In relation to the post currently in "Announcements" entitle "Do we need to change?" where we are, in part, trying to define the likemindedness that makes us gather here, I think it might be useful to define those who we are against. We call these people "anti-smokers" or "antis".

So, who are these people, precisely?

If someone doesn't smoke, that certainly doesn't make them an "anti".

What if someone doesn't smoke, and doesn't want to be around smoke? Does that make them an "anti"? I don't think that's necessarily so, or perhaps even usually so.

So, who are these "anti" people anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by WinstonSmith:
So, who are these "anti" people anyway?

I'll start off by saying there's more than just one type person in this movement. Different motives anyway.

The largest group with the deepest pockets are the drug companies that want us to replace our current habit/relationship from one industry to their's.

Here is a start. From "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" by Micheal McFadden.

Section 1: The Antismokers

The Innocents
The Neurotics
The Truly Affected
The Bereaved
The Ex-Smokers and The Victims
The Controllers
The Idealists
The Moralists
The Greedy
Summation

Gary K.

That's actually a good definition/summary GKayser, in the general sense. I've got to make it my business to take a look at McFadden's book again sometime.

I don't know what McFadden says, but I'll take my stab, in short form.

The Innocents

The children, of course, and those who simply don't know better.

The Neurotics

The hypochondriacs and the psychosomatics

The Truly Affected

Those very few who actually have the symptoms that the hypochondriacs and psychosomatics claim to have, though this area probably becomes very grey for psychosomatics.

The Bereaved

"My mother/sister/brother/husband/best friend, etc. smoked and died, so I think that I am now entitled to monopolize all rational discussions regarding tobacco use."

The Ex-Smokers and The Victims

Former smokers who are now anti-smokers because they've been subjected to a psychological transformation that really has little to do with smoking, in and of itself. The Victims is self-explanatory, I think, I used tobacco and now I'm sick and now tobacco is evil.

The Controllers

High level, institutionalized well-funded participants in the anti-smoking establishment. Trial lawyers, special interest groups and government funded organizations.

The Idealists

Self explanatory. "I can make the world a better place by...."

The Moralists

God forbids tobacco in a non-secular, puritan sense. In a secular sense, you're damaging yourself, others and society by your tobacco use.

The Greedy

Not to different from "The Controllers". People who are looking to find their piece of the anti-smoking pie. This can even go down to the lower level. My neighbor has told me that he sits at his dinner table and smokes with one of our county's top anti-smoking administrators when she comes over for coffee.

Am I right?

Of course, some or all of these types bleed into each other in some way or another.

The Innocents
The Neurotics
The Truly Affected
The Bereaved
The Ex-Smokers and The Victims
The Controllers
The Idealists
The Moralists
The Greedy

That's not a list, it's a cycle.

When you get to the bottom, go back to the top, then go for a ride until you get to the bottom again.

Repeat cycle as needed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,

quote:

My neighbor has told me that he sits at his dinner table and smokes with one of our county's top anti-smoking administrators when she comes over for coffee.

Reminds me of the running joke from the Flintstones, when an animal being exploited as a vacuum cleaner or a record player or whatever would just shrug and say "It's a living".


I'd say all the categories of people you just listed could be defined as a manifestation of Evil as described by you in those posts (I really enjoyed the series and I'll try to contribute to them one of these days).
They are all just different kinds of particles constituting a vortex in the fabric of society, so to speak.

...and while I was writing this, you edited your post to add the exact same thing.
Is there a vortex on this forum too?

True antis are full of hate. They hate the thought that we might enjoy the trip to Hell.

Here is a bit from 'Death of a Dude' by Rex Stout, which seems to say so much about the America the world has lost.

… hanging on the wall back of Woody's desk a big card in a homemade frame which said in homemade lettering by Woody:

‘ALL RIGHT, THEN, I'LL GO TO HELL’
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

Wolfe had asked why that had been chosen for display in a frame and Woody had said because he thought it was the greatest sentence in American literature. Wolfe had asked why he thought that, and Woody had replied because it said the most important thing about America, that no man had to let anybody else decide things for him, and what made it such a wonderful sentence was that it wasn't a man who said it, it was a boy who had never read any books, and that showed that he was born with it because he was American.

Gary K.

Wow Gary -- a Rex Stout quote! I'm so pleased!

Think he'd have to slim Wolfe down to be acceptable these days?

Antis are insecure,anxiety riddled,scared little neurotics!

The following is about voters;but,it applies to antis as well,if not more so.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/whos_your_daddy_the_psychology.html

Fromm sheds light on the dynamics with two thoughts:

"The person who gives up his individual self and becomes an automaton, identical with millions of other automatons around him, need not feel alone and anxious any more. But the price he pays, however, is high; it is the loss of his self."


And


"This loss of identity then makes it still more imperative to conform, it means that one can be sure of oneself only if one lives up to the expectations of others. If we do not live up to this picture, we not only risk disapproval and increased isolation, but we risk losing the identity of our personality, which means jeopardizing sanity."


Erich Fromm can tell us a lot about what is behind how most people vote. He makes the point that most people are terrified of being an on-their-own, take-care-of-themselves, free, adult human being. So, we attach ourselves to surrogate family units and surrogate parents to escape from our freedom. That translates to belonging to and becoming psychologically dependant organizations as diverse as the company for which we work and our boss, to the church we attend and its clergy, and the political party to which we belong and the parent figure who gets our vote. Identifying with the group becomes our new collective identity, and we surrender our individual identity and freedom.

Ask any priest, pastor, rabbi, teacher, psychotherapist, supervisor, or elected official and they will be happy to confirm that the people they deal with are all trying to work out their childhood agendas on any available authority figure.

Some of us want a ‘sugar daddy' and a ‘sugar family' who takes care of us, and we cede our personal power and freedom to this Democrat Parent/Party who promises security. The details of politics and policy positions pale into insignificance when compared to the need to escape from personal freedom and responsibility.
Some of us want a ‘strong daddy' who will protect us from danger and who expects us to be strong as well, and we vote for a Republican Parent/Party. We need to belong to a strong family with a strong leader so we will be safe. And once again, the details don't really matter that much.

No matter whom we are voting for we are voting for our kind of family, and our kind of parent.

ANTIS ARE BIGOTS!!!!!

(parenthesis added-Gary K.)

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2328

The Root Cause of Why Some Liberals(ANTIS) Are Unresponsive to Logic and Debate

The reason why so many (though again, not all) liberals(antis) act this way is remarkably simple. In fact, for all those who've become so baffled by their seemingly inexplicable conduct, you may wonder how it has escaped you all these years (probably because it's so easy to get so frustrated by their conduct that noticing the reason behind it becomes a matter not worth considering).

The answer is bigotry. They're prejudiced. Am I being ridiculous?

Is liberalism(anti-smoking) the new bigotry?

Think about it. What would cause a person to naturally and seamlessly find fault in everyone of a certain creed? What would cause someone to discount all facts and logic with a defensively offered snide remark? What would cause them to harp on every bad thing one member of the creed said or did and to ignore worse actions committed by the other side? What would cause someone to parrot the most illogical arguments of one side and to accept their talking points as gospel while reflexively seeking to attack even the most logically offered analysis of the other?

Finally, what would cause someone to view everyone and everything belonging to one side as good and everything having to do with the other as bad?

Deep seated bigotry, that's what.

A bigot seeks any way to back up his or her illogical assertions and does so reflexively and with strong emotion.

At times, their whole being may seem to be caught up in defending their illogical creed. The kind of liberalism(anti-smoking) that gives way to such a reaction is no different.


So, in short, modern liberalism(anti-smoking) is the new prejudice of choice.
When someone says “Who cares what they think? They’re just a… (pick your race or creed of choice)” they’re rightly derided. But no one balks when the same person says “Who cares what he/she thinks? He/she’s a Republican(SMOKER)!”

Bigot, thy name is liberal(anti-smoker).

Gary K.

Antis are heart-less slime that would have us, literally, STARVE!!

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3607

Beyond individual nutrients, our diet has much broader social and cultural contexts. One infamous study done a few years ago found that, when given the exact same food, people who enjoyed a meal absorbed more nutrients than those who did not.

And by eliminating the ability to enjoy a dinner without government-sponsored shame,(a smoking ban) state legislators would be taking pleasure off the menu.

Gary K.

In order to get any accurate information about the food it must be consumed in the testing, so the food you get is NOT tested, it is assumed to be the same, but that is impossible.

Any what is this testing adding to the cost of the food without any actual benefit to consumer.

If I am being asked to pay 5 to 100 times the cost of the item I expect the same multiples in benefits.

These rules are going to kill the food business.

Nanny Flags!!
My favorite.
Gary K.

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3515307

This was a close second!!
Gary K.

The anti-smokers are a small minority of the total adult population.

Anti-smokers are only a minority of the non-smoking adult population.

--------------------------
Antis and those that believe like them love to proclaim far and wide that the majority of non-smokers hate SHS and devoutly would prefer smoking bans.

Only in their own pompous,vainglorious,power hungry minds are the majority of non-smokers like them.

They think it is so;therefore,it 'MUST' be true!!

In states where bans have been on the ballot, about 75% of the non-smokers did not care enough about SHS to register and vote for a ban.

Antis love to rant and rave about smokers being only a small minority of the total adult population.

Counting cigar smokers(3%) and pipe smokers(1%) with the 21% of adults that are cigarette smokers, we find that smokers are 25% of the adult population.

Non-smokers are about 75% of the adults and antis are only 26% of that number or only 19.5% of the total adult population.

Gary K.
----------------------------------

States where the people voted on a smoking ban and the results:

NEVADA 2006 'Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act'

Non-smoking adults = 1,448,375

Non-smoking registered voters= 771,040

Voted 'Yes' on the NCIAA = 310,524

310,524 is 'ONLY' 21% of the non-smoking adults

---------------------------
ARIZONA 2006 Prop.201

Non-smoking adults =3,712,419

Non-smoking registered voters = 2,146,889

Voted 'Yes' on Prop.201 = 623,770

623,770 is 'ONLY' 17% of the non-smoking adults

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

OHIO 2006 Issue 5

Non-smoking adults = 6,681,360

Non-smoking registered voters = 6,099,360

Voted ' Yes' on Issue 5 = 2,234,528


2,234,528 is 'ONLY' 33.4% of the non-smoking adults
------------------------------------------------

FLORIDA 2002 Question 6

Non-smoking adults = 11,091,600

Non-smoking registered voters = 7,348,864

Voted 'Yes' on Question 6 = 3,501,161

3,501,161 is 'ONLY' 31.6% of the non-smoking adults
------------------------------------------------

The four state average for voting 'Yes' on smoking ban laws is only 26% of the non-smoking adults!!!

Sources

Population:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html

Smoking Rates:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=80&cat=2

State Results:
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchiv...te=11/5/2002&DATAMOD

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/pages/states/FL/index.html

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/ElectionsVoter/results2006.aspx

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G06/NV.phtml

http://secretaryofstate.biz/elections/voter-reg/2006/

http://secretaryofstate.biz/elections/results/2006State.../ElectionSummary.asp

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2006/gener...NPR&SECTION=POLITICS

My neighbour is the best description of a typical Anti I can find. And I live the the Capital of Smoker Nazism so I think I can give a pretty good description how to spot one.

They often drive in high emission cars such as Suburbans, while letting them "warm up" (in California by the way) for 15 minutes every morning in the carport under their children's bedrooms. But that type of Carbon Monoxide (or should I say REAL POLLUTION) doesn't seem to bother them.

Often complain of their children having asthma and are allergic to your smoke. And that you are solely responsible for their illness. However, upon inspection and reflection you realize that your children are perfectly healthy and so are you as the smoker. Shouldn't it be the other way around. I would like to note here when this said neighbour sees me outside my apartment smoking, (she isn't even a direct neighbour) she runs in the house screaming, coughing, flapping her arms around, and yelling to her children to "RUN! RUN! SMOKE!!!!". I would think she has had very little exposure to cigarettes with this behaviour, yet all 3 children suffer from severe allergies and asthma.

The other thing that I find so hypocritical about this people is that fact that because you smoke, they feel that it is okay to forgo all of the very important politeness and respect they should have towards you about other issues.

If you politely tell them to not disturb or if they could be mindful of your clothes in the laundry room, they will rudely tell you no and then start in with the scapegoat that you are a smoker and aren't respecting them. Which then they feel they have the green light to disrespect everything that your own or are associated with.

I find it fascinating that living in California they are going to spray pesticides in the air which you can't avoid all over the Bay Area, but to smoke in front of your own home is going to be outlawed. It is the newest politically correct bandwagon they all want to join, because hey they aren't smoker's and they just want to be popular. It is a great conversational piece for the neighbourhood gossip.

It is true they are neurotic, psychosomatic, hypochondriacs, and have no other cause then to really be a busy body, nosey neighbour.

Right now my neighbour has been mobilizing her efforts to have my family kicked out of my apartment which I have lived for 5 years (she moved in last year, full well knowing there was a smoker living here) all because I smoke outdoors.

There have got to be some rights we as smokers have somewhere and I am hoping to find them and free us all to smoke with dignity and pride. Not in the closet hiding from those disgusted looks, obnoxious coughs, and seething pure hatred.

You can only be a polite smoker when you are around polite people.

I know I am venting a lot but I would like to suggest a section titled "Great responses when confronted by a smoke Nazi"

- I am allergic to cigarettes, when smoking outside.
- That is like saying you are allergic to farts. By the time my smoke hits you it is only a smell, you may not like the smell but you are not allergic to it.

please add

Forces Tavern

Amanda, welcome to this forum, check out the link above, we had some great comebacks listed on this message string

Amanda, here's an inspiration from the late Bill Hicks -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD8bsfggCuo

(It's also interesting to note that "anti-smoker" as a term did not exist when this was recorded, 18 years ago)

The "late" Bill Hicks? How did he die? Just wondering.

He died of pancreatic cancer in 1994, at the age of 32.

Conspiracy theorists say CIA poisoned him because he always talked about topics such as the Kennedy assasination, the war on drugs, the Vaco siege etc. in his shows. Can't rule out the possibility.