of your cigarette butts in a responsible manner. Thanks.

Fair enough
by yinsurgent Thursday, Sep. 21, 2006 at 12:32 PM

When there is a place outdoors in the city I can go to where I won't have to dodge cars and inhale their exhaust, the smoking ban fetish will make alot more sense. Automobiles spew millions of times the bad chemicals that smokers do, but drivers aren't treated like lepers the way smokers are.

I'ts an Air Pollution Law...
by PJD Thursday, Sep. 21, 2006 at 4:02 PM

Just a few facts to clear the issue::

Smoking is not a civil liberty issue like sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion or race, because:

1. Smoking is a form of air pollution affecting everyone -even if it is just the obnoxous odors.

2. It is a rude imposition on the non-smoking majority including the establishment's employees; and most importantly,

3. It is a harmful addiction that imposes huge health care costs on the non-smoking majority, be it from increased private insurance premiums, medicare taxes, or any future medicare-for-all plan.

4. The intolerable indoor environment imposed by smokers does keep customers away from many small business's - I'd rent videos at Dreaming Ant more often if I didn't come out smelling like an ashtray. But they cannot change to non- smoking on their own without losing their smoking faction. A universal anti-smoking statute, just like living wage, OSHA and other universally applies regulations help level the playing field.

5. In all the cities, states, provinces, (and even some whole countries) where non-smoking laws have been passed- it has been widely accepted and a plus for all involved.

Gonna smoke me some liberty
by C Thursday, Sep. 21, 2006 at 6:25 PM

For what it's worth, here are my two cents:

"Even if its obnoxious odors"...and therefore all air polluting dumpsters must be outlawed I guess.

"Its a harmful addiction" Who is to tell me what is and isn't good for me? Drinkin's addictive, as is those electronic gizmos blueberry's or whatever. Prochoicers like to use the phrase: "keep your laws off my body", I echo that here in this fine forum.

Smoking environments do keep away anti smokers. Anti smoking establishments keep away smokers. Just go where you want to. Don't like smoke? Frequent smokeless joints. Moe's Southwest Grille is like this...no smokin'. Likewise I wouldn't go to Eat n Park overload on coffee (ooopppsa--that's addictive) and sit in the smokin' section, then bitch about the smoke. Similarly, I wouldn't smoke in the non-smokin' section.

It aggravates me when I am somewhere and see people sittin' in a booth with many kids, puffin' away. I strongly dissaprove of this behavior, but don't open my big mouth...its their choice, not mine.

Perhaps this may be out of line, but I see a rhetorical parrellel between these supporters and anti-gay marriage types. The percieved greater good is always the intention, and what is 'best' for 'society' is always at the heart of it...its just that you can't really legislate life. Ever.

The opinion of many on the left seems to be strongly attached to the issue at hand: If its gay marriage, then its whatever individual's want to do, if its smokin' then its societal good. Let's have a movie night in reference: Out of obscurity, I suggest the sly stone blockbuster Demolition Man. I have no shame...I watched it.

Infringement
by Doug Thursday, Sep. 21, 2006 at 8:39 PM

Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone other than the couple. Smoking affects everyone around the smoker. By smoking in other people's proximity you are infringing on their right not to have to have their lungs polluted. And yes, I think cars should be banned for the same reason. But you take what you can get - it's much more likely that we can get a smoking ban passed than a car ban.

I think people should have the liberty to do as they please as long as it isn't to the detriment of anyone else. In the case of smoking it is to other's detriment.

See, the thing is...
by C Thursday, Sep. 21, 2006 at 10:25 PM

See, the thing is I know that things like gay marriage, abortion, etc. don't affect anyone else, but folks on the right don't quite see it that way, and that I guess was my point. They don't see it as just affecting one person. Same with abortion.

Now, I don't mind sittin' in the smoking section of ENP and smoking. Mainly because it is their house, their rules. 'Public' or common property is somewhat different to me, and though I can't quite define it (a more common occurance these days), it seems like it should be the area with the least amount of restrictions.

As for infringing on people's rights to breath clean air...I doubt second hand smoke poses as much of a threat as its made out to be for the common jane or joe on the street. I could see the dangers of PROLONGED exposure for bartenders, amoung others (or cigarette taste testers). I vaguely recall some NPR story on the matter.

And, if you wanna play the infringing rights game, then alcohol must too be outlawed, since thousands are killed each year. or cell phones (hey--those suckers emit high level radio frequencies sure to scramble your brains).

But hey, I believe in legalizing marijuana too. sue me.

enp and smoking
by pgh anarchist Thursday, Sep. 21, 2006 at 11:26 PM

Yeah, I work at ENP and I have to deal with the smoking section whether I choose to or not because I have bills to pay. I really don't give a fuck about your "right" to smoke around me. I've lived with smokers for 19 years and I have health problems because of that. I don't want to have to deal with the idiocy when I'm not at home too. Its not asking you the world to take your lazy ass away from me to smoke. I shouldn't have to remove myself every time someone decides their addicion needs relieving.

And comparing smokers to rape victims is an awesome analogy. Thank you, moron.

Go to Utah
by Carry Nation Friday, Sep. 22, 2006 at 9:32 AM

Who cares about the poisonous carpet and glue, the deadly computer components, or the respiratory problems caused by automobile exhaust. Go after cigarettes, this way, if you don't smoke, you can absolve yourself of responsiblity. Kinda like the war on terror?
Pgh anarchist also may have health problems from eating too much for the past 19 years, but there is no outcry against buffetts.
What kind of anarchist wants to create new work for cops anyway?

Employment Guide
by C. Friday, Sep. 22, 2006 at 4:13 PM

You are not a victim; the employment guide's website is http://pittsburgh.employmentguide.com/

More silliness
by Doug Friday, Sep. 22, 2006 at 7:27 PM

Ok, eating too much at a buffet doesn't endanger the health of people around the eater. Totally different situations.

Pgh Anarchist could change jobs, but the point is that no one should have to breath smoke for hours on end at work.

Many of these arguements focus on the fact that smoking is not the only thing that emits carcinogenic and unpleasant fumes. That's true. Paint, carpets, tailpipes, flourescent lightbulbs, computer parts, etc. etc. all can emit toxic chemicals. But just because we can't get every dangerous man-made product in the world banned, doesn't mean that we should reject imposing exposure limits on one of them - cigarettes. As I said before, you take what you can get.

I've never heard anyone denouncing tougher emissions standards on cars on the basis that cigarettes still pose a health risk.

Silly is right
by Doug is silly Friday, Sep. 22, 2006 at 9:27 PM

It's a matter of degree. Cigarettes are a drop in the bucket compared to the other things you mention, but since you don't use cigarettes, unlike the other infinitely more toxic commodities you mention, you jump on the anti-smoking bandwagon.
Of course no one objects to changing emissions standards by using the tiny amounts of poisons released by cigarettes as an excuse, because it's just stupid. A combustion engine will release millions of times the noxious fumes every second than a hundred smokers would.
I don't know why I bother, since the smoking ban will be a done deal, the insurance lobbyists own their pet politicians, and there are no shortage of well-meaning fools who will toe the line for them.

Silly is as silly does
by Doug Saturday, Sep. 23, 2006 at 12:59 AM

I honestly don't know the toxicology data in terms of risk and exposure for cigarette smoke vs. car exhaust for the average American, so I won't argue that directly. However, I would like you to show some evidence that "Cigarettes are a drop in the bucket compared to the other things [I] mention".

I also don't drive cars or purchase carpet. I'm eagerly anticipating the citywide bans on those to pop up so I can jump on their bandwagons. I can't wait to argue against the top 20 reasons cars shouldn't be banned from Pittsburgh.

Once upon a time...
by C Saturday, Sep. 23, 2006 at 10:00 PM

"no one should breath smoke for hours on end."

Once upon a time, I was a mig welder at a local light manufacting plant. In the winter time, we had two obvious choices:
1. open the bay doors, freeze (ever work with metal in the winter? It sucks.), yet breathe clean air, or
2. close the doors, be warm, but breathe in smoke that REALLY screws you up (brain tumors, short term memory loss, and associated ugly things)

We briefly talked about union representation to solve our problem, but it became apparent that the guys wouldn't support it. The management wasn't really jumpin the gun to help us out either.

A very intolerable situation. So I did what any non-victim type would do: took my skill set to another company (this time a a demolition company and onto a small local landlord), where I was exposed to those chemicals.

There are plenty or places hiring. Even at ENP, you can be transferred to the nonsmoking section. or just move on.

The point of this here fable isn't to toot my own horn. We tried to fix the problem internally, it didn't work. I left. Whether you want to believe it or not, waiting tables, etc. is a good skill set to have; and if you can't rally to have ENP ban smoking, you can go many places and always have some sort of job; I urge you to do exactly that if you fail to convince corporate to give up the ghost.

As always, just a few thoughts on the subject.

Welding Union
by Doug Saturday, Sep. 23, 2006 at 10:49 PM

Who were "the guys" and why wouldn't they support unionizing for the sake of breathing cleaner air? I have no firsthand experience with this sort of thing, but I'm always astonished at people's hostility to banding together to better their lot.

Maybe all the ENP employees *should* unionize in order to demand that they not be exposed to smoke. Why not?

Dig Doug
by C Sunday, Sep. 24, 2006 at 11:18 AM

Doug--
I will mutter a phrase seldom heard in this here forum: I don't know. What I do know is that they were really not down with it, and felt like it would not improve our situation. Why, of course, is a continually nagging question. But 'hostile' is a nice way of putting their attitude. I could think of a few other descriptive terms.

A word of why: This is my feeling on the matter. You say you are suprised by people not banding together to better their lot but in my broad experience in the trades, alot of 'em are pretty anti-authoritarian, and view unions as imposing somewhat ridiculous restrictions on what you can do, as well as taking money from you. Many feel there's no real benefit to them. In this particular instance, their reaction wasn't a surprise, but ya gotta try. If it makes you feel any better, they don't rally to the Republican cause either. They generally don't like the government but the left, in my opinion, has bungled opportunities with the trade workers in the name of feeling good about themselves.

The guys in this matter were the other folks on my shift.

About ENP unionizing, as I said, its their house, their rules. Should a change occur INTERNALLY and not imposed by the state, I would be totally support that, in the same way that I don't argue with my friend who doesn't want smoking in his house. But that must come from within and not from without.

But, Doug, you make a good point: Why not?

So what?
by Po' boycott Tuesday, Sep. 26, 2006 at 12:44 PM

Doug,
The issue isn't whether you buy cigarettes, carpeting or cars, it's how they affect your health, and cars are the most dangerous of the three. I don't buy carpeting or cars, but i have to live with them.
The boycott mentality will only get us so far, especially since neither of us is a probably a very loyal consumer.

Smoking
by Matt Friday, Dec. 08, 2006 at 3:36 PM

No amount of reasoning or truth will correct the mentality of those who choose to remain ignorant. Smokers revel in selfishness, denial and addiction. Smokers are inferior humans. They are unhealthy due to their own free will and so have no respect or appreciation for the gift of life and health. Smokers contribute to the health detrement of others, yet they want their "right" to do so preserved. The money spent on cigarettes is steep, both on an individual and worldwide basis - that's money that could go to charities and other worthwhile organizations. Even if smoking posed no health hazard, the nauseating stench of cigarettes is an infrnigement on the rights of those who enjoy breathing untainted air.

To be certain, there's a lot that needs corrected in the world, banning smoking, especially in apartments (those who rent know what I mean) and public dining areas is a step in the correct direction.

Eradication is the only cure.

Smoking
by Matt Friday, Dec. 08, 2006 at 3:39 PM

PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center