Giant Book Sale

Article Tools

Use the form below to share this article via email.

Your name:

Your email:

To email:

Message:

Possibly Related:

Smoking in the wrong place sends asthmatics to the ER

39 comments
Text size
Last updated: 03/08/10 11:18pm

Editor,

Since the smoking ban at UNM has been put in place, most people who smoke have complied. Unfortunately, there are still the few who have no regard for this new rule, and with no enforcement why should they? I would like to raise an issue of concern to those who still smoke outside of the designated areas, especially those who walk to class while smoking. It never seems to fail that everyday I get caught in the wake of smoke by smokers walking in front of me.

As a student who has asthma, like many people in this state, I find this to be a violation of my right to breath clean air and be healthy. For some people with severe asthma, cigarette smoke can set off an attack and put people in the ER.

If you choose to poison your lungs, that is your choice and right. You can do so at home, in your car and in designated areas. You however do not have the right to endanger the lives and well-being of other people. I am not saying that people who smoke are doing this intentionally, you probably have never thought of it that way before. So please consider the health and well-being of others before you decide to light up in an undesignated area. Others and myself would greatly appreciate not having to try to hold our breaths until the smoke passes. Thank you.

Sara Grover
UNM student

Published March 8, 2010 in Letters, Opinion

Follow us

Upcoming Events

 

10:00 am | Open House

39 comments

Chris

March 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM
Flag this comment

I completely agree with you Sara. I believe in not infringing upon other’s rights to do whatever they want, unless they begin to infringe upon my own. I for one hated walking to class in the morning, hitting a cloud of smoke, and trying to get through the rest of the day with a killer headache. Yes, for some people, smoke can be a type of allergen and cause for suffering. So I for one would hope that those who choose to smoke, at least do so out of the respect for the health and lives for those who do not. Most of us aren’t trying to ban you from your right to enjoy a good smoke, we just want to keep it confined to areas we’ll know to avoid so you don’t cause us to suffer.

James Burbank

March 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM
Flag this comment

There is supposed to be enforcement. The faculty is charged with courteously reminding smokers that they should go to designated areas. There are many smokers who knowingly violate the rule. Some are outright abusive when approached.

Have you ever seen a professor enforce the restrictions? The problem could be aided by more effective signage outside classrooms and other areas. The north campus has very effective signs. The south campus has no signs.

Read more …

Really, things will only change when smokers become conscious of their devastating impact on others and simply go to designated areas.

Many smokers argue that, since there is very little if any enforcement, why should they follow the restrictions? Should the campus therefore enact harsh fines for smokers? Should the police enforce smoking restrictions? Perhaps there should be a smoking gestapo?

Since these draconian measures are unreasonable, smokers will have to comply voluntarily out of respect for others, especially those with underlying health conditions.

We all know how addictive tobacco is— more addictive in fact than heroin, so there will always be many smokers who can’t follow the rules and who feel it’s their God given right smoke in our faces.

These folks should be put to sleep. Faculty can be in charge of the Campus Smoker Euthanasia (CSE) program. Full professors will be issued hypos. Instructors will get blow guns. If a smoker becomes rude or insolent, the teacher just puts the offender to sleep with a single quick jab. There is economic stimulus money for this.

Red

March 9, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Flag this comment

I hereby nominate James Burbank to run the proposed “smoking gestapo” and the broader “UNM Gestapo Enforcement Unit.”

As the man who singlehandedly brought down Techno Guy, I think Burbank’s the best man for the job. He’s the squeaky wheel that gets the grease! See a smoker out of place? Just call Jim and he’ll set ‘em straight! Someone lighting up outside the smokers’ ghetto? Get ‘em, Jim! Someone listening to music a little too loud? Bam! Jim’s on it. Someone walkin’ funny, wearin’ a skirt too short, speakin’ out of turn? ZAP, ZAP, and ZAP! Jim Burbank to the rescue!! Thanks, Jim, you’re a credit to our institution!

Alex

March 9, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Flag this comment

To James Burbank… I think people like you need to be put to sleep. You are everything that is wrong with humanity. I will smoke where I want when I want and I hope people like you get second hand cancer and die.
Be mature and get over it!!!! Talking about killing smokers is no way to solve a problem.
Get over yourself. You are not better than everyone like you so obviously think you are.

Alex

March 9, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Flag this comment

And to Chris… I get a headache every day when I go on campus from all the “know it all’s” talking about how smart they are and how much better than everyone they are. Are you going to put them in groups so I can avoid them and not get a headache. You people take things way too serious. And to sarah, I would like you to show me where your “right to clean air” exists, because last I checked all of our air is polluted with harmful elements. Breath in your fresh chemical air!! Because it is what you breathe every minute of every day. Get over it

Chris

March 9, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Flag this comment

Alex,

Would it be better that I punch every smoker in the face instead. I think I’ll do that from now on. It’s basically the same thing you’re doing to me and many others with medical conditions. And as for the “know it all’s”… all I have to say is you are a complete dumb****. Go flip burgers somewhere since you’re obviously not mature enough to be in an institution of higher learning.

Sara Grover

March 9, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Flag this comment

Alex, like I said, I am not trying to infringe on the rights of anyone. I do find it to be inconsiderate to smoke in non-designated areas because it is really harmful to the health of those with underlying health conditions. One thing I did not mention in the letter which I felt at the time to be secondary is that I really am harmed by such behavior especially now. Not only have I had asthma since moving to this state when I was younger but, now my husband and I are expecting our first child and I don’t think it is right to be not only harming my health and that of other people but, that of an innocent unborn child. You can smoke at home, in your vehicle and in designated areas and I have no problem with it. That is your right. Just please be considerate of the well-being of others around you especially in a state like NM that has such a high number of people who suffer from asthma. It is not fair to send someone to the ER with a life threatening asthma attack just because you want to light up.

I do not think there should be any hitting or zapping of anyone, just caring for other human beings.

Sara Grover

March 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Flag this comment

http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20050727/secondhand-smoke-may-harm-fetus-like-smoking

Evidence to support my claim of the harm people do to unborn children when they decide to smoke in places they should not. I may not per say have a “right to clean air” but you have NO RIGHT to do this to a child.

Ian

March 9, 2010 at 5:08 PM
Flag this comment

You talk about caring for fellow human beings, and at the same time forced discrimination based on a personal habit. Am I the only one that finds a problem with this?

I thought we as a culture had finally gone beyond herding other humans into groups based on what they do. I happen to smoke, so that means I should stand in a fenced enclosure, open to the elements so that other people can’t smell my cigarette?

Read more …

Is it right to banish all smokers in an area where they are constantly exposed to high heat in the summer, extreme cold and wet in the winter?

Have you looked at how many toxic fumes are caused by the amount of cars going past, and industrial pollution because they stopped enforcing the clean air and water acts?

You will never hear me say that smoking is good for people, or that it will never cause damage, but this debate sometimes has reached absurd levels. It really comes down to risk. I may get cancer by smoking, and ther people may get cancer from second hand smoke, but it has never been proven that that it is 100% true that everyone gets cancer who smokes, or who breathes second hand smoke.

In the last 10 years the amount of pack a day smokers has fallen dramatically, and yet the cancer rates seem to be on the increase. If there is less second hand smoke in the world and less total smoke from smokers, why is there an increase in cancer?
The only thing that keeps rising is air pollution. Air pollution is more toxic than second hand smoke, because second hand smoke does dissipate. unless you’re standing right next to someone breathing in all their exhales and the smoke rising off the cigarette, you aren’t getting nearly as much into your system as you would think.

The second hand smoke issue only comes into play in enclosed areas like a smoke filled room with no ventilation. In places like that, second hand smoke is more toxic because it’s much more concentrated than in the regular outdoors.

That is the reason why smoking is banned inside public building, and I’m all for that. Telling us all to smoke indoors or in our cars is impolite to say the least, and dangerously rude would come close o describing that statement.

Have you looked into the amount of taxes people who smoke pay? Have you researched how much a tax burden smokers pay compared to nonsmokers? Did you know that most states pass smoking taxes no for public health concerns, but because they need to balance their budgets. by using cigarette taxes to pay for no anti-smoking measures means that the legislatures rally don’t want people to quit, because then they might have to tax people who haven’t been browbeaten into submission and guilt because they do something that is against society.

Have you really looked at what the anti-smoking advertising really says? That it’s ok to discriminate against people because they smoke. It’s ok to call them names, and to throw things at them?

I think people should try to look at this issue from both sides, instead of bringing in your snap thought thatwe should consent to be penned in with our fellow smokes, and be happy about it. As much as I hate to bring this up, but wasn’t that what those white Europeans thought in regards to Native Americans and Africans. That they should be happy to be crowded together with the rest of their kind, and that they don’t have rights because they aren’t like us.

Is that the new Manifest Destiny. Corral and confine all smokers to their little smoking reservations, because those who don’t smoke don’t want to have a chance to be around those polluted spaces.

And then like the expansionists you are, you pollute your own areas, and blame it on us. That somehow those smoking areas are too big of a reservation, and we want all the land.

I just wonder whatever happened to the freedom to order your own life as you see fit. I started smoking knowing full well every single medical issue that could come out of it. I find comfort and relaxation while smoking, and it is one of the few this I can do outside, to clear and reorder my thoughts.

I’m sorry you feel that you are justified by your medical condition to have a clear space of air, yet I feel justified in my medical condition to no be shut up in an enclosed area like some human animal.

I guess this is one difference of opinion that we can be sure will be around a long time. Mainly due to the fact that it’s us smokers that always have to give away everything to please the non-smokers.

Ian

March 9, 2010 at 5:21 PM
Flag this comment

sorry about the long comment previously. A word of caution on those news reports about studying. If you look closely at what the true wording in the studies are(by looking at the actual research papers), you find a lo of ambiguous statements.)

I especially liked the part of the article that said quitting smoking showed the ame mutations as those who smoked and had secondhand smoke exposure.

Read more …

Smoking during pregnancy causes placental prolems which in turn lead to low birth rate, and a much higher chance of premature, and miscarriages.

Genetic mutations on the other hand are something that veryone is born into, there is noteough research done to actually say that certain mutations cause a certain type of disease. We for one aren’tup to that level of biomedical technology.

Lastly everyone no matter who they are or under what conditions hey were born into has no genetic mutations whatsoever. And also, a word of caution about studies like this. Since it is just a correlation of DA markers, and questions written, there is no way to tell without a doubt that those mutations came from smoking, or from the composition of toxins in the soup mix of carcinogens that we have to breathe.
Everyone always blames smoking,yet the polluted air we breathe, from cars and industry, never factors into the equation.

P.S. That’s the last I will post about this.

Sara Grover

March 9, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Flag this comment

Ian,

Your right to smoke DOES NOT take priority of the health of others. Discrimination against races of peoples is NOT comparable to your CHOICE to smoke. It has nothing to do with being JUSTIFIED in my medical condition. Your smoking puts people at risk with their health, if you have a right to do that then I should have a right to harm you and put you in the hospital, but I do not have that right. Your argument is just a justification of your selfishness. BTW I used to smoke, I quit 5 years ago, but even then I never smoked around my parents or siblings, EVER. If you want to be self-destructive fine, you should not destroy the health of others. “I feel justified in my medical condition to no be shut up in an enclosed area like some human animal.” Being addicted to cigarettes is not a medical condition, it was a choice you said you made knowing the impacts of it. And I never said you had to be shut up “in your house” at home meaning on your property including outside. The fact of the matter is is that there are rules on campus now with smoking and it would be nice if people went along with them. Your inability to deal with your own stress in a manner other than smoking does not give you reason to break rules and harm others. If you have a right to send people with fragile lungs to the ER then I have a right to go momma bear on you and break your legs if you smoke around me and affect the cognitive development of my unborn child. Fair is fair.

neale

March 9, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Flag this comment

of all the environmental contaminants we deal with everyday, you choose to bitch tirelessly about smoking. not the water, not bio-engineered foods, not emissions from cars and factories…smoking. i don’t have the right to send someone with fragile lungs to the ER, but i dont have a responsibility to know that they have fragile lungs. so while the odor of smoke is gross, so is hippie odor. i dont run around cutting off dread locks cuz they smell like ass, i just dont put my face in them. also, the effects of second hand smoke as one may be exposed to it on campus are non-existant. admit it, you think it stinks, and hide behind all this “its bad for my health” bullshit. you guys should be railing on speeding, or drunken driving instead, those are risky behaviors that actually do hurt and kill people on a regular basis.

Sara Grover

March 9, 2010 at 9:16 PM
Flag this comment

Once again, another rant by a selfish self-centered moron. I do not “bitch” but have a logical argument. You do not. I am so sick of the “broken window fallacy” used by your jokers. That being, it is someones job to fix broken windows, if no one broke them they would not have a job so therefore we should break windows! You’re an idiot. There is plenty of evidence of the ill effects of second hand smoke and for you to say they are non-existent is total BS. I also have plenty of issues with other pollution. BUT this is something that YOU can control and just do not care to because you are a selfish arrogant loser who thinks they are so “bad ass” for smoking. More like a dumb ass.

Also people do not need to wear signs saying “i have a lung condition” You just need to be considerate of others. Your insulting of hippies is hilarious. You can call me a hippie all you want, I find no offense in it since it is people like myself who are trying to improve the world for everyone and not destroy it because they are a selfish jerk. Yes I could “rail” on other issues, but they are not relevant to campus issues such as this which is what the Daily Lobo is for. People should not have to have their health adversely affected from coming to school. I don’t stick my face in smoke. It comes into mine while I walk to class by inconsiderate douche bags such as yourself. Yes, smoking stinks but not half as bad as your attitude.

Nick

March 9, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Flag this comment

Do the people who complain about where I smoke never drive above the speed limit? Does driving above the speed limit cause accidents? (Yes.) Do some people die in those accidents? (Yes.) Ok, so when you all drive no faster than the speed limit, I’ll smoke only in the designated smoking areas.

harleyrider1978

March 9, 2010 at 11:44 PM
Flag this comment

As a student who has asthma, like many people in this state, I find this to be a violation of my right to breath clean air and be healthy. For some people with severe asthma, cigarette smoke can set off an attack and put people in the ER.

Yes…the 1992/93 EPA report was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge’s ruling doesn’t stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science.

Read more …

Here’s some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:

2006 Surgeon General’s Report (excerpts)

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.

Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

And finally…..

The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh…

harleyrider1978

March 9, 2010 at 11:45 PM
Flag this comment

More ill informed smoker bashing. I do not think the authors would argue with me that smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

Read more …

The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”

harleyrider1978

March 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM
Flag this comment

Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger

Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher:

Read more …

The Heartland Institute
heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23399

Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them….Osha has whats called PEL’S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments…[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare.

The actual standard to use is OSHA’S

The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.

The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 90% water vapor and air…..now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison: According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke…….. They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire. They concluded that: All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets : Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997 WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS

Kenzie

March 10, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Flag this comment

Well, so long as we’re regulating airspace, lets talk about my right to quiet air. If we’re able to ban smoking, I’d like to propose a ban on all the annoying people flagging you down to see if you have time for the environment; or to stop abortion; or to promote abortion; or to sign this petition for blank candidate; or to vote for my wedding.

For that matter, I’d like to regulate how much perfume people can wear; that’s just as obnioxious as smoking. While we’re at it, I’d like to propose that some people HAVE to wear perfume…just to make our world smell a little better.

Read more …

Also, I’d like student fees to be tripled so that UNM can afford outdoor air purifiers. Since these will primarily benefit people with respiratory disorders, all UNM students will have to submit to a medical evaluation by SHAC. Those with asthma will need to pay more student fees to support the Campus Air Purification Act.

Cee

March 10, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Flag this comment

Ah, yet another rabid and unreasonble smoker, eh Kenzie? If noise caused cancer, you might even have a point. If people annoying you to sign petitions gave you CANCER, then mebbe… Perhaps you need to grow up and take responsibility for your addiction and NOT foist your addiction(s) on the un-smoking community. We’re not talking about your smoke being a nuisance: IT IS A HEALTH HAZARD, TO YOU THE ADDICTED ONES AND TO THE INNOCENT BYSTANDER. Get it now? HMMMM?

Cee

March 10, 2010 at 11:51 AM
Flag this comment

What did Ian say: You talk about caring for fellow human beings, and at the same time forced discrimination based on a personal habit. Am I the only one that finds a problem with this?

Did you forget the part about YOU discriminating against people who don’t want to breath your unhealthy, damaging smoke? You smokers always seem to forget that it is YOU doing the harm (to yourselves and others), it is YOU who is forcing something on scores of others. There IS NO DISCRIMINATION against you! We just simply don’t want to breath YOUR smoke. If you won’t police yourselves I guanrantee it will come to FORCING you to do it. That’s not discrimination. If you won’t be responsible, you will eventually be forced to be because what you are doing is poisonous and hazardous to others. YOU have rights but so do we!!!!!

Udy

March 10, 2010 at 11:58 AM
Flag this comment

There are problems with smoking.

A very very good example are casinos. You cannot breathe there. You kinda have to force yourself to breathe.

Read more …

Besides, people that smell like smoke are a major turnoff. Who would want to **** someone who smells like ****?

Udy

March 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Flag this comment

Huh, so that how you do strikethrough – that was supposed to be emphasis instead.

Bigger problem

March 10, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Flag this comment

A Russian friend told me once, “The problem with Americans is that American life is so easy that Americans get bored with shopping at the malls, so Americans create problems to worry over. Americans don’t have the slightest idea of what real problems are and they wouldn’t be able to handle it, if America collasped. Americans wouldn’t be able to handle the same problems the Russians faced when the Soviet Union fell and the system collasped. America is a spoiled country that acts like children”

Sara Grover

March 10, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Flag this comment

harleyrider1978 you must have never taken an English class otherwise you would know what a CREDIBLE source is. The Heartland Institute is one of the least credible out there. It is nothing but a propaganda and agenda site used by the right wing. BTW there are a million studies out there on the topic and there are some that are pro-smoker, yet those are very few. If it were not dangerous to public health then why does the Surgeon General say it is? Why is it banned indoors in most public places. Your source is laughable. For me to believe anything off of that site would make me the idiot.

Cee

March 10, 2010 at 1:12 PM
Flag this comment

Yeah, BIGGER PROBLEM, we stupid Americans only care about LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, such trivial, useless, “easy” things. Life is so easy for us in this economic downturn the likes of which no one in has seen before. It’s just so childish for us to keep demanding our rights and to try to protect them, even from smokers who care nothing for anything beyond their own addiction.

Yeah, right…

Comments are closed for this item.