Do tobacco execs smoke?

[Alistar7]

Vic- Let me help you: regulation is where a product is made available and as safe as possible to those people who insist on acquiring it and are considered capable of knowingly consenting to it.

Let me help you: regulation only occurs once the product passes predetermined acceptance criteria. Under FDA guidelines cigarettes would not pass, they would be prohibited before they reached a regulatory status. The risk/benefit analysis would not even be close. It is not a strict prohibitionist stance, it is merely accepting the inevitable outcome if logic and science were allowed to prevail. Instead we have one of the most dangerous products on the market being protected by special federal law.

As I stated before the only reason they are allowed to be on the market is political and financial interference and protection. Only fools have bought into the personal choice arguement, at least those on capitol hill got a check. You just keep subtly changing your position to try and maintain your arguement, which made no sense from the start and still fails.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Vic- Let me help you: regulation is where a product is made available and as safe as possible to those people who insist on acquiring it and are considered capable of knowingly consenting to it.

Let me help you: regulation only occurs once the product passes predetermined acceptance criteria. Under FDA guidelines cigarettes would not pass, they would be prohibited before they reached a regulatory status. The risk/benefit analysis would not even be close. It is not a strict prohibitionist stance, it is merely accepting the inevitable outcome if logic and science were allowed to prevail. Instead we have one of the most dangerous products on the market being protected by special federal law.

As I stated before the only reason they are allowed to be on the market is political and financial interference and protection. Only fools have bought into the personal choice arguement, at least those on capitol hill got a check. You just keep subtly changing your position to try and maintain your arguement, which made no sense from the start and still fails.

:roll:

My position throughout this thread has never changed. Quite the opposite, you and Inflatable Buddha have been jumping from one mischaracterizing straw man after the other in order to justify a draconian moral agenda entirely contrary to basic liberalism.
You're just the face of the newest breed of drug warrior, with the same attitude regarding what peoiple should and should not be allowed to do with their own bodies ala Nixon/Reagan conservatism.
Rationalize it all you want, but this "risk/benefit analysis" is not yours to make (and in that regard, is just a front from authoritarianism), and regulation into prohibition is still prohibition, with the same results, no matter what (or how Orwellian) you choose to label it. Even marijuana was initially just "regulated," with a tax stamp that no one could acquire. Nobody calls the War on Drugs "regulation" today.
And I has said earlier, personal choice/responsibility has no bearing on this argument. What I do wonder though is if moral authoritarians busybodies like yourself will even let us get out of bed in the morning after they've a applied a "risk/benefit analysis" to everything. What's next? Skydiving? Rock climbing? Oh snap, how many people drown each year? Something must be done! Think of the children! We MUST ban swimming!

 

[Codewiz]

Alistar7 in this thread has continuously made a common logical fallacy. CORRELATION != CAUSATION. You can say all day long that not smoking prior to the age of 18 is correlated with not smoking the rest of their life but that does not imply causation as you are suggesting.

Most likely people who don't smoke prior to 18yrs old were probably highly educated coming from parents that stressed the harms of smoking. This is why they didn't smoke prior to 18 and never smoke any part of their life.

Too many people argument with the concept of correlation=causation when it isn't the case. Your whole argument is bogus based on that fact.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Vic- Let me help you: regulation is where a product is made available and as safe as possible to those people who insist on acquiring it and are considered capable of knowingly consenting to it.

Let me help you: regulation only occurs once the product passes predetermined acceptance criteria. Under FDA guidelines cigarettes would not pass, they would be prohibited before they reached a regulatory status. The risk/benefit analysis would not even be close. It is not a strict prohibitionist stance, it is merely accepting the inevitable outcome if logic and science were allowed to prevail. Instead we have one of the most dangerous products on the market being protected by special federal law.

As I stated before the only reason they are allowed to be on the market is political and financial interference and protection. Only fools have bought into the personal choice arguement, at least those on capitol hill got a check. You just keep subtly changing your position to try and maintain your arguement, which made no sense from the start and still fails.

:roll:

My position throughout this thread has never changed. Quite the opposite, you and Inflatable Buddha have been jumping from one mischaracterizing straw man after the other in order to justify a draconian moral agenda entirely contrary to basic liberalism.
You're just the face of the newest breed of drug warrior, with the same attitude regarding what peoiple should and should not be allowed to do with their own bodies ala Nixon/Reagan conservatism.
Rationalize it all you want, but this "risk/benefit analysis" is not yours to make (and in that regard, is just a front from authoritarianism), and regulation into prohibition is still prohibition, with the same results, no matter what (or how Orwellian) you choose to label it. Even marijuana was initially just "regulated," with a tax stamp that no one could acquire. Nobody calls the War on Drugs "regulation" today.
And I has said earlier, personal choice/responsibility has no bearing on this argument. What I do wonder though is if moral authoritarians busybodies like yourself will even let us get out of bed in the morning after they've a applied a "risk/benefit analysis" to everything. What's next? Skydiving? Rock climbing? Oh snap, how many people drown each year? Something must be done! Think of the children! We MUST ban swimming!

Yawn, still making political and character assumptions in an attempt to discredit what you cannot with logic. I'm sorry you can't change your position fast enough to support your personal opinion or to dispute the facts of the case, kudos for trying.

I agree the risk/benefit analysis is not mine to make, that should be in the hands of the FDA. It is quite clear:

The legal requirement for safety and efficacy have been interpreted as requiring scientific evidence that the benefits of a drug exceed its risks, and that adequate instructions exist for its safe use.

Once again, my arguement is let them be judged by their own merits, not mine or yours, to stand or fall on their own. Not too difficult to decide what the outcome of that judgement would be in light of the evidence they would be assessing.

We are only talking about one product in particular, not recreational activities. Using your logic the FDA should be eliminated, nothing more than moral authoritarians.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Alistar7 in this thread has continuously made a common logical fallacy. CORRELATION != CAUSATION. You can say all day long that not smoking prior to the age of 18 is correlated with not smoking the rest of their life but that does not imply causation as you are suggesting.

Most likely people who don't smoke prior to 18yrs old were probably highly educated coming from parents that stressed the harms of smoking. This is why they didn't smoke prior to 18 and never smoke any part of their life.

Too many people argument with the concept of correlation=causation when it isn't the case. Your whole argument is bogus based on that fact.

How does any of that change the fact that there is a 90% chance that if you do not smoke before you turn 18, you never will become addicted? That is precisely why minors were targeted in advertising by cigarette manufacturers.

Even if you were correct, how does that invalidate my entire arguement that cigarettes should be subject to FDA oversight? Your whole post is bogus, is based on assumption, and does not address the entire scope of what is being discussed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Vic- Let me help you: regulation is where a product is made available and as safe as possible to those people who insist on acquiring it and are considered capable of knowingly consenting to it.

Let me help you: regulation only occurs once the product passes predetermined acceptance criteria. Under FDA guidelines cigarettes would not pass, they would be prohibited before they reached a regulatory status. The risk/benefit analysis would not even be close. It is not a strict prohibitionist stance, it is merely accepting the inevitable outcome if logic and science were allowed to prevail. Instead we have one of the most dangerous products on the market being protected by special federal law.

As I stated before the only reason they are allowed to be on the market is political and financial interference and protection. Only fools have bought into the personal choice arguement, at least those on capitol hill got a check. You just keep subtly changing your position to try and maintain your arguement, which made no sense from the start and still fails.

:roll:

My position throughout this thread has never changed. Quite the opposite, you and Inflatable Buddha have been jumping from one mischaracterizing straw man after the other in order to justify a draconian moral agenda entirely contrary to basic liberalism.
You're just the face of the newest breed of drug warrior, with the same attitude regarding what peoiple should and should not be allowed to do with their own bodies ala Nixon/Reagan conservatism.
Rationalize it all you want, but this "risk/benefit analysis" is not yours to make (and in that regard, is just a front from authoritarianism), and regulation into prohibition is still prohibition, with the same results, no matter what (or how Orwellian) you choose to label it. Even marijuana was initially just "regulated," with a tax stamp that no one could acquire. Nobody calls the War on Drugs "regulation" today.
And I has said earlier, personal choice/responsibility has no bearing on this argument. What I do wonder though is if moral authoritarians busybodies like yourself will even let us get out of bed in the morning after they've a applied a "risk/benefit analysis" to everything. What's next? Skydiving? Rock climbing? Oh snap, how many people drown each year? Something must be done! Think of the children! We MUST ban swimming!

Yawn, still making political and character assumptions in an attempt to discredit what you cannot with logic. I'm sorry you can't change your position fast enough to support your personal opinion or to dispute the facts of the case, kudos for trying.

I agree the risk/benefit analysis is not mine to make, that should be in the hands of the FDA. It is quite clear:

The legal requirement for safety and efficacy have been interpreted as requiring scientific evidence that the benefits of a drug exceed its risks, and that adequate instructions exist for its safe use.

Once again, my arguement is let them be judged by their own merits, not mine or yours, to stand or fall on their own. Not too difficult to decide what the outcome of that judgement would be in light of the evidence they would be assessing.

We are only talking about one product in particular, not recreational activities. Using your logic the FDA should be eliminated, nothing more than moral authoritarians.

No, it has NEVER been my argument nor logic that FDA should be eliminated. Nor have I changed my argument at any point in this thread (which I assume is why you don't cite any examples of me actually doing so).

At this point, if you think I'm making character assumptions, it's because you're being an asshole. You specifically and clearly argued in favor of strict prohibition, and have been backpedalling on this FDA regulation straw man ever since, despite the fact that you complained that the almost certain outcome of FDA regulation is that the product won't be prohibited. It's amazing, but you have successfully and completely jammed your own head right up your own ass.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Probably no more than the average person. Older people tend to smoke more than younger people....especially older people who 'work' for a living. Working for a tobacco company could encourage or discourage depending on the company culture and whether or not the people get sick of the tobacco smell.

Execs usually don't smoke cigarettes and would be more likely to smoke higher-end cigars. They do it for vanity, as well as enjoying the flavor.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Alistar7 in this thread has continuously made a common logical fallacy. CORRELATION != CAUSATION. You can say all day long that not smoking prior to the age of 18 is correlated with not smoking the rest of their life but that does not imply causation as you are suggesting.

Most likely people who don't smoke prior to 18yrs old were probably highly educated coming from parents that stressed the harms of smoking. This is why they didn't smoke prior to 18 and never smoke any part of their life.

Too many people argument with the concept of correlation=causation when it isn't the case. Your whole argument is bogus based on that fact.

How does any of that change the fact that there is a 90% chance that if you do not smoke before you turn 18, you never will become addicted? That is precisely why minors were targeted in advertising by cigarette manufacturers.

Even if you were correct, how does that invalidate my entire arguement that cigarettes should be subject to FDA oversight? Your whole post is bogus, is based on assumption, and does not address the entire scope of what is being discussed.

Damn are you really that dense?????

The point is very simple.

correlation doesn't mean jacksh*t. If the CAUSE for not smoking during your lifetime is parents educating their children, then your whole argument is worthless.

Your basis for your argument is bogus and that makes everything you are building on top of it is BOGUS.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Nope. At least most don't. I read a quote from an unnamed tobacco exec somewhere which said, in effect, "We're not stupid enough to smoke that shit".

They know their product is dangerous so they abstain from using it while forcing it upon the public.

Alcohol OTOH, can be consumed in moderation with few ill effects. So it makes sense that alcohol execs would drink. As for your buddy and other high ranking managers, I suspect the excess is just from the stress of their jobs.

They don't "force" it onto the public. The public is stupid enough to pay lots of hard-earned cash to buy the product, even with warning labels clearly visible.

I like German warnings the best :laugh:

Surgeon General's Warning: smoking could possibly cause blah blah blah <- American
Smoking Kills <- German

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: LoKe
Probably. It would be hard to speak for something if you don't use it.

Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you, and some choose to smoke them anyways.

They target minors who are not entirely capable of making informed judgements or understand consequences. Ever see the numbers on the odds of someone not smoking if they don't light up for the first time before they are 18? Take a look and tell me they don't target minors specifically. The strength of the addiction hardly makes ongoing use a "choice".

We're brought up knowing smoking is bad for you, what with all the cancerous labels and T.V. ads. We see the effects of smoking throughout our family, as well as in the shows and movies we watch. Even under 18, it's unlikely that the majority is anywhere near that ignorant.

It's fairly common in people under 18 that they're invincible, "it'll never happen to me", and they all have better control of themselves and won't get so addicted that they can't quit.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Vic- Let me help you: regulation is where a product is made available and as safe as possible to those people who insist on acquiring it and are considered capable of knowingly consenting to it.

Let me help you: regulation only occurs once the product passes predetermined acceptance criteria. Under FDA guidelines cigarettes would not pass, they would be prohibited before they reached a regulatory status. The risk/benefit analysis would not even be close. It is not a strict prohibitionist stance, it is merely accepting the inevitable outcome if logic and science were allowed to prevail. Instead we have one of the most dangerous products on the market being protected by special federal law.

As I stated before the only reason they are allowed to be on the market is political and financial interference and protection. Only fools have bought into the personal choice arguement, at least those on capitol hill got a check. You just keep subtly changing your position to try and maintain your arguement, which made no sense from the start and still fails.

:roll:

My position throughout this thread has never changed. Quite the opposite, you and Inflatable Buddha have been jumping from one mischaracterizing straw man after the other in order to justify a draconian moral agenda entirely contrary to basic liberalism.
You're just the face of the newest breed of drug warrior, with the same attitude regarding what peoiple should and should not be allowed to do with their own bodies ala Nixon/Reagan conservatism.
Rationalize it all you want, but this "risk/benefit analysis" is not yours to make (and in that regard, is just a front from authoritarianism), and regulation into prohibition is still prohibition, with the same results, no matter what (or how Orwellian) you choose to label it. Even marijuana was initially just "regulated," with a tax stamp that no one could acquire. Nobody calls the War on Drugs "regulation" today.
And I has said earlier, personal choice/responsibility has no bearing on this argument. What I do wonder though is if moral authoritarians busybodies like yourself will even let us get out of bed in the morning after they've a applied a "risk/benefit analysis" to everything. What's next? Skydiving? Rock climbing? Oh snap, how many people drown each year? Something must be done! Think of the children! We MUST ban swimming!

Yawn, still making political and character assumptions in an attempt to discredit what you cannot with logic. I'm sorry you can't change your position fast enough to support your personal opinion or to dispute the facts of the case, kudos for trying.

I agree the risk/benefit analysis is not mine to make, that should be in the hands of the FDA. It is quite clear:

The legal requirement for safety and efficacy have been interpreted as requiring scientific evidence that the benefits of a drug exceed its risks, and that adequate instructions exist for its safe use.

Once again, my arguement is let them be judged by their own merits, not mine or yours, to stand or fall on their own. Not too difficult to decide what the outcome of that judgement would be in light of the evidence they would be assessing.

We are only talking about one product in particular, not recreational activities. Using your logic the FDA should be eliminated, nothing more than moral authoritarians.

No, it has NEVER been my argument nor logic that FDA should be eliminated. Nor have I changed my argument at any point in this thread (which I assume is why you don't cite any examples of me actually doing so).

At this point, if you think I'm making character assumptions, it's because you're being an asshole. You specifically and clearly argued in favor of strict prohibition, and have been backpedalling on this FDA regulation straw man ever since, despite the fact that you complained that the almost certain outcome of FDA regulation is that the product won't be prohibited. It's amazing, but you have successfully and completely jammed your own head right up your own ass.

No need and no desire. The entries are still there either way, and they are clear.

The FDA arguement was there from the start, interesting that you should characterize it as backpedaling, need the mirror again? Did the one sentence separating the two confuse you somehow?

Cigs should be pulled off the shelves for good. It is on the only product on the market that used in the manner intended will kill you. They have managed to avoid FDA oversight by falsely claiming their product is 100% natural, and by funneling significant cash contributions to politicians.

It is true that the eventual legislation that will finally give the FDA regulatory oversight on cigarettes will result in them still being available. The FDA will not be given the legislative authority to prohibit their sale, only to alter certain aspects/%'s of their ingredients and advertising. Again, special federal legislative protection. It would still be a welcome change that will result in, ahem, a "safer" cigarette.

What good is the FDA if special interests can circumvent an unbiased, scientific screening process? Yeah our product kills people and would not pass your normal risk/benefit criteria, but we flooded congress with $ to limit you from doing your job by preventing it's distribution. Now slap that FDA approval sticker on that bitch so we can make some $. It's a dangerous precedent.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Alistar7 in this thread has continuously made a common logical fallacy. CORRELATION != CAUSATION. You can say all day long that not smoking prior to the age of 18 is correlated with not smoking the rest of their life but that does not imply causation as you are suggesting.

Most likely people who don't smoke prior to 18yrs old were probably highly educated coming from parents that stressed the harms of smoking. This is why they didn't smoke prior to 18 and never smoke any part of their life.

Too many people argument with the concept of correlation=causation when it isn't the case. Your whole argument is bogus based on that fact.

How does any of that change the fact that there is a 90% chance that if you do not smoke before you turn 18, you never will become addicted? That is precisely why minors were targeted in advertising by cigarette manufacturers.

Even if you were correct, how does that invalidate my entire arguement that cigarettes should be subject to FDA oversight? Your whole post is bogus, is based on assumption, and does not address the entire scope of what is being discussed.

Damn are you really that dense?????

The point is very simple.

correlation doesn't mean jacksh*t. If the CAUSE for not smoking during your lifetime is parents educating their children, then your whole argument is worthless.

Your basis for your argument is bogus and that makes everything you are building on top of it is BOGUS.

Not nearly as dense as yourself, thank god. Try reading the whole thread and understanding everything in proper context. The basis for my arguement is this, cigarettes are not a natural product and therefore should be subject to FDA oversight.

This is not about why some teens start smoking, and why some do not. In any case I never implied the causation, doh. Read much?

 

[Vic]

No, it's not a dangerous precedent because they are NUMEROUS products that will kill if abused. The dangerous precedent (if you need one) is to continue to expand to drug prohibition as you propose. Why is this so hard for you to understand, drug warrior?

 

[Codewiz]

How does any of that change the fact that there is a 90% chance that if you do not smoke before you turn 18, you never will become addicted?

HEY SMARTYPANTS, that sentence right there implies CAUSATION. You obviously have no clue about the difference between causation and correlation....

No need to read the entire thread when your arguments are based on logical fallacies.

 

[sygyzy]

Wow, some pretty amazing answers here.

"They get free cigarettes so of course they smoke."

"Probably. You can't speak about a product you don't use."

HAHHAHA

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Vic
No, it's not a dangerous precedent because they are NUMEROUS products that will kill if abused. The dangerous precedent (if you need one) is to continue to expand to drug prohibition as you propose. Why is this so hard for you to understand, drug warrior?

And cigarette manufacturers control the levels of nicotine to ensure it will be used in exactly that type of abusive manner.

Drug warrior lol, I hope you are alluding to all of the ones I have used, rather liberally I might add. Been 10+ years since I did anything hard though, now I stick to the all natural MJ. I have no problem with people using any natural substance to get high, or any other mind altering non-natural substance that can pass FDA scrutiny.

It is not a dangerous precedent to have the FDA unable to remove products from the market even though it is proven they are unsafe, that their risk far outweighs their benefit? There is no need for the FDA then, it's every man for himself. We will just have to take the word of the drug/food manufacturers that it is safe.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

How does any of that change the fact that there is a 90% chance that if you do not smoke before you turn 18, you never will become addicted?

HEY SMARTYPANTS, that sentence right there implies CAUSATION. You obviously have no clue about the difference between causation and correlation....

No need to read the entire thread when your arguments are based on logical fallacies.

The basis of my arguement was FDA oversight, not causation/correlation of teen smoking.

That 90% was actually brought up by another member first, I just searched for a link and posted it because the accuracy was questioned, nothing more.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Vic
No, it's not a dangerous precedent because they are NUMEROUS products that will kill if abused. The dangerous precedent (if you need one) is to continue to expand to drug prohibition as you propose. Why is this so hard for you to understand, drug warrior?

And cigarette manufacturers control the levels of nicotine to ensure it will be used in exactly that type of abusive manner.

Drug warrior lol, I hope you are alluding to all of the ones I have used, rather liberally I might add. Been 10+ years since I did anything hard though, now I stick to the all natural MJ. I have no problem with people using any natural substance to get high, or any other mind altering non-natural substance that can pass FDA scrutiny.

It is not a dangerous precedent to have the FDA unable to remove products from the market even though it is proven they are unsafe, that their risk far outweighs their benefit? There is no need for the FDA then, it's every man for himself. We will just have to take the word of the drug/food manufacturers that it is safe.

In addition to all your fallacies, your hypocrisy (or your ignorance, I'm not sure which) is just dumbfounding.

Your natural/unnatural argument regarding nictoine content has already (long ago) been addressed. All that weed you smoked was "doctored" for THC content too. You think they grow like that in the wild? OMG TEH NOES! Just like alcohol products are downright manufactured for their alcohol content.

As to your last paragraph, you just go back to the same old fallacy to equate prohibition with regulation, showing that you are too fscking stupid for me to continue wasting my time with.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Vic
No, it's not a dangerous precedent because they are NUMEROUS products that will kill if abused. The dangerous precedent (if you need one) is to continue to expand to drug prohibition as you propose. Why is this so hard for you to understand, drug warrior?

And cigarette manufacturers control the levels of nicotine to ensure it will be used in exactly that type of abusive manner.

Drug warrior lol, I hope you are alluding to all of the ones I have used, rather liberally I might add. Been 10+ years since I did anything hard though, now I stick to the all natural MJ. I have no problem with people using any natural substance to get high, or any other mind altering non-natural substance that can pass FDA scrutiny.

It is not a dangerous precedent to have the FDA unable to remove products from the market even though it is proven they are unsafe, that their risk far outweighs their benefit? There is no need for the FDA then, it's every man for himself. We will just have to take the word of the drug/food manufacturers that it is safe.

In addition to all your fallacies, your hypocrisy (or your ignorance, I'm not sure which) is just dumbfounding.

Your natural/unnatural argument regarding nictoine content has already (long ago) been addressed. All that weed you smoked was "doctored" for THC content too. You think they grow like that in the wild? OMG TEH NOES! Just like alcohol products are downright manufactured for their alcohol content.

As to your last paragraph, you just go back to the same old fallacy to equate prohibition with regulation, showing that you are too fscking stupid for me to continue wasting my time with.

Ah yes more personal attacks, always the ultimate resort of those unable to adequately articulate their own position.

As long as you can convince yourself.... :beer:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Nope. At least most don't. I read a quote from an unnamed tobacco exec somewhere which said, in effect, "We're not stupid enough to smoke that shit".

They know their product is dangerous so they abstain from using it while forcing it upon the public.

Alcohol OTOH, can be consumed in moderation with few ill effects. So it makes sense that alcohol execs would drink. As for your buddy and other high ranking managers, I suspect the excess is just from the stress of their jobs.

Sigh... I hate the brainwashed. You're completely ignorant and unobjective of the facts, but you fling accusations with seeming authority.

First, if tobacco execs smoke less on average than the general populace, that would be because the wealthy and successful smoke less on average than does the general populace. Smoking today is predominantly a problem in the lower classes. That can be readily seen at almost any workplace environment.

Second, no one "forces" tobacco products on anyone. Grow up.

Third, if anyone consumed alcohol as much as the typical smoker consumes tobacco (i.e. to intoxication all day every single day), the ill health effects would be significantly worse (I suggest you volunteer at a homeless shelter or alcoholic treatment center and see for yourself). However, if a smoker smoked as little as most drinkers drink (i.e. a few times a month), the health effects would be less. Dosage is everything. And what this demonstrates is that the greater danger of smoking is the addiction which drives the use to horrendous abuse.
Get your facts straight.

^^^ That post gets 10 gold stars. :thumbsup:

(for the record I absolutely hate smoking)

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: Mo0o
THe smart drug dealers dont do their own product either.

theres a huge difference tho. drug dealers traditionally cut their product to get the stuf they did, which would lower the quality. they also would take their own profits and put it into a personal stash. how would execs at a corporation go about this? they get paid whether half their crops get wiped out by a hurricane or not, they arent making less if they take a carton a month off the shelf. bad correlation there.


i heard on the radio this morning that the next thing anti smokers are going to try to get voted in for phoenix is to ban it in cars with children. i smoke. i smoke in my truck. i dont smoke in my truck with my kids there. i also dont smoke in my house. these laws are getting ridiculous.

The problem is many smokers do smoke with their kids in their car. I don't think a day passes where I don't see it at least once on the way to/from work. Here in FL the weather is often hot so usually the windows are all up or barely cracked open so it's not like the smoke can easily escape. I remember when I was younger I used to *hate* it when my parents would light up when my bro and I were in the car.

Just because you don't smoke with the kids in the car doesn't mean the kids aren't affected by the times you smoked without them. My ex-wife's mother used to smoke in the house when she wasn't home. She would never smoke while she was home but my ex had severe asthma problems. Once her mother moved out (into a condo) her asthma completely disappeared.

 

[tcG]

Let the FDA decide what is good and bad for us? The FDA is the same organization that schedules cocaine as "more addictive" and having less "potential for dependency" than marijuana.

Certain dim wits don't understand that just because something is bad for you doesn't mean it should be made illegal. I should have the right to put into my body what I want to put into my body, whether it is crack cocaine or tobacco.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: tcG
Let the FDA decide what is good and bad for us? The FDA is the same organization that schedules cocaine as "more addictive" and having less "potential for dependency" than marijuana.

Certain dim wits don't understand that just because something is bad for you doesn't mean it should be made illegal. I should have the right to put into my body what I want to put into my body, whether it is crack cocaine or tobacco.

Like it or not the FDA already does a lot of good/bad determination. Are you advocating legalizing everything?