Amina, that is not what I said nor was I suggesting that. I don't understand how you are getting some of these things from what is being said.
It's one thing to just say "I don't like the smell of smoke," but that is not what was said nor was it how it was said:
Come on, aren't smokers known for their love of aerobic activity? Nothing like a smoke break on a long bike ride or a Marlboro in the middle of a 5K. How about post-coital jumping jacks instead of a smoke?
OMG smokers to me smell really dreadful and i am so glad that isn't me anymore.
I consider smelling like an ashtray a condition with social consequences, and I hardly think that the widespread desire for smokers to step outside can be attributed to zealotry. Asking that smokers consider the noses and lungs of those they share a room with is not an attempt to make anyone a pariah. Second-hand smoke is physically bothersome to many people. Again, we can't accuse ANTZ of propagandizing if we are doing it ourselves.
Yes, smoking legislation has gone too far, but I think much of it is a backlash against smokers who believe themselves entitled to blow pungent fumes into the air whenever and wherever they desire without consideration for the people around them.
We weren't saying that those who said these things
are ANTZ. What we were saying is that comments like those could very well have been taken off of an ANTZ web site and people should consider that when talking about vaping vs. smoking and how they are giving ANTZ tactics credibility when they continue the denigration of smokers started by the ANTZ. We need to be careful, because they are using the very same underhanded tactics on vapers.
Yes, smoke smells bad to a lot of people. But the whole "filthy, stinky & disgusting" campaign against smokers was created to turn society against them and has no basis in health or science. They will use the same tactic against us "weak-minded, selfish, junkie" nicotine users and smokeless tobacco users.
To illustrate "walking that line, " CASAA campaigns against e-cigarettes being included in indoor use bans, but we are very careful not to show support for indoor bans against smoking and try to remain neutral. Most of us feel it's a personal property rights issue and many of us think the science behind second-hand smoke in public places like bars (now even outdoors) is shaky at best. (We all have different opinions on this, so CASAA has no "official" position on smoking bans. I, for one, think business bans are unwarranted because of SHS, but I do think SHS exposure on a daily basis in a home or car has health consequences for children. Again - my personal belief.) Now ANTZ are using that same junk science to ban e-cigarettes indoors and also the tactic of how even looking at someone who looks like they are smoking is offensive - even without the smell.
Anyhow, so it's not really about expressing your opinion, it's about HOW the opinion is expressed. The above quotes would be pretty offensive to many smokers and the ANTZ would love to see it. To answer your question - yes, the ANTZ get control of the use of
that kind of language, because we hope to expose it for what it really is and we want nothing to do with it - it's just ammunition for them to ban all nicotine products except Big Pharma's.
