The War On Tobacco

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-11-16 02:57pm

Yes, there is a risk to children whose parents smoke. But there is also a risk to children who go anywhere where there are smokers. I don't smoke around my children, and I avoid taking them to places where I can reasonably expect to encounter a sufficient level of second-hand smoke which could put them at risk.

The only way to eliminate the risk of second-hand smoke is to ban publicx smoking (which has been done here in Tempe, a move that is destroying the city's tourism and restaurant/bar/nightclub industries.) Short of that, criminalization is the only answer, and it's one that won't happen.

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-16 07:31pm

Chocolate doesn't really have any benefits besides making you feel good (like nicotine) and it gives my roommate the shits (Not to pleasant to be around).

Should we tax/outlaw chocolate?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-16 07:37pm

Well, like nicotine, chocolate increases awareness and synapse response.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-11-16 07:37pm

Chocolate doesn't really have any benefits besides making you feel good (like nicotine) and it gives my roommate the shits (Not to pleasant to be around).

Should we tax/outlaw chocolate?

STOP WITH THE BULLSHIT COMPARSIONS
Espcilly when they are WRONG, What are the benfits of Chocalte? Increase Sex Drive, Pleasure, Oh yes and it is a FOOD item, you know FOOD you eat it so you don't die?

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-16 07:39pm

Mr Bean wrote:
Chocolate doesn't really have any benefits besides making you feel good (like nicotine) and it gives my roommate the shits (Not to pleasant to be around).

Should we tax/outlaw chocolate?
STOP WITH THE BULLSHIT COMPARSIONS
Espcilly when they are WRONG, What are the benfits of Chocalte? Increase Sex Drive, Pleasure, Oh yes and it is a FOOD item, you know FOOD you eat it so you don't die?

I really don't think Chocolate can be termed a part of a nutritious breakfast. And nobody eats chocolate simply because it's food. They eat it to enjoy themselves.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-16 07:40pm

Well, I guess a diabetic eats it to survive, but barring that...

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-11-16 07:42pm

I really don't think Chocolate can be termed a part of a nutritious breakfast. And nobody eats chocolate simply because it's food. They eat it to enjoy themselves.

Its not extremly heathy but one CAN survive a month on an all Choclate Diet, As proved by UNC Medical Center, PS if you ever go thier make sure to sign for the Studies I kid you not the Admistration lets them get away with it

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-16 07:44pm

Mr Bean wrote:
I really don't think Chocolate can be termed a part of a nutritious breakfast. And nobody eats chocolate simply because it's food. They eat it to enjoy themselves.
Its not extremly heathy but one CAN survive a month on an all Choclate Diet, As proved by UNC Medical Center, PS if you ever go thier make sure to sign for the Studies I kid you not the Admistration lets them get away with it

OK, in extreme cases, chocolate can help you.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-11-16 07:47pm

OK, in extreme cases, chocolate can help you.

The point is its a bullshit comparsion and stop making them

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-16 07:53pm

Mr Bean wrote:
OK, in extreme cases, chocolate can help you.
The point is its a bullshit comparsion and stop making them

If you read any example too far, you can find flaws in it. My point was that chocolate is a substance whose main reason for existence is pleasure by consumption. The same with tobacco and nicotine.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-11-16 08:00pm

pecker wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:
OK, in extreme cases, chocolate can help you.
The point is its a bullshit comparsion and stop making them
If you read any example too far, you can find flaws in it. My point was that chocolate is a substance whose main reason for existence is pleasure by consumption. The same with tobacco and nicotine.

It's still bullshit. Nobody is talking (last time I checked) about banning everything that gives pleasure. It's about banning stuff that harms the user and those around it, whether it's a pleasure item or not.

The only harmful effects of chocolate are the same of a poorly balanced diet. Should we ban all elements of a poorly balanced diet? Because they are the same elements of a well balanced diet, you know, except that poorly balanced.

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-16 08:02pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
pecker wrote:
Mr Bean wrote: The point is its a bullshit comparsion and stop making them
If you read any example too far, you can find flaws in it. My point was that chocolate is a substance whose main reason for existence is pleasure by consumption. The same with tobacco and nicotine.
It's still bullshit. Nobody is talking (last time I checked) about banning everything that gives pleasure. It's about banning stuff that harms the user and those around it, whether it's a pleasure item or not.

The only harmful effects of chocolate are the same of a poorly balanced diet. Should we ban all elements of a poorly balanced diet? Because they are the same elements of a well balanced diet, you know, except that poorly balanced.

I'm not arguing to ban chocolate. I'm just arguing that I don't necessarily agree with bannign cigarrettes.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-11-16 08:10pm

The same with tobacco and nicotine.

Ehhh BZZZZT Sorry try agian, this is why I said bullshit Example

Formadhyed Containted in Ciggerets IS a Posion, 4 OZ is enough to kill you immue system pretty well and its in Ciggrets

Its NOT in Chocalete, Its NOT in WHEAT and its NOT in Coca-Puffs Ceral Either

Ciggretes DO kill you, thats the point, they kill you very slowy is a side issue the fact is smoking =slow death

If you want that Nicotine just buy the fucking patchs already!

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-11-16 10:46pm

pecker wrote:I'm not arguing to ban chocolate. I'm just arguing that I don't necessarily agree with bannign cigarrettes.

My point was that chocolate is a substance whose main reason for existence is pleasure by consumption.

Your logic works like this:

Cigarettes = pleasure
Ban cigarettes = ban pleasure

Chocolate = pleasure
Ban pleasure -> ban chocolate

Of course, you never stop to think that the reason we're arguing about banning cigarettes has NOTHING to do with the pleasure they give.

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-16 11:01pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
pecker wrote:I'm not arguing to ban chocolate. I'm just arguing that I don't necessarily agree with bannign cigarrettes.

My point was that chocolate is a substance whose main reason for existence is pleasure by consumption.
Your logic works like this:

Cigarettes = pleasure
Ban cigarettes = ban pleasure

Chocolate = pleasure
Ban pleasure -> ban chocolate

Of course, you never stop to think that the reason we're arguing about banning cigarettes has NOTHING to do with the pleasure they give.

What you ARE arguing is that because you don't like cigarrettes, nobody should have them. I'm all for restaurants banning cigarrettes. Who wants to smell smoke when they're eating? I'm all for not smoking around other people. I'm all for teaching people the consequences of smoking. And I'm all for discouraging it. But if after all of that, if someone willing to sit around a couple of their friends with a beer and a smoke, I really don't see the problem anyone should have with that.

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-16 11:09pm

And I'll admit my examples are pretty bullshit. Not that I mean them to be that way, but I'm an impulse-poster

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-11-16 11:47pm

pecker wrote:What you ARE arguing is that because you don't like cigarrettes, nobody should have them. I'm all for restaurants banning cigarrettes. Who wants to smell smoke when they're eating? I'm all for not smoking around other people. I'm all for teaching people the consequences of smoking. And I'm all for discouraging it. But if after all of that, if someone willing to sit around a couple of their friends with a beer and a smoke, I really don't see the problem anyone should have with that.

You misunderstand me. I'm not arguing against your right of defending cigarettes, I'm arguing about you using BS examples that make no sense. I mean, if you're going to defend that vice at least you should try to use coherent arguments or examples.

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-16 11:50pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
pecker wrote:What you ARE arguing is that because you don't like cigarrettes, nobody should have them. I'm all for restaurants banning cigarrettes. Who wants to smell smoke when they're eating? I'm all for not smoking around other people. I'm all for teaching people the consequences of smoking. And I'm all for discouraging it. But if after all of that, if someone willing to sit around a couple of their friends with a beer and a smoke, I really don't see the problem anyone should have with that.
You misunderstand me. I'm not arguing against your right of defending cigarettes, I'm arguing about you using BS examples that make no sense. I mean, if you're going to defend that vice at least you should try to use coherent arguments or examples.

Well, they're coherent to ME, because I know what I'm trying to say when I make them up. I'll have to be more careful.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-11-17 06:15am

Slartibartfast and I are in agreence here, I'd rather have NO example than a bullshit one

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-11-18 08:47pm

pecker wrote:What you ARE arguing is that because you don't like cigarrettes, nobody should have them. I'm all for restaurants banning cigarrettes. Who wants to smell smoke when they're eating? I'm all for not smoking around other people. I'm all for teaching people the consequences of smoking. And I'm all for discouraging it. But if after all of that, if someone willing to sit around a couple of their friends with a beer and a smoke, I really don't see the problem anyone should have with that.

Forgive me for not checking through everypost with a fine toothed comb, but who has argued for banning cigarettes? I personally feel that making them illegal would be just as big a mistake as prohibition was back in the 20's.
BUT...I do feel that people who smoke them should be made liable for the consequences of all the people around them that are harmed by their smoking. Smoking hurts not just the smoker, but also his/her family, co-workers, everyone around him/her even if no smoking is done in the immediate vicinity of those people.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-18 08:58pm

BUT...I do feel that people who smoke them should be made liable for the consequences of all the people around them that are harmed by their smoking. Smoking hurts not just the smoker, but also his/her family, co-workers, everyone around him/her even if no smoking is done in the immediate vicinity of those people.

How can smoking harm someone if they're not exposed to ... um ... the smoke?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-18 09:00pm

Durandal wrote:
BUT...I do feel that people who smoke them should be made liable for the consequences of all the people around them that are harmed by their smoking. Smoking hurts not just the smoker, but also his/her family, co-workers, everyone around him/her even if no smoking is done in the immediate vicinity of those people.
How can smoking harm someone if they're not exposed to ... um ... the smoke?

I'm not sure. But I know I get pissed off whenever I see some pregnant woman smoking a cigarette.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-11-18 09:04pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Durandal wrote:
BUT...I do feel that people who smoke them should be made liable for the consequences of all the people around them that are harmed by their smoking. Smoking hurts not just the smoker, but also his/her family, co-workers, everyone around him/her even if no smoking is done in the immediate vicinity of those people.
How can smoking harm someone if they're not exposed to ... um ... the smoke?
I'm not sure. But I know I get pissed off whenever I see some pregnant woman smoking a cigarette.

Magic. It also uses up precious landfill and storm drain space we could be throwing asbestos in.

The only way I can really think smoking can hurt another without them being exposed to the smoke is is you cause say a car accident while lighting up.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-11-18 09:06pm

Durandal wrote:How can smoking harm someone if they're not exposed to ... um ... the smoke?

How about the family who has to watch the smoker suffocate to death because smoking has destroyed his lungs?
How about decreased productivity at work due to taking many more sick days than the average person?
How about the fact that it is NEVER a good idea to keep secrets from those close to you?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-18 09:09pm

How about the family who has to watch the smoker suffocate to death because smoking has destroyed his lungs?

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't cringe with a feeling of dread everytime a friend or loved one lights up.

How about decreased productivity at work due to taking many more sick days than the average person?

Employees are alloted a set number of sick days with productivity already factored in. If someone exceeds that number, they don't get paid for the extra days. No productivity is lost, since no money is being spent.

How about the fact that it is NEVER a good idea to keep secrets from those close to you?

Where did this come from?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The War On Tobacco

Do you support the banning or extreme taxation of tobacco?