Originally posted by lord xyz
Funny how you think smoking should be banned, yet you're for every other drug being legal.
Originally posted by amity75
I'd ban it in all public places. Cigarette smoke smells worse than vomit.
I'd not only not ban ciggerate smoke, I'd take away these stupid price gauges, regulations, and smoking prohibitions in ceartain areas. If a private industry wants to make smoking unpermitted in thier establishment or a "no smoking area", that's thier perogative. But in no way should it be enforced by the goverment because frankly, smoking just isn't all that horrible. If I banned everything that smelled, liberals wouldn't be allowed to leave thier house. It's called soap you commies.
Anyway, the fact is tobbacco helped us get out of the depression, and is one of the few non-corrupt buisnesses left. Sure it exploits people's addictive personalities, but the tobbacco industry is a very even market. If anything, the left should encourage it because
a) It's the smoker's own body.
b) There is no monopoly on ciggerates.
But what can I say, democrats have ass-backward priorities and live in Bizzaro world.
But as far as I'm concerned, the market will decide smoking's place in the world. When insurance refuses to cover a smoker related to cancer, and establishments decide for themselves smoking or non-smoking areas, some people will say "this aint worth it" and some people will say "screw it, i'm going to smoke anyway". But to stick your two cents in is just being fascist and frankly hypocritical. I can think of alot worse things then smoking.
Originally posted by Bardock42Since when? Show me one time, just one time when Second Hand Smoke has harmed someone. Has there ever been a non-smoker to catch a smoke related disease?
Yes, that is the thing. I am for all drugs to be legal, because you do it to yourself. But smoking apparently has effects on others around you. Second Hand smoke is probably dangerous. So there should be some regulations, maybe. Though generally I am all for freedom to smoke in private places and such.
Originally posted by Green ArrowAlot is not a word.
That's because you're a fascist who bases your personal tastes on the masses rules.I'd not only not ban ciggerate smoke, I'd take away these stupid price gauges, regulations, and smoking prohibitions in ceartain areas. If a private industry wants to make smoking unpermitted in thier establishment or a "no smoking area", that's thier perogative. But in no way should it be enforced by the goverment because frankly, smoking just isn't all that horrible. If I banned everything that smelled, liberals wouldn't be allowed to leave thier house. It's called soap you commies.
Anyway, the fact is tobbacco helped us get out of the depression, and is one of the few non-corrupt buisnesses left. Sure it exploits people's addictive personalities, but the tobbacco industry is a very even market. If anything, the left should encourage it because
a) It's the smoker's own body.
b) There is no monopoly on ciggerates.But what can I say, democrats have ass-backward priorities and live in Bizzaro world.
But as far as I'm concerned, the market will decide smoking's place in the world. When insurance refuses to cover a smoker related to cancer, and establishments decide for themselves smoking or non-smoking areas, some people will say "this aint worth it" and some people will say "screw it, i'm going to smoke anyway". But to stick your two cents in is just being fascist and frankly hypocritical. I can think of [b]alot
worse things then smoking. [/B]
Originally posted by lord xyz
Since when? Show me one time, just one time when Second Hand Smoke has harmed someone. Has there ever been a non-smoker to catch a smoke related disease?
I don't think it has been proven, but I believe there is evidence that implies it. That should be reviewed. And maybe since it is very strong accusations the society has to be protected. As I said, just a thought and it might be necessary. But the data would have to be reviwed before such a decision takes place.
Originally posted by Bardock42It has been reviewed.
I don't think it has been proven, but I believe there is evidence that implies it. That should be reviewed. And maybe since it is very strong accusations the society has to be protected. As I said, just a thought and it might be necessary. But the data would have to be reviwed before such a decision takes place.
1993 -- EPA did a study about second hand smoke and made their assumptions and statistics
1997 -- The study was attacked and thrown out by a court for it being biased and inconclusive.
That study believe it or not, is the primary source to anti-smoking companies today. All anti-smoking movements are tracked back to this study and the study itself when read, isn't very convincing either.
Originally posted by lord xyz
It has been reviewed.1993 -- EPA did a study about second hand smoke and made their assumptions and statistics
1997 -- The study was attacked and thrown out by a court for it being biased and inconclusive.
That study believe it or not, is the primary source to anti-smoking companies today. All anti-smoking movements are tracked back to this study and the study itself when read, isn't very convincing either.
I mean I had to review it before deciding.
There's not even scientific evidence to backup second-hand smoke. Just shameless propaganda. What kindof capitalist are you bardock?
Besides, if second-hand smoke is dangerous to other's health besides the person smoking, then most drugs are. Considering most are smoked.
And the fact that you'd quantify tobbacco in the same threat area as say crack, well, that's just retarded.
Originally posted by Green ArrowYou, an anti-liberalist, is calling Bardock a capitalist? Bardock is saying research must be done before the decision is made, and I agree. What are you saying?
There's not even scientific evidence to backup second-hand smoke. Just shameless propaganda. What kindof capitalist are you bardock?Besides, if second-hand smoke is dangerous to other's health besides the person smoking, then most drugs are. Considering most are smoked.
And the fact that you'd quantify tobbacco in the same threat area as say crack, well, that's just retarded.
Originally posted by Green Arrow
There's not even scientific evidence to backup second-hand smoke. Just shameless propaganda. What kindof capitalist are you bardock?Besides, if second-hand smoke is dangerous to other's health besides the person smoking, then most drugs are. Considering most are smoked.
And the fact that you'd quantify tobbacco in the same threat area as say crack, well, that's just retarded.
Sure there isn't any scientific prove... That's why laws are made all over the world based on those none existing scientific studies that prove it...
Probably just all fake right? It doesn't exist? How about smoking itself then is that bad for you? Or is that just a lie as well?
But alcohol has killed the most.
Prove for this?
Not like it matters anyways, drinking is a choice you do it yourself smoking hurts other too, so they are completely different things.
Originally posted by SoleranYeah, alcoholic breath has been known to get someone drunk, the same way second hand smoke gets someone addicted to smoking. Hey, that's actually a clever analogy you got there. Not entirely accurate, but close.
But I didn't realize that was up for discussion as crack was mentioned and smoking.Thanks though
PS I am against second hand drinking too!
Originally posted by FishyYou're ignorant...
Sure there isn't any scientific prove... That's why laws are made all over the world based on those none existing scientific studies that prove it...Probably just all fake right? It doesn't exist? How about smoking itself then is that bad for you? Or is that just a lie as well?
Prove for this?
Not like it matters anyways, drinking is a choice you do it yourself smoking hurts other too, so they are completely different things.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, alcoholic breath has been known to get someone drunk, the same way second hand smoke gets someone addicted to smoking. Hey, that's actually a clever analogy you got there. Not entirely accurate, but close.You're ignorant...
I'm ignorant because I actually want to see some prove?