Rays ban the stogie from throwback jersey

[fumbler]

I know it is reference to the Cigar but isn't a smoker also when the Pitcher throws a SMOKER?

[scottysprings]

This is further indication of what I call the pussification of the United States. C'mon, bullets, smokers, etc are ruining society? I don't think so. No discipline and no guts are ruining society. The second problem I have is that the Rays have no affiliation to the smokers.

America, yeah!

[Sodboy13]

Eh, that's more of a "heater" in local parlance.

[fumbler]

Eh, that's more of a "heater" in local parlance.

Copy that.

It shows you how much the whole world has become PC though, and how many people can make stupid mistakes with choices.

[TBGKon]

This is further indication of what I call the pussification of the United States. C'mon, bullets, smokers, etc are ruining society? I don't think so. No discipline and no guts are ruining society. The second problem I have is that the Rays have no affiliation to the smokers.

America, yeah!

Hahaha, its almost like the little old person is trying to speak Italian....

[Drakonius26]

Challenge: Name one unarguably positive contribution smoking makes towards our society.

Jobs. From farmers, to the manufacturers, to the convenience store workers that sell them.

Taxes on them fund numerous positive projects for society.

That's not the point, there are bad things that happen, there are bad habits that large groups take up, but the rewriting of history (speaking as someone with a history degree) is never, ever a good thing. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, and revising history so it's more palatable keeps people from learning or understanding, and generally, it's just wrong. Really, the whole thing is silly, and this is coming from a non-smoker.

This jersey change is really no better than this, the photo on the right was displayed outside a museum in London:

article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7828755/Winston-Churchills-cigar-airbrushed-from-picture.html

I couldn't agree with you more, not only should the Rays have not bothered to try and revive the Smokers' uniforms at all if they were worried about this, but you could've borrowed the throwback identity from the Tampa Tarpons, St. Petersburg Saints, or even the St. Petersburg Pelicans instead. You didn't have to go with the Smokers, but instead they resorted to this...

[tommytimp]

I have to say, Churchill's cigar looks like the fughese. But they got Robert Johnson and the Beatles the same way.

[a3uge]

Come on. This is a sport where you can't go 5 minutes without seeing someone throw a huge wad of chew in their mouths. If seeing your hero spit brown stuff out of his mouth doesn't encourage children to start tobacco, I'm pretty sure the cigar on the jersey isn't going to be worse off. The notion that a cigar on a jersey for one game is going to spread tobacco use among children is completely ridiculous.

[illwauk]

So where's the outrage over the Milwaukee Brewers? I mean, they should get rid of the beer barrels and wheat logos for the good of the youth.

Far be it of me to contradict an idea that suggests the Brewers change their crappy identity, but that wouldn't make too much sense seeing as how, unlike smoking, its perfectly legal for fans to drink beer during games. Not to mention the Brewers name refers to those who brew beer, not those who consume it.

For the record, I feel pretty aligned with the anti-smoking movement for the most part, but stuff like this does nothing but give reasons to question its sincerity. Either keep the stogg, or use a different throwback.

[Buster]

They're called "The Smokers" for goodness sake. The Cigar is fine.

Agreed. Stop this PC nonsense, it ruins everything...historical accuracy in this case.

[OnWis97]

Come on. This is a sport where you can't go 5 minutes without seeing someone throw a huge wad of chew in their mouths. If seeing your hero spit brown stuff out of his mouth doesn't encourage children to start tobacco, I'm pretty sure the cigar on the jersey isn't going to be worse off. The notion that a cigar on a jersey for one game is going to spread tobacco use among children is completely ridiculous.

I am sure it does, but point taken. The cigar on the jersey is far less likely to entice kids than seeing their favorite ballplayers chew.

I think most people here would agree...if you don't like having the cigar imagery, fine. Then just skip the throwback to this team. I have no problem with them ignoring the history of a team with which they have no affiliation. They don't have to do this. But if they do, they should do it right.

And I have a really hard time believing that the outrage (wherever it will come from) will be reduced at all by removing the cigar, as the name "smokers" is probably more eye catching, anyway.

[Gothamite]

I think most people here would agree...if you don't like having the cigar imagery, fine. Then just skip the throwback to this team.

I certainly would agree.

But then again, I'd also add that if you don't like the zipper fronts or single-color letters against the same color piping, then just skip the throwback to this team.

The lack of cigar is but one of the very serious problems with this jersey.

[The Six]

They should wear Waterworld-themed uniforms with eyepatches.

[Perfect Zero]

So where's the outrage over the Milwaukee Brewers? I mean, they should get rid of the beer barrels and wheat logos for the good of the youth.

Far be it of me to contradict an idea that suggests the Brewers change their crappy identity, but that wouldn't make too much sense seeing as how, unlike smoking, its perfectly legal for fans to drink beer during games. Not to mention the Brewers name refers to those who brew beer, not those who consume it.

If a brewer takes time to brew it, somebody's going to take the time to drink it. I find it funny in a way that the Tampa jersey would erase the stogie or even further to the use of Chief Wahoo of the Indians due to hurt feelings, but nobody's upset about the alcoholic imagery of the Brewers (especially since alcoholism claims many lives of the consumer and those around them i.e. Nick Adenhart).

[Gothamite]

There's a tiny difference - cigarettes are inherently harmful - using them as intended, even in moderation, is harmful to the user and those around him. Drinking alcohol in moderation causes no such adverse effects.

Not that I think they were right to make any of the changes for the throwbacks.

And surely you can't be comparing either of those with outright racist imagery. That's a whole different can of worms altogether.

[Drakonius26]

There's a tiny difference - cigarettes are inherently harmful - using them as intended, even in moderation, is harmful to the user and those around him. Drinking alcohol in moderation causes no such adverse effects.

Not that I think they were right to make any of the changes for the throwbacks.

And surely you can't be comparing either of those with outright racist imagery. That's a whole different can of worms altogether.

So, I'm assuming becoming dependent on alcohol (alcoholism), increasing your chances of liver disease, specifically liver cancer and for females, breast cancer, including the risk of having miscarriages while pregnant really isn't that much of a problem, right?

Look, drop the politically correct nonsense already. Either you go all the way, or not at all. If Smokers is such as issue, then so should a name like the Brewers. Personally, I'm not bothered with either, and once again, it all boils down to responsibility. Nobody forces you to drink, smoke, or do drugs. That's a choice you make yourself. I guess America's full of over-sensitive, uneducated, irresponsible, hypocrites now.

[OnWis97]

And surely you can't be comparing either of those with outright racist imagery. That's a whole different can of worms altogether.

Not only that, but the Tampa situation is revising history. The hypothetical example of removing Chief Wahoo would not be revising, history but simply changing their identity like the Padres and Canucks do every few years. Apples and oranges. A better analogy would be if, say, Marquette, did a throwback to some old unis that used "Warriors", but replaced it with "Eagles." Or if Cleveland celebrated their 1995 AL Championship, but took Wahoo off the hats in favor of a "C".

[Gothamite]

There's a tiny difference - cigarettes are inherently harmful - using them as intended, even in moderation, is harmful to the user and those around him. Drinking alcohol in moderation causes no such adverse effects.

Not that I think they were right to make any of the changes for the throwbacks.

And surely you can't be comparing either of those with outright racist imagery. That's a whole different can of worms altogether.

So, I'm assuming becoming dependent on alcohol (alcoholism), increasing your chances of liver disease, specifically liver cancer and for females, breast cancer, including the risk of having miscarriages while pregnant really isn't that much of a problem, right?

Look, drop the politically correct nonsense already. Either you go all the way, or not at all. If Smokers is such as issue, then so should a name like the Brewers. Personally, I'm not bothered with either, and once again, it all boils down to responsibility. Nobody forces you to drink, smoke, or do drugs. That's a choice you make yourself. I guess America's full of over-sensitive, uneducated, irresponsible, hypocrites now.

When you assume....

Using a product as it is intended is not the same thing as using it to excess. So no, the two situations are not analogous.

Look, I'm against them removing the cigar from the jersey (and from old photographs, and whatever else). But come on. Hysterical hyperbole isn't exactly your best tactic.

[Drakonius26]

There's a tiny difference - cigarettes are inherently harmful - using them as intended, even in moderation, is harmful to the user and those around him. Drinking alcohol in moderation causes no such adverse effects.

Not that I think they were right to make any of the changes for the throwbacks.

And surely you can't be comparing either of those with outright racist imagery. That's a whole different can of worms altogether.

So, I'm assuming becoming dependent on alcohol (alcoholism), increasing your chances of liver disease, specifically liver cancer and for females, breast cancer, including the risk of having miscarriages while pregnant really isn't that much of a problem, right?

Look, drop the politically correct nonsense already. Either you go all the way, or not at all. If Smokers is such as issue, then so should a name like the Brewers. Personally, I'm not bothered with either, and once again, it all boils down to responsibility. Nobody forces you to drink, smoke, or do drugs. That's a choice you make yourself. I guess America's full of over-sensitive, uneducated, irresponsible, hypocrites now.

When you assume....

Using a product as it is intended is not the same thing as using it to excess. So no, the two situations are not analogous.

Look, I'm against them removing the cigar from the jersey (and from old photographs, and whatever else). But come on. Hysterical hyperbole isn't exactly your best tactic.

Even if you still use it as intended it increases your risk, because that's why they say you shouldn't consume alcohol when pregnant. Also, I've personally seen it ravage a family member first hand, and no, they were neither irresponsible about alcohol or predisposed to having liver disease.

Also, I know you're against them removing the cigar, but you can't say alcohol is not harmless at all, even in moderation, as like smoking it doesn't offer any health benefits when consumed. Plus, the last remark wasn't geared at you, as more it was geared towards the politically correct people who think this is a good move.

[Gothamite]

Even if you still use it as intended it increases your risk, because that's why they say you shouldn't consume alcohol when pregnant.

Nonsense. My wife drank throughout her pregnancies, with the encouragement of her midwives and doctor. In moderation.

You are not correct - alcohol is a vasodilator, and its use can in fact be beneficial in moderation. In contrast, tobacco smoke is harmful in any amount.

I understand what you're trying to say, but you're trying to draw a parallel that just doesn't fit.