Anti Cigarette site/Pro Smoking Arguments

[Shrykull]

From this pro-smoking site, they don't produce any figures however

http://www.geocities.com/americansall/

Pro smokers: Anti-smokers will stop at nothing to create a smokefree world, and they fund the junk science "studies" to prove whatever they ask, regardless how idiotic it is. The media is always happy to push the anti-smoker agenda, never requiring truth, just hype.

Baby Boom
The most fertile period in US history, between 1946 and 1964, added 76 million Americans, born to returning servicemen and women after WWII. As many as 70% of American soldiers smoked.

But how many of those soldiers were ones that had kids?

You'll have go there for this one

This picture from an anti-smoker website is accompanied by this explanation: "A 35 year old smoker looks like she's 45; a 45 year old smoker looks like she's 60. This woman is only 52 years old!

In stark contrast is this picture of Faye Dunaway, a smoker, at 60 (born 1941).

Geez, well did anyone take into account she's Rich! Plastic surgery perhaps?!

PREMATURE DEATH?

Slick, professional anti-smoker snake oil pitchmen would have you believe that everyone who smokes will die a horrible, untimely death. Every year in the US, more than 70,000 elderly smokers pass their 85th birthdays, many of them in excellent health for their age. In truth, the estimates of "premature" death for smokers is only a computer program set up to determine percentages of the 2-1/2 million people who die of all causes each year, not actual provable deaths.

Not nearly as simple as that, how much do they smoke? How much do they exercise? What do they eat and drink?

[Zwinmar]

This is for arguments sake alone, No I dont agree with what I am about to say.

Anyways,

How can smokeing be bad for a fetus? Escpecially in a country were a fetus has no rights and can be aborted. I mean, It is a non person, it doesnt exist, and a woman have a right to their bodies, therefore, until the kid is born it doesnt exist.

You're a fucking retard. If the woman aborts the fetus, then it doesn't matter. But if the woman has the kid, then that is a person who will have to live his whole life with the consequences. Do you honestly not understand how this works? If a fetus is not a person until its brain becomes active, then no person is killed when it is aborted. But if a fetus is allowed to grow to term and poisoned all the fucking way, then that is a person who will pay the price for someone else's negligence.

Bleh, anyways, that about sums up the contradictions that I see.

It's only a "contradiction" if you're a raving idiot.

On the contrary, I may be a retard, I may not. That is not the point I am trying to make.

The point of contention, with me, is that clearly and logically a child comes from the fetus. I do not think that anyone can debate that. While I do give you that smokeing is extremely bad for the fetus, I must ask if it truely matters. AFter all, any fetus, up until a certain stage, can be legally aborted. As such, If that potential being can be killed on a whim, why would it matter if the mother poisons it?

The point of contradiction is that while smokeing may poison the child and cause it not to form correctly, to say it is wrong is to assume that it actually is a child, while at the same time claiming; that until it forms to a certain point it is just a fetus.

That is the flaw I am trying to address here.

When exactly is the fetus considered a being.Once its born or once its brain develops. If it is when it is born, then because it is considered a non-entity then there can be no legal ramifications for causeing underdevelopement. The same can be said if one states that it is when the brain is developed. Up until the point that it is no longer considered a non entity there can be nothing done, logically anyways, to say that any action taken by the mother can be unlawful, or even wrong (from a certain point of view).

[Darth Wong]

On the contrary, I may be a retard, I may not. That is not the point I am trying to make.

You demonstrate you are a retard by ignoring the point I made in my previous post.

The point of contention, with me, is that clearly and logically a child comes from the fetus. I do not think that anyone can debate that. While I do give you that smokeing is extremely bad for the fetus, I must ask if it truely matters. AFter all, any fetus, up until a certain stage, can be legally aborted. As such, If that potential being can be killed on a whim, why would it matter if the mother poisons it?

I answered this fucking point in my previous post, you stupid asshole. Now if you have a problem with the logic of my answer, show what's wrong with it. Instead, you don't demonstrate that you even bothered reading it. You certainly make no attempt to address it, or even to ask me to clarify it. Instead, you merely repeat your previous post, almost verbatim. This is the behaviour of a rabid idiot.

The point of contradiction is that while smokeing may poison the child and cause it not to form correctly, to say it is wrong is to assume that it actually is a child, while at the same time claiming; that until it forms to a certain point it is just a fetus.

Christ, are you honestly such a moron that you don't understand the concept of a conditional? Do you know what an "if then" statement is? If the fetus is allowed to come to term, then poisoning it will cause harm to a sentient being. It's not about a "potential being", fucktard. It's about a real human being.

When exactly is the fetus considered a being.Once its born or once its brain develops. If it is when it is born, then because it is considered a non-entity then there can be no legal ramifications for causeing underdevelopement. The same can be said if one states that it is when the brain is developed. Up until the point that it is no longer considered a non entity there can be nothing done, logically anyways, to say that any action taken by the mother can be unlawful, or even wrong (from a certain point of view).

Are you honestly this stupid, or do you work at it? Are you suggesting that conditional statements have no place in law or ethics? It is only unethical to poison the fetus if you intend to carry it to term, because that will be a fully functional human being; what part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand? There is no future value in a fetus that no one intends to carry to term, hence no present value, hence nothing of particular value to damage or destroy.

[Shrykull]

and smoking is spelled "smoking" (yes, and it was a typo earlier in this thread when I typed leave for the singular of leaves, yes it should have been leaf) not "smokeing" that I have always known, and never seen smoking spelled "smokeing"

By the way, Mike, he said he didn't believe what he was saying about a woman should be able to smoke, if you go back and read what he was saying in his original post.

[Darth Wong]

By the way, Mike, he said he didn't believe what he was saying about a woman should be able to smoke, if you go back and read what he was saying in his original post.

Who gives a shit? I'm talking about his argument that it is a "contradiction" to allow abortions but to have a problem with women who intend to carry a fetus to term while poisoning it all the way. He shows no indication that he does not think it's actually a contradiction; in fact he repeatedly insists that it must be so, and states that he cannot possibly understand why it wouldn't be. The "just for argument's sake" disclaimer is not a flame shield if it appears that the person really is too dense to see what's wrong with the argument.

[Zwinmar]

I must apologize the last few days Ive just been trying to recover and I havent been able to get online.


I'm not trying to get around your question, but one thing I have to ask:
This whole argument revovles around the intent to carry correct?

If someone does not have such an intent, yet they still smoke for instance, would it be considered negligence? What if, then, if the person goes in and finds that the fetus has passed the point were it is considered a late term abortion, which to my understanding is highly illegal.

The contradiction I am seeing (perhaps wrongly) is that once its born it is concidered a sentient being, yet the during the process that forms it, it is not.

My personal stance is that once concieved it is a being, and should be protected.

**Ethics/Morally wise, I do consider it wrong to kill off a fetus just for the sake of convenience, granted there are extenuating curcomstance such as rape, or the mothers life is in danger.

Also, a woman who smokes while pregnant, even if they do not intend to carry should deffinantly be smacked up side the head at the very very least.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I don't see a huge contradiction either. If you are going to abort the fetus, no sapient being will arise which will have long-term suffering, so the situation is hardly comparable. You will not experience the consequences your whole life of living with a disability or with some illness due to being poisoned when you were a fetus. It's not wrong to abort the fetus because most of the time, there are good reasons to get an abortion, and when it happens, the fetus either cannot feel pain or has no higher level brain function. That means it's not much of a person. It doesn't have even the capacity to form more complex desires, preferences, or even be aware it exists with a future. It's claim to a right to life is pretty weak.

However, that might not mean it's ok to smoke, even if you are going to abort later. It would depend on what type of harm smoking would do to the fetus and the fetal development stage relative to when you are going to abort. Even for non-persons, it would be wrong to cause unnecessary harm or pain, IF the fetus could feel it. Smoking isn't a very significant interest for the mother, so even though the fetus might not be self-aware or thinking, if the experience would cause pain or harm to it, that might weaken the "right" to poison yourself in the meantime. If it can't, and if the smoke won't do anything to it before abortion, then it would be a non-issue.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not trying to get around your question, but one thing I have to ask:
This whole argument revovles around the intent to carry correct?

No, the whole argument revolves around actual harm done to sentient beings. If the being is never allowed to become sentient, then there was zero harm to any sentient being. If, on the other hand, the being is allowed to being sentient, then you are responsible for anything you have done to make its life more painful and difficult.

The contradiction I am seeing (perhaps wrongly) is that once its born it is concidered a sentient being, yet the during the process that forms it, it is not.

How is that a contradiction? Do you reject the connection between the development of sentience and the development of the brain?

My personal stance is that once concieved it is a being, and should be protected.

And do you have some REASONING to back up this stance, or is it just mindless repetition of what your parents and priests told you?

**Ethics/Morally wise, I do consider it wrong to kill off a fetus just for the sake of convenience, granted there are extenuating curcomstance such as rape, or the mothers life is in danger.

So what if there's rape? Would you allow a rape victim to kill off her newborn child? If not, then why would you allow her to have an abortion, unless you admit on some level that a fetus is not the same thing as a newborn baby?

[DPDarkPrimus]

Wait, I thought this was a thread for discussion of smoking arguments, not a thread on abortion.

[Shrykull]

I suspect if you challenged them that thier smoking is not a right, they would say there are many things that are not explicitly rights, like playing video games for example, or pursuing any other activity you enjoy.

Also, I wondered, most of the american military smokes cigarettes (almost half of marines smoke, for example, and the other branches smoke as well) I wonder what kind of disadvantage they'd face on the battlefield if the enemy was just as well trained and didn't smoke, I don't think there is a military that disallows thier soldiers smoking, though.

[PeZook]

Also, I wondered, most of the american military smokes cigarettes (almost half of marines smoke, for example, and the other branches smoke as well) I wonder what kind of disadvantage they'd face on the battlefield if the enemy was just as well trained and didn't smoke, I don't think there is a military that disallows thier soldiers smoking, though.

The advantage, if any, is probably neglible. The smoking soldiers are in their early twenties to maybe thirties, officers and some NCO's excluded, and they get plenty of excercise, mitigating the harmful effects. When they start feeling the effects of smoking, they will be well out of fighting age, and won't have to sludge through the mud with the grunts. Discipline matters more than physical conditioning, anyway. After reaching a certain level of fitness, any additional advantage is going to be nice, but not decisive.

[Shrykull]

but doesn't it decrease your lung capacity?

[Shrykull]

I'm working on a site as to why cigarettes should be taken off the market here's what I have sofar, and some pro smoking arguments, which I already have some rebuttals to, just want to see what you guys think/think of, still have a lot of research to do:

Once upon a time, a man walked carefully through the woods, carrying a bow and arrow on a hunting trip for his tribe. He had tracked the deer for hours now, even managed to find it, but he missed, it ran away and now he was back on it’s trail. The sun was setting and the first snows had started two months ago, and now it was the dead of winter and he was freezing. He knew he would need warmth and he would need to build a fire. He gathered some sticks and leaves, some fallen logs which he was fortunate to find and made a ring of rocks. He put the leaves on the bottom, took a stick and started drilling the end into one of the logs, after much effort the log started to give a little smoke, then more then it finally came alight. He took it and ignited the leaves with it, the leaves caught fire, then the kindling caught fire and then finally the logs, he was now warm.
Suddenly a wind blew one of the leaves out toward the man, startled, he jumped and it landed next to him, he put his face to it, and caught a wiff of the smoke coming from it, this smoke had a pleasant aroma, from these kind of leaves, he started inhaling more of it, and enjoyed it. He ignited another leave, rolled it and inhaled the smoke. He would soon relay this message to his tribe. For the caveman, he didn’t know any better that the smoke was though so pleasant, was so harmful. For him, ignorance was bliss…………….

We Don’t have that Excuse!!

Do you honestly think that smoking started because some caveman accidentally inhaled some smoke and enjoyed it? Look, your intentions are good, but don't give the pro-smoking crowd an easy target. Cut out this crappy story please. I am, of course, assuming that you were quoting yourself.

How do you think it got started then? Why if no one actually enjoyed it would they do it?

[Shrykull]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... staurants/

I would suspect that if you told restaurant owners that shouldn't be able to expose thier workers to second-hand smoke that they would say they have a choice not to work there.

What is the problem with banning cigarettes? Is it because all the lobbying money the tobacco companies give to republicans, I remember I heard my uncle say around 94 that he heard by 2000 cigarettes would be completely illegal, didn't happen obviously, but I wonder how long it will take.

[Shrykull]

I think RTS is gone, but anyway.

You realise living within 500 yards of any major road mean you have to accept a higher risk of certain diseases

Not nearly as risky as second hand smoke, the aromatics are very different, tobacco smoke is WAY thicker than auto emission smoke, and contains a lot more carcinogens.

I might add that it's a higher risk than the risks accepted by those who work in a smoky environment

Complete and utter bullshit! Have you ever been in a room of say, 30 elderly cigarette smokers (even a large room mind you.) Your eyes will start to sting and you may have respiratory problems as well, you don't get this living near a main road![/i]

[Turin]

I would suspect that if you told restaurant owners that shouldn't be able to expose thier workers to second-hand smoke that they would say they have a choice not to work there.

My argument against this has always been:
"Which is why we don't have any worker's safety standards, right? Coal miners can always just choose to take a different job, so there's no need to have laws that require owners to give them oxygen equipment. They knew the risks!" (Just using the miners example because it's fresh in my mind)

Of course, you'll run into the occasional LOLbertarian who actually believes there shouldn't be workers' safety laws, but those people are immune to logic anyway.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

I'm working on a site as to why cigarettes should be taken off the market here's what I have sofar, and some pro smoking arguments, which I already have some rebuttals to, just want to see what you guys think/think of, still have a lot of research to do:

Do you honestly think that smoking started because some caveman accidentally inhaled some smoke and enjoyed it? Look, your intentions are good, but don't give the pro-smoking crowd an easy target. Cut out this crappy story please. I am, of course, assuming that you were quoting yourself.

How do you think it got started then? Why if no one actually enjoyed it would they do it?

Does it matter? My only real point here is that including a made-up story about how smoking started is completely unnecessary.

Our bodies' immediate reaction to smoke inhalation is to cough that shit out. So no, I don't think the first smokers actually enjoyed it. It is more likely that something in the smoke induced hallucinations, and that stimulated further experimentation. But this is irrelevant speculation.

[Lisa]

It's also highly likely that she got her lung cancer from breathing in the smoke from cooking food, which is a significant source of carcinogens and large particulates which are very damaging to your lungs.

Last time I checked electric ranges/grills didn't produce smoke unless you were severely overcooking the food (in which case it would be unfit to be served. As for gas ranges, they must be ventilated to the out doors.

Now some third world nations like india may have poor ventilation problems in terms of cooking, but that lady was not in a third world nation, there's strict controls on ventilation of the cooking range in canada.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

From this pro-smoking site, they don't produce any figures however

http://www.geocities.com/americansall/

Pro smokers: Anti-smokers will stop at nothing to create a smokefree world, and they fund the junk science "studies" to prove whatever they ask, regardless how idiotic it is. The media is always happy to push the anti-smoker agenda, never requiring truth, just hype.

Baby Boom
The most fertile period in US history, between 1946 and 1964, added 76 million Americans, born to returning servicemen and women after WWII. As many as 70% of American soldiers smoked.

But how many of those soldiers were ones that had kids?

Wrong question. The proper question is, "So what?" They seem to be claiming that smoking increases fertility. That claim is full of shit. Just because a lot of parents of the baby boomers smoked does not mean that they were more fertile. What were the fertility rates of the smokers compared to the non-smokers? More importantly, what was going on that encouraged people to have more children? (hint: the war just ended) Factors other than smoking played more important roles in this "most fertile period in US history" (which is another claim that should be substantiated).

[Darth Wong]

That has to be the most idiotic smoking apologist argument I've ever seen.

If one is to employ the retarded logic of that website, then the Baby Boom also disproves the theory that huge-scale conventional wars tend to kill off a lot of males, because somebody had to be alive to father all of those babies.

[Shrykull]

From this pro-smoking site, they don't produce any figures however

http://www.geocities.com/americansall/

Pro smokers: Anti-smokers will stop at nothing to create a smokefree world, and they fund the junk science "studies" to prove whatever they ask, regardless how idiotic it is. The media is always happy to push the anti-smoker agenda, never requiring truth, just hype.

Baby Boom
The most fertile period in US history, between 1946 and 1964, added 76 million Americans, born to returning servicemen and women after WWII. As many as 70% of American soldiers smoked.

But how many of those soldiers were ones that had kids?

Wrong question. The proper question is, "So what?" They seem to be claiming that smoking increases fertility.

Actually, if you read it, not that it matters, they were trying to disprove the claim that smoking causes impotence.

[Shrykull]

Do you honestly think that smoking started because some caveman accidentally inhaled some smoke and enjoyed it? Look, your intentions are good, but don't give the pro-smoking crowd an easy target. Cut out this crappy story please. I am, of course, assuming that you were quoting yourself.

How do you think it got started then? Why if no one actually enjoyed it would they do it?

Does it matter? My only real point here is that including a made-up story about how smoking started is completely unnecessary.

Our bodies' immediate reaction to smoke inhalation is to cough that shit out. So no, I don't think the first smokers actually enjoyed it. It is more likely that something in the smoke induced hallucinations, and that stimulated further experimentation. But this is irrelevant speculation.

But tobacco cigarettes don't cause hallucinations, and most people do it because of the nicotine it contains.

[Wyrm]

But tobacco cigarettes don't cause hallucinations, and most people do it because of the nicotine it contains.

That's what people do now, but that is not how the use of tobacco started in the Americas where it was first used.

Smoking tobacco started out as a ceremonial practice in Native American cultures, smoked in large quantities at a time, to mark important events. In these high doses, tobacco is hallucinogenic.

[Shrykull]

But tobacco cigarettes don't cause hallucinations, and most people do it because of the nicotine it contains.

That's what people do now, but that is not how the use of tobacco started in the Americas where it was first used.

Smoking tobacco started out as a ceremonial practice in Native American cultures, smoked in large quantities at a time, to mark important events. In these high doses, tobacco is hallucinogenic.

Will inhaling cigar smoke have the same effect? Or only if you have a very big cigar? I thought most people don't inhale it because it's too much smoke and they immediately choke it up, but tobacco cigars are legal and marijuana isn't, so couldn't they do the same with cigars?