Cigarettes

[Cephus]

Quote by: Athena Considering the health problems caused by smoking, it is the tobacco industry that should cover the cost. Health problems are a cost caused by the industry, so the industry should pay for it, and the industries that contribute to obesty should also pay their share of health cost, and industry that contributes to health problems should pay its share of the health cost. This is being responsible for the cause of health problems.

Why? The tobacco industry is just producing a product, they are not forcing anyone to use it. They are warning people, granted at the government's insistence, that smoking is hazardous to their health. It is not their fault that people are stupid enough to use a product that kills them, any more than the automotive industry is responsible for crazy drivers or brewerys are responsible for alcoholics.

Like it or not, tobacco is legal and the tobacco industry, while scumbags by and large, have no control over what morons do with their products.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Chris said: Dont get me wrong, I don't want to make it illegal, but this is weak. they have proven that ciggs kill. Doesn't change my position in my previous post. More people die from ciggs than pot or heroin. I think you can agree with me that we should make those legal. I say: That was pure and refined sarcasm Chris, I thought you would notice that without the smiley, sorry. Yes, you are correct that I agree with you on legalization of all drugs. kubedawg said: That's the problem with people today. They are so bent out of shape on what kind of freedoms we should have and not really realizing one of the top killers in the USA. I say: The problem with people today is people like you, who assume because something kills, or CAN kill, it should be illegalized instead of left where it should be, in the arena of PERSONAL CHOICE. You obviously need to do some reading in the Bill of Rights, and about personal responsibility. If you don't like the challenges of life here in America, where rights are unalienable, and responsibility is a necessity, maybe you should look into moving into a socialist country?

So you prefer to die at 35 years old from lung cancer?

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Chris said: Agreed. But you and others must also recognize non smokers as people with equal rights. The instant someone lights up in a restaurant it turns the entire place into a smoking establishment. I say: I agree, and that is why people who don't like smoking shouldn't go to places that the OWNER OF THE LAND allows smoking on his property, in his establishment. It is not the smokers, it is THE OWNER who ALLOWS the smokings choice. The owner puts your rights as a non-smoker behind the rights of a smoker, so perhaps you should open your own restraunt and make it non-smoking so you can empower the non-smokers in the area by allowing them to have a choice.

how about making it illegal so we dont have to worry about people smoking in our place of business and ahve to enforce these kidn of "extra" laws.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kubedawg said:
So you prefer to die at 35 years old from lung cancer?

I say:
Put your money where your mouth is propaganda boy. Want to bet 500$ I will die by 40 from smoking? Any age under 40? If anyone here I can trust, like Pat Henry or others, I would be glad to place a little bet. Truth is THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSES CANCER, or WHY SOME PEOPLE GET IT AND OTHERS DONT. THEY KNOW YOUR CHANCES ARE INCREASED, but NOTHING is DEFINITE.

Stop being a mouthpiece, and use some skill in debate, like FACTS.

Do you know what a right is? It's about rights, not about opinion.

Kubedawg said:
how about making it illegal so we dont have to worry about people smoking in our place of business and ahve to enforce these kidn of "extra" laws.

I say:
Oh, I seees masta, you mus be betta den all of us smokin' folk! Don't worry suh, we be gettin on back to work rights away.

You must be kidding me right? Do you have any concept of property rights? Who is "our" place of business?

You must seperate belief from reality before footeth endeth up in mouth grasshoppa.

[Chris]

Quote by: kubedawg how about making it illegal so we dont have to worry about people smoking in our place of business and ahve to enforce these kidn of "extra" laws.

You can still place a smoking ban and not make it illegal.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chris said:
You can still place a smoking ban and not make it illegal.

I say:
That is not his intent. His intent is to see all not like him, suffer, because he believes he knows best.

It's funny how people are more and more default authroitarian after graduating public schools.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready It's funny how people are more and more default authroitarian after graduating public schools.

Having religeous beliefs also plays a major role in the acceptance of authoritarian rule it seems.


Never mind the facts, they know what is best for all.

[Chris]

This issue the lines are not so clear. I am more libertarian than authoritarian on everything but this issue I like the smoking bans on restaurants. I am biased. I am a non smoker and wish for my 1 year old to not be exposed by it. I suck it up now though cause I am in TN. I take solace in the fact that at least me and my wife don't smoke and my daughters exposure to it would be a brief period. (Cause of rude people who can't wait and need a cig.) Thats my opinion.

[Milton Bradley]

The problem with letting a little personal opinion creep into law is this. All of the rights you have in this country are based on the simple concept of private property. If others can dictate the terms to you on what is allegedly your property, you will end up being dictated to on all levels of you life. The precedent set in one place can be adopted to attack all of your rights since they are based on the same concepts.


We must support constitutional limitations if we hope to remain a free country.

[kubedawg]

sigh...

We ALL know the causes of smoking, and that is the problem. I was just giving an example of what could happen. Everything is based on hypothitical situations, especially telling someone's future. Based on the FACTS in the past with millions of people dying from smoking cigarettes, I think it's pretty clear we have a problem on our hands.

So, I understand what you say about the people should have the right to smoke, which by the way, contains no healthy benefits AT ALL, it's quite opposite, actually.

I'm just looking out for everyone's lives. It sounds like, to me, you are wanting people to die younger than normal. And that is also a big problem.

Please dont' start a flame war, with your "yessa massa" talk. I prefer to keep this a debate.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: kubedawg I'm just looking out for everyone's lives.

I understand this motive. Looking out for others is important. We need to make sure people take care of thier bodies, even if they don't understand that it's best for them.

As important as looking out for everyone's lives is, it is even more important to look out for thier souls. Even if they don't understand that baptism is good for them. We know what is really best for them. I mean that's the government's job isn't it? To do what is best for the people, even if they don't know/agree that it is best for them. Let's start the shotgun baptisms!

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Prometheus Let's start the shotgun baptisms!

Hee, hee!!!

[Osborn F Enready]

Chris said:
This issue the lines are not so clear. I am more libertarian than authoritarian on everything but this issue I like the smoking bans on restaurants. I am biased. I am a non smoker and wish for my 1 year old to not be exposed by it.

I say:
But, the point you don't admit is that you don't want your 1 year old exposed to it ENOUGH to keep you from taking her to smoking establishments. You are making the decision to go in and sit down in the privately owned establishment and endure the smoking which he permits, as opposed to taking it home, sitting in the car, sitting in the grass outside or the other plethora of OPTIONS. By banning the rights of the property owner however, you REMOVE his option to provide a luxury to his patrons, who are also paying customers with independent desires, that are contrary to yours.

You should try to propose a plan to your local port authority and see if they have a method of opening doors for new businesses to fill a void in the existing businesses without removing the rights of the existing businesses. They could zone a piece of commercial land that has incentives for providing a service that is needed in the community by showing by petition a need for a non-smoking fast-food establishment, and you could put together some graphs showing how overall appreciation of the company goes up by providing service to ALL their customers instead of just some.

With rights, we ALL have options, without rights none of us have options.

Chris said:
I suck it up now though cause I am in TN. I take solace in the fact that at least me and my wife don't smoke and my daughters exposure to it would be a brief period. (Cause of rude people who can't wait and need a cig.) Thats my opinion.

I say:
Obviously it is your personal desire to sit inside the establishment with the cost of that action being the health of your daughter. You wrongly place the blame on the smokers, when it is the rights of the owner to allow smoking, and your CHOICE to enter.

Kubedawg said:
We ALL know the causes of smoking, and that is the problem. I was just giving an example of what could happen. Everything is based on hypothitical situations, especially telling someone's future.

I say:
Then perhaps you should have said it would be more likely that you may die early, instead of proclaiming that YOU WILL DIE BY 35!

Say what you mean. You act as if inhaling a cigarette will guarantee early death and cancer. I have known, read about, and viewed many people who are over 80, smoked for 70 years and still do, and have neither died nor have cancer. Cancer usually runs in the genes to some degree, and leading specialists in the field of cancer research are still baffled by many of the "apparent" causes and effects of cancer. All they can say for sure, is that smoking elevates the chances because you are inhaling carcinogens and tar.

Kubedawg said:
Based on the FACTS in the past with millions of people dying from smoking cigarettes, I think it's pretty clear we have a problem on our hands.

I say:
Once again you are unable to prove any large number of people have died based solely on the fact they smoked cigarettes. They were probably all extra sensitive, or succeptible to cancer, and smoking accelerated the progress of cancer. You make a blanket generalization and then label it FACT, which is wrong, and not conducive to debate.

Kubedawg said:
So, I understand what you say about the people should have the right to smoke, which by the way, contains no healthy benefits AT ALL, it's quite opposite, actually.
I'm just looking out for everyone's lives. It sounds like, to me, you are wanting people to die younger than normal. And that is also a big problem.

I say:
Not at all. I want people to understand, and respect their rights, as well as I want the government to live up to their CONTRACT to protect and uphold our rights, as their main priority.

You want to protect people from themselves, and that is not benevolence if it is forced. When it is forced, it becomes servitude to beliefs many don't endorse, which is in effect slavery through legislation.

Kubedawg said:
Please dont' start a flame war, with your "yessa massa" talk. I prefer to keep this a debate.

I say:
In order to debate, you have to respect points, facts and logic.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: kubedawg sigh... We ALL know the causes of smoking, and that is the problem. I was just giving an example of what could happen. Everything is based on hypothitical situations, especially telling someone's future. Based on the FACTS in the past with millions of people dying from smoking cigarettes, I think it's pretty clear we have a problem on our hands. So, I understand what you say about the people should have the right to smoke, which by the way, contains no healthy benefits AT ALL, it's quite opposite, actually. I'm just looking out for everyone's lives. It sounds like, to me, you are wanting people to die younger than normal. And that is also a big problem. Please dont' start a flame war, with your "yessa massa" talk. I prefer to keep this a debate.

Whenever you attempt to impose your will onto other people you will run into this argument.


Why should anybody listen to your points if you cannot refite all of the argument from the opposing side.


I mean, you are right, aren't you?


Well then, it should be easy to refute my obvious misunderstanding of the facts.

[kubedawg]

Which is why I'm still debating this...

No, I may not know the EXACT facts, but you do agree with me that smoking is bad for you right? EVERYONE would agree on that. My point is not to prove the exact amount of people who smoke, die from lung cancer every minute of every day, my point is that smoking is bad for you, not only CAN it cause lung cancer, but it also has other harmful effects such as cancer of the mouth, nose, throat, pancreas, blood, kidney, penis, cervix, and bladder cancer, coronary artery disease, heart disease and heart attack, ulcers, etc.

It also helps financially... After 1 year save nearly $3,650! And with the current prices rising, I'd expect that to be much higher. AND!! listen to this. If you do get cancer, or some sort of disease or get SICK because smoking causes a LOWER immune system, you have to pay MONEY to pay for health insurance, your deductable, and any charges not covered by your health insurance.



oh and one last thing. About the peopel smoking for 20-70 years are probably very unhealthy and I would bet a million dollars I'm correct.

[SlothLovesChunk]

Quote by: kubedawg Which is why I'm still debating this... No, I may not know the EXACT facts, but you do agree with me that smoking is bad for you right? EVERYONE would agree on that. My point is not to prove the exact amount of people who smoke, die from lung cancer every minute of every day, my point is that smoking is bad for you, not only CAN it cause lung cancer, but it also has other harmful effects such as cancer of the mouth, nose, throat, pancreas, blood, kidney, penis, cervix, and bladder cancer, coronary artery disease, heart disease and heart attack, ulcers, etc. It also helps financially... After 1 year save nearly $3,650! And with the current prices rising, I'd expect that to be much higher. AND!! listen to this. If you do get cancer, or some sort of disease or get SICK because smoking causes a LOWER immune system, you have to pay MONEY to pay for health insurance, your deductable, and any charges not covered by your health insurance. oh and one last thing. About the peopel smoking for 20-70 years are probably very unhealthy and I would bet a million dollars I'm correct.

on the other hand smoking makes you look hard and cool

[kubedawg]

I already look feel and AM cool w/o smoking so HAH!

[SlothLovesChunk]

Quote by: kubedawg I already look feel and AM cool w/o smoking so HAH!

well that's pissed on my chips

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: kubedawg Which is why I'm still debating this... No, I may not know the EXACT facts, but you do agree with me that smoking is bad for you right? EVERYONE would agree on that. My point is not to prove the exact amount of people who smoke, die from lung cancer every minute of every day, my point is that smoking is bad for you, not only CAN it cause lung cancer, but it also has other harmful effects such as cancer of the mouth, nose, throat, pancreas, blood, kidney, penis, cervix, and bladder cancer, coronary artery disease, heart disease and heart attack, ulcers, etc. It also helps financially... After 1 year save nearly $3,650! And with the current prices rising, I'd expect that to be much higher. AND!! listen to this. If you do get cancer, or some sort of disease or get SICK because smoking causes a LOWER immune system, you have to pay MONEY to pay for health insurance, your deductable, and any charges not covered by your health insurance. oh and one last thing. About the peopel smoking for 20-70 years are probably very unhealthy and I would bet a million dollars I'm correct.

Following that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, any risky behavior (skateboarding, skiing, bunjee jumping, rollercoasters, rock climbing, etc) would have to banned because it unfairly increases medical costs to citizens who do nat take part in those types of behavior.


This is the "Land of the Free", remember.


Just where do you get off thinking you should be able to dictate terms to free people in a free country?


Thought Police.
:(


Cigarettes are dangerous, but thoughts are even more dangerous. Why let people have thoughts?

[kubedawg]

Cigarettes affect everyone, skateboarding doesn't...

It affects our environment among other things as well. And yes, cars, among other things affect the environment too but we're currently working to solve that problem with better fuel efficient cars and gas-free cars too.

back on the subject of cigarettes though, people should have the right to do a lot of things. Smoking is a crime. Yes, we should make smoking a crime. It's genocide. But who is really to blame? The people? The government? The tobacco companies?

I blame people for their poor judgement, and their lack of understanding; I blame the government for letting this shit drag on for years, and I blame the tobacco companies for creating this monster in the first place.

I mean, what kind of business makes their money killing millions of people?