So because we have a bunch of polution going into our atmosphere, we should add even MORE???Durandal wrote:Get over it. What causes more harm to the air? Burning tobacco or internal combustion engines?
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
So because we have a bunch of polution going into our atmosphere, we should add even MORE???Durandal wrote:Get over it. What causes more harm to the air? Burning tobacco or internal combustion engines?
Cigarette smoke contributes an infinitesimally small portion to overall pollution of the atmosphere compared to cars and heavy industry. Try again.Darth Servo wrote:So because we have a bunch of polution going into our atmosphere, we should add even MORE???Durandal wrote:Get over it. What causes more harm to the air? Burning tobacco or internal combustion engines?
That doesn't change the fact that adding more (even an infinitesimally small amount) is a bad idea. And FYI, the government DOES regulate factory, automobile, etc emmissions. Some corporations use legal trickery, bribes, etc to get away with it, but there ARE LAWS trying to cut down those polutants.Durandal wrote:Cigarette smoke contributes an infinitesimally small portion to overall pollution of the atmosphere compared to cars and heavy industry. Try again.
How about the talking Captain Janeway doll industry? Would that fill the gap? They are both equally appealing; both would lead you to your eventual doom.Darth Servo wrote: I personally can't imagine other industries not leaping at the opportunity to expand to take advantage of the hole left by the tobacco industry.
Irrelevant. Cigarette smoke contributes virtually nothing to air pollution next to heavy industry and cars. Complaining about cigarette smoke on those grounds is grasping at straws. Every time you let a fart off, you release methane into the air, which is hardly a healthy gas. Get over it. If you don't like cigarettes, fine. Don't smoke them.That doesn't change the fact that adding more (even an infinitesimally small amount) is a bad idea. And FYI, the government DOES regulate factory, automobile, etc emmissions. Some corporations use legal trickery, bribes, etc to get away with it, but there ARE LAWS trying to cut down those polutants.
Again, completely irrelevant. Cigarette smoke doesn't pollute the air enough to justify using its polluting characteristics as grounds to bitch about them. I can understand if smokers, for some reason, go out their way to blow smoke in your face, but otherwise you're just finding whatever reason you can to whine, complain and join the ridiculous anti-smoking jihad that seems to have sprung up in this thread.As Mr. Bean has already pointed out--take away all our industry and you destroy our society. Take away tobacco and a couple states will need to find a new cash crop. I personally can't imagine other industries not leaping at the opportunity to expand to take advantage of the hole left by the tobacco industry.
Yeah, but what does more good? Easy transportation of goods, people etc. or someone smoking?Durandal wrote:Get over it. What causes more harm to the air? Burning tobacco or internal combustion engines?Darth Servo wrote: I have no problem with "take no shit" attitude." I DO have HUGE issues with breathing all the shit from you smokers. Your little "fun" CAUSES HARM TO EVERYONE AROUND YOU. Unless you want to live in a plastic bubble...
Zoink wrote:How about the talking Captain Janeway doll industry? Would that fill the gap? They are both equally appealing; both would lead you to your eventual doom.
[gingle]Nothing takes away the craving like a Janeway-ism.[/gingle]
Cigarette smoking also CONTRIBUTES NOTHING to society. Its just a flithy habit that people COULD EASILY do without. Those who can't only prove the point that it is addictive and destructive and therefore, should be discouraged any way we can (within reason of course).Durandal wrote:Irrelevant. Cigarette smoke contributes virtually nothing to air pollution next to heavy industry and cars.
A fart is a natural waste disposal process. Smoking is not. Your analogy is pathetic.Complaining about cigarette smoke on those grounds is grasping at straws. Every time you let a fart off, you release methane into the air, which is hardly a healthy gas.
Everytime I want to eat out I'm forced to smoke them second hand. Often just by walking out of my apartment I get a nice cloud of toxins from some of my neighhbors.Get over it. If you don't like cigarettes, fine. Don't smoke them.
Except thats NOT my only complaint against them.Cigarette smoke doesn't pollute the air enough to justify using its polluting characteristics as grounds to bitch about them.
Why is it ridiculous to want people to have better health?I can understand if smokers, for some reason, go out their way to blow smoke in your face, but otherwise you're just finding whatever reason you can to whine, complain and join the ridiculous anti-smoking jihad that seems to have sprung up in this thread.
If pot smokers were as common as cig smokers I'd probably be just as offended. Since its currently illegal, most pot smokers do what they can to hide it and so I don't have any direct experience with it.His Divine Shadow wrote:So, whats your opinion on pot?
Just wondering cause I've seen marijuana discussions with less vehemence than this.
Because Smoking Provides Zero Benfits, Its nothing but a collection of over 100 Toxins in easy to induce form, while Marijuana has show some promise in Cancer and Pain studies, espcilly as an alternative to Morphine which can be addicting and some people are alergic, Also Marijuana leads itself to easy transformation into Pill/Patch and Injested FormJust wondering cause I've seen marijuana discussions with less vehemence than this.
Actually as I have pointed out, nicotine improves the performance of synapses in the brain(while it's there).Mr Bean wrote:Because Smoking Provides Zero Benfits, Its nothing but a collection of over 100 Toxins in easy to induce form, while Marijuana has show some promise in Cancer and Pain studies, espcilly as an alternative to Morphine which can be addicting and some people are alergic, Also Marijuana leads itself to easy transformation into Pill/Patch and Injested FormJust wondering cause I've seen marijuana discussions with less vehemence than this.
Scrathing your ass contributes nothing to society and is a filthy habit as well. I still don't see your point. By the way, nicotine inhalation also results in temporarily increased awareness and a nice feeling.Cigarette smoking also CONTRIBUTES NOTHING to society. Its just a flithy habit that people COULD EASILY do without. Those who can't only prove the point that it is addictive and destructive and therefore, should be discouraged any way we can (within reason of course).
Yet it contributes pollution to the air, just like smoking. Do you complain about people farting in elevators, as well? It's equally disgusting. Your entire argument against smoking is pathetic because it centers around relatively minuscule effects, which is what I'm trying to illustrate.A fart is a natural waste disposal process. Smoking is not. Your analogy is pathetic.
Then complain to the restaurant owners or your neighbor. I've said before that I am fully in support of walled-off smoking sections and respect for non-smokers.Everytime I want to eat out I'm forced to smoke them second hand. Often just by walking out of my apartment I get a nice cloud of toxins from some of my neighhbors.
Until this post, it was the only complaint I noticed.Except thats NOT my only complaint against them.
It's ridiculous that the people in this thread want to go to such extreme measures to prevent smoking, like preposterously heavy taxation or turning a cigarette into a stick of dynamite.Why is it ridiculous to want people to have better health?
There you go with this pollution nonsense again. I'll reiterate: smoking contributes virtually nothing to current air pollution.Why is it a jihad to want to discourage people form destroying themselves?
Why is it whining to want to complain about people DELIBRATELY polluting the IMMEDIATE air around me--not just by blowing it in my face but just smoking in close proximity (like 10 feet)?
I agree. When did I say that smokers should be free to smoke wherever they want?The real whiners are the smokers who complian that their rights are being infringed upon. News flash: one person's rights end when they interfere with the rights of another.
Sratching your Ass? Now your seriously going out on a limb here, Might as well said kite flying contributes nothing either so that should be banned, The Diffrence is no matter how much ass you sratch or kites you fly, it won't get you cancer, Durendal kindly stop with the bullshit comparsionsScrathing your ass contributes nothing to society and is a filthy habit as well. I still don't see your point. By the way, nicotine inhalation also results in temporarily increased awareness and a nice feeling.
You using irrelvent comparsions, Shiting is also a disgusting bodly function but like farting its quite nessary least you die within the week from blood posioning, That is not comparable to Smoking your baseing your aurgment on completly irrelvent comaprsionsYet it contributes pollution to the air, just like smoking. Do you complain about people farting in elevators, as well? It's equally disgusting. Your entire argument against smoking is pathetic because it centers around relatively minuscule effects, which is what I'm trying to illustrate.
Which add extra cost to you meal agian the fact we have to segerate resteruants just cause you want to spread the joys of Cancer is not a good thing hereThen complain to the restaurant owners or your neighbor. I've said before that I am fully in support of walled-off smoking sections and respect for non-smokers.
He's not the only one posting here, look around more than one problem has been brought up about SmokingUntil this post, it was the only complaint I noticed.
Rediculious? Realy? Most of these people as you notice said they where joking, The Taxation is to provided for Heath-Care incured from all those years of Smoking and spreading the joy, Thats not Preposterouse its just simple Econmics, If you break my legs because you where not looking when you backed your car out and waped me standing on the sidewalk, prepare to pay for my medical billsIt's ridiculous that the people in this thread want to go to such extreme measures to prevent smoking, like preposterously heavy taxation or turning a cigarette into a stick of dynamite.
With no studies to back this up? No facts? The problem is, virtually nothing, alot or a little, its still someThere you go with this pollution nonsense again. I'll reiterate: smoking contributes virtually nothing to current air pollution.
Are you refering to the Columbia study in 82? I know the 99 Study by Duke University found no telling evidance for Nicotine to help brain performance over the placbo along with the follow-up study in 01, which are you refering to?Actually as I have pointed out, nicotine improves the performance of synapses in the brain(while it's there).
So same argment can be said for nicotine
There is no such thing as second-hand ass-scratching.Durandal wrote:Scrathing your ass contributes nothing to society and is a filthy habit as well.
Most people don't say that anymore. However, there's this big black hole when it comes to the protection of smokers' children. The "people have the right to do self-destructive things" argument only carries so far; do people have the right to arbitrarily risk the health of their children too?I agree. When did I say that smokers should be free to smoke wherever they want?
Are you so sure? What about when people scratch their ass andDarth Wong wrote: There is no such thing as second-hand ass-scratching.
Then why am I not insanely fucked up? Hell, I live with two smokers,Most people don't say that anymore. However, there's this big black hole when it comes to the protection of smokers' children. The "people have the right to do self-destructive things" argument only carries so far; do people have the right to arbitrarily risk the health of their children too?
You really are too stupid to understand what's wrong with the use of anecdotal evidence to disprove probabilistic claims, aren't you?MKSheppard wrote:Then why am I not insanely fucked up? Hell, I live with two smokers, and I'm fine.
Second-hand smoke has been chemically analyzed under laboratory conditions and found to carry at least 42 different toxins, many of which are strongly carcinogenic. There is no question that it is harmful; this study merely casts doubt on the quantities being inhaled by a passive party.Durran Korr wrote:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/788186/posts
Check this out (ignore the fact that it's from a conservative website, it was originally taken from a UK paper).
Well, fuck you wong, you like to talk about how smoking is bad bad bad,Darth Wong wrote:You really are too stupid to understand what's wrong with the use of anecdotal evidence to disprove probabilistic claims, aren't you?MKSheppard wrote:Then why am I not insanely fucked up? Hell, I live with two smokers, and I'm fine.
Yeah, I'm drinking rat poison right now this moment. And I'm not dead yet...Darth Wong wrote: Second-hand smoke has been chemically analyzed under laboratory conditions and found to carry at least 42 different toxins, many of which are strongly carcinogenic. There is no question that it is harmful; this study merely casts doubt on the quantities being inhaled by a passive party.
Wall of Ignorance. See previous rebuttal. This time, try to grow a brain and figure out what it means.MKSheppard wrote:Well, fuck you wong, you like to talk about how smoking is bad bad bad,Darth Wong wrote:You really are too stupid to understand what's wrong with the use of anecdotal evidence to disprove probabilistic claims, aren't you?
etc etc, yet I'm not coughing into a fucking respirator because of that
evil secondhand smoke....which is supposedly even more EVIL than
the actual smoke that smokers inhale....
Ok Mike, can you please explain why I see a friend of mine fightingDarth Wong wrote: Wall of Ignorance. See previous rebuttal. This time, try to grow a brain and figure out what it means.
Shep, you are a fucking idiot. Do you go into a crime-ridden ghetto and say that media claims of elevated murder risk are bullshit if you can find someone who wasn't murdered? Don't you understand the fallacy in your reasoning?MKSheppard wrote:Ok Mike, can you please explain why I see a friend of mine fightingDarth Wong wrote: Wall of Ignorance. See previous rebuttal. This time, try to grow a brain and figure out what it means.
for his life against lung cancer, even though he's never smoked a
day in his life, while my grandmother and mother puff away, with
nary a fucking care in good health.
Strawman. Frankly, you're just embarrassing yourself now. You cannot disprove an elevated risk by simply proving that it's not 100%, and that's all you prove when you bring up an example of a tobacco survivor. Similarly, you can't disprove a lowered risk by simply proving that it's not 0%, and that's all you prove when you bring up the example of a non-tobacco victim. I am not ignoring evidence as you claim (and as everyone but you can easily see); I am simply pointing out that it does not prove what you think it proves.Don't stonewall me with YOUR own wall of ignorance, where you stick your fingers in your ears and cry LA-LA-LA-LA when presented with evidence, unless the person giving the evidence is a scientist exposing lab
rats to insane amounts of tobacco.
That's a valid point. It's the same reason my mother quit smoking when she got pregnant. As I've said before, I'm all for restrictions on smoking that are reasonable. I'm a light (very light) smoker, so it doesn't really bother me.Most people don't say that anymore. However, there's this big black hole when it comes to the protection of smokers' children. The "people have the right to do self-destructive things" argument only carries so far; do people have the right to arbitrarily risk the health of their children too?