• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Favorite smoking scenes

WhoDat! said:
as far as smoking on TV or anywhere else, we were a more FREE Country back then, and i know there are those who hate it and so forth, But remember 1st they came after cigarettes, and you were not a smoker, so you didn't care, Now there are idiots comming after large soft drinks and salt, who knows what's next! there will never be an end to politicians meddling in your life.. and it all started with cigarettes. Yet these same politicians don't mind raking in the Tax Money from smokers, and there is talk about taxing junk food and whatever is next, and whatever is next, might be something YOU enjoy, in a "Free" Country........ so you might want to think first before you applaud the banning or taxing of something, someone else enjoys and you don't, because You're Next.


This is an excellent, if unpopular, viewpoint. It is amazing to me how many young folks just think it is okay for gov't to ban large drinks, or sugar intake or generally decide what is, or is not, good for us. I remember in 1966 when the federal gov't required american auto manufacturers to include seat belts in their cars by 1968. I claimed it was great because it would give people a choice. An elderly gentleman I worked with said that within my lifetime gov't would REQUIRE folks to war seat belts. I laughed at him and told him he was a bitter old man. Within 15 yrs he was vindicated. What started out as a choice has become a requirement with large cask penalties if you don't comply. I find it amazing that some of the same states that ban smoking in any buildings want to legalize pot. Guess that kind of smoke doesn't affect the lungs, right
 
Kojak smoked like a chimney, but always asked permission when he went into someone's home or apartment. And of course, residents always said "yes".
 
FRR said:
WhoDat! said:
An elderly gentleman I worked with said that within my lifetime gov't would REQUIRE folks to war seat belts. I laughed at him and told him he was a bitter old man. Within 15 yrs he was vindicated. What started out as a choice has become a requirement with large cask penalties if you don't comply. I find it amazing that some of the same states that ban smoking in any buildings want to legalize pot. Guess that kind of smoke doesn't affect the lungs, right

I share your general sentiment on intrusion by legislation, although the seat-belt mandate for me transcends the "freedom of choice" argument. Seat belts clearly reduce the odds of serious and costly injuries for most accident victims, which would otherwise drive up settlement claims, thus auto insurance premiums for all licensed motorists. For this reason, I cope with the seatbelt law as a necessary evil. But I hear you loud and clear on the hypocracy of smoking laws and the lunacy of leglizing pot.
 
jfrancispastirchak said:
FRR said:
WhoDat! said:
An elderly gentleman I worked with said that within my lifetime gov't would REQUIRE folks to war seat belts. I laughed at him and told him he was a bitter old man. Within 15 yrs he was vindicated. What started out as a choice has become a requirement with large cask penalties if you don't comply. I find it amazing that some of the same states that ban smoking in any buildings want to legalize pot. Guess that kind of smoke doesn't affect the lungs, right

I share your general sentiment on intrusion by legislation, although the seat-belt mandate for me transcends the "freedom of choice" argument. Seat belts clearly reduce the odds of serious and costly injuries for most accident victims, which would otherwise drive up settlement claims, thus auto insurance premiums for all licensed motorists. For this reason, I cope with the seatbelt law as a necessary evil. But I hear you loud and clear on the hypocracy of smoking laws and the lunacy of leglizing pot.
The smoking laws are there to protect those who DON'T want their air space polluted with a potentially lethal carcinogen--especially in enclosed areas. That said, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy--such as Progressive Field and Quicken Loan Arena in Cleveland, which were built with taxes from the sale of cigarettes and alcohol.
 
70 and 80s kid said:
FRR said:
Kojak smoked like a chimney, but always asked permission when he went into someone's home or apartment. And of course, residents always said "yes".

He never came to my house. :D

Good! enforce your own rules in your own house, Fine. but when the Federal Government sets the rules for everyone's house(and Lifestyle) thats where i have a problem. tell me where it says in the Constitution that the role of Government is to tell people what to eat, not to smoke, what to buy and how to live their lives.
 
WhoDat, somebody once said "Your rights end at my nose" or something like that. As much as I hate smoking, I probably would have endured it if it meant getting to hang out with Kojak or Rockford...
 
WhoDat! said:
70 and 80s kid said:
Good! enforce your own rules in your own house, Fine. but when the Federal Government sets the rules for everyone's house(and Lifestyle) thats where i have a problem. tell me where it says in the Constitution that the role of Government is to tell people what to eat, not to smoke, what to buy and how to live their lives.
I hear ya! As an American citizen, I too am a non-smoker, but one with a burning contempt for goverment intrusion. I keep a pocket copy of the constitution on hand for reference on other projects; while the obvious platitude of public welfare is always key, constitutional provisions are otherwise rooted in keeping government in check, ostensibly to prevent the nanny-state harassment happening today. Legislators get away with corrupting the spirit of it's intent because their constituents foolishly elect/re-elect them.

Hey, wait a minute. Holy cow, we've sure drifted from the "spirit" of this thread!
 
Mr. Head said:
How about the numerous smoking scenes on Chicago Hope? The doctors were regularly shown smoking cigars in their offices inside the hospital!

By the mid to late 90s, when Chicago Hope ran, I'm pretty sure smoking in public buildings (especially hospitals) was, for the most part, illegal.

I was in a car accident in 1975, and was taken to a hospital emergency room in Newhall, CA. The doctor who tended me was - I still can't believe it - smoking a big cigar in the ER while patching me up. Even in 1975, that was outrageous.
 
70 and 80s kid said:
WhoDat, somebody once said "Your rights end at my nose" or something like that. As much as I hate smoking, I probably would have endured it if it meant getting to hang out with Kojak or Rockford...

"The exact quote is, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begin," which I believe was made by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom