Self-righteous non-smoker chides NYC smoker, gets stabbed in face with a pen

[Rage for Order]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pen_attack

A New Jersey woman was stabbed in the face with a pen on a New York City subway train after she tried to stop a man from lighting a cigarette.

The assault occurred on a crowded No. 3 train near the Chambers Street station during Tuesday's morning rush.

Witnesses told the Daily News and the New York Post that an argument quickly escalated when Evelyn Seeger asked the man not to smoke. The witnesses say two riders were trying to restrain the man when he pulled out a pen and slashed Seeger's face.

Seeger, of Nutley, N.J., was treated at a hospital and released. Police charged the man with felony assault and criminal possession of a weapon.

[Common Sense Party]

1. Moral of the story: Smokers should be left alone.

Two people couldn't keep one guy from slashing someone with a pen?

[Rage for Order]

168. Many more details revealed in the subway blog:

For the record, I don't think the woman deserved to be attacked.

Note to mods: It is my understanding that blogs of this type aren't copyright-protected, so we're not limited to the normal 4 paragraphs. If this is not correct please let me know and I will edit

http://www.subwaysubculture.blogspot.com/

Here are two eyewitness accounts:

I was on this train and was one of the samaritans who held this guy down until the cops arrived. Here's some more background, which the article didn't report.
- The guy started rolling a blunt (it wasn't a cigarette, not that it truly matters), and the argument started when he tried to light it. The argument went on and was pretty aggressive (verbally) for about a minute before he swung at her and hit her with the pencil on the forehead.
- Pretty quickly after this a few witnesses pounced on the guy and pinned him in the corner of the car. He was fighting back pretty strongly, and at one point he got his hand into his pocket and grabbed a (folding) knife.
- Even though his hand was free at this time, his arm was restrained and a witness very quickly was able to take the knife away.
- It took a while between when the fight started (between 14th and Chambers, on the express) and when the cops arrived on the platform at Chambers. While we were holding him, it was pretty clear that the guy had a lot of problems. (If that was unclear previously.)
The homeless guy was definitely crazy and the aggressor here, but the lady also was - in my opinion, and with hindsight - acting out of hand. It was pretty clear watching this develop that neither of them was going to step down, and that this guy was going to go after her. I can't stand people smoking or being rude on the train, but she definitely needlessly put herself (and others) at risk.
It all happened quickly and I jumped in when the fight broke out, but afterwards I thought that if the guy got to his knife (or worse) more quickly, it could have been a real bad situation. There are worse things than people smoking on the train, and I walked away a bit later very upset at the lady.
Two more things... after giving a statement at the precinct the detective told me that the homeless guy had 56 priors. (FIFTY SIX!) And, because some other commenters alluded to race... both the man and the woman were white - it definitely wasn't a racial thing.

--Marc

I rode the train earlier than usual today in an attempt to get to work earlier than usual. This train ride was definitely not the usual. Here's what happened:

I'm riding the train, reading my April Elle and still smirking from the cutie who kept making eyes before just getting off the train. (Super random interjection, but why didn't he just say something? I definitely caught him staring 3+times. This isn't the L train...no missed connections here buddy. OK. This is rude. This story is bigger than this. /digression)

We continue riding and I hear a commotion. A woman is yelling at a guy, but I'm not sure what it's about. I chalk it up to stressed out New Yorkers and continue reading about Gwen Stefani & No Doubt's reunion assuming they would soon realize they were being silly and stop. They don't. The woman gets louder and says "Don't light that thing on the train!" I look over and see that the guy she's yelling at has a lighter and the flames seem larger than normal. It wasn't one of those $.99 cents Bic lighters, it was pretty hardcore. Congratulations kids, I'm now alarmed. The woman continues to tell the guy to stop and tries to knock the lighter from his hand and things get physical. The entire train is looking at this go down and people are starting to get a little frantic. The man tells the woman "I will f*cking kill you". The woman yells at the man "I will f*cking kill YOU!!" They are pushing one another. Another woman steps in to help.

OK. STOP.

This is where I get mad. Like, livid. I don't care if this is a feminist society and we're in the middle of a freaking bra-burning campfire. If a man is getting physical with a woman, why in the hell are men just standing around looking?!? My brain couldn't process this. I finally literally yell out "Why aren't any of you men helping?!?" At that point, 2 men run over to try to help restrain the guy. For context, this guy is probably 5'7 150lbs...I could probably take him. I'm in the middle of the car trying to calm people down and I look over and see blood gushing from the woman's face. While she was restraining the guy in the corner, he took out his knife (edit: according to reports it was a pen) and SLASHED her face - from her temple to her nose. Yes. I'm riding the train to work...and someone has just gotten stabbed in the face. Twilight-freaking-zone. The craziest part is that the woman continues to try to get the knife (pen) from the guy and beats his hand until he drops it. She's obviously running on adrenaline. We are still between 14th & Chambers.

People are freaking out. 2 of us step up. 1 guy stops the people from pulling the emergency lever. That will only make the situation worst. I send someone to the conductor so he can call the police. The train starts to slow down though we are 2 stations away in an attempt to give the cops time to get to the station. The guy is now being held up by 5 guys in the corner. The woman is sitting on the train bench with blood gushing from her face and I'm standing there trying to calm people down. People are looking at me for instructions on what to do next, but what could we do?!

I started praying. Out loud. I prayed for that woman's health, her face and her family. I prayed that we were all safe. Amen.

[Mimosa]

276. Is there a way to notify Transit Police?

These days I just wouldn't risk confronting anybody on public transit. There are crazy violent people riding and driving on the roads, too.

[Bucky]

307. Legally speaking, everything on the internet is published & subject ot copyright protections

Blogs are published works, so technically the four paragraph rule applies. That said, the four paragraph rule is silly & arbitrary.

[JackBeck]

2. There is nothing self-righteous about asking someone

not to smoke on a subway car, regardless if it's crowded or not.

Why did you feel the need to add snark to the article's title?

[ixion]

10. Because anti-smoking zealots are self-righteous extremists

that's why.

[JackBeck]

It's been against the law to smoke on the subway for decades.

There's nothing extreme with asking someone to abide by the law. The OP is editorializing by adding 'self-righteous' to the title of the article, which is misleading and only asking for confrontation.

You seem to be looking for one as well.

Have fun with that.

[ixion]

19. The law was forced by a minority group of extremists

just because it's a 'law' doesn't make it right.

[MedicalAdmin]

28. Hi, I run a medical clinic.

This is a comment from our medical director who is looking over my shoulder. "The evidence is clear, comprehensive, documented, reproduced, and incontrovertible; smoking causes health problems. If you want to smoke then do it on your time, in your property and in a way that doesn't inpact anyone else. To do so in a public place where it is against the law is not only stupid but also indefensible from a medical point of view."

So nyah.

[ixion]

33. Hi. I'm a free citizen living is a (supposedly) free country,

and you and your medical director are free to live as you choose. All I ask is the same courtesy.

[MedicalAdmin]

35. You live in Canada?

'Cause if you live here then you really need to read the patriot act and then tell me about how free you are without habeus corpus.

[ixion]

38. hence the (suppposedly)

and, yes, I'm painfully aware of the unPATRIOTic Act, a piece of legislation passed by a different group of extremists. Thank you for helping me make my point.

[MedicalAdmin]

40. I'm glad you see the irony.

So let me ask you a question regarding freedom. Do your rights extend to having a negative effect on others health, or should it?

[ixion]

62. My rights should be, in theory, to live as I choose... look, it's not that hard:

If you don't like a bar because it's smoky, don't go to that bar.

I don't particularly care to eat in a restaurant near a table with a bunch of kids. I don't try and change the law, though, I eat when they're not there. It's respecting other people's right to live that is the issue. If you don't like smoke in an establishment, fine, don't go there. But smokers ought not to be relegated to second-class citizens just because of your lifestyle choices.

There's plenty of space for everyone. We just need to allow people to be what we are: human.

[titaniumsalute]

86. I find your argument very interesting

"My rights should be, in theory, to live as I choose... look, it's not that hard"

With that argument I should have the right to move in next to you and build a small nuclear reactor to power my house. If I have a small nuclear meltdown that sends radiation into the air...fuck it. It's my right. If cancer causing radiation enters into your body it's not my problem.

I should be able to move in next door and burn my used tires. It's my right to let those noxious fumes float into your property to be inhaled by you. It's not my problem.

If I decide to burn baby diapers (I had a neighbor doing this years ago) that are both plastic and could have diseases that become airborn it is my right. If you breathe the shitty diapers that's not my problem.

Your logic is not right. No one can tell you to smoke or not smoke in the privacy of your own home. But when your smoke is inhaled by my 12 or 6 year old growing boys...your are no longer only dealing with your rights.

Eating next to kids is not subjecting you to health concerns. You may be grumpy because you don't like kids, but it is not intruding on your rights.

[ixion]

91. "Eating next to kids is not subjecting you to health concerns" Excuse me?

Eating next to kids is one way disease get transmitted. Sorry, no dice on that one.

And you don't find my argument interesting at all. It just gave you a chance to flex your extremist rage. Good for you.

[titaniumsalute]

95. LOL...I now realize you're just kidding with all these posts

Eating next to PEOPLE is one way disease gets transmitted unless adult bodies mutated overnight and no longer can spread diseases.

Glad I'm an adult so I can no longer spread diseases. Phew.

You never responded to the rest of my post because it follows the same logic you put forth. I can send noxious fumes your way because it is my right to do so? Bullshit. You'd throw a fit like anyone else would throw.

There's no rage...just logic.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. So do you accept that it's legitimate to restrict smoking anywhere, at all?

How about at the gas station? Inside preschools? In the ICU?

Since 'extremists' think there should be any regulation at all on where people can smoke, apparently.

[ixion]

102. geez

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

170. Is that a yes, or a no?

:shrug:

[ixion]

214. I think your examples are extreme, as are your views.

So why even bother to waste energy trying to give you an answer? You're trying to bait me with extreme situations, which is not the topic at hand.

Should you have an open flame around flammable things? Only if you have a yearning to be burned. But we're not talking about flammable environments. That is something different and you know it.

[Warren DeMontague]

266. So you accept that it is legitimate to restrict smoking in SOME locations, then.

How about preschools? On airplanes? The Asthma ward at the hospital?

Seriously. Let's figure out where the line is.

Because here's the thing, Jack: I am NOT an 'extremist'. I support regulating smoking in enclosed, indoor, public spaces- much the situation we have in most places today, that you find so intolerable. I don't want to outlaw cigarettes or throw smokers in jail- that would be, to my mind, the 'extremist' position.

Asking smokers to go outside before lighting up is not that much of an imposition and is not 'extremist'. Having a temper tantrum because you don't want to go outside or wait until the next subway stop, THAT is the extremist position.

[DonCoquixote]

182. It's one thing

for you to smoke in your home, or in someplace that is smoking friendly.

It's another for you to do it in a SUBWAY where people have no choice.

And it is still another thing for you to stab someone in the face.

[ixion]

215. gee, no kidding

[Bake]

98. Your examples are gross (and grotesque) exaggerations.

If your next door neighbor smokes a cigg -- hell, if your neighbor chain-smokes -- it's nowhere near the risk of your hypothetical reactor! And nowhere near the nuisance that your tire-burning would create.

You just make yourself sound like an irrational Smoke Nazi by making those ridiculous comparisons.

Having said that, I SMOKE. I don't do it on a subway or a bus or a plane or anywhere it's prohibited. I don't toss my butts on the street. I'm considerate. But if, hypothetically, I'm on MY PROPERTY, at MY HOME, and somebody comes up to bitch me out about smoking, yeah, I'm going to assume that's a bit self-righteous.

:smoke:

Bake

[titaniumsalute]

99. I agree with you completely - it was far fetched

But if a smoker is close enough quarters (like a subway car) to breathe the smoke on me then it isn't a stretch at all.

Thank you for being responsible with smoking. You can do anything you want in your own home. If anyone came up to you in your home or on your property then yes that would be beyond self-righteous. (And probably deserves an ass kicking.)

[Bake]

100. I'd escort them off my property.

Might even blow smoke in their general direction. But stab them with a pen? Naaaaaah.

The subway guy wasn't just an "evil smoker," he was obviously an unbalanced individual who happened to smoke.

:smoke:

Bake

[era veteran]

176. I'm with you, I smoke, love tobacco, and hate it too.

I don't smoke inside and haven't for years. I go out on the porch and smoke. I don't put my jones in anybodies space. Common courtesy has been replaced by the common.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Or, you can move to a state or country that lets you smoke in the bar or restauarant.

I'm old enough to remember how things used to be. There were no "non smoking" bars or restauarants, and I suspect you know that. Then there was the "non smoking section", yeah, that worked real well.

Now, you have to go outside. So, you can go outside and smoke, you can go outside and smoke and piss and moan about how oppressed you are for having to do it, or you can quit.

Or, you can move. Because these laws aint changing, bud. Never. Sorry.

[ixion]

103. Thanks to extremists such places are few and far between, but I'll tell you

I'm not moving to satisfy a zealot.

[Warren DeMontague]

172. I'm not suggesting you move to satisfy me.

I'm thinking that if it's that much of a giant imposition to go outside before lighting up, you might be happier in Europe. Seriously.

[verges]

118. And non-smokers should

just wait until a train with no smoker's comes along!! that's pretty simple.:eyes:

[themadstork]

173. This is Tea Party freedom.

No sensible definition of freedom includes the right to introduce others to substances dangerous to their health.

[Warren DeMontague]

175. Or, "Fuck You" Freedom.

Basically saying, I'm the only schmuck in the whole world, and all of you can piss off.

It's the same sort of 'freedom' that says the onerous government regulations that prevent me from dumping toxic waste in the river are an unacceptable transgression upon my liberty.

[era veteran]

216. Straight out of 'The Libertarian Manifesto"

Here is a link to get your talking points straightened out. http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Waaaaaah. I can't smoke on the subway. Waaaaaaah.

You know, if people are so attached to those things that they feel the need to assault someone, jab them in the face with a fucking pen, when asked to put the thing out in a place where smoking it is prohibited anyway, then really, they should get help for the fucking addiction.

And where is the "alcoholism makes people violent, smokes don't!!!" crowd, now? Seems like the nic-fit made this shit-wit violent.

Nice job blaming the victim of a horrible assault, too. Real nice.

[ixion]

66. Spoken like a true extremist

Extra choco-rations for you, comrade!

[Warren DeMontague]

94. I'm an extremist because I won't let you smoke on the subway?

Oh, it must be extremely frustrating, living in a totalitarian society that makes you go outside before lighting up.

Again. Waaaaah.

[ixion]

106. Yes.

Because what you're doing is forcing people to live them the way YOU want them to live. How about sharing the subways?

[bluestate10]

117. Smoking around people that do not smoke is not forcing THEM to live

the way that you want them to? Your arguments are fucking insane. In a society every person gives up some freedom. Insisting that you have absolute rights and that anyone that does not share your habit is a zealot is the definition of zealotry.

[ixion]

145. No, they're realistic and not extremist

You don't need the whole damn restaurant, and if you do, it's you who have the problem.

I'm saying the smokers and non-smokers need to live together and exist together. There's nothing insane about that.

[Warren DeMontague]

171. How long have you been smoking?

Good God, buddy. If it's that much of an issue to you to have to go outside or wait for the next subway stop, maybe you should consider the patch, or gum.

[Common Sense Party]

180. Tomorrow, I'm going to drop trou and masturbate next to you on the subway.

You're cool with that, right? We're just living and existing together, so it's okay.

[Warren DeMontague]

189. Alcohol, Masturbation, Shitting, and Abortion are all legal.

Therefore, I should be able to get drunk in the middle of a police station, masturbate in center field during the 8th inning of a Dodgers game, take a shit in the meat locker of the local Embassy Suites, and get an abortion at a Kragen Auto Parts.

Because any limitation whatsoever on where I can do something is exactly the same thing as taking away my right to do it at ALL!!!

:crazy:

[Common Sense Party]

224. Exactly. It's only natural. What's with all the fascists?!? n/t

[ixion]

208. knock yourself out

Makes no difference to me.

[Common Sense Party]

225. Right.

And when I'm done I'm going to let rip the foulest fart you've ever smelled. It helps me relax. Thank goodness I won't bother you.

By the way, which subway car will you be on?

[CTyankee]

269. well, you'll see that too if you ride the NYC subways regularly...

move along, nothing to see here...

[Common Sense Party]

279. It's still not something that polite citizens do next to an innocent bystander.

[CTyankee]

280. I don't disagree with you at all. I was just remarking on something

that pretty much happens in the NYC subways.

I swear I don't know how I did it riding the subway back when I lived in NYC (I was in my 20s!). When I go into the city now I avoid the subway and take the bus or walk, if possible.

[Common Sense Party]

281. Aren't the NYC subways supposed to be much cleaner and safer than they were

20 years ago?

[CTyankee]

285. 20 years ago? Thank you!

I rode one subway back in 2009 and it was OK. So I can't really compare it to the 70s. I think you are right but I don't have much experience there now...

I do know that Grand Central Station is now really beautiful and when I was commuting from NYC to Westchester County it was a bit of a dump. Homeless people were sleeping on its benches. It was sad.

Still, New York is not Paris, where Le Metro is old, like NYC. Too bad, too...

[CTyankee]

268. If you ever go to NYC I hope you DON'T ride the subways...

because Noo Yawkers are fearless about getting into your face if you do stupid stuff like try to smoke in a crowded subway. I'm laughing just thinking about that woman in the subway cuz it reminds me of how tough these NYC women can be...you'd probably find yourself shoved off the train at the next stop...and you'd be glad to be there! :rofl:

[Very_Boring_Name]

79. I choose to live freely without you harming me

You wanna kill yourself, do it on your own time without bringing me down with you.

[bluestate10]

115. You have no right to impose yourself on others. If you want to smoke

in public, tie a non flammable bag tightly over your head and knock yourself out. If you can't do that then realize that you have no fucking right to determine what is best for others by insisting that you have some god given right to smoke while among other people.

[ixion]

146. nor do you

and these days, that's exactly what anti-smoking extremists are doing.

[bluestate10]

154. Go have a cigarette. You seem edgy. nt

[MedicalAdmin]

238. Do you have a link or picture of these extremists.

Are they redflagged by the DHS? Should they be on the no fly list? Does the SPLC know about them?

Links? Help a guy out here. I could be living next door to one of these dangerous extremists and not even know it. Is the like a Megan's law identifying these dastardly dudes?

[KurtNYC]

144. if they ask me you can smoke if you want to but not on a crowded train

By NYC standards a subway car is not full if you can still see your own feet. On a full car your heads are within 12 inches of each other and your clothes are touching. While I might appreciate some free 2nd hand smoke I'd rather not have anyone's hair or clothing lit up while we are all crammed into a metal tube at 60 MPH.

[DonCoquixote]

181. and of course

You have the right to make everyone around you sick, especially in places like subways that are not all that well vented as is.

By the way, considering most Tobacco companies are major GOP contributors, the right wing thanks you for smoking.

[Deep13]

252. Hypocrit.

That's the courtesy you will not extend to those who choose not to be subjected to your disgusting habit.

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Get over yourself and realize that other people deserve some consideration too.

[tabasco]

315. So, if I decide to take a piss on your leg, you won't mind -

it being a free country and all.

[TNLib]

60. Self Righteous?? What if she had asthma?

People suck I hope they lock up the smoker for a long time.

[MedicalAdmin]

116. What did I say that was self righteous?

[leeroysphitz]

212. Your director should learn how to spell.n/t

[MedicalAdmin]

237. I was typing. I have dyslexia.

Sorry - I try to catch it all but there are some mistakes that just look OK to me even when they aren't. She spells fine, thank you. I'm the dope with the disability.


So no comment on her points, or are you just in the conversation to comment on spelling?

[RamboLiberal]

47. Bullshit - majority are non-smokers if you haven't noticed

[LiberalFighter]

61. You got that right.

I know fewer and fewer that smoke.

[bluestate10]

119. 75%+ of people in the USA don't smoke. Few of them are zealots. nt

[RamboLiberal]

155. Most still would tell someone on a subway not to smoke

[musette_sf]

132. I've ridden the NYC subways since 1962

and the No Smoking rule was in effect then.

So I don't know where you're getting this "The law was forced by a minority group of extremists" line from.

[WatsonT]

220. If smoking only hurt smokers I'd say light up anywhere anytime

unfortunately there's this pesky thing called second hand smoke. . .

Like for instance: if you had the hobby of collecting infectious diseases, cultivating them, forming them in to capsules then spraying it around you in a mist that'd be perfectly normal and fine. Pretty much a typical afternoon for an American these days. But the FBI might take issue with you doing that on a crowded subway.

[joeybee12]

240. Well, Big D, what about the fact of having an open flame in a closed area...

But addicts like you will try to justify your addiction any way you can.

[Deep13]

243. In Ohio, the indoor smoking ban was approved by initiative.

For the strick ban to take effect, the voters had to reject a watered down version that was presented as a state Constitutional amendment at the same time. That's what they did. A majority both rejected the lesser ban and approved the strict ban.

So, you're wrong.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

253. lol.

[CTyankee]

265. Haven't you ever been on a crowded subway before?

Smoking aside, it's dangerous to flick on a lighter or light a match in a crowded subway. Fires in subways are no joking matter.

Common sense would tell you that...

[blondeatlast]

17. "...ASKED the man not to smoke." Then gets stabbed.

Riiiiight...

[LeftishBrit]

49. You don't have to be an anti-smoking zealot to object to someone smoking on a crowded train

Apart from the unpleasantness to others who have to breathe your smoke, there is a risk of fire. Smoking was banned on British public transport long before other smoking bans, because a smoker carelessly dropped a match and caused a major fire at Kings Cross Station in 1987. 31 people were killed.

I know plenty of people who smoke but they would not do so on a crowded train - it's just common sense, not to mention obeying the law.

[frylock]

108. and smokers are inconsiderate assholes

[bluestate10]

113. The guy was a braying jackass to try smoke where smoking is not allowed. The woman

was fully within her rights to ask him not to light up. He should be convicted and sent to jail for assault with a deadly weapon. If the pen had punctured the woman's eye it could have killed her.

[Darth_Kitten]

114. Actually, it seems the smoking zealots are the self-righteous morons.

:eyes:

[YellowRubberDuckie]

157. No we're not.

We just don't want to die because of some inconsiderate asshole who doesn't care that he's not only killing himself, but those around him. I watched too many people in my family die because of it, and I think they need to be completely banned.

[sudopod]

226. I think making jokes about women being stabbed in the face may make you a bad person. nt

[Deep13]

242. Cry me a river.

If you don't like the complaints, then don't smoke around us. Very simply, really. I don't see why I should have to be exposed to a toxic and obnoxious smell because someone else made a stupid decision to start smoking.

[Lucky Luciano]

300. Smoking is so ghetto.

Don't know why anyone would want to be associated so proudly with such a low class thing.

[hlthe2b]

13. +++++++

Absolutely.

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. So it's "self-righteous" to want to not smoke someone elses cigarette?

I'd call it self preservation. You're a smoker, right?

[Donnachaidh]

6. actually, considering all the other odorous shit flying around th subway sytem

Yes, it's self-righteous and sanctimonious to pick a fight. And stupid to boot. :shrug:

[damntexdem]

8. I see, protecting our health from scofflaws is "self righteous."

Well, all I can say is that we need much, much more self-righteousness in our society.

Many smokers are themselves victims; but defenders of smoker abusers are a plague.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

18. So it's perfectly okay to stab others? Wow. nt

[ixion]

21. of course not...I'm not saying what the guy did was right, I'm saying

it's a result of anti-smoking zealots trying to force the world to live the way they want. They're as bad as the Taliban, in my opinion, because their goal is the same: control other people's lives to the highest degree possible. And that is something by which I cannot abide.

[blondeatlast]

23. "...(anti-smoking) zealots are as bad as the Taliban." Um, no.

when was the last time such a zealot stoned anyone to death?

Fucking. Holy. :wow:

[ixion]

31. Their application of their power is not the question, but the application itself

this group feels that the world should live inside their perspective, which is an extremist viewpoint, just like the Taliban, just like the RW fundie whackos, just like every other extremist. The methods and goals are the same, the way they go about achieving those goals is in the details, but it remains extremist nonetheless.

[bluestate10]

122. Smoking is a choice. You have no right to impose your choice on others.

The issue has no relation to the Taliban or rightwing extremists. Not smoking in an environment where 75%+ of the people near you likely do not smoke is a matter of simple courtesy.

[Ikonoklast]

25. You have no right to curtail the rights of others.

Practice your addiction in private, your rights end at my nose.

[ixion]

29. Isn't that interesting. In the very same breath, you chastise me for

'curtailing the rights of others' and then proceed to tell me just what rights you think I ought to have.

Self-righteous much? :eyes:

[Ikonoklast]

41. Blow smoke in my face.

I'll let you know.

[ixion]

63. Now, why would I do something like that? It would be rude.

this is exactly what I'm talking about.

[bluestate10]

124. You blow smoke in people's faces every time you light up in public.

I doubt that your senses are attuned to how far cigarette smoke travels. Everyone within 15 feet of a bozo that lights up on a train, or plane, or bus are having the jackass' smoke blown in their face.

[ixion]

147. No, that is a perception of your phobia

seek help.

[xocet]

84. Well...

If someone pisses on the floor next to your feet, based on your analysis of the situation, you would need to stand there and just take the splatter. I doubt that you would. Would you? After all, you could not say anything by your argument to limit the rights of the pisser lest you label yourself self-righteous.

You should demonstrate the strength of your convictions on video and send that video on to Tosh.0. Then everyone could have a few laughs at your doctrinaire attitudes. Maybe keyboard cat could play you off.

[ixion]

149. You're very smug in your extremism...

that's typical.

[xocet]

187. Hey, it is your own argument that does not work with a variation of its parameters....

There is nothing smug about that. Yes, the Tosh.0 comments may be over the top - so I retract those; however, your comments do nothing to reinforce the weakness of your earlier argument. An objective independent party can easily see that no one would expect you to stand and absorb splatter - by the same token, you should not expect anyone to stand and inhale smoke. Smoke and piss are both waste products. Please rebut the argument if you can. So far, all you have produced are ad hominem attacks. Normally, that form of discussion is not considered to be a valid means of argumentation.

[LeftishBrit]

57. As bad as the Taliban? Come on!

I know you don't like anti-smokers; but it really isn't common for anti-smokers to commit terrorist murders of civilians, stone people to death for adultery, behead foreigners, or prevent girls from getting an education.

That is an insult to the victims of the Taliban.

[ixion]

64. They are in same in their goal: to force others to live by their code

so in that sense, they are EXACTLY like the Taliban, and any other extremist group.

[blondeatlast]

105. Ridiculous, but you just go on. Bless your heart. nt

[Common Sense Party]

231. +1,000,000 for the "bless your heart."

The most devastating non-insult insult.

[blondeatlast]

244. Gramma came from Macon. nt

[Common Sense Party]

257. I figured there had to be some Southern connection.

I heard that several times when I lived in Nashville.

[bluestate10]

125. No one is forcing smokers to live by their code. Smoking among other

people demonstrates crudeness, ignorance and outright concrete headed stupidity. If smokers want to go into spaces where they can smoke, I say let them smoke all they want. But when in places where others must journey, smokers have no right to smoke. Your attempt to tie smoking laws to taliban doctrine is a complete failure of reasoning.

[Warren DeMontague]

190. So when the EPA regulates toxic waste in rivers, they're exactly like the Taliban, right?

Because they're forcing the poor oppressed corporations that simply want to be left alone to dump crap into the river, to "live by their code".

[johnroshan]

204. Nope...

The actions of smokers DIRECTLY affect the health of nearby non smokers, especially in a closed environment like a subway train. They are merely trying to save themselves from cancer or whatever comes from inhaling tobacco fumes..

Taliban however is entirely different in that even though education of women, liberalization of dress codes don't affect them directly, their sense of "morality" is offended. That is why they attack and kill civilians. That, and the 72 virgin thing maybe...

Two totally different scenarios.

[polly7]

249. I think they just want control over 'their own' lives. Which would include

of course their own health .. which it's been proven, could be compromised because of second hand smoke. They don't smoke themselves, why should they chance becoming sick for something they've chosen not to do?


I'm a smoker. It doesn't hurt anyone to smoke where they won't affect people who don't.

[MedicalAdmin]

30. Why should we have to pick and choose?

I choose to stand up to any threat to the publics safety. It's a known and proven carcinogenic - I take it you won't mind if I spray you with round-up?

No? Why so self righteous?

[ixion]

36. Have you looked at the ingredients in the food you eat?

This is what gets me. There are far greater concerns than smokers, and yet anti-smoking extremists choose to focus on this issue.

I have news for you: Life is a threat to public safety. Life is not a theme park. It is absolutely impossible for you to remove the nasties.

[MedicalAdmin]

42. I actually do look at the ingredients in the food I eat.

It's one of the things we do at our clinic. As such I can tell you that there is only food in my food. It is all organic/fair trade/locally sourced and purchased from stores that offer a living wage and health care...

Having said that I agree with you that there are larger issues, especially the drek that passes for food in our stores, but why limit our fight to one thing. I support all efforts that benefit the public health and for me smoking is one of those things. You are correct about the raising incidence of diabetes, heart disease, obesity, insulin resistance, and related metabolic diseases and syndromes.

But isn't it OK to have smoke free public spaces? Isn't that a laudable goal?

[ixion]

89. It's one thing for a clinic to encourage people not to smoke.

It's another thing all together to go from there to "smoke free" public spaces. I believe there should be a space for all kinds of humans, those who smoke, and those who don't.

A note on 'smoke free': It's not. There are all kinds of by-products floating around in the air, and forcing smokers to live by the rules of non-smokers doesn't change that one bit.

[MedicalAdmin]

109. You are absolutely right.

Let's go back to leaded gas. And fuck the catalytic converter too.

[blondeatlast]

123. DDT was damn effective4 too. nt

[ixion]

150. *facepalm*

It is impossible to have a rational conversation with an extremist.

[DonCoquixote]

183. OK

First off, we are talking about a SUBWAY...a subway forces people into a crowded space. It is not a backyard, it is not a public street, it is a tube that circulates air. What is so fascist about asking people not to FORCE others to breath in smoke. Even if you carried around a smokeless ashtray, it would not help on a subway.

[ixion]

209. To accomodate the delicate sensibilities of some

I'm fine with having smoking and non-smoking cars... but, see, that's not good enough for anti-smoking extremists. They want it all.

[Warren DeMontague]

191. Unintentional Irony Award

You Win!

[ixion]

210. I have spoken of compromise and common ground

Please explain to me how that view is in any way extremist, while demanding that huge swaths of public space OPEN TO ALL be designated to the tastes of some is not.

Nice try, no dice. The unintentional irony award is yours, my non-smoking human.

[CTyankee]

271. "unintentional irony" indeed!

The reason I am laughing at you is that it is obvious that you have NO idea of what you are talking about! "Huge swaths of public space"?

At rush hour on NYC subways you are often lucky to get in the subway car at all. You can literally have your arms pinned to your sides it is so crowded. If you are lucky you can grab the pole to keep yourself from falling over when the train swerved on the tracks going at a nice, fast clip. You sometimes have to fight your way OFF the subway at your stop. And you don't have a lot of time when the doors open. If you are a woman you have to develop strategies to deal with the creeps who are trying to feel you up (a well placed stiletto high heel on the guy's foot has been recommended).

I would actually feel very sorry for you if you ever found yourself on a NYC subway, particularly at rush hour...stay on your planet, it's better for you...

[Violet_Crumble]

143. I was a heavy smoker until recently, and I totally disagree with what you've said in this thread...

And back when I was a heavy smoker I would have felt exactly the same way. I used to know people who would see nothing wrong with them smoking away while everyone else was sitting down to eat, or smoking in someone else's car and throwing the butts out the window. Back then I considered them to be ignorant and obnoxious wankers who gave other smokers a bad name, and as far as I'm concerned anyone who thinks they've got a right to smoke on public transport and everyone else can just fuck off is right up there on the list....

[ixion]

211. While you may disagree

that doesn't change the fact that your views are extremists. Much like a reformed alcoholic, you've gone from one end to the other.

I'm talking about compromise, and you're talking about having things your way. Period.

[Violet_Crumble]

297. I said in my post I feel the same way as back when I was a heavy smoker...

You think there's something extremist about thinking smokers who smoke in other people's cars and throw butts out windows, who sit and smoke at the dinner table while others are trying to eat, or who insist on smoking on public transport are selfish fuckwits who give all other smokers a bad name??

Yr not talking about compromise. Yr talking about wanting smokers who do those things I said to be able to do them and fuck anyone who has a problem with it....

I'll repeat again since you apparently missed it the first time round. My views are the same as back when I was a heavy smoker, and fyi I still have the occasional smoke I bum off friends if we're out drinking. Idiots who are so zealoted in their urge to smoke everywhere regardless of the impact on others and how fucking anti-social or dangerous to otherss it it are the ones to blame for the ever increasing restrictions on smoking in public places. Thanks a fucking lot!

[Warren DeMontague]

299. We already have compromise. The compromise is, go outside

before lighting up.

[qazplm]

44. the difference is

no one forces me to eat that food. Smokers on the other hand by polluting the air don't give me much choice, particularly in an enclosed space such as the subway.

[ixion]

65. All it takes is a willingness to accept others for who they are

that is really the issue here. I'm all for smoking and non-smoking subways. It's the ALL non-smoking that concerns me.

[Yo_Mama]

72. That's true, but

If the person next to me on subway is eating an apple with pesticide levels I don't want to eat, none of it goes down my throat.

I am a smoker (quit three times), but frankly I think it's disgusting to make someone else inhale my smoke.

Air is just different than food. Whatever happened to "Good fences make good neighbors?"

Not that I really think this incident had much to do with smoking, except that I am shocked to see people apparently defending a physical assault stemming from a request to obey the law. It sure looks like this is a case of a mentally ill homeless person who lost it.

[blondeatlast]

83. Exactly--but the OP framed the headline to suit her/his agenda. There's all kindza wrong

here--but we can't get at it here due to the framing.

[demwing]

261. Wrong. The smoker picked the fight when he lit up.

The woman was in her right.

the smoker was an asshole, and if smoking on a train didn't prove that, stabbing faces on a train (or anywhere else) should have been your next clue.

Why the fuck are you defending this piece of shit?

[ixion]

16. self preservation would have been to leave the person alone

as is evidenced by the result.

[Chorophyll]

111. Have you ever been on a crowded subway train in New York?

They are sometimes packed so thickly your feet don't touch the floor. Striking a match or flicking a lighter is a dangerous act, let alone smoking. Smoking has been illegal in the subways for as long as I can remember. There's no defense for the pen-stabber. Sorry.

[ixion]

213. Yes, I have.

There were all kinds of people on the train, and you know what? It didn't bother me at all.

But then, I find the differences in humans interesting, and don't believe in a one-lifestyle-fits-all point of view.

[Chorophyll]

221. I know. You're the king of tolerance. But

I am talking about the actual danger inherent in lighting up right on top of someone else's newspaper or woolen winter coat.

[Rage for Order]

46. No, I'm not a smoker. I quit a little over 2 years ago

But I didn't join the anti-smoking Inquisition after I quit, and I always tried be a courteous smoker before I quit

[Scurrilous]

4. Subway Slasher Used A Pen, Smoked A Blunt

<snip>

"More facts have emerged from yesterday's subway face slashing. Despite initial reports that the attack on the 3 train took place with a pencil, it now appears the weapon was a pen. And that cigarette that the attacker was supposedly lighting up on the subway? It was actually more like a blunt. Perhaps he thought yesterday was 4/20?

Police arrested 35-year-old Cordero Coroberto, who has no permanent address, after the incident and charged him with second-degree assault, criminal possession of a weapon and possession of marijuana. He reportedly has a long list of priors for things like sleeping on the subway, turnstile jumping and criminal mischief.

Meanwhile the victim, Evelyn Seeger of Nutly, New Jersey, was given a tetanus shot and treated for a slash from her temple to her nose yesterday before being sent home. The argument between Seeger and Coroberto reportedly started after she chided him for trying to light a blunt on the crowded train."

http://gothamist.com/2011/04/20/subway_slasher_used_a_pen_smoked_a.php

[Donnachaidh]

5. The NYC subway system is awash with foul odors, especially in the summer

But now that it's open war on smokers in NYC -- she expected to harrass with no consequences.

Darwin award nominees -- both of them. :shrug:

[damntexdem]

15. "Harass" my ass. She expected to exercise her rights without being brutally assaulted.

And it doesn't matter what was being lit up -- lighting it up was itself an assault on all others in the subway car.

But, OK, I'll endorse that war on scofflaw smokers in any city's public transit.

[damntexdem]

7. Unrec because of loaded title.

Here is what happened: Nonsmoker attempting to protect herself from unlawful activity brutally assaulted by tobacco addict.

"Self-righteous" my ass!

[Yo_Mama]

20. Marijuana addict - Get It Right

The lady certainly had the right to insist that no one smoke - guy who attacked her is not only a nasty idiot, but is going to spend richly deserved time in jail for it.

I don't understand the "self-righteous" description. It's the law. It's hard to imagine anyone asking another person to obey the law being described as "self-righteous".

One thing that amuses me is that this incident so defies the popular stereotype of your marijuana smoker as a laid-back, mellow character.

[notadmblnd]

26. many homeless people have mental health issues

Often the mental state of their health, contributes to their homelessness. Who knows, maybe he wanted a place to stay for a while and being a dick to the woman who requested he not smoke- was his was of getting off the streets for a while?:shrug:

[Yo_Mama]

27. More likely it was just mental illness

Not anything to do with addiction at all.

He was probably extremely confused and angry.

[RZM]

59. Possibly. Or maybe he's just a violent asshole n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

55. Edit. Delete.

Saw the 2nd link.

[shanti]

136. excuse me?

but where in the story does it say he lit up a joint? it said cigarette, which most people undoubtabley assume means tobacco.

[walldude]

159. Aww don't let the facts get in the way of a good

paranoid anti-drug rant...

[Violet_Crumble]

90. I unrecced it as well for the same reason...

I don't understand how anyone could read about what happened and label the victim as 'self-righteous'. Talk about blaming the victim...

[Bodhi BloodWave]

270. you forgot the end of your title "after initiating the conflict" n/t

[Terra Alta]

9. Some people don't like others smoking around them.

Maybe she had asthma? Asking someone not to smoke does not give you reason to slash their face. Good grief.

[RZM]

11. Sounds like he was smoking weed

That's fine as long as you do it in privacy. If you react to somebody chiding you by physically assaulting them, you deserve to be punished harshly.

[shanti]

137. it said CIGARETTE!

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

207. it was a BLUNT!

:eyes:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hothead_pothead_stab_fess_GPSJu0itZIq0O6qDfs8jaK#ixzz1K9Pt0IHj

[shanti]

248. the original OP

did not mention that! :eyes:

[Speck Tater]

12. Moral of the story: Nothing good can come of passing judgment on others. nt

[bluerum]

22. smokers suck

[LeftishBrit]

219. No. But those who insist on their 'right' to smoke on public transport do.

Most smokers don't.

[ET Awful]

24. So in a place where smoking is illegal and has been for some time, it's wrong to ask someone

not to smoke and is deserving of assault?

I see.

If the dude was shooting heroin in front of children would people be saying that it was anti-heroin "zealot" that told him to stop?

[Fuzz]

32. Was she about to perform a citizens arrest?

[neverforget]

34. Mmmmm popcorn

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenPartyVoter]

43. This thread depresses the hell outta me.

[bobbolink]

51. "Progressive" ideals at their finest.

Get used to it.... its the "new normal".

Non-violence be damned.

[uppityperson]

45. Naw, not "a lot" just a few outspoken idiots who think it's ok

[bobbolink]

52. the same "few" who attack those who are angry at injustice?

[uppityperson]

85. No, the ones supporting this I don't see speaking out about other injustices

[bobbolink]

92. geee, that would make sense.

Justice doesn't seem to have much to do with this.

But, then, justice doesn't seem to apply to much these days.

[xchrom]

39. Life in the Big City. You never know if the person youre

Talking to is a Loon.

[sabrina 1]

58. Or has a weapon. She's either not a NYer, or she's so dedicated

to her own cause, that she ignored the #1 rule when riding a NY subway 'mind your own business'.

She's lucky all he had was a pen.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. How about 'rage drunk, self-entitled asshole jabs woman in face with pen'?

Why is the victim of a horrific assault portrayed here, as 'self-righteous'?

Leaving aside the fantasies that many smokers apparently have of doing this to anyone who infringes upon their god-given right to fire up wherever they want, is there any other situation where someone would post an OP so blatantly disrespecting the victim of a terrible assault? :shrug:

[joeunderdog]

69. shhhhh...you'll offend self-righteous OP posters

defending smokers rights' to defend against law abiders with face stabbing instruments.

[sabrina 1]

78. The guy was smoking weed, he wasn't a 'smoker'. I guess

she's anti-marijuana, not anti-smoking.

She's also not too bright. No one in their right mind tells anyone what to do on the NY Subway.

You just suffer for the few minutes it takes to get to wherever you're going.

Unless you want to risk your life.

For the satisfaction of yelling at a pot smoker, it just isn't worth it, to most rational people.

[Very_Boring_Name]

82. Maybe she didn't feel like going to work smelling like weed, because some asshole

couldn't be considerate enough to do it in private.

[sabrina 1]

87. She was on the NY Subway.

I've been on the subway and smelled all kinds of things, from alcohol to weed to cigarette smoke. I did not arrive at wherever I was going smelling of any of those substances.

You are not on the subway long enough to make it worth risking your life just to let someone know how much you disapprove of their behavior. The vast majority of subway riders understand that.

People who feel the urge to do that so strongly they disregard their own safety, are probably as addicted to their own urges as those they so despise. I hope she doesn't do it again, this time it was only a pen.

[KurtNYC]

148. plenty of people tell others what to do on the trains

there is that whole instant trial by crowd of strangers thing that happens. People will defend total strangers, especially females.

The idea that NYC is a lawless jungle is just not true. Those that don't play nice are weeded out quickly. And this guy has a whole rap sheet to prove that.

[sabrina 1]

203. No one said it is a lawless jungle, and in all the times I have

been on the NY subway, and I've seen some pretty badly behaved people there, I have never seen anyone with half a brain, try to order anyone around. It's a short ride, people simply control their urge to tell others what to do, JUST IN CASE they meet someone with a 'long rap sheet' who might not appreciate it.

This guy wasn't 'weeded out' in time to stop him from attacking her and that is why most smart people mind their own business.

The very fact that the guy lit up a joint on the subway should have been a clue that he wasn't particularly concerned about laws, and that being the case, wasn't going to take kindly to her admonishing him. It's called common sense.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. And I ask again. Why the name calling against the victim of a terrible assault?

And here's a thought experiment: If someone, say, a woman did something like walk through a dangerous neighborhood alone late at night, and was viciously attacked, would certain people on DU be lining up to interject about how idiotic she was and how she wasn't "rational"?

Probably not. Yeah, she did something not too bright. She also was attacked.

And yeah, he was smoking. Smoking pot is still smoking.

[sabrina 1]

151. If you knowingly walk into a lion's den, eg, while the mother

is feeding her cubs, then you are an idiot, male or female.

When did we lose common sense in this country?

You are making the ridiculous assumption that we can expect criminals to 'respect the law'. Do you know how silly that is?

Most, probably a vast majority of NYers, know that it is best to MYOB while riding the subway, no matter how 'annoyed' you might be about someone else's behavior. Subway rides are short, the rest of your life might just depend on your ability to mind your own business.

I think the obvious conclusion for any reasonable person is that the smartest and most practical thing to do is not challenge someone smoking on the subway. They are already demonstrating that they do not care about the law, so your assumption should be they are not going to react rationally to someone pointing that out.

If you want to go prove something, such as 'I have a right to say what I think', then go ahead and do so, but do it with the knowledge that you may regret it.

[mythology]

158. As the saying goes

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing. The problem is not the woman, the problem is that some horrid excuse for a human being committed at least two criminal acts. Saying that people should do nothing is a defeatist attitude that allows unacceptable behavior to continue. Fortunately the criminal will likely get to spend some time in jail where his actions clearly show he belongs.

[sabrina 1]

163. The guy was smoking a joint on a train. Apparently he is

homeless.

A homeless guy on a subway smoking a joint just doesn't rise to the level of 'evil' as far as I'm concerned.

Are you serioulsy suggesting that what he was doing was the kind of evil that required intervention?

I think I would reserve my energy wrt to dealing with 'evil' for something far more importan than a pot-smoking homeless guy on a subway.

Can't believe this country sometimes. We turn a blind eye to torture and the slaughter of innocent children, but are willing to risk being killed to tell a guy to put out a joint on a train :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

169. No, smoking a joint on a train isn't evil. Stabbing someone in the face with a pen, is.

I guess you don't get that, and you also don't get the point of my objection, which wasn't whether or not it was a 'wise' thing for this woman to ask this dude to put out whatever-the-hell he was smoking, but WHY so many people here -yourself included- are falling all over themselves to name call, belittle, and otherwise insult the victim of a horrible assault?

You ask 'whatever happened to common sense'? Whatever happened to COMMON FUCKING DECENCY? This lady got. stabbed. in. the. face. with. a. pen.


Jesus fucking Christ.

[sabrina 1]

202. Since I have called no one any names, I suggest you calm

yourself down. I responded to your suggestion that women ought to be able to walk into some dangerous neighborhood late at night dressed whatever way they choose, because they have a RIGHT to do so, and expect dangerous thugs to respect that right.

That is pure idiocy and no intelligent woman would take that advice. We have the right to walk under a moving train also, but considering the consequences, a vast, vast majority of people on this planet, don't do it.

This woman made a bad decision considering where she was. Stating that fact IS the decent thing to do. Any decent person would have advised her, for her own safety, not to place herself in such a dangerous situation.

Yes, whatever happened to decency? Why are people encouraging others to do things that will get them hurt? As I said, and I will say it again, she is very, very lucky that all he had was a pen. She made a stupid mistake, as anyone who is familiar with the NY subway would agree.

If you can't handle the truth, that is not my problem. But if she was my mother, sister or friend I would have stopped her if I was there for her own sake. Any good friend would have done so, and any good friend she has will now tell her what a dumb thing it was for her to do and make her promise never to do it again.

As for the pot-smoker, who knows what was going on in his mind. She should have considered that. He could, eg, be a veteran, many of the homeless are, with all kinds of problems that have not been addressed. It is just plain stupid to even speak to strangers on the subway, let alone try to tell them what to do. And that is the truth.

She is apparently fine, so she was very, very lucky. A friend of ours could have lost his life in NYC when he decided to get out of his car to yell at a guy in the car behind who was honking at him to try to get him to go through a red light. When he got to the car, the guy pulled a gun, right outside of Rockefeller Center. At that point he decided the smart thing to do was apologize and try to get back to his car without being shot at.

I hope that woman learned a lesson. Better to breathe in a little smoke than never to breathe again. Perspective is a very good thing to consider in circumstances like that.

[CTyankee]

273. No. My experience with New Yorkers is that they don't put up with crap.

That lady sounds like a typical New Yorker to me. Having lived in NYC and having ridden the subways frequently, it all sounds pretty familiar. You get used to it...

[Warren DeMontague]

290. you 'hope she learned a lesson' -why don't you visit her in the hospital & tell her?

It's REAL clear where you're coming from on this.


But guess what? Tomorrow, this guy will be in jail, and you're STILL not going to be able to light up on the subway, or in a bar, or in a restaurant.

Does that bug you?

[shanti]

138. where

does the story say weed??

[Bodhi BloodWave]

272. likely because depending on accounts she initiated the conflict aka getting into argument/shouting

match with the fellow rather then simply head to a different area of the car/another car.

Asking him to stop seems sensible, but if you are ignored its seldom wise to get into a shouting match with somebody else on a subway seems like a case of bad judgment.

[taught_me_patience]

50. I can't see how the woman was "self-righteous"

Smoking is prohibited on trains and has been for a long time.

[LooseWilly]

195. She's not a cop. Not her job to enforce prohibition. To do so despite that fact is— self-righteous.

It's really not rocket science...

Maybe you'd prefer that she be labelled a "vigilante" instead?... because that's what she was. A very incompetent vigilante who got herself stabbed in the face with a pen—but taking it upon herself to enforce the law makes her a vigilante.

'Self-righteous' has less in the way of "lynching" connotations though... so it's common procedure to settle for that term these days... ;)

[JI7]

54. blaming the victim

[RamboLiberal]

56. I found the fight over spaghetti eating on subway a lot more amusing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az4qASdPD4Y

[crim son]

67. This story just proves that all smokers are assholes. n/t

[sabrina 1]

68. You mean 'all pot smokers'!

[crim son]

310. Whoever it pisses off most,

that's who I mean. :evilgrin:

[chrisa]

77. .

:popcorn:

:)

[Jamastiene]

311. I can't resist.

This smoker is currently eating :popcorn: after seeing that statement. :evilgrin:

[Modern_Matthew]

70. I call for mental evaluations of all smokers before they're allowed to use a pen and...

a public medical fund set up for those that feel the constant need to provoke strangers.

[sabrina 1]

88. Except he wasn't a smoker. Start your fund for pot smokers if

you feel the need to call people you don't agree with, mentally ill. The guy was smoking weed. Don't people take the time to get the facts before the start attacking people? :eyes:

[Jamastiene]

313. Good.

I hate writing any more. Sure, I can do it, but I hate having to physically write lately. The bills I can pay by calling them in on the telephone, I do. The ones I cannot pay that way, I have to write the checks out and fill out envelopes to mail them. I hate and dread it every single month. This smoker would gladly give up her pen if there was another option to pay those few bills she cannot pay on the phone. Writing my name and address and the bill collectors' names and addresses on envelopes and writing out checks every month is fucking monotonous. Shit, computers are supposed to cut out all the paperwork. Why do we even still have paper and pens in this day and age?

[Liquorice]

71. Maniac On Subway Stabs Woman In Face With A Pen ...There, I fixed your headline. nt

[blondeatlast]

75. +1. nt

[JVS]

73. This is news tailor-made for DU.

[SoCalDem]

254. Yup.. If only it could have been at Olive Garden & the woman was breastfeeding a 5 yr old

That would have been nirvana:)

especially if she was eating corn-flake chicken:)

[fascisthunter]

74. "Self-Righteous"???? Why should folks be subjected to other's smoke

especially when we all know it is bad for you. Who the fuck does this smoker think they are? Talk about self-righteous.... get a fucking clue then a grip on reality you ADDICT!

[taterguy]

107. You're only allowed to say that if you've never subjected anyone to your auto exhaust

Says the self-righteous guy who rides a bike everywhere.

Go ahead: Quit driving for a month.

I'll bet you can't do it.

FUCKING ADDICT

[Warren DeMontague]

185. I've never subjected anyone to my auto exhaust INSIDE a bar, restaurant, or subway car.

...understand?

[LooseWilly]

196. So you've never driven past a bar or restaurant or elevated subway station which wasn't air-tight?

... which maybe had it's windows open?...

And don't start with the logic of relative legal proscriptions. Just because it hasn't been made illegal doesn't mean that it isn't comparable. Statistics for accidents caused by cell phone use are comparable to accidents caused by drunk driving, but the fine for driving while talking on a cell phone, or texting, doesn't even begin to compare with the legal cudgeling that results from being caught drunk driving.

It would seem that moralistic legislators believe that alcohol is more worthy of punishment than telephones... and likewise it seems that cigarettes have been judged more worthy of punishment than automobiles.

Why not admit it's really just a matter of the power of the lobbyists and PR folks... with some occasional assholes on subway trains getting caught up in the middle?

[Warren DeMontague]

199. No, it's really just a matter of going the fuck outside before lighting the damn smoke.

That's what it's a matter of.

[taterguy]

205. I understand that you're an addict in denial

Seek help

[Warren DeMontague]

288. You know, the whiny oppressed smoker thing is very 1995.

Seriously. If you're still upset that you can't smoke in restaurants, you need to get over it, or move to Europe.

[taterguy]

292. This isn't about where smokers are allowed to smoke

It's about whether or not people have the right to be righteous over smokers disagreeing about those limits.

[Warren DeMontague]

294. Which means, it's about where smokers are allowed to smoke.

Do you really think that you're going to wake up one day and the rest of us are going to be like, "oh, gee, what were we thinking? Of COURSE you can fill the air inside the bar/restaurant/airplane with cigarette smoke! What were we thinking? Here, need a light?"

It's not going to happen.

[fascisthunter]

222. driving is a necessity for most, smoking isn't!

sophistry at it's worst.... get over it, if you smoke you are an addict and people around you don't have to put up with it.

[taterguy]

255. The only question is whether driving is a necessity for you

If so, you'll have to explain in detail why it is and why you haven't considered other options.

It's in the Rulebook!

Look it up!

[Warren DeMontague]

289. Driving is legal. And so is smoking.

You can do them in many places.

Outside.

[taterguy]

291. You expect me to believe that you've never driven in a parking deck?

[Warren DeMontague]

293. Have you smoked in one?

How many of these locations with these oh-so-onerous smoking bans can you drive your car in?

[taterguy]

295. The purpose of smoking bans is to protect health and welfare

Do you deny that automobile usage has an adverse impact on the health of innocents?

[Warren DeMontague]

298. Smoking is legal. Driving is legal.

You can do both of them in many places.

Outside.

And in most parking structures.

[taterguy]

303. Way to move the goal posts back

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

309. No, I said the same thing I said before.

You threw in the bit about parking structures, like it was going to win the point for you or something. It doesn't.

Honestly, though-- what is it you guys think you're going to get out of all this? You think if you keep complaining, eventually you'll wake up and it will be 1975 again, when you couldn't even go out for breakfast anywhere in this country without having to suck down the 2nd hand marlboro smoke of a room full of bell bottoms and cheesy moustaches?

[Shining Jack]

320. I haven't smoked in an underground parking in long time but...

Driving inside is perfectly OK for some peeps:



:P

[fascisthunter]

301. nah

[taterguy]

302. Nah? Do you mean driving isn't a necessity for you?

Guess you'll have to STFU.

It's in the Rule Book!

Look it up?

[WinkyDink]

76. MYOB is the order of the day in NYC. Not blaming the victim; just saying to BE EXTRA CAUTIOUS.

[krabigirl]

246. This should be the mantra everywhere.

Seriously, some people are not stable...mind your own damn business. I never get why people rage on random strangers...hello, the person might very well be psychotic.

[RagAss]

80. "Theeeeeeeese little town blues, are faaaaaading away !"

[lunatica]

81. I bet she doesn't do that again

[Dappleganger]

101. Unrecc

for a piece of shit title.

[ohheckyeah]

104. And DU is off and running.

The discussion about who has a right to do what yada yada yada is tiresome.

Maybe we could have a discussion about the OP.

The guy shouldn't have stabbed the women in the face with a pen. How's that?

What else is there really to discuss that isn't a rehash of the same old shit?

[Arugula Latte]

110. Why is she the "self righteous" one? Smoking in subway stations is illegal.

I think he is self righteous. What a prick.

[KurtNYC]

152. this was ON a crowded train

like this:



Probably the reason he stabbed instead of hit her is there was not enough room to throw a punch.

[TheKentuckian]

112. Hey "the man", you can't act on the dark inner thoughts the preaching non-smokers provoke

A nearly infinite overreaction and completely unjustified but sanctimony and shark like push of the agenda makes a part of me snicker.

The all bars shit was a bridge too far and makes me want to separate with the same "feel" as the theocrats, vice warriors (often the same folks any way), and various prudes and crotch sniffers.
The whole deal is a logical overreach when this is something the market could decide. Non-smokers have a huge numbers advantage and still couldn't manage popular and fun non-smoking bars without the force of law.

If there was a need for your product then it would have no problem being where the money comes in.

[blondeatlast]

120. This has been a valuable thread, but not for the OP's intentions. nt

[datasuspect]

121. the pen IS mightier than the sword

whodathunk?

[AsahinaKimi]

194. But the Pen is mightier then the sword...

watch and learn!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcZd-ql7t1I

[LooseWilly]

126. The only study of second hand smoke I ever looked at suggested a reduced risk of cancer

It was a University of California study with couples that lived together in homes in which one, or both, or neither smoked... and a 30 year study found a statistically insignificant increased risk of cancer for the couples in which neither smoked.

Unfortunately the study is lost amidst an avalanche of superficially sourced anti-smoking articles and quotes... though I did find this: http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html

"Secondhand smoke kills, according to a new study!," is frantically shouted from the bold type headlines of newspapers and magazine articles. Mostly it is uneducated and/or issue biased newspaper reporters who add the hype to the already deceitful study. Either they don't bother to read the study for themselves (or they do and don't understand the scientific implications), relying on misleading statements from the researchers themselves, or they are far more interested in the fear mongering factor that makes for good reading and do not bother to check with anyone how accurate or reliable a study is. Not to mention it is more politically correct to nod their head yes and insert their own views and conclusions based on the scary sounding research title and bits of information that they have heard.

Read down a bit and there are links to particular studies. The second one (National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals) seems interesting in light of the environmental angle to this news story (http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html#Chemicals).

We begin with—

**PRESS RELEASE**
March 21, 2001
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals
New CDC Chemical Exposure Report Begins to Fill Critical
Information Gaps in Environmental Health for the U.S.
Population

Data Show Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke Down
Dramatically and Levels of Blood Lead Continuing to Decline

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today
released the first National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals, an important new research tool that will
provide better information on levels of exposure to environmental
chemicals, and, over time, what these levels mean for public health

And a quick point made:

Cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine that tracks exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) among nonsmokers; higher
cotinine levels reflect more exposure to ETS. ETS has been
identified as a known human carcinogen. From 1988 through 1991,
as part of the NHANES III survey, CDC determined that the median
level (50th percentile) of cotinine among nonsmokers in the United
States was 0.20 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). Results from the
1999 Report showed that the median cotinine level among people
aged 3 years and older has decreased to less than 0.050
ng/mL-more than a 75% decrease. This reduction in cotinine levels
objectively documents a dramatic reduction in exposure of the
general U.S. population to environmental tobacco smoke since the
period 1988-1991. However, since more than half of American
youth are still exposed, ETS remains a major public health concern.

And then, in case you don't want to go through the article we'll jump to the end:

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/report/Chemicals/cotininegeneral.htm
"Cotinine is a major metabolite of nicotine and is currently regarded as the best biomarker for exposure to tobacco; exposure of both active smokers and of nonsmokers to ETS. Cotinine measurement is preferred over measuring nicotine because, although both are specific for exposure to tobacco, cotinine is retained in the body much longer than nicotine. Cotinine can be measured in blood (i.e., in serum), urine, saliva, and hair. Nonsmokers exposed to typical levels of ETS have cotinine levels less than 1 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL), with heavy exposure to ETS producing levels in the 1 to 15 ng/mL range. Active smokers almost always have levels higher than 15 ng/mL, sometimes over 500 ng/mL."

Which shows that measurable levels of Environmental Tobacco Smoke exposures in non-smokers is at about 3 % the level it is in the average smoker. Which means that non-smokers need to be in a 33.333 times more-smokey environment in order to be exposed to the same levels of "tobacco poisoning" as the average smoker.

It would take a lot of smokers on a lot of trains to even raise the non-smokers to the exposure levels of a smoker.

This one smoker simply is not enough to induce a fatality, or even a measurable increase in health risk... unless, that is, you provoke him into stabbing you in the face with a pen.

(I could also mention, smokers walk around... leading productive lives... for years and years and decades and occasionally centuries with that level of exposure—so even if you loaded enough smokers onto that subway car to get it smokey enough to raise serum levels to smoker-levels... it probably wouldn't produce any measurable health effects at all. We'd need to load those subway cars up with all those smokers every day and every night for years and years and decades and sometimes even centuries... in order to kill that self-righteous Jersey Girl. ;) )

[blondeatlast]

127. Smoking on public transit is a fire hazard and a nuisance. I don't care whether it's safe or not;

it's simply rude--and justifiably illegal.

[LooseWilly]

193. It's harder to start a fire than Smokey the Bear would have you think... but nuisance is true.

A girl I knew and her boyfriend once nearly set a couch on fire in my living room by smoking heroin during the night, nodding off and dropping a smoldering heroin-joint into the fold-out couch somewhere... in the morning the room was blue with smoke, and the '70s polyester had melted into the charred wood frame of the couch. One of my housemates and I woke the girl and her boyfriend up and once they had sleepily gotten off the couch a couple of casual bowls of water doused the smoldering.

It's just not that easy to start a fire. Not unless the subway seats are made of super-flammable balsa wood and covered with kindling... in which case sure—it's a fire hazard.

Is it rude to smoke on the subway? Yes. Is it rude to get in someone's face for wanting to smoke (and remember... if something awful has happened... if the guy's wife has just died in a car accident... or his husband... or his kid... or whatever... there are awful things that can happen an make an individual, on an unusually awful day, decide he/she needs a cigarette on the subway) on the subway, also yes. Is it justifiably illegal? Yes. Are there times when extraordinary circumstances cause authorities to not prosecute for violations of some laws? Yes. Is this one of those times (regarding the smoking)? The quoted portion of the article doesn't provide full enough information to know.

I do find it interesting that you would announce "I don't care whether it's safe or not"... because "safety" is supposedly the whole issue for the second-hand smoke issue. If you don't care... then it's just a matter of stopping people from doing things that you don't like. Right?

What's next? Will I be able to outlaw reality tv because I'm offended that people watch such tripe? More importantly—should I feel justified in wanting to so impose my tastes on others?

Suddenly, your argument has made the issue of whether the guy in the story is a blustering and violent asshole into an argument of whether or not it is justifiable to make other people do what you don't want them to do... and once you put it into that frame, it reminds me of the argument against same sex marriage... and surely being lumped in with the Mormon Church on the issue of judgementalism "whether it's safe or not"... isn't where you want to be. Right?

[Capitalocracy]

130. ..

[Manifestor_of_Light]

140. I have never ever smoked. Not once. I have scar tissue inmy lungs.

It looks like dandruff on the edges of the tubes on an X ray.

My parents both smoked when I was little. They both quit before I was ten years old but the damage was done.

Second hand smoke can be deadly. I cannot be friends with smokers because they literally make me sick I will come down with raging bronchitis in 48 hours if I am around a smoker.

[LooseWilly]

198. My parents both smoked when I was little too... but I don't have the scar tissue you mention.

Employing the methodologies of the Scientific Method... what we have just proven is that cigarette smoking is not the cause of whatever happened to your lungs. If cigarette smoking caused this, it would have caused it in my lungs also. And it would have caused it in my brothers lungs. And my smoking around my son would have then caused it in his lungs as well.

I could go on with this list for a very long time.

I am sorry to hear about your lungs, but it is not something that is caused by cigarette smoking. If it was there would be studies proving it. Other studies confirming it. The anti-smoking advocates would be insisting everywhere "Second hand smoke causes dandruff-like scar tissue on the edges of the tubes visible on any x-ray of anyone ever exposed to second hand smoke."

That is not something that is ever insisted upon. It is anecdotal evidence that biases your judgement. Justifiably biases it... but biases it nonetheless.

You really should come to grips with this and forgive your parents, since it is empirically provable, given the information you have provided, that they were not at fault...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

304. It certainly didn't help my lungs be any stronger.

Second hand smoke is quite harmful and you refuse to recognize that fact, to whatever degree it is harmful. I know from personal experience that it's harmful. It makes me sick EVERY TIME I am exposed to it.

Smokers who smoke in front of me can go to hell, thank you.

[Zorra]

128. People start to light up next to me, I pepper spray 'em.

No warnings, no nada, just *poof*, and *voila!* they're doing the chicken right there on the ground at my feet. Warning them is dumb, it just sets them off and they might get time to stab me before I can spice 'em. I usually crush their cigarettes too, while they're floppin' around.

Remember, smokers are dangerous and unpredictable. Depriving them of nicotine when they are feenin' hard could land you in the emergency room.

Always strike first without warning

Spicin' works every time. I've never once been injured by an inconsiderate smoker.

[blondeatlast]

129. Jay. Z. Us. Yeah, pepper spray is so useful in crowds with

open flames nearby.

That's a whole lotta crazy right there as well. Sheesh.

[Zorra]

133. Relax, it's a joke, hon. nt

[blondeatlast]

135. Gah, my bad.

Should've known that--been a tough day!

[pokerfan]

141. some self-righteous twit tries to talk me, I punch 'em in the throat

:sarcasm:

Always strike first without warning...

We held in common one major theory about street-fighting - if it looks like a fight is coming, get in the first punch. We both thought that most bastards aren't so tough as they talk - even bastards who look as well as talk tough. If suddenly they feel a few teeth loose, they will rub their rubs, look at the blood on their hands, and offer to buy a drink for the house. "But even if they still feel like fighting," as my brother said, "you are one big punch ahead when the fight starts." ~Norman Maclean

[Capitalocracy]

131. Nothing I love more than stabbing people I disagree with in the face with improvised weapons.

[Common Sense Party]

232. DU needs more face-to-face get-togethers.

[Amaya]

134. people need to STFU

if i went up to stranger and complained about their stench or how disgusting it is to watch them shove a triple whopper in their face , i'd expected a ass whooping .... just saying...

and no, i'm not condoning what this asshole did. but come on folks, use some common sense.:think:

[blondeatlast]

139. So victims should use common sense but criminals should not?

Smoking in public is generally a misdemeanor and it's sure as hell rude. the mindset on this thread is, well, I can't find the words.

[WinkyDink]

217. So you want to mess with a criminal? Yeah, that's real smart.

[erodriguez]

161. agreed... As a New Yorker I learned long ago to mind my own business.

Nothing is as safe as you think it is. No need to look for trouble when trouble is all around.
The woman should have just kept it movibg.

[devilgrrl]

142. Lighting up on a train? What an ass.

:nuke:

[walldude]

160. Exactly... and I smoke..

but not around anyone I know won't like it. The guy is an ass, they come in all forms and all walks of life. I just hate it when we all get lumped in with this jerk.

[KurtNYC]

153. the proper way to smoke pot or cigs on the subway is to

step out between the cars and let the door close. Stand on that little gangway. Totally illegal and dangerous but used to be done quite a bit. On an express train you have 6 minutes or so between stops. Plenty of time to puff. And you arrive refreshed.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LadyHawkAZ]

162. People actually think this was OK??

Good grief. I'm a smoker, and the deluge of anti-smoking laws piss me off too, but violently attacking people when they ask you not to smoke doesn't help anyone.

[Withywindle]

164. I'm a smoker, I try to be considerate, I would never do it anywhere it's illegal...

...but this story still made me LOL.

[Codeine]

165. Really? Someone getting stabbed in the face is a LOL moment for you?

That's something else.

[demodonkey]

166. Especially since it is illegal to smoke in the subway. Breaking the law is LOL? nt

[Withywindle]

167. She was treated and released quickly, so it couldn't have been that bad.

I laugh at this in the same mean-spirited way I laugh at "Darwin Awards" type stories and pictures of bizarre accidents on Failblog. I never claimed to always be nice.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. The New Face of the Marlboro Man.

[blondeatlast]

247. LOLing. nt

[blondeatlast]

245. Words fail. nt

[Incitatus]

177. nice piece of flaimbait there

congrats

:applause:

[Union Scribe]

178. Classy. Very typical smoker behavior in this thread.

Really drives home the point that they don't care about anyone but themselves, and react like cavemen when challenged on it, with a pen or with their angry gruntings.

[akbacchus_BC]

179. Only smokers you targetting? Get a life!

[Poll_Blind]

184. See Post #168: IMO, this ain't about smoking. This is about getting in people's faces that....

...you don't know. Coulda been like this in a subway or it coulda been two people fighting over a parking spot. Sometimes people get so full of themselves they start making aggressive moves toward a stranger who they have no knowledge of.

This is a great way to court the most unexpected, horrible outcome.

And that looks like exactly what the lady, the guy who stabbed her and probably dozens of people around them got.

If the second account listed in post #168 is correct and the woman smacked the lighter out of his hand or struck him without any sort of reasonable reason to...well, the guy who stabbed her, nomatter how many prior arrests he might have, could possibly get off scott-free and she could wind up the one in trouble.

People can be real asses to each other and that's putting it mildly. But when you really go slapping around someone or grabbing someone or threatening someone, you should totally be prepared to fight for your fucking life and kill them with your bare hands if you have to- OR JUST LET IT GO, MOVE ON, AND FORGET IT.

Because you don't know if the person you're taunting just took a handfull of PCP or you remind them of the person who raped and beat them and their mom every day- whatever. You just don't know. They could have a damned revolver slung under each armpit. Is it really worth finding out? Why roll the dice on a deal like that?

PB

[Warren DeMontague]

186. Know what? I suspect this woman has figured this out, already.

In case you haven't noticed, however, this story -which, mind you, isn't really about cigarettes, either- has (once again) become a springboard for the most unfairly oppressed group in all of human history™--- namely, cigarette smokers forced to go outside public spaces before lighting up--- to wax eloquent about their grand struggle against tyranny.

[sudopod]

228. lol nt

[sabrina 1]

233. You mean a springboard for people who

don't read the facts before jumping on the wrong bandwagon.

What makes your comment total BS is the fact that most people knew it was not a cigarette having done what most intelligent people do BEFORE jumping on anyone's bandwagon, they did a little googling to find out more.

So, they were not defending 'a smoker', or bemoaning anything other than the sheer idiocy of attacking a total stranger who lit up a joint on a NYC subway. And if you think that was a smart thing to do, I would give you the same advice people would have hoped that woman would have received from someone in her life, at some stage, who actually cared about her: 'it's just not a good idea'.

[Warren DeMontague]

278. Under what other circumstances would you be so eager to call the victim of a horrific assault

an idiot?

Right, it has nothing to do with any of the ancillary issues here, or the clear frustrated outrage some cigarette smokers apparently feel -irresepctive of whatever this dude was smoking- at being prohibited from lighting up inside bars, restaurants, or on the subway.

That's what this is about, and you know it. Look, just admit it.

[JVS]

188. I can't believe the support for the slasher in this thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

192. They're just focusing on what is *really* important, here.

The fact that their right to light up a cigarette any damn where they please has been unfairly taken away by 'anti-smoking zealots'.

[AsahinaKimi]

197. Did someone mention that it was a camel?

[Warren DeMontague]

200. Apparently, he'd rather fight than switch. nt

[Raine]

201. So because she doesn't want to breath someone else's dirty exhaled air she's "self-righteous"

:eyes: the one who is "self-righeous" is the smoker who thinks they are so special they can violate the law. :mad:

[BlueMTexpat]

206. How many subways, trains or planes have you ridden lately?

Unless you've only lived in rural areas or have never travelled on public transit, you do not seem to realize that it has been AGAINST THE LAW to smoke while using public transit. And for years. Did you just join the rest of us on this planet?

It is against the law primarily because secondhand smoke can have devastating effects on non-smokers.

As a non-smoker who suffered for years from severe migraine headaches including violent nausea but whose condition miraculously "disappeared" when non-smoking workplaces and public transit became the order of the day, I do not believe that it is at all self-righteous to object to those who persist in smoking in these areas. To me, it is literally a question of survival.

I do not object at all to smokers who are courteous and who respect the laws in force. In my experience, the majority of smokers are and do.

[WinkyDink]

218. People should then contact authorities whose JOB it is to enforce rules and laws.

[sudopod]

229. I'm telling, lol

thank you for not stabbing me in the face.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

251. you dont think we can ask someone to not smoke in the subway?

most subways have one conductor/driver one end.

[subwaysubculture]

223. Eyewitness Accounts--and common sense dealing with mentally ill homeless people

I've got EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS -- one from a man who helped subdue the homeless man, right here:
www.subway subculture .blogspot. com

And it wasn't a cigarette- -it was a BLUNT.
While i feel for the woman from Nutley, there seems to be a certain lack of common sense here. Don't pick a fight with a homeless guy lighting a blunt on the subway. He just **might** have some mental illness issues you don't want to mess with.

[winston65]

227. lesson to learn here:

do not provoke and antagonize an addict, they don't take it very well.

[Renew Deal]

263. That's not the lesson.

The lesson is to mind your own business on the subway.

[demwing]

287. No, the lesson is don't smoke on the subway and dont stab people in the face!

or the rest of the train will sit on your head till the police come and take your psycho ass to jail.

Fucking DUH!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

230. wow. the title of this OP indicates far more judgmental/self-righteous behavior

than asking someone not to smoke in a place that is illegal for them to smoke

[Deep13]

250. +1

[WilliamPitt]

234. It was a blunt.

(facepalm) all around for this thread.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

258. Here use this one:

[demwing]

260. Oh! Well she got was coming to her then,,,

Honestly, what is you point? Who cares what the substance was? He could have been smoking banana peels for all it's worth, and it wouldn't change the fact that it was wrong to do on the subway, she was right to tell the fucker to stop, and he's a psychotic asshole for stabbing her in the face.

My god, talk about "facepalm"...

[Supply Side Jesus]

235. So they used physical force to prevent him from lighting up?

stupid on all accounts

[NeedleCast]

236. This Thread is Awesome!

And honestly, it really makes me long for the days of the Colosseum. All the anti-smoking zealots and all the smoking zealots can solve their problems in the traditional way...useing a gladius and shield.

As emperor of the newly-returned coliseum, we'll make the surprise twist the part where I release the lions on the victors.

[Logical]

239. You were so wrong on this. N-t

[Deep13]

241. Man assaults woman on subway sending her to emergency room.

That should be your headline.

[Blue_Tires]

256. "Self-righteous illegal smoker attacks innocent woman on subway"

FIFY

[demwing]

259. How About "Psychotic Asshole Attacks Innocent Women On Train"

becuse he was butthurt that he was being asked to follow the law.


I checked the original article, and sure enough, the "Self-Righteous" bit was all your doing.

[Renew Deal]

262. She's not so innocent...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x935756

[demwing]

286. Sitting there, minding her own damn business

when the psycho pyro asshole decided to introduce FIRE into a packed train?

I say she's innocent, and I'll bet a jury would say the same.

[SidDithers]

264. LEAVE SMOKERS ALONE!!...

Sid

[Warren DeMontague]

267. ***

[CTyankee]

274. You need another month for "Natural Childbirth."

they're always fun...

[Rex]

275. Dam PETA gets a lot of calender time!

[Warren DeMontague]

277. Odd, isn't it?

Just seems to work out that way.

[Renew Deal]

282. PETA comes up for it's bashing every couple months.

DU has always been an anti-PETA site. Did you know DU is also very pro-gun? I'm not kidding. It's been this way as long as I've been here.

[blasto]

283. DU does have its redeeming qualities doesn't it?

nt

[Renew Deal]

284. Actually yes.

The diversity makes it a nice place to be (most of the time).

[Warren DeMontague]

296. I don't think DU has an official position on either guns OR Peta.

I think there is a big vocal divergence of opinion on both, and certainly the folks who see them as litmus tests for 'true' progressivism are going to be pissed that there is not unanimous agreement on those points.

[Renew Deal]

305. An official position...no

But look at any poll about gun ownership or gun rights on DU and you'll see that DU has lots of gun owners and gun rights advocates. And it's always been that way in my nearly 8 years here. DUers are also very critical of PETA. It's to the point of disbelief sometimes.

[Warren DeMontague]

308. I suspect there are a lot of Democrats- and DU members- whose opinion on guns is like mine:

i.e., I am not a fan of guns, I think our society is massively, heavily, over-armed, guns and gun fetishists in particular give me the major creeps... I think it's insane to read the 2nd Amendment as being a blank check for personal ownership of assault rifles, etc. etc.

But, that said, I understand political reality in this country, and I realize that just as outlawing abortion and birth control may be a prized goal of the GOP base, it is a loser issue with the American public in general- in the same way, gun control is a loser issue for the Democratic Party. It's not going to happen, so I see no reason for our party to try to push it at a Federal level and lose elections because of it.



As for PETA; I think much of the objection to them has to do with some of their more goofy PR campaigns. I personally didn't like them equating people who died in concentration camps to chickens at KFC. But I also think people overreact to PETA, and when the anti-sex brigade gets upset because PETA has ads with scantily clad folks mimicking sex with broccoli stalks, they actually go up in my estimation. I think some of their goals are laudable, like opposing factory farming- but I think they would do better to support free range and organic animal husbandry than, again, oppose all meat eating in entirety.

Whatever one's opinion on PETA (and, as a sub-topic, meat eating/veganism) those topics do seem to regularly generate some of the biggest flame-fests around.
:shrug:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

319. You forgot the holier-than-thou goddamn hippie vegans.

You must drive a hybrid car.
Or only take public transportation, because I have it available.
You cannot live anywhere in suburbia.
You cannot live anyplace without public transportation.
You must have a Trader Joe's or a Whole Foods near you, because I live in a state that has them.
You must not shop at Wal-mart or any other giant evil chain store, even if your choices have all been taken away.

You must not eat dairy or any animal fat.

....I could go on.....natural childbirth, blah blah......

But then I can't believe that people think that second hand smoke is harmless. :banghead:

I'm not calling out anyone in particular.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

306. The guy smokes inside a small enclosed area full of people, yet the woman is self-righteous?

:eyes:

[NuclearDem]

312. Part of being a smoker--or hell, being a human goddamn being--

is being aware of people around you, and being reasonably accommodating. Chances are, people on a crowded subway aren't going to appreciate having a cigarette lit up right next to them, but neither do non-smokers have to go up to people sitting in a parking lot in their car with the windows cracked and tell them to put it out.

This seems to be an epic fail for all parties.

[Bluebear]

314. It wasn't a cigarette.

[NuclearDem]

316. Original OP didn't mention that

I was just going with the facts I had.

[madinmaryland]

317. Cigarettes don't kill people, people with cigarettes kill people.

:P

[taterguy]

318. You should light up Francis