|
Post by One Eye on May 5, 2010 16:06:18 GMT -5
Okay, I'm a smoker, and I do plan to quit (picked a date and everything) soon. But I will never have anything against smokers. The times I've quit before (long spans of time) I had no problem with those who smoked. I don't understand how modern society has become so anti-smoking in the West. You can't smoke in restaurants, you can't smoke in bars. I think it's stupid (I think restaurants should have smoking sections or restaurants should be allowed to decide if they want to accommodate smokers or not, and honestly...I think bars should always allow smoking...you're killing your liver anyway, why not kill your lungs simultaneously?) but now this forum I'm a member of has this ludicrous ass talking about how she can't stand her next door neighbors smoking on their own porch. What the f***?
So, how do you feel about smoking? Let's argue til we've got bloody teeth. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on May 5, 2010 16:28:46 GMT -5
Let me think, you fund corporations that assassinate farmers/union leaders in Latin America, you endanger people through passive smoking, you participate in the aggravation of universal medical systems by dying prematurely and last but not least you stink breath. Though my friend Fethi, you know the one who has a sexy voice thanks to cigarettes says f**k you all non-smokers, you guys are just jealous nerds. Enough said.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on May 5, 2010 18:10:25 GMT -5
^fund corporations that assassinate farmers/union leaders in Latin America
But who doesn't really?
I like smoking, but I realize it's really bad for you. The appropriate thing to do in my view is to make cigarettes really expensive and tightly controlled and limit advertising. Banning smoking in public spaces also seems appropriate since you can't deny the negative impact of second hand smoke, though I agree that it sucks in cold climates (on the other hand, it's never been easier to meet new people - hey we're out here in the cold shivering smoking a cigarette, we have a lot in common!) As long as you can have private clubs/bars where smoking is allowed I think it's fine - these haven't taken off because stepping outside isn't too big of an inconvenience for smokers. I think you could smoke on a privately chartered plane but that could be wrong- obviously I'm in favor of that too.
|
|
|
Post by One Eye on May 5, 2010 19:09:09 GMT -5
^Granted, you do meet people standing outside of bars smoking...there's always that icebreaker of "f***ing fascists, we should be allowed to smoke inside!" But really, when it comes down to it, smoking...it's bad for you sure, but not that much. There's very little in this world that isn't bad for you. At what degree should we start banning things? I read that strawberries have been linked to certain types of cancer, should we ban them too? I think it's honestly a case of people having too much time on their hands. Nitpicking over bulls*** when there are real problems in the world. Oooh, smoking, oooh weed, blah blah blah. Honestly, if we're talking health concerns, why isn't booze illegal? Somehow I think booze has killed a lot more people than weed ever has. What the law says and what bans say is so petulant and hypocritical. And, yes, smoking is bad for you, like a million other things. And the industry is likely not that sound...like every industry (it's about money people, what, you really expect it to be just)...but really, I think people just need pet causes. And lately smoking has been the big pet cause. @ganbare: I'd take you more seriously if I hadn't read so many of your posts. You tend to come off like a 12 y.o....Come out of a D.A.R.E. class?
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on May 5, 2010 19:55:37 GMT -5
betahat ;D way to be cynical, dollar voting helps positive change and it's only one of many reason to quit. ^I'm seldom not serious on this forum and you take the one occasion to attack me personally which is not the first time by the way? You didn't even introduce yourself in the appropriate topic in the first place I thus suggest you quit the aggressive act. I have good personal reasons not to like cigarettes, can I not hate them without being insulted? Anyway, I'm not the one making the apology of second-hand smoking here. If you could explain ONE benefit of smoking that is worth putting smokers and non-smokers alike in danger then maybe people would take your rant seriously? Oh wait, smokers are physically addicted, it's not like the overwhelming majority would carrying on smoking if they could quit! Your reasoning is filled with so many fallacies, I don't even see the logic to deconstruct it. PWNED.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on May 5, 2010 23:58:26 GMT -5
The social cost of many drugs are not in lign with current policy- there is no world where marijuana should be illegal but not alcohol based on any standard of addiction or public safety or health. However, I would disagree about your strawberry statement - cigarettes are a proven killer, more than double alcohol+drunk driving. That's not an argument for banning cigarettes completely - they're not that dangerous, and prohibition obviously doesn't work very well for the drugs that are illegal right now. But it does suggest it should be tightly controlled and taxed, and we should try to protect people from negative externalities (for alcohol, that means restrictions on when you can buy alcohol, last calls, and more importantly police citing drunk drivers). I think the penalty for drunk driving should be way higher than it is now- I have friends who drive over the legal limit and it makes me really uncomfortable, even though I know they're safe drivers and are not falling down drunk.
As for the taxes, it's about aligning social costs and incentives. If there were no public health care costs I'd be a lot less convinced that cigarettes should be taxed - I don't believe in using prices and taxes for paternalistic reasons like we know better than serious smokers what they should do.
Though I still believe that the most effective way to cut down on smoking is through price effects, with advertising and inconveniencing coming a close second.
^If you could explain ONE benefit of smoking that is worth putting smokers and non-smokers alike in danger then maybe people would take your rant seriously?
Semi-seriously: cigarettes are a great prop, they really make a lot of movie scenes and tv series like Mad Men (and actors love them as props). Another benefit is that they act as an appetite suppresant (albeit at high cost) and give us lots of nice skinny supermodels to look at. Finally they can be really enjoyable. I'm not saying those benefits justify putting OTHERS at risk involuntarily, but they are enough of a reason for me to defend the right of smokers to smoke provided they take into consideration the effect on others.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on May 6, 2010 8:44:12 GMT -5
^Smoking is the first cause of death worldwide. If you want to smoke do it but don't dare light up a cigarette indoors, I've heard pregnant women say smoking was no big deal for babies! Some people don't deserve to reproduce themselves but hey it's democracy, societal well-being is sacrificied on the altar of individual rights for too many things. On the other hand alcohol is nocive as well but at least it has more tangible benefits what's more, it's a millenary cultural practice not a modern industry that secured a customer base via chemical addiction. I occasionally took narcotics myself but I didn't endanger people, as long as I don't harm anyone, I'm fine.
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 6, 2010 9:43:22 GMT -5
Smoking is OK so long as the smoke doesn't reach me. As for society, yes, it does burden the health care system, but so does obesity, sloth, etc. - you really can't pick and choose there. Now, as far as what I mean by the smoke not reaching me, I don't mean just the wafting particulate matter -- I mean the residue as well: (Bloomberg) — Tobacco smoke contamination lingering on furniture, clothes and other surfaces, dubbed thirdhand smoke, may react with indoor air chemicals to form potential cancer-causing substances, a study found.
After exposing a piece of paper to smoke, researchers found the sheet had levels of newly formed carcinogens that were 10 times higher after three hours in the presence of an indoor air chemical called nitrous acid commonly emitted by household appliances or cigarette smoke. That means people may face a risk from indoor tobacco smoke in a way that's never been recognized before, said one of the study's authors, Lara Gundel.
Previous research has shown that secondhand smoke, which is inhaled by nonsmokers exposed to fumes from cigarettes, raises the risk of cancer and heart disease. More research is needed to identify the potential health hazards of thirdhand smoke, Gundel said. Overall, tobacco use causes 20 percent of all cancer deaths, according to the study published in today's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"We have considered that nicotine on surfaces has been pretty benign up to this point. It turns out we shouldn't say that now," said Gundel, a staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, in a Feb. 5 telephone interview. "People can be exposed to toxins in tobacco smoke in a way that's never been recognized before." www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/feb2010/bw2010029_074347.htmSmokers do die early, though, so they are less of a drain on the pension system. They tend to die quickly as well (lung cancer, heart attack) and don't need expensive long-term care. I just don't want their smoke around me.
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 6, 2010 9:59:05 GMT -5
but now this forum I'm a member of has this ludicrous ass talking about how she can't stand her next door neighbors smoking on their own porch. What the f***? I am sensitive to tobacco smoke (and perfume and a few other smells) to the point where I will tear up and cough. If I am outdoors I will just move if someone is smoking. If my neighbor were to smoke on their porch it would be legal and I really have nothing to say about them enjoying something legal on their own property...but I surely wouldn't like it if I could smell it. I'd like to be out on my own porch on a nice night to enjoy the outdoors but it would be difficult with smoke coming from a neighbor. I'd probably go inside until they were done, then go back out. No biggie.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on May 6, 2010 11:10:12 GMT -5
^Smoking is the first cause of death worldwide.
Wrong, cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide.
^On the other hand alcohol is nocive as well but at least it has more tangible benefits what's more, it's a millenary cultural practice not a modern industry that secured a customer base via chemical addiction
Tobacco is also a millenary cultural practice, albeit not for Europeans. Also, I wouldn't claim that alcohol is not chemically addictive, though it is certainly LESS addictive than tobacco.
|
|
|
Post by One Eye on May 6, 2010 13:42:49 GMT -5
@ganbare: Um, no not pwned. I couldn't even make out half of your sentences. Is English actually your second language or are you just one of those guys that pretends not to speak English so that you can say completely banal things and then pretend they made sense? K...I'm not gonna go around quoting people, too much to quote so I'm just going to spew a bunch of s*** out instead of replying specifically. ;D Hmmm...what are the benefits of smoking...what could they be? Oh, I don't know, relaxation, the calming factor. Are people addicted to cigarettes? Sure, most habitual smokers are addicted to cigarettes. But where do you decide when addiction starts? How about a habitual drinker who swears they aren't an alcoholic but doesn't go a day without a certain amount of alcohol (could be as little as a couple beers or a glass or two of wine)? The funny thing is...to be considered an alcoholic, people have to drink insane amounts of alcohol and really f*** up their lives. To be considered addicted to cigarettes, you just have to smoke on a regular basis. People who bandy around the word "addiction" when it comes to things as relatively tame as cigarettes just come off sounding sheltered. When it comes to risks, there really is nothing out there that is without risk. The strawberry example may sound ludicrous, but it is still fact. The fact that there was an article warning against the consumption of strawberries in a reputable newspaper (can't recall the name at the moment, I read it a few years ago) is ridiculous. And yet not a lot different from the anti-smoking crap, IMO. This is a planet in which the food we eat was likely at some point sprayed with pesticides in the farming process, private citizens spray their lawns with pesticides and this all contributes to air pollution. Exhaust fumes from cars (which personally make me rather sick, but do I bitch at car owners the way anti-smokers bitch at smokers? Yeah, not so much) pollute the air, smoke off factory pipes, f***ing chemical waste. Hell, how about the methane produced by those hordes of cattle for our beef market that's tearing holes in the ozone layer?Should I be allowed to get snarky at someone eating a hamburger because they may possibly be causing skin cancer in me? Yeah, I know, stretch. But so is a next door neighbor to someone complaining about their smoking on their own private property. People seem way too eager to ignore obvious health concerns throughout life. But ooooh, let's be really stickler when it comes to cigarettes, that's the real damage right there. Now, if a person were to be gung-ho against any kind of pollution which effects our lives...I'd probably find them annoying...but at least not hypocritical. Smokers have just become an easy target, the one to jump to because we are a minority and because we technically don't need to smoke. Apart from eating, drinking water, and breathing, there's very little anyone needs to do. Cars are convenient, but they aren't strictly necessary. If someone were unable to become a full time bicyclist, then at least they could take public transportation and help that way. Meh, ramble ramble.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on May 6, 2010 16:55:49 GMT -5
^Just because other forms of pollution exist, we should accept people smoking indoors? So just because suicides make more victims than homicides we should allow the latter? Brilliant reasoning, social regression only to protect weak and selfish interests. Apparently you have never heard of carbon taxes or of car-free zones either, you are so blinded by hate you don't see that initiatives aimed at reducing pollution are everywhere. "Each year, primarily because of exposure to secondhand smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of lung cancer, more than 46,000 die of heart disease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than 18 months have lower respiratory tract infections" Why carry on with weak personal attacks? If you really had read so many of my posts you would have known that English is not my second language but my third... My writing is far from being perfect but this is not an essay but a message board therefore I don't see why anyone should care like they do in real life. That said the simple fact you claim not to understand half of my sentences demonstrate you either got serious reading problems or show signs of bad faith. I don't mind if you express yourself like you are 5 however drop personal attacks, than youk very much. @putts: amazing article, I dislike the smell of a room after someone smoked in too. betahat: you're right it's the second cause but it will become the first one by 2030 according to the WHO.
|
|
|
Post by One Eye on May 6, 2010 21:53:23 GMT -5
Other forms of pollution should be attacked EQUALLY, that's the point. Picking favorites is bulls***. People just like to find a scapegoat, smoking has become a pet cause for a lot of people, when in reality: this is a deteriorating planet and our species likewise will be deteriorating at some point and there is no ONE, SPECIFIC cause. The initiatives against cars I find stupid as well. What, certain areas are going hybrid crazy? The whole world in general is still using gas. You are blinded by hate, you are focusing all your hate on cigarette smokers. You don't want to look at all the causes of pollution because YOU probably contribute quite a bit. And quotes about how evil smoking is, that's nothing more than spewing more propaganda. There has always been disease, there has always been death. I could pull out random statistics about STDs and talk of how people should all just stop f***ing. But that's not really reasonable, is it?
You made no sense in your last post. And you, in general, make little sense. You come off as an idealistic, effeminate child. That's just how it is. Sorry for pointing out the truth. The thing is, unless you are a diehard environmentalist, you really have nothing to complain about. Even a diehard environmentalist I would find annoying since I'm a diehard fatalist, but at least I would think they're honest. Hypocrisy I can't stand. If you buy ANYTHING from a factory, if you drive a car run on gasoline, if you buy food from a grocery store that stocks pesticide sprayed, genetically altered vegetables, if you eat meat that came from a huge methane producing cattle farm...then you have no right to bitch and whine about cigarettes. No one lives forever, deal with it. These petty health concerns are just sad considering the state of this planet. You are sad.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on May 7, 2010 5:16:22 GMT -5
^No one should consume anything and die of hunger for equal treatment's sake, for people to smoke cigarettes... No matter how many times any of us refute your senseless reasoning you still repeat it over and over again, your bitter whining is just a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by One Eye on May 8, 2010 16:08:19 GMT -5
The same for you people with your bitter whining about how you can buy factory made products that are killing our environment, polluting our air, and consequently endangering all of us. Oh my god, Ganbare, your actions are going to lead to my premature death! Don't you feel ashamed? Get the stick out of your ass, no one is blameless when it comes to the deterioration of our planet or our species.
|
|