Holiday World should ban smoking
Is there a reason you are backing the tobacco companies in every way you can? I for one can tell you that I am 100% NOT anti-smoker. I am anti tobacco industry. I have no problem with smokers. In fact, some of my closest friends are smokers.
The big problem I have is the way the tobacco company targets TEENS to buy their deadly product. That stage in life is one of the most vulnerable for a person. It's easy for the tobacco industries to target teenagers.
Can you prove that all of the "TRUTH" facts are NOT true? Well I can definetely prove many things about the tobacco industries that ARE true. It's something that I've been involved in for a while and it's a big part of my life.
I actually wrote a letter to Phillip Morris (Altria) on behalf of a group that I'm involved in. I also attended the shareholders meeting at the company in Virginia in April and was present at the rally outside.
It's obvious that the health risks are severe. That is something that I'm sure everyone knows. The biggest thing we're trying to do now is to exploit the manipulative tactics of the tobacco industry as a whole.
Once again, not anti smoker, anti-INDUSTRY.
It's a personal oppinion and not everyone will agree with it. I've lost two family members from their smoking habits and, as a result, I'm very passionate about this issue. I respect everyone else's oppinions and hope that some people will reamin open minded enough to learn more about it.
Good luck to everyone.
------------------
If given the choice I'd choose a hamburger over a hotdog anyday of the week.
Where do you see any advertising or manipulating of tobacco products to teens these days?
Last time I checked, "Joe Camel" has ceased to exist. :)
------------------
Arena football has arrived in the Windy City. Go "Chicago Rush"
*** This post was edited by Chitown 8/7/2003 11:39:00 PM ***
If it annoys you, or you enjoy thrusting your personal likes and dislikes upon others, then so be it, but once again, I don't need your help.
A bunch of people die from smoking related issues. This is not a matter of debate. It kills people. Y'know what, though? Even going by your statistic, if you get rid of tobacco, something else will automatically be the number one killer of people.
If smoker's lives are so sacred that you're trying to save them because they're all too stupid to realize that inhaling smoke just might not be the safest thing to do, then aren't other's lives sacred, too?
What's the difference between saving smokers' lives and those killed in auto accidents? Just because there are more smokers' deaths? Tell that to someone who's kid was killed by a drunk driver.
If you're trying to save someone, you better try to save them all. Lower the speed limit to 25mph on highways, and guess what... no more 75 car pileups. "Well, there are more smokers deaths than those caused by autos." So? Does that mean that those lives taken by trucks are meaningless?
At least smokers know what they're getting in to. Try saving the innocent before you come down on those who know exactly what they're doing in the first place.
------------------
Rejection is one thing, but rejection from a fool is cruel!
-Morrissey
One example would be the placement of tobacco advertisments in stores. Ads are placed low to the ground so young kids can see them as they walk through the store. This makes the child firmiliar with the brand and product at an early age. Last I knew grown people didn't walk around on their knees.
You may say this is bullcrap but it's a very well thought out technique used by the tobacco industry.
That's the only one that I can think of at the moment. I have to get up early for work so I'm calling it quits for tonight. If you want me to start whipping out official quotes from tobacco companies I'd be more than happy to. That is the largest bit of evidence I can give to you. What more proof do you need than a tobacco company actually saying that they need to target the youth to survive. I'll try to get those to y'all tomorrow.
kpjb:
Everyone's life is sacred. I just chose to invest my time in cigarette deaths for personal reasons. Is it not better to have ONE worthy cause than no cause at all?
Here's another fact. I know some of you will disregard this because it isn't about the U.S. In our group we just got done with an international initiative. Did you know that around the world Marlboro produces baby clothes? They also go to teen events, such as concerts, and give away free cigarettes and prizes.
The youth of America are becoming smarter and this is frustrating to the tobacco companies. They need a new source for their money. Therefore, they're going after the rest of the world.
Once again I have to say that these are my personal opinions and I consider myself very knowledgeble in this field. I know not everyone will agree with me and that's all right. I'm just telling you what I know.
kpjb:
I will "thrust" any opinions that I have on anyone I like as I assume anyone else will. I live in America and I have the will to say whatever I want, as do you. Just don't tell me not to express my opinions.
If I didn't make this clear the first time. We are NOT anti-smoker. That also means we are NOT anti-smoking. We are anti-industry.
kpjb:
I suggest you read what I write carefully before you accuse me of "being against smoking."
Thank You.
What ever happened to personal responsibility for one's actions? I don't think it's the tobacco industry's responsibilty to make sure teens don't smoke. It's up to that teen and his or her parents (and general circle of influence) to make their own decisions. Suddenly it's not their fault their child has a nicotine addiction - it's a cartoon camel's. I grew up in 80's - a time when it was perfectly acceptable for a 16 year old kid to buy a pack of cigarettes and I never did - ever. It's a personal choice. If you lack the free thought and positive support to let a commercial make your descisions in life, you probably need to smoke...3 packs a day, preferrably. We need to stop that gene pool from spreading.
I guess the reason I don't have a problem with the tobacco industry is that I don't see them doing anything any other coroporations don't do. What industry doesn't market to teens these days?
If it's because they sell a product that can cause health problems, then I can think of countless other companies we should go after. I'm not even going to start to list them.
I don't know. I have nothing left to add to this thread. I choose to smoke. I'm willing to accept the risk. The same way I accept the risk everytime I get behind the wheel of my car, fly on a plane, eat way too many potato chips, stop at a fast food restaurant, play tackle football, answer my door without looking through the peephole, run with scissors, ride a roller coaster, give a man twice my size the finger, pop that frozen dinner in the micorwave, drink too much, go outside in a thunderstorm or stand on my head to make my kids laugh.
Nobody tries to stop me from doing any of those...and before anyone says it - many of those acticities have the potential to harm others.
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 15
rentzy17 said:
(1)One example would be the placement of tobacco advertisments in stores. Ads are placed low to the ground so young kids can see them as they walk through the store.(2) Is it not better to have ONE worthy cause than no cause at all?
(3)The youth of America are becoming smarter and this is frustrating to the tobacco companies. They need a new source for their money. Therefore, they're going after the rest of the world.
(4)kpjb: Just don't tell me not to express my opinions.
(5)If I didn't make this clear the first time. We are NOT anti-smoker. That also means we are NOT anti-smoking. We are anti-industry.
(6)Thank You.
1) So you're saying kid's can't look up, and adults can't look down?
2)No, it isn't. It's hypocritical to say that you're going to do something about people dying from smoke because they need saved, but everyone else is on their own since their actions don't bother you.
3)The first time I went to Europe was 15 years ago. Trust me, they were doing plenty of marketing over there already. Doesn't every company want to expand their customer base?
4)I didn't. I told you not to force your opinions upon those who aren't interested in them. Picket Phillip Morris all you want. If you think they care, you're fooling yourself.
5)So you're for DIY old-school-punk smokin'? Where I grow it in my backyard and roll it myself, then? Corporate tobacco sucks. Fight the power.
6)You're welcome. Thank you, drive through.
P.S. LG, shouldn't you be on the road by now? Or was that an excuse to get out of being my tour guide? ;)
------------------
Rejection is one thing, but rejection from a fool is cruel!
-Morrissey
Bravo, my friend. While I agree with you that Magnum Force, Chitown, and kpjb summed everything nicely, I think you've summed it up thoroughly, and perfectly so.
------------------
-Mike B.
Son of Hulk
------------------
New laptop :)
Knoebel's tomorrow :) :)
...I'm smoking too!
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 15
As Andrew Dice Clay (comic) said in the late 80's when heckled about smoking being a dirty habit to which he replied: So is wiping your a** but no one is trying to ban that!
------------------
"To be the man...whoooooo...you have to beat the man!"
Bottom line:
Smoking is a bad idea. The tobacco companies know it, the government knows it, smokers know it, non-smokers know it.
Smoking will never, ever be banned. There are a couple of state's and millions of people whose livelihood depend on smoking. Not too mention, there are cities who rely on the taxes that smokers generate. (Jacob's Field in Cleveland was built with a "sin" tax.)
The vast majority of voters across the nation are supportive of smoking restricitions because they do believe smokers have the right to smoke but do not have the right to subject them to the smoke. That isn't going to change...and it is probably going to become more restrictive. (Look for parents to be brought up on child endangering charges for smoking in their homes with their children exposed to it.)
Amusement parks are going to respond to non-smokers by creating designating smoking areas, probably tucked away in less visible areas, and will start enforcing their policies more if the paying customers demand it.
Smokers, if you want to continue to gamble knowing all of the risks that are as obvious as the nose on your face...who am I to stop you? But, if you bring it near my children...we are going to have an issue.
And that is what I said from the start... If you want to smoke, go right ahead, I respect you and your decision. I just want the smokers of this world to respect ME and MY FAMILY'SDECISION not to smoke and also not to inhale second-hand smoke due to our health issues.
And if smokers as a WHOLE do not, then I will petition local city councils, restaurants, amusement parks, etc. to change their smoking rules/laws to make such venues fully smoke-free.
------------------
--George H
Currency Tracking Experiment...Where's George.com
My New Blog...Check it out
*** This post was edited by redman822 8/8/2003 9:10:14 AM ***
The one thing I do have left to say to kpjb is this. When we picketed outside of Phillip Morris they DID care. Believe me. While 90% of the people that passed on the road were in support of us and beeped while passing, there were a select few who were very upset with us. It's those kinds of reactions that keep us motivated. We have to be doing something right if we're getting under the skin of Phillip Morris shareholders and employees.
Also, what I said wasn't hypocrytical. What you said there didn't realy make sense. I have a worthy cause. That doesn't mean I don't care about saving EVERYONE'S life. Dude, let it go.
Anyway, leaving my personal endeavors with this issue behind, I DO think that there needs to be a crackdown on smoking in amusment parks. I think a smoking "area" would be a good thing because some people can't last 5 minutes without a cigarette.
I just really wish the park staff would enforce no smoking in the Q's. If they did that it would make a HUGE difference. When I went to SFGAdv. in May, there was a huge line for Medusa. There were about 3 people smoking in the line and no one was there to stop them. There was a huge chair situated in the Q but no one was there to watch everyone. I hope parks like GAdv. can eventually find the staff they need to make sure no smoking is being done in the Q.
Toss your butt and burn down Raven or Legend and I'm bringing my shotgun.
------------------
MORE than 50% of people like me
------------------
Rejection is one thing, but rejection from a fool is cruel!
-Morrissey
redman822 said:
And that is what I said from the start... If you want to smoke, go right ahead, I respect you and your decision. I just want the smokers of this world to respect ME and MY FAMILY'SDECISION not to smoke and also not to inhale second-hand smoke due to our health issues.And if smokers as a WHOLE do not, then I will petition local city councils, restaurants, amusement parks, etc. to change their smoking rules/laws to make such venues fully smoke-free.
Not to keep kicking the dead horse here, but this is exactly why we're going in circles. You respect my right to smoke, just not around you. Well on the flip side, I respect your right not to smoke, just don't wonk about me doing it.
Flat out - if it comes down to you and me standing 2 feet apart, why am I (as a smoker) the one expected to move?
I'd love to open a bar or restaurant for smokers. I'd call it "Smokey McCancer's Goodtime Grill". I'd ban all non-smokers. You need to have three packs with you just to get in!
See how silly that sounds - it'd never fly. Even though I'd just be doing to non-smokers (stopping them from enjoying my restaurant) what the current laws do to smokers.
I don't care for that "smoke if you must, but where I say" attitude of non-smokers. How about this? "I'm lighting a cigarette, if it annoys you move."
Why the double standard where I'm automatically wrong? It's not like if you move, I'm going to chase you around trying to smoke on you. With all these laws making it impossible for me to comfortably enjoy myself (the same way you wish too), you are indeed taking away my right to smoke. That's the problem.
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 15
------------------
- John
I snap flyers.
Lord Gonchar said:
redman822 said:
Flat out - if it comes down to you and me standing 2 feet apart, why am I (as a smoker) the one expected to move?I don't care for that "smoke if you must, but where I say" attitude of non-smokers. How about this? "I'm lighting a cigarette, if it annoys you move."
Why the double standard where I'm automatically wrong? It's not like if you move, I'm going to chase you around trying to smoke on you. With all these laws making it impossible for me to comfortably enjoy myself (the same way you wish too), you are indeed taking away my right to smoke. That's the problem.
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 15...and this is exactly the kind of arrogance that we are talking about here. Don't remember who said it in this thread, but somebody stated that if smoke bothers your kid, you shouldn't bring them to the park.
While I was at CP last month, someone was smoking in the MF line. A child (not part of our party) said that he had asthma and the smoke was bothering him. I guess it was the parent's responsibilty to have left him home so the smoker's "rights" would be protected.
------------------
"How was your ride?"
The midway is a different story. Its a free moving area that people can easily walk in another direction if someone lights up. Bottomline: If the park allows smoking on the midways, we can light up there.
------------------
Arena football has arrived in the Windy City. Go "Chicago Rush"
Closed topic.
