Historic Anti-Smoking Legislation About To Pass

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Well yeah, I mean I might not be attracted to your mind but that doesn't mean I'm not attracted to your body.

I know this to be true no googling needed

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Well yeah, I mean I might not be attracted to your mind but that doesn't mean I'm not attracted to your body.

I know this to be true no googling needed

Some o-ogling required though...

 

[JEDIYoda]

why bring up a thread that is several years old....

 

[Jmman]

Well, a little background before I post. I don't smoke, don't want to smoke, and my grandfather died a very painful, long death from lung cancer. That being said, I don't really think it should be the role of goverment to tell me what I can and can't do to myself. They are already talking about taxing soft drinks and sugary foods. What is next, mandatory bedtime at 9pm and only 1 hour of tv a day? :disgust:

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Sorry that some of us don't feel like spewing out the same information that comes up in every smoking thread.

In fact since it has been studied very often it is quite an easy Google search. Figure it out.

Maybe you could use the "search" function in the forum even instead of coming in here hurling insults because you are too damn lazy.

good to see you completely ignore the second part of my statement and just tell me if i want proof of the garbage you people spew I should go find it myself. Question. How can I find something that isn't there?

Ha, more insults eh? Fine I'll get you a short response.

It is there. I'm sorry you are retarded.

edit: Here are some of the examples, took me LESS THAN A MINUTE

http://www.sciencenews.org/vie...car_exhaust_can_linger

http://www.second-opinions.co....iesel_lung_cancer.html

Gee, was that so hard? Guess not for the average person capable of using the internet.

the initial statement was "riding a bus is more harmful then second hand smoke." I don't see proof of that in your links, however I do agree with you that IC exhaust should ALSO be regulated more then it is. So I'm glad we are on the same page i.e. regulation is good.

also funny you state "Ha, more insults" and then call me retarded in the next sentence. Yarr! GJ


p.s. Tell your mom I'll be there at 7

zing! out!

Childish troll there at the end, but you obviously realize that a bus is a vehicle just like a car.

Originally posted by: aeternitas
TruePaige, whats with the idiocy? If you want to provide evidence of what you say and get people to believe you you cant just go around saying LOOK IT UP IM RITE! Thats what six year olds do. If wikipedia was like that you'd get down to the "references" section and it would just say "google it noob LOL!"

Lurk around here more. Maybe you can educate yourself. I'm not going to break everything down to make you understand, I just don't care about you that much.

I swear half the arguments in every thread is somebody who requires every piece of data from the last thread that isn't even a month old to be regurgitated.

Well I already educated myself that youre an idiot, thanks to you really, couldn't of learned that without you.

Sitting around saying youre wrong without giving any real backing is pretty pathetic.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, a little background before I post. I don't smoke, don't want to smoke, and my grandfather died a very painful, long death from lung cancer. That being said, I don't really think it should be the role of goverment to tell me what I can and can't do to myself. They are already talking about taxing soft drinks and sugary foods. What is next, mandatory bedtime at 9pm and only 1 hour of tv a day? :disgust:

Yeah and we should all allowed to drink and drive too.

Look, im all for legalization of mj too, but there is a line where too much is too much, and typicaly its drawn when people start to abuse, or a substance proves too much for people to properly be responsible for. That is reflected in the numbers. If we can find a cure for cancer, lets smoke it up. If we can find a way to not have fucked up school systems, thereby having a smarter society in general that is more resilient to substance abuse, then lets light it up. Until then, stupid sheep need to be herded.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, a little background before I post. I don't smoke, don't want to smoke, and my grandfather died a very painful, long death from lung cancer. That being said, I don't really think it should be the role of goverment to tell me what I can and can't do to myself. They are already talking about taxing soft drinks and sugary foods. What is next, mandatory bedtime at 9pm and only 1 hour of tv a day? :disgust:

Yeah and we should all allowed to drink and drive too.

I'm sorry - did you just equate smoking to drinking & driving?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Congress wages war on choice while North Korea and Iran gear up for war on the USA. Sounds like congress has its priorities in line.

Weak FUD FTL.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Sorry that some of us don't feel like spewing out the same information that comes up in every smoking thread.

In fact since it has been studied very often it is quite an easy Google search. Figure it out.

Maybe you could use the "search" function in the forum even instead of coming in here hurling insults because you are too damn lazy.

good to see you completely ignore the second part of my statement and just tell me if i want proof of the garbage you people spew I should go find it myself. Question. How can I find something that isn't there?

Ha, more insults eh? Fine I'll get you a short response.

It is there. I'm sorry you are retarded.

edit: Here are some of the examples, took me LESS THAN A MINUTE

http://www.sciencenews.org/vie...car_exhaust_can_linger

http://www.second-opinions.co....iesel_lung_cancer.html

Gee, was that so hard? Guess not for the average person capable of using the internet.

the initial statement was "riding a bus is more harmful then second hand smoke." I don't see proof of that in your links, however I do agree with you that IC exhaust should ALSO be regulated more then it is. So I'm glad we are on the same page i.e. regulation is good.

also funny you state "Ha, more insults" and then call me retarded in the next sentence. Yarr! GJ


p.s. Tell your mom I'll be there at 7

zing! out!

Childish troll there at the end, but you obviously realize that a bus is a vehicle just like a car.

Originally posted by: aeternitas
TruePaige, whats with the idiocy? If you want to provide evidence of what you say and get people to believe you you cant just go around saying LOOK IT UP IM RITE! Thats what six year olds do. If wikipedia was like that you'd get down to the "references" section and it would just say "google it noob LOL!"

Lurk around here more. Maybe you can educate yourself. I'm not going to break everything down to make you understand, I just don't care about you that much.

I swear half the arguments in every thread is somebody who requires every piece of data from the last thread that isn't even a month old to be regurgitated.

Well I already educated myself that youre an idiot, thanks to you really, couldn't of learned that without you.

Sitting around saying youre wrong without giving any real backing is pretty pathetic.

Like I give two squirts of piss what you think about me.

I already proved the point, so stop trying to be a little troll and go lurk until you can find some common sense.

You = Thread Derailer. I'm done responding to you.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, a little background before I post. I don't smoke, don't want to smoke, and my grandfather died a very painful, long death from lung cancer. That being said, I don't really think it should be the role of goverment to tell me what I can and can't do to myself. They are already talking about taxing soft drinks and sugary foods. What is next, mandatory bedtime at 9pm and only 1 hour of tv a day? :disgust:

Yeah and we should all allowed to drink and drive too.

I'm sorry - did you just equate smoking to drinking & driving?

Yeah..he did.

If only a "facepalm" emoticon existed.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: bamacre
This will help big companies like Phillip Morris, and may kill off their smaller competition, who have probably been doing better since the tax hikes. Big companies get bigger, with a little help from Big Brother. All in the name of "saving children."

This...

And they'll get water down their smokes now... legislated cost savings for the corporate win!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
smokers cost less in the longrun on healthcare than do non smokers...

Shhhh! Non-cited BS is not welcome here.

Fixt

Here, let me Google that for you.

Smokers may not be financial burden on society

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, a little background before I post. I don't smoke, don't want to smoke, and my grandfather died a very painful, long death from lung cancer. That being said, I don't really think it should be the role of goverment to tell me what I can and can't do to myself. They are already talking about taxing soft drinks and sugary foods. What is next, mandatory bedtime at 9pm and only 1 hour of tv a day? :disgust:

Yeah and we should all allowed to drink and drive too.

Look, im all for legalization of mj too, but there is a line where too much is too much, and typicaly its drawn when people start to abuse, or a substance proves too much for people to properly be responsible for. That is reflected in the numbers. If we can find a cure for cancer, lets smoke it up. If we can find a way to not have fucked up school systems, thereby having a smarter society in general that is more resilient to substance abuse, then lets light it up. Until then, stupid sheep need to be herded.

You can make a very strong case for just about every substance.

1. High caloric foods. America has shown plainly that we cannot enjoy these foods responsibly. 60%+ of the population is obese or overweight. These conditions are a direct cause of the leading killers in America, namely, cardiovascular disease. Regulating what we can and can't put into our stomachs will save far more lives than tobacco regulation.

2. Alcohol. Alcohol related deaths as high or higher than tobacco related deaths. Again, America has shown it cannot responsibly use these substances and alcohol provides no benefits at all (red wine does, but you easily make red wine without alcohol). It's a pleasure substance, pure and simple, and since we can't use it responsibly, as evidenced by the number of drunk driving fatalites each year, we need to absolutely regulate this substance as much as possible.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Dragula22

Originally posted by: Robor
Sugar isn't a drug. Caffeine isn't as addictive. Alcohol is not 'just as addictive' either. You don't see groups of people outside the office downing a cold one because they haven't had a beer in 90 minutes.

Caffeine is most definitely as addictive as nicotine. Thankfully for addicts, it doesn't bother people nearby.

Alcohol is even worse than nicotine. You can die from alcohol withdrawal. There's a reason why you don't see groups of people outside the office drinking beer...they're not alcoholics.

I f'en hate alcohol and caffeine.

About a year ago I was getting heart palpitations so I went to my Dr. She asked me how much caffeine I drank and I told her at least 2 liters of diet soda (usually caffeinated) per day, often more. I even mixed in diet energy drinks now and then. I was doing this for years with no palpitations so I didn't think it was caffeine but on her advice I cut all caffeine out - cold turkey - and had no cravings or withdrawal affects whatsoever. My only craving was carbonation but there's plenty of diet carbonated beverages that have zero caffeine. So I'll agree that caffeine can mess with your body but as far as being addictive I never craved or missed it.

Alcoholics abuse alcohol because they have a addictive personalities. If it wasn't alcohol it would be something else. They're often addicted to nicotine and/or caffeine as well. The average (non-alcoholic) person can have a few beers, wines, drinks and not get addicted or have any withdrawal affects - well other than a hangover.

Edit: messed up the quoting again

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Sinsear
I thought the Dems were all about choice.

America is not about choice anymore, it's all agenda. If the agenda permits choice (as in abortion) then the illusion of choice is maintained. If the agenda is anti-smoking, choice is taken away from you, despite all the logical and compelling arguments made.

Where did you guys get the idea that someone is losing their ability to choose to smoke or not smoke? Nicotine is a highly addictive drug added to cigarettes to make them more addictive. Why shouldn't the FDA regulate it?

Why not sugar, caffeine or alcohol? Sugar is practically a drug, you get a rush of serotonin whenever you eat junk food. Alcohol is just as addictive as tobacco and does far more damage to people (individuals and families alike) than tobacco does.

You can't make this argument for tobacco without making the same argument for just about every substance we ingest.

Sugar isn't a drug. Caffeine isn't as addictive. Alcohol is not 'just as addictive' either. You don't see groups of people outside the office downing a cold one because they haven't had a beer in 90 minutes.

Alcohol's dependency is different than nicotine's. If you've ever seen a person suffering from alcohol withdrawal, you'd say differently. Secondly, who cares about addictiveness? Alcohol is a destructive drug that cuases hundreds of thousands of fatalities a year, even more than tobacco smoke.

Sugar may not be a drug in the colloquial sense of the word, but it definitely has drug like propeties for those that eat it. Why do you continue to endanger the health of our children? Obesity and diabetes are directly and causally linked to sugar intake. Where is your outrage over the fact that a pack of twinkies has 50g of sugar? Where is your siren call to tax soda pop at 2 dollars/can? A can of soda is just as damaging as smoking. Addiction to soda is just as debilitating as addiction to tobacco. Obesity, diabetes, heart problems, all these are linked to a diet high in sugar.

I've seen alcohol withdrawal first hand. I worked construction between 11th and 12th grade and one of the welders was an alcoholic. The difference is most people can drink alcohol on a regular social basis and not get addicted to it. Most people who smoke on a regular basis can not give it up for even a short period without having withdrawal symptoms. Most who smoke and want to quit are unsuccessful. My mother has severe breathing problems caused by emphysema and has tried to quit countless times only to go back. This after watching her sister killed of emphysema and cancer only a few years ago.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, a little background before I post. I don't smoke, don't want to smoke, and my grandfather died a very painful, long death from lung cancer. That being said, I don't really think it should be the role of goverment to tell me what I can and can't do to myself. They are already talking about taxing soft drinks and sugary foods. What is next, mandatory bedtime at 9pm and only 1 hour of tv a day? :disgust:

Yeah and we should all allowed to drink and drive too.

Look, im all for legalization of mj too, but there is a line where too much is too much, and typicaly its drawn when people start to abuse, or a substance proves too much for people to properly be responsible for. That is reflected in the numbers. If we can find a cure for cancer, lets smoke it up. If we can find a way to not have fucked up school systems, thereby having a smarter society in general that is more resilient to substance abuse, then lets light it up. Until then, stupid sheep need to be herded.

You can make a very strong case for just about every substance.

1. High caloric foods. America has shown plainly that we cannot enjoy these foods responsibly. 60%+ of the population is obese or overweight. These conditions are a direct cause of the leading killers in America, namely, cardiovascular disease. Regulating what we can and can't put into our stomachs will save far more lives than tobacco regulation.

2. Alcohol. Alcohol related deaths as high or higher than tobacco related deaths. Again, America has shown it cannot responsibly use these substances and alcohol provides no benefits at all (red wine does, but you easily make red wine without alcohol). It's a pleasure substance, pure and simple, and since we can't use it responsibly, as evidenced by the number of drunk driving fatalites each year, we need to absolutely regulate this substance as much as possible.

americans cant use the internet responsibly, we have to regulate it
americans cant use (insert thing here), we have to regulate it.

look at what you are setting a standard for...

 

[Paddington]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Great. Taking away choice is now the "American Way"?

Plus studies show that due to a shorter lifespan smokers cost the system LESS in the long run. More "think of the children" legislation.

But it is about smoking so cue Harvey in 3..2...1...

(Nothing against Harvey, but he is a bit out there when it comes to smoking.)

Pretty much. Smoking tends to kill people off in their 60's early 70's, right after they retire. Whereas other folks nowadays are retiring in their 60's and living into their 80's, when they're not economically productive but still drawing benefits.

Although money is saved on smoking related health concerns, eventually "everyone dies of something" and even non-smokers end up accruing health care costs later on whether its from heart disease, cancer, or whatever.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, a little background before I post. I don't smoke, don't want to smoke, and my grandfather died a very painful, long death from lung cancer. That being said, I don't really think it should be the role of goverment to tell me what I can and can't do to myself. They are already talking about taxing soft drinks and sugary foods. What is next, mandatory bedtime at 9pm and only 1 hour of tv a day? :disgust:

Yeah and we should all allowed to drink and drive too.

Look, im all for legalization of mj too, but there is a line where too much is too much, and typicaly its drawn when people start to abuse, or a substance proves too much for people to properly be responsible for. That is reflected in the numbers. If we can find a cure for cancer, lets smoke it up. If we can find a way to not have fucked up school systems, thereby having a smarter society in general that is more resilient to substance abuse, then lets light it up. Until then, stupid sheep need to be herded.

You can make a very strong case for just about every substance.

1. High caloric foods. America has shown plainly that we cannot enjoy these foods responsibly. 60%+ of the population is obese or overweight. These conditions are a direct cause of the leading killers in America, namely, cardiovascular disease. Regulating what we can and can't put into our stomachs will save far more lives than tobacco regulation.

2. Alcohol. Alcohol related deaths as high or higher than tobacco related deaths. Again, America has shown it cannot responsibly use these substances and alcohol provides no benefits at all (red wine does, but you easily make red wine without alcohol). It's a pleasure substance, pure and simple, and since we can't use it responsibly, as evidenced by the number of drunk driving fatalites each year, we need to absolutely regulate this substance as much as possible.

Food != smoking
Both the food and alcohol are self inflected. Go ahead and kill yourself. I really think that, and outright suicide should be legal. The issue is really how it starts to immediately effect others around you. Smoke is not a just you think. It gets everywhere. The same way if you get drunk and beat your kid, thats not legal, nor should be the harm you do to people around you when you light up, or get in a car drunk.

People trying to make this a 'personal freedom' issue are just screaming "i dont get it".

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: aeternitas
Food != smoking
Both the food and alcohol are self inflected. Go ahead and kill yourself. I really think that, and outright suicide should be legal. The issue is really how it starts to immediately effect others around you. Smoke is not a just you think. It gets everywhere. The same way if you get drunk and beat your kid, thats not legal, nor should be the harm you do to people around you when you light up, or get in a car drunk.

People trying to make this a 'personal freedom' issue are just screaming "i dont get it".

exactly. This is why you don't see regulation banning chewing tobacco, because it doesn't effect others. Wake up people.