Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Morgan_Freeman · Nov 7, 2006, 01:49 am

Quote:

Quote by: Fonceai

When you say "I smoke" you failed to specify the frequency. Since we are talking about smokers as people who smoke with a degree of regularity multiple times a day, I'm making a logical presumption based on your lack of information.

I have certainly gone through periods of smoking several times a day.

Quote:

Quote by: Fonceai

Since you claim nicotine isn't addicting, prove it.

My intent was to show that nicotine is not nearly as addictive as most people suppose, and that the statement "nicotine is more addictive than heroine" is laughably absurd.

Kamehameha34 · Nov 7, 2006, 05:27 am

Quote:

I say:
Do you own the property you are asking me to vacate to smoke?

If so, yes, your property RIGHTS provide that you may ask, or FORCE me to leave if I refuse, in denial of your expressed demands or wishes.

If not, no, since I am as "entitled" to pursue happiness as you, and non-smokers rights do not trump smokers rights, since they are equal.

Do I have to own the property we are both occupying for me to ask you not to punch me in the face?

Punching me in the face could make you happy, and since we are both "equal", you have every right to imfringe upon my pursuit of happiness in order to carry out yours, right?

Fonceai · Nov 7, 2006, 08:30 am

Quote:

Quote by: Morgan

My intent was to show that nicotine is not nearly as addictive as most people suppose, and that the statement "nicotine is more addictive than heroine" is laughably absurd.

Ahhh, thanks for elaborating. Then I definitely agree.

**Pooeypants** · Nov 7, 2006, 11:10 am

Quote:

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman

My intent was to show that nicotine is not nearly as addictive as most people suppose, and that the statement "nicotine is more addictive than heroine" is laughably absurd.

Exaggerations probably stemmed from media (surprise surprise?) but an official report by the Royal College of Physicians did find that nicotine affects dopamine systems in a similar way to heroin and cocaine. Source

RickSp · Nov 7, 2006, 12:16 pm

As I neither smoke nor do heroin, I have no recent personal experience. Given the choice between believing researchers on the topic and Morgan as a reliable source, I'll choose the former, thank you very much.

Nicotine Addiction
Nicotine Addiction2

JohnMK · Nov 7, 2006, 12:21 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Pooeypants

Exaggerations probably stemmed from media (surprise surprise?) but an official report by the Royal College of Physicians did find that nicotine affects dopamine systems in a similar way to heroin and cocaine. Source

I can see that -- the dopamine system is implicated in the most powerful addictive processes. Long lasting structural changes in the brain take place as a result.

brien · Nov 7, 2006, 01:05 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Nathan Struth

Cigarretes cause lung cancer but you have the choice to endanger your life morgan. I'm sorry that you have to get lung cancer, nearly everyone does who smokes. I cry for my grandpa who got it because he smoked cigars and cigarretes. These things are horrible for you why do you want to endanger your life?!?!?

Quote:

Cigarretes cause lung cancer

But not in all people. My mother has smoked cigarettes for nearly 60 years and she neither has heart disease nor lung cancer. Some people just have a a genetic resilliance to the carcinogens in cargarette smoke. I can't explain it but it is true.

That said, statistics show that the majority of the people who smoke cigarettes for more than 25 years will probably contract some kind of cancer related to smoking. Throat cancer, lung cancer, oral cancer, etc.

I don't like those odds even though I used to like to smoke Camel cigarettes and drink Jack Daniels whiskey straight up. I do neither anymore.

Each person is free to decide for themselves what is best for themselves. The last thing we need is for government to continue telling us how to behave in our personal lives.

PatrickHenry · Nov 7, 2006, 01:14 pm

Quote:

Quote by: brien

Each person is free to decide for themselves what is best for themselves. The last thing we need is for government to continue telling us how to behave in our personal lives.

However, government is a means of enforcing civil behavior among ourselves.

brien · Nov 7, 2006, 01:18 pm

Quote:

Quote by: PatrickHenry

However, government is a means of enforcing civil behavior among ourselves.

Absolutely.

Fonceai · Nov 7, 2006, 01:28 pm

Quote:

Quote by: PH

However, government is a means of enforcing civil behavior among ourselves.

Because brien pointed out how we deal with ourselves.

You point out how we deal with other people.

Two different things.

PatrickHenry · Nov 7, 2006, 01:43 pm

OK. Here it is, even though the topic says "myth" of second hand smoke.

Environmental smoke is a reality, not a myth. It occurs because smokers feel free to set fire to tobacco at will. The resulting smoke is poisonous, at least to some degree. Poisons in the atmosphere should be regulated by government, otherwise, we will see violent resistance by those who are poisoned...

I would rather have smoking restricted in certain environments than to have fights over one person's behavior affecting another person's health. As a libertarian, I agree that some environments may be expected to be smoky, eg. saloons... Restaurants, shops and malls are another matter.

All publicly owned environments should be smoke-free with the exception of the outdoors...

Morgan_Freeman · Nov 7, 2006, 03:07 pm

Quote:

Quote by: PatrickHenry

All publicly owned environments should be smoke-free with the exception of the outdoors...

Actually, I think there is a valid basis for outlawing smoking on public streets and sidewalks. If you're talking about "public health", that sure makes more goddamn sense than banning it on private property.

Morgan_Freeman · Nov 7, 2006, 03:10 pm

Quote:

Quote by: RickSp

As I neither smoke nor do heroin, I have no recent personal experience. Given the choice between believing researchers on the topic and Morgan as a reliable source, I'll choose the former, thank you very much.

Nicotine Addiction
Nicotine Addiction2

Nothing in those links supports the claim that "nicotine is more addictive than heroine".

Morgan_Freeman · Nov 7, 2006, 03:12 pm

People get addicted to all sorts of things... food, coffee, coke, computer games, sex, candy, you name it.

Just because people get addicted to something doesn't mean that there is anything inherently addictive about it.

RickSp · Nov 7, 2006, 03:20 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman

Nothing in those links supports the claim that "nicotine is more addictive than heroine".

From the first link-

Quote:

Tobacco is as addictive as heroin (as a mood & behavior altering agent).

OK, I won't quibble over a modifier. Nicotine is as addictive as heroin. (Nicotine being the addictive component of tobacco.)

RickSp · Nov 7, 2006, 03:21 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman

People get addicted to all sorts of things... food, coffee, coke, computer games, sex, candy, you name it.

Just because people get addicted to something doesn't mean that there is anything inherently addictive about it.

LOL. Do you have any particular reason to deny the obvious? I am a caffeine addict (happily so). It is unquestionably a physical addication.

Morgan_Freeman · Nov 7, 2006, 03:23 pm

Quote:

Quote by: RickSp

From the first link-
OK, I won't quibble over a modifier. Nicotine is as addictive as heroin. (Nicotine being the addictive component of tobacco.)

Oh, so anything the University of Minnesota states must be true?
:rolleyes:
Give me a break.

Let's see the research.

Morgan_Freeman · Nov 7, 2006, 03:25 pm

Quote:

Quote by: RickSp

LOL. Do you have any particular reason to deny the obvious? I am a caffeine addict (happily so). It is unquestionably a physical addication.

I would argue that have more to do with your inherently susceptability to addiction than with the substance itself. I drink vast amounts of coffee, but I've never become addicted.

RickSp · Nov 7, 2006, 04:28 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman

Oh, so anything the University of Minnesota states must be true?
:rolleyes:
Give me a break.

Let's see the research.

LOL. Right you are all knowing, I forgot that. You know better than the experts.

And now you claim to be immune to addiction. Leap over tall buildings in a single bound, by any chance?

If you have nothing to significant to say, at least you amuse.

Logjam · Nov 7, 2006, 04:42 pm

Certainly the dangers of second hand smoke is a matter of degrees. In some places the smoke can be very consentrated, such as in some bars. But in most places I doubt very much that second hand smoke is dangerous.

I believe that the reaction to the anti-smoking Nazi's is a dramatic over reaction. We should allow those who make cigarettes to make them, and we should allow those who want to smoke them, to smoke them; as long as others who do not want to be around the smoke are taken into consideration.

I am an ex-smoker. I will not go to places where people smoke. I just don't like to be around the stuff, but that is not to say that my comfort should limit the freedom of others who want to smoke, to smoke. If I walk into a room where people are smoking, I turn and walk out. Simple as that.

Nov 7, 2006, 12:16 pm	#125 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,589	As I neither smoke nor do heroin, I have no recent personal experience. Given the choice between believing researchers on the topic and Morgan as a reliable source, I'll choose the former, thank you very much. Nicotine Addiction Nicotine Addiction2 Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Nov 7, 2006, 01:43 pm	#131 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	OK. Here it is, even though the topic says "myth" of second hand smoke. Environmental smoke is a reality, not a myth. It occurs because smokers feel free to set fire to tobacco at will. The resulting smoke is poisonous, at least to some degree. Poisons in the atmosphere should be regulated by government, otherwise, we will see violent resistance by those who are poisoned... I would rather have smoking restricted in certain environments than to have fights over one person's behavior affecting another person's health. As a libertarian, I agree that some environments may be expected to be smoky, eg. saloons... Restaurants, shops and malls are another matter. All publicly owned environments should be smoke-free with the exception of the outdoors... "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Nov 7, 2006, 03:12 pm	#134 (permalink) (top)
Morgan_Freeman Illogic Hunter Location: Seattle Posts: 2,385	People get addicted to all sorts of things... food, coffee, coke, computer games, sex, candy, you name it. Just because people get addicted to something doesn't mean that there is anything inherently addictive about it. "A republic, if you can keep it." -- Benjamin Franklin Free State Project freestateproject.org

Nov 7, 2006, 04:42 pm	#140 (permalink) (top)
Logjam Hot Lava Posts: 1,153	Certainly the dangers of second hand smoke is a matter of degrees. In some places the smoke can be very consentrated, such as in some bars. But in most places I doubt very much that second hand smoke is dangerous. I believe that the reaction to the anti-smoking Nazi's is a dramatic over reaction. We should allow those who make cigarettes to make them, and we should allow those who want to smoke them, to smoke them; as long as others who do not want to be around the smoke are taken into consideration. I am an ex-smoker. I will not go to places where people smoke. I just don't like to be around the stuff, but that is not to say that my comfort should limit the freedom of others who want to smoke, to smoke. If I walk into a room where people are smoking, I turn and walk out. Simple as that.