Quantcast

Public Opinion Doesn't Look Down on Smokers [INFOGRAPHIC]

SodaHead Infographics 2011/09/12 19:00:00
Last week we ran a story about how smokers are perceived by the general public, and decided we would ask SodaHeads how they felt about it. There were several ways we could have worded the question, but we asked which respondents "look down on" smokers in order to zero in on stronger opinions.

Though most people didn't go so far as to say they "look down on" smokers, there were still plenty of head-shakers out there -- and you might be surprised to see who they were. Would you be more likely to get a light from an old man or a younger woman? We've got your answer.

We also looked into a couple of related surveys to find out how many people wanted to ban smoking in public -- significantly more than those who look down on smokers -- and to take a quick look at young people who puff.

Let's dive.



related surveys people ban smoking public smokers young smokers dive
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Astro-Boy PHAET 2011/09/12 21:30:08
    Astro-Boy PHAET
    +15
    I used to smoke...never blew smoke in any ones face and kept it away from those who didn't like being around it. Common human courtesy is always in fashion.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • John A Found... 2011/09/17 15:06:58 (edited)
    John
    Obviously you're a Lib to the max and no amount of factual information or logic will change your position. You throw around the usual clichè catch-phrases... "Conservative agenda" or "Reagan Bank", etc.

    Democrats have controlled congress (and thus spending) for thirty-six of the last fifty years. And I make no excuses for RINO Republicans who tended to overspend as well. (Slightly different agendas and pork handed out a little differently, but very similarly. I think of them as Democrat-Lite.)

    "..conservative agenda" since 1980..."

    Just what "conservative agenda" was that? Bush was big-spending big-gov RINO. Pro-illegal-alien, pro-Patriot Act, pro-bailout, pro-stimulus, pro-just about everything. Yeah, he was a regular William F. Buckley or Dr. Thomas Sowell. A real conservative guy.

    B/t/w...

    Anyone who has cared to look at the facts understands the current financial problems were initially caused by the housing-financial melt-down. (Which precipitated the stock-market collapse, which precipitated unemployment, which precipitated... etc, etc like a row of dominoes.)

    The housing bubble and its bursting was caused by poor lending practices. Poor lending practices were the result of politicians (generally Democrats but Republicans as well) deciding that raising the pe...





































    Obviously you're a Lib to the max and no amount of factual information or logic will change your position. You throw around the usual clichè catch-phrases... "Conservative agenda" or "Reagan Bank", etc.

    Democrats have controlled congress (and thus spending) for thirty-six of the last fifty years. And I make no excuses for RINO Republicans who tended to overspend as well. (Slightly different agendas and pork handed out a little differently, but very similarly. I think of them as Democrat-Lite.)

    "..conservative agenda" since 1980..."

    Just what "conservative agenda" was that? Bush was big-spending big-gov RINO. Pro-illegal-alien, pro-Patriot Act, pro-bailout, pro-stimulus, pro-just about everything. Yeah, he was a regular William F. Buckley or Dr. Thomas Sowell. A real conservative guy.

    B/t/w...

    Anyone who has cared to look at the facts understands the current financial problems were initially caused by the housing-financial melt-down. (Which precipitated the stock-market collapse, which precipitated unemployment, which precipitated... etc, etc like a row of dominoes.)

    The housing bubble and its bursting was caused by poor lending practices. Poor lending practices were the result of politicians (generally Democrats but Republicans as well) deciding that raising the percentage of home-ownership arbitrarily was a good-thing, without regard to the ability of those homeowners to be able to afford or maintain payments or their creditworthiness.

    Pressure was applied to the lending system (both banks and mortgage companies) to ease the standards of creditworthiness for obtaining their mortgages. They were accused of racism, "red-lining," etc by not granting loans to those who traditionally would not qualify by meeting generally accepted standards (like 10% down, a mortgage that could not exceed approximately 150% of annual income, job security, an established history of good credit, etc).

    Lending agencies were "encouraged" to lower these standards to meet the percentages of the government's desired goals. Oversight of this "cooperation" was delegated to local community action groups. The input of these groups was used to grant required Federal approval for banks and lending agencies to open more branches, to expand, to invest in other areas, to merge, etc. Federal permission was refused when they did not meet the criteria and granted only when they did.

    Government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created to supposedly ease the risk potential and insure the stability of these loans. Other entities (like AIG) were set up to "insure the insurer." So the lending institutions had to make a choice between being limited in their growth by government denial of expansion, or cooperating (supposedly with "safe" government backed guaranties) and making a great deal of money in the process. Easy choice.

    The vast majority of lending institutions decided to "play the game" and give a loan to just about anyone who would apply, ignoring traditional qualifications. As the amount of potential home buyers went up dramatically, so did the value of those homes for sale as the law of supply and demand took effect.

    Housing prices rose higher and higher. Lending qualifications became easier and easier. (To the point where virtually anyone with an undocumented car-wash job could qualify to buy an over-valued home worth more than eight times his supposed annual income with zero down, interest-only payments for the first five years with a mortgage given for 110% of the (inflated) value of the home.

    Of course in a reality-based financial sense this was unsustainable, but it was supposedly "guarantied" by the government and so the banks, now making tremendous profits, were only too happy to slice-and-dice (packaging the truly safe mortgages with the potentially unsafe mortgages) and schlep off these loans to investors.

    The banks made a ton of money, the Wall Streeters who offered the investments for sale made a ton of money, investors (at first) made a ton of money, the guarantors and insurers (like Freddie and Fannie and AIG) made a ton of money, new homeowners had homes to live in well beyond their means and creditworthiness were happy. Politicians whoring for votes were happy (as were their boyfriends, like Fannie Mae's Herb Moses). Everybody was happy...

    Until those interest-only mortgage payments began to expire, and those having a home-mortgage to pay for couldn't afford the payments any more. Originally when they got the loan they were often told "When and if you can't afford it, don't worry. Just sell it. Prices are only going up. You'll get out of it with no problem. And make a profit as well."

    But as more and more couldn't afford it, more and more homes were being offered for sale on the market. Home prices dropped. Many found themselves now owing more than the home was worth. And so they'd "walk away" from the home and have it foreclosed on. Which added even more homes to the market at even more reduced prices. And on and on.

    The guarantors and insurers were now being called on more and more by the lending institutions to now back these loans, and as the call for restitution increased the guarantors and insurers found they could not meet the liabilities of all these guarantees flooding in. And so they began to fail. Which made these loans lose even more value.

    And so those who invested in these supposedly safe bundled-mortgage vehicles found they were quickly losing value. They began to dump them as fast as possible before they became totally worthless.

    Meanwhile new housing and the sale of existing housing tanked because of the oversupply. Other industries reliant on housing slowed down, and began laying off. Industries like plumbing, electrical, construction materials. As their profits dropped, so did the value of their stocks, which caused a massive financial contraction in the stock market. Those initial contractions brought about institutional comp-trade sell-offs, which then caused more sell-offs by individuals trying to salvage what they could before they lost everything.

    As these businesses slowed down, their vendors and suppliers slowed down. Fewer workers needed to service their accounts. Fewer salesmen to sell their wares. And on and on... Fewer waitresses needed in restaurants near the now-closed offices and factories, the ones that weren't forced out of business completely.

    And those unemployed salesmen, computer-operators and waitresses now bought fewer new clothes. Didn't trade in the car for a new one every other year like they once did. They made that washer and lawnmower last a lot longer. Those that still had jobs and money began to hang on to it a little closer. Spend only when truly necessary.

    Bush and Obama bailouts and stimuli (and the resultant Fed actions of more bond sales and money printing) compounded the economic problems with more debt and inflation (especially food and fuel. Lower "official" inflation-rates were only because of the offset from massive negative drops in the cost of housing).

    Of course there's a lot more minutiae that can be gotten into, but the bottom-line is that like a gigantic row of dominoes the entire economy collapsed because of government interventionism (specifically and initially into the lending and housing market).

    It was pushed by lots of politicians. Maybe pushed harder by Democrats, but Republicans jumped on the bandwagon as well, and at the very least did little or nothing to prevent it. (Although even George W. ( RINO that he was) vaguely warned about it as early as 2001 and a number of times after during his administration, he never really did anything to change anything.

    In any case, a little research would easily show this is the reason the US now has a financial crisis. What kicked it off, and how it got to that place to begin with.

    But then some people prefer to never let "inconvenient truths" get in the way of what they profess.
    (more)
  • A Found... John 2011/09/17 20:51:12
    A Founding Father
    You describe the history of the housing bubble very well. But, you never
    reach the origins, the underlying cause, which was the lacking oversight
    of financial markets and the banking system. As I described to you earlier, Ronald Reagan, then candidate for office, had a plan with which the Federal agencies that would inhibit the "conservative agenda" could be
    rendered ineffective or destroyed. Actually, RR didn't develop the plan, of course, as his employer and benefactor, Walter Annenberg, had paid a Los Angeles law firm for years to rewrite the Federal Tax Code and the banking regulations so as to enable the "agenda" to go forward. All they needed was a believable spokesperson to sell the disguised "agenda" to
    an unsuspecting public. RR was the perfect choice and had been a loyal
    spokesman for years, employed by Annenberg and his friends and paid
    for his daily radio broadcasts and speaking schedule.

    The housing industry run-up came along after the stock market run-up and
    the unsuspecting had been convinced that the "Greater Fool" theory of prosperity was actually working for them. Since the housing and construction industry is the largest segment of employment in the nation, stimulating it is a sure way to spreading "prosperity" to everyone, as GWB
    repeated over and...


















    You describe the history of the housing bubble very well. But, you never
    reach the origins, the underlying cause, which was the lacking oversight
    of financial markets and the banking system. As I described to you earlier, Ronald Reagan, then candidate for office, had a plan with which the Federal agencies that would inhibit the "conservative agenda" could be
    rendered ineffective or destroyed. Actually, RR didn't develop the plan, of course, as his employer and benefactor, Walter Annenberg, had paid a Los Angeles law firm for years to rewrite the Federal Tax Code and the banking regulations so as to enable the "agenda" to go forward. All they needed was a believable spokesperson to sell the disguised "agenda" to
    an unsuspecting public. RR was the perfect choice and had been a loyal
    spokesman for years, employed by Annenberg and his friends and paid
    for his daily radio broadcasts and speaking schedule.

    The housing industry run-up came along after the stock market run-up and
    the unsuspecting had been convinced that the "Greater Fool" theory of prosperity was actually working for them. Since the housing and construction industry is the largest segment of employment in the nation, stimulating it is a sure way to spreading "prosperity" to everyone, as GWB
    repeated over and over how great things were becoming.

    Shortly after RR was elected I was invited to join a small group in the home of Leland Stanford, at the campus, to hear the Cabinet Secretaries describe how the forthcoming "deregulation" of the banking industry and the revised tax code would work to produce a new era of financial and economic prosperity, called "Reaganomics". Banks would be allowed to deal in "equities", to create them, buy and sell, profit from investing their depositor's monies in them, and join the stock brokerage industry. They
    acknowledged that these same permissions had caused the collapse of the world economies in 1929-33, but that was just said with a wink and a smile. The Executive Office would control the "agencies", and all the assets and investments of our economy would be channelled to Wall Streets' brokerage, where a few very skilled managers would invest it in the "new and world order of economies, the emerging nations". These
    Wall Street houses would, then, "trickle down" the vast profits to be had
    sharing with all the banks and "investors". Everyone would become so happy as their "Greater Fool" gains would appear as real prosperity, and
    an increasing supply of money would be made available to stimulate the consumer economy. Wasn't that a nice plan?

    That senseless deception is and was the root cause of all the economic problems we face today. Just as in the 1929-33 debacle, Wall Street and the Reagan Banks kept and divided the actual profits and sold to their clients and investors the inflated and "derivatives" and "asset backed securities" that were noting but worthless I.O.U's. All the Federal agencies and every knowing economist and observer knew of this ponzi scheme, but it was kept rolling and worked for nearly 40 years, destined
    to eventually collapse, but kept afloat by Congress and the Executive Office.

    That is the "rest of the story", as a famous broadcaster once said. That is
    the part that needs to be understood before trying to blame the present Administration for the results of 40 years of deceit and planed robbery of the assets of America's middle class by a skillful band of thieves.

    Just a footnote: Walter Annenberg sold his "T.V. Guide" to a Wall Street
    hedge fund immediately after the tax code revisions were passed, for a
    bit over $3 Billion, negotiated a tax deferral deal with the IRS, and invested
    in "equities". The Annenberg Foundation and his family trusts have about
    eight to ten times that amount of money now. Was it worth all the effort?
    Well, yes, I would say so.
    (more)
  • John A Found... 2011/09/19 16:37:13
    John
    Please don't mistake me for one who worships at the alter of Ronald Reagan. While I think he was a little better than most presidents, I agree with you that he kissed banking-ass (or at least his appointees) in many ways. (In addition to ways you mentioned, he also pushed for allowing major interest-rate changes on a national level. (Prior to this most states set their own maximum rates that could be charged, which were much lower than after the change.) To make it more acceptable to the Democrats (and Republican spenders as well) the interest deduction for most loans (including credit-cards, auto-loans, etc) was no longer allowed when filing personal Federal Income Tax.

    To a large degree this gets back to my main point (as well as my general belief) that government interventionism (especially Federal) creates most of the financial problems and abuses we suffer. Regs that are passed are often used more as a protection for an abusive business than an actual regulation.

    More effective regulations, when needed, could be passed by state governments or more localized governments. (ei. larger urban county governments, etc) Abuses by banks and other lenders could also be more effectively solved in the court system (state and local). State legislators are much more answerable to t...























    Please don't mistake me for one who worships at the alter of Ronald Reagan. While I think he was a little better than most presidents, I agree with you that he kissed banking-ass (or at least his appointees) in many ways. (In addition to ways you mentioned, he also pushed for allowing major interest-rate changes on a national level. (Prior to this most states set their own maximum rates that could be charged, which were much lower than after the change.) To make it more acceptable to the Democrats (and Republican spenders as well) the interest deduction for most loans (including credit-cards, auto-loans, etc) was no longer allowed when filing personal Federal Income Tax.

    To a large degree this gets back to my main point (as well as my general belief) that government interventionism (especially Federal) creates most of the financial problems and abuses we suffer. Regs that are passed are often used more as a protection for an abusive business than an actual regulation.

    More effective regulations, when needed, could be passed by state governments or more localized governments. (ei. larger urban county governments, etc) Abuses by banks and other lenders could also be more effectively solved in the court system (state and local). State legislators are much more answerable to their constituents than are Federal legislators. Their financial records are also more transparent. Much easier to see and document who has "bought" who.

    The more power that is consolidated and the higher that level of consolidation, the easier it is to sell that power to the highest bidder. Both sides of the aisle suck from the teat of the banking and investment interests. I blame Democrats slightly more (only insofar as they generally favor more interventionism in all things at the Federal level), but Republicans share plenty of blame as well.

    Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a lot many times, but here are a couple of things that point to the concept that "smaller is better" can work. (Especially if it had remained such, or if there was a major swing in that direction.)

    Not long ago I personally sued Chase Bank in my local small-claims court. And won. This was shortly after they had offered ultra-cheap transferred consolidation-loans (I took $10,000 at 1.9%) to customers on the condition of no late payments, etc. Almost immediately after (as the financial world began to change quickly) they did their best to try to call in those loans and by whatever means necessary shaft the customer.

    I made my payment in person near the end of the day on the day it was due. It posted to my account the next day. (A day late.) The rate-change would have been well over two thousand a year. Phone calls did no good. (All I got were offers to refinance at a slightly lower rate than the "penalty rate" of 24.9%.)

    In any case, I filed in local small-claims court for $1500 in damages. I knew I could prove it was impossible that I'd made the payment at 9am the day it posted and therefore must have been at least a day earlier if necessary, and also I counted on that they would just totally ignore the whole thing anyway and either toss it or consider it a joke. I also filed jointly against the local branch and named the manager as their agent. No one representing them even showed up and I won by default.

    When I went in later and asked to speak to the manager he thought the whole thing was funny, until I showed him the judgement paperwork, gave him his copy and told him the next day, as required by law he'd receive a certified copy in the mail and later that day I'd be back with a court officer to get either my $1500 or $1500 worth of his office equipment. It only took a five minute phone call to get my rate back down to 1.9%.

    Second anecdote. During the initial "crash/crisis/bailout/etc" on TV was an interview with the president of a small local bank. The interviewer wanted to know his "secret" as to how his bank was still extremely profitable while so many others were failing, etc, etc.

    He said "It's no secret really. I just didn't play their game. I didn't want to expand so I didn't have to kiss up to the Feds. I just did the same thing my father and grandfather did. If a man wanted a mortgage or to buy a new car, he had to have a secure job, a good credit history and 10% down. Simple as that. I didn't want to sell my mortgages to somebody and then re-invest the money somewhere else. Those mortgages and loans ARE my investments. I'm not some Wall Street wheeler-dealer. I made sound loans, and so they're sound investments."

    Basically what I'm trying to say is that things can be handled at a lower level, which is where they'd still be if it never was allowed to get out of hand to start with. If the bankers and brokers never had the ability to buy favor and power because that kind of favor and power was never consolidated (and thus able to be bought) in the first place.

    If the Federal government had stuck to simpler things, like strict enforcement of Sherman laws, not allowing the veils between banking, investment and holding to be pierced, etc, etc. we'd all be better off. There'd be more local Smith's Banks around and not as many "too big to fail" Bank of Americas and Nationwides.

    The bigger the level of government, the greater the potential for abuse, corruption and power-brokering.

    So you don't need to convince me at all that politicians bought and sold favors to banking and investment special interest groups. I agree with you. I just believe that where there is very little consolidated power, there's very little power to be sold to the highest bidder.
    (more)
  • A Found... John 2011/09/19 21:01:55
    A Founding Father
    It's difficult to refute your "small world" ideas as the playground no longer exists. We could all write a book of "If only....", and "What if..."
    that would solve all the problems we face. There are among us, millions
    who are dreaming of returning to 1776 and solving our problems with the
    essays that Mason, Madison, Jefferson, and others of that era wrote. I've read most all of those essays and appreciate their passion for their
    times. But, the 21st Century is like nothing ever before, as is the start of every century of history.

    The nations of the world that are now prospering an growing, some at astounding rates, are those nations that have strong centralized governments with authoritative and controlling planners that are charged
    with execution of plans that best benefit the goals of the nation. India,
    China, South Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Germany, Russia, to name the
    most visible. Now, not one of these is a nation divided by bickering,
    none are seeking to return to their "roots" or past centuries, none are
    dividing themselves into 50 competing camps as an experiment in chaos. They are winning the game, building fantastic modern cities,
    infrastructures that expansions requires, planning for tomorrow and
    the next decade, not cowering in dreams of the past and wa...































    It's difficult to refute your "small world" ideas as the playground no longer exists. We could all write a book of "If only....", and "What if..."
    that would solve all the problems we face. There are among us, millions
    who are dreaming of returning to 1776 and solving our problems with the
    essays that Mason, Madison, Jefferson, and others of that era wrote. I've read most all of those essays and appreciate their passion for their
    times. But, the 21st Century is like nothing ever before, as is the start of every century of history.

    The nations of the world that are now prospering an growing, some at astounding rates, are those nations that have strong centralized governments with authoritative and controlling planners that are charged
    with execution of plans that best benefit the goals of the nation. India,
    China, South Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Germany, Russia, to name the
    most visible. Now, not one of these is a nation divided by bickering,
    none are seeking to return to their "roots" or past centuries, none are
    dividing themselves into 50 competing camps as an experiment in chaos. They are winning the game, building fantastic modern cities,
    infrastructures that expansions requires, planning for tomorrow and
    the next decade, not cowering in dreams of the past and warring among themselves over ideologies and essays of their ancestors. They
    are the future of the planet, and we are paddling our boats upstream against a strong current, eventually to give up and surrender to our
    destiny, once great, now a backwater of unmanageable dissension.
    Just compare the new cities and developments of these nations to the crumbling and devaying cities of America, and it becomes undeniable that we are being relegated to an unaccustomed status, while we bicker and debate whether "God" is in control of our destiny, and if a
    woman should bear an unwanted child, and other such nonsense.

    These emerging and dominating economies also have another visible
    advantage over us, which is the U.S. Tax Code that allows all the
    profits from investing the assets of our citizen's retirement funds, mutual funds, 401ks, etc., and the personal fortunes of the very wealthy, to remain free of U.S. income tax for so long as the gains are not brought back to the U.S. So, the "Regan Banks", corporations,
    and those wealthy enough to participate in this with large money, can
    accumulate vast pools of assets that must be recycled into these foreign economies and not returned to the U.S.. Of course, the gains are not allowed to "trickle down" to our middle class or the depositors,
    as was promised by "Reaganomics", but are kept by those who play the game as insiders. Isn't that just the perfect means of financing
    these emerging economies and encouraging the movement of all our
    industries and jobs to those places? We get what we voted for, what
    we allow our elected to do, and swim in our own pool of ignorance.

    I had an experience similar to yours with Chas Bank's credit cards. I
    accepted an "offer" of a store to get a 10% bonus discount on a large purchase if I signed up for their credit card. Did so, and mailed my check in full a week before the amount was due. It was addressed to a
    Pob in a town of 400 residents far up in South Dakota. Later, I found it was sent from there to a Houston, Tx, lock box, and forwarded on to a center in Miami, FL where it was "posted". It was posted to my account on the 10th day or so after mailing and I was billed for
    a large "late fee" and "interest", etc, which I refused to pay. After more
    than a year, the fees and charges were well over $200 and growing. I
    noted that Elliott Spitzer, then Attorney General of New York, had just
    sent several CB executives to jail for similar frauds. I wrote to the U.S. Comptroller General's office in Austin, Tx., and they responded within a
    day or two, asking CB for all details of my account. Within a week the
    matter was gone, my credit was cleared of all traces of their activities.

    In this time, with the technology available to interconnect activities from the most remote spots in the world, those who would conspire to take advantage of the vulnerable and weak, can do so readily. It is not possible that 50 diverse and sometimes gridlocked legislatures could possibly control the ravages of these sociopaths. If they could do so, and would do so, hundreds of problems that we face would not exist.
    The weakest enemy is the one divided into factions that disagree among themselves and refuse to join in united actions. That is exactly
    why central governments exist, why cave clans joined together to form
    towns, and why we have a Pentagon to coordinate the actions of the several branches of our military. Wishing for more or greater divisions, as oppose to making a stronger and more effective central authority, is
    a dream that is not going to happen, and if it did it would just hasten the disaster we make for ourselves with distention and bickering.

    Thanks for your interesting comments. Even if I can't agree, I do respect our views and presentation.
    (more)
  • todd 2011/09/13 03:44:01
    todd
    +3
    Hate to go against the majority of sheep. However, I completely look down on smokers, 100%. Let's start with the fact that they are doing something that they know will probably lead to health problems and especially cancer. Their own choice? Who pays for this stupidity? Everyone. Do you think that it is only the smokers paying for the health problems...both in state health programs and in the health problems caused by second hand smoke to non-smokers. Those people who don't "look down" on smokers for what they are doing, probably don't care about much...and definitely don't think about much...because, if they are non smokers thinking it's just a personal choice - let them do what they want. Those people would probably have a different opinion if they developed lung cancer from second hand smoke...or they personally had to pay the medical bills of someone else that was suffering from smoking related illnesses.
  • Kayla Mace todd 2011/09/13 05:57:04
  • todd Kayla Mace 2011/10/26 04:19:12
    todd
    Ah - a complete moron. Second hand smoke is everywhere you idiot smokers go...and all around you, as you smoke. It is there whether a non-smoker likes it or not. It leaves no choice of the non-smoker to inhale or not inhale. Whether you are intelligent enough to believe or know it...the "goddamn" smoke you may choose to inhale, effects and kills thousands of people each year who never had a choice, breathing in your bad habit.
  • Kayla Mace todd 2011/11/07 02:17:30
  • Brendakp todd 2011/09/13 17:58:59
  • todd Brendakp 2011/10/26 04:26:39
    todd
    High horse. Hmm...no, I'm sorry, that doesn't really apply. Smokers choose what they do and how they do it. Most non-smokers DO NOT CHOOSE to breathe in the same poisons, smokers refer to as their "right." Smokers choose not to care about their own health...and by ignoring the effect of their second-hand smoke...they choose not to care about those around them. Most know that the effects of smoking will lead to long term illnesses and a higher likelihood of cancer and death. They "choose" it. So - no...no respect at all for them.
  • Jackie O 2011/09/13 02:41:02
    Jackie O
    +2
    I think smokers are weak individuals. I smoked and stopped in 1980 when we found out about the health risks.
  • gary 2011/09/13 02:30:56
  • The Riv... gary 2011/09/13 02:42:58 (edited)
    The River Rat
    +4
    I am a Rural Carrier with the USPS. I have worked for them for 20 years. I have missed one day because I was sick. That day I had a kidney stone and although I went to work, I just cound not continue. I called in my substitute and left driving myself 75 miles to my doctor's office. While on my way there, I passed the stone and was back at work the next day. Oh, by the way, I smoke.
  • A Found... The Riv... 2011/09/13 05:41:35
    A Founding Father
    Two strikes!!
  • The Riv... A Found... 2011/09/13 22:58:35
    The River Rat
    That means that I am not out yet!
  • A Found... The Riv... 2011/09/14 00:52:12
    A Founding Father
    Not yet, but you are well on your way to that "mansion in the sky" that is your destiny.
    I've seen the lungs of at least a dozen autopsied smoker, and I can't describe the photos
    here. But, help yourself to such things as are available here on the net, and know that you are not any different than any of the corpses that posed for the photos. I'm not a
    "self righteous" non-smoker, as I smoked for about 20 years and know all of the great
    difficulties with getting rid of the habit and addiction. If you have anyone who loves and cares for you and wishes you to remain part of their lives, you will quit the harmful addiction today. Good Luck.
  • The Riv... A Found... 2011/09/14 01:14:17
    The River Rat
    There is nothing worse than an ex anything.
  • A Found... The Riv... 2011/09/14 01:36:42
    A Founding Father
    Yes, there is. The worst of all is a human body, wasted by the ravages of a disease that has consumed all it's strengths, fluids, and left a bag of bones and
    skin, gasping for breath and spitting up the most awful smelling globs of blood, while begging for death to come and take away the suffering that has become intollerable. As the family sits nearby and wishes for the end to be done, they
    know the realities of the end result of smoking. I've witnessed this several times
    and know that the scene is repeated thousands of times over every hour, every day, the world over. Yes, there are many things worse than, "ex". Someday, if
    you continue to smoke, you will recall my words to you today, as you look into the sad faces of those sitting by your bed and watching your agony.
  • Kayla Mace The Riv... 2011/09/13 05:57:41
  • Jensola The Riv... 2011/09/13 18:11:43
    Jensola
    One of the lucky ones eh?
  • Kayla Mace gary 2011/09/13 05:59:16 (edited)
  • Brendakp gary 2011/09/13 17:58:50
    Brendakp
    You are soooo full of $hit. I pity you.
  • Papillon gary 2011/09/13 18:15:16
  • A Found... gary 2011/09/14 01:01:02
    A Founding Father
    I just read the rantings sent to you by the addicted, which made me laugh. I had the same policy
    when I was in business. Why should I hire people who would waste fifteen to twenty percent of the
    working day distracted from their work by indulging themselves in a harmful habit that offended all
    others in the office? I know that the smokers did, in fact, have more illness, missed more days at
    work, and cost our medical insurance program much more than others who had more healthy habits.
    Just another reason to quit the addiction, and maybe "get lucky" after a good bath and getting the teeth cleaned up?
  • KilrQueen 2011/09/13 02:02:30
    KilrQueen
    +4
    If you smoke then you should be considerate of non-smokers...it's the nice thing to do. I also think non-smokers need to shut up.....smokers have rights too...it's their decision to smoke, you need to butt out of their lives. Why don't go get on the drunk driving band wagon????? That one kills more innocent people than 2nd hand smoke!!! btw...I'm a non-smoker, so don't go getting all huffy with me either!
  • todd KilrQueen 2011/09/13 03:54:19
    todd
    +1
    Are you serious? You are part of the problem. "smokers have rights too..." You are one of the millions of idiots who have just let this problem go, generation after generation. Their choice, effects everyone! What you breathe in (aka "second-hand smoke") is filter free and stronger than what most of them suck through the filter. The health problems it causes everyone AROUND them are even greater than the problems they cause to themselves, out of THEIR CHOICE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT. Pay attention to what is happening very slowly around the U.S., as Cities and States become smoke free. It isnt from not butting in, either. More people NEED to care. It protects YOU...it protects families and children...and more. More people die from "smoking" related illnesses and diseases than drunk driving and just about anything else out there. I would say this is the bandwagon to be all over and with a passion.
  • Bob Uncle todd 2011/09/13 05:10:56
    Bob Uncle
    +2
    "I was stunned, because I had never seen an autopsy report listing second hand smoke as the cause of death. Nor had I seen this as a secondary cause of death. So I asked six pathologists if they had ever listed second hand smoke as a cause of death – not one had. In my years of clinical practice, I have seen patients die from many devastating diseases, and yet I have never seen anyone who has been disabled by, or has died as a result of, second hand smoke. This was my first clue that perhaps there was more hyperbole than science involved in the reports issuing from the Surgeon General’s Office."

    http://yourdoctorsorders.com/...

    Useful Idiot.
  • A Found... Bob Uncle 2011/09/13 05:45:14
    A Founding Father
    Have you ever sat in on the autopsy of a youth or child that died of lung cancer or other
    disease of lung tissues? What did you and the pathologist conclude was the cause of
    such in the child of a household in which the parents or others smoked?
  • Bob Uncle A Found... 2011/09/13 17:21:56
    Bob Uncle
    People die, there is no utopia.
  • A Found... Bob Uncle 2011/09/14 18:42:21
    A Founding Father
    You have a deep sense of purpose in your life, which is so understated. We demand
    that Daddy lock his guns away from the children, but encourge he and mama to fill their
    house with more than a dozen chemicals know to cause cancers, proven beyond doubt
    to be absorbed by lung tissues, especially in young tissues. Pretending that such fact
    does not exist is of equal madness to pretending that little boys won't shoot their little sisters with Daddy's loaded gun if they find it. Ignorance is widespread, and easily understood. Yes, people die from various causes, some just by eating at McDonalds.
  • Bob Uncle A Found... 2011/09/17 11:35:16
  • A Found... Bob Uncle 2011/09/17 20:57:24
    A Founding Father
    And you are just another ignorant and smelly smoker, living in a state of mental denial of all that science and the medical community seek to save the innocent children of fools like you. Take a clean cloth, if you have one, wet it, and wipe the insides of the windows in your double-wide? Notice the yellow tacky stuff
    on the rag? That is the tars and ash from your cigarettes, the same tar and ash that now are coating the airways of your babies and will eventually cause
    disease and early death for them. As for you? Who cares.
  • Bob Uncle A Found... 2011/09/21 06:07:27
    Bob Uncle
    Well thanks for the concern. I don't smoke. As an individual I was able to see the facts and make my own decision. We don't need you nazis around. Fear mongering and Utopian fantasies. You my friend are bright.
  • A Found... Bob Uncle 2011/09/21 06:27:57
    A Founding Father
    If you are not a smoker you haven't any knowledge of the circumstance. Why would you attempt to make a plea for the habit and tobacco use
    knowing that you haven't a clue about it's addictions or the sticky yellow
    stuff on the windows? Knowing what you don't know is important to making
    an informed decision.
  • Bob Uncle A Found... 2011/09/21 06:47:54
    Bob Uncle
    You are deranged, call me an idiot in smaller words you can properly form into a sentence, thank you.

    I state that second hand smoke does not kill.
    You respond by calling me an ignorant smoker.
    Well then certainly second hand smoke kills, I admit defeat to your brilliance.

    As you would, if you are capable, put it is that my lacking genius negates any notion of individuals being capable of making their own decisions.

    I said I don't smoke.. was able to come to my own conclusion... somehow. Moving on from that you declare to me that we are not capable of making our own decisions and that "I haven't a clue" but I'm sure you think I made the right decision. Then how did I? If we are incapable how did I make that decision? Do I owe you my thanks? Was I saved by you?

    How did you become one of these special gifted persons able to see what the others cannot?
  • A Found... Bob Uncle 2011/09/21 06:51:28
    A Founding Father
    You know what, son? I really don't care. So long.
  • Bob Uncle A Found... 2011/09/21 06:56:42
  • JuneGagnon todd 2011/09/13 13:12:54
    JuneGagnon
    Makes one wonder if you're a doctor (specialist), or scientific research "expert"- - -or just another "control freak", trying to run other peoples' lives.
  • KilrQueen todd 2011/09/13 20:52:18
    KilrQueen
    ok, so you're telling me that you would prefer to stop someone from smoking then from drinking and driving and killing a completely innocent person or complete family???? Seriously????? You have the choice to be around someone that smokes or not...completely up to you as an individual. Now people who are killed by drunk drivers, did they have a choice to be hit or not? No, I don't think they did, they didn't even see it coming. Get off your high horse and into reality. Also, show me some medical reports of people dying from second hand smoke and then let's compare those to the people that have been killed by drunk drivers!!! Your priorities are really screwed up.
  • Ritik Mishra 2011/09/13 01:47:56
    Ritik Mishra
    I HATE TOBACCO/ALCOHOL(the drinking kind)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/07/26 15:15:45

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals