Smokers are worse then drug addicts - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Smokers are worse then drug addicts (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:03:02 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The USA, where smokers have a RIGHT to smoke on THEIR PROPERTY, and I have a right to NOT BREATHE SMOKE on PUBLIC property.

I agree.

I want everyone to stop operating combustion engines on public property so that I don't have to smell it and breath it.

I'm a patriot, so they can drive on their privately owned land, up and down their own driveway or whatever, but their traveling around stinking up the place and polluting my air has got to stop.
The whole trucking and rail industries had better grind to a fucking halt right God-Damned now or my panties will get all sorts of wadded.

This man is a master of applied logic.

My pet peeve is airplanes. Do you KNOW how much pollution them things put out into the air? And the NOISE! Now don't get me wrong....if a guy wants to fly around on his property or above his house, hey, that's ok.

But stay the F offa my lawn!

BC

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:08:23 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i hate how smokers seem to think they have the RIGHT to smoke.

What country do you live in? img86.imageshack.us/img86/7638/dunno1fs.gif

The USA, where smokers have a RIGHT to smoke on THEIR PROPERTY, and I have a right to NOT BREATHE SMOKE on PUBLIC property.

At 78.31 posts per day, how do you find time to go to public places and get offended?

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:18:22 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The USA, where smokers have a RIGHT to smoke on THEIR PROPERTY, and I have a right to NOT BREATHE SMOKE on PUBLIC property.

I agree.

I want everyone to stop operating combustion engines on public property so that I don't have to smell it and breath it.

I'm a patriot, so they can drive on their privately owned land, up and down their own driveway or whatever, but their traveling around stinking up the place and polluting my air has got to stop.
The whole trucking and rail industries had better grind to a fucking halt right God-Damned now or my panties will get all sorts of wadded.

1) Smoking has no benefits whatsoever, so comparing it to transportation is pretty fricking stupid.

2) Second-hand smoke has been documented to kill people. I'm allergic to tobacco and go into a major asthma attack and break out in hives any time I walk through the cluster of smokers always standing around the door to every building in town. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts. You've got every right to own and shoot a gun, right? Do you have a right to walk around in the middle of town and just pop off shots whenever you feel like it?

Stop ruining your lungs and giving yourself cancer. More importantly, stop being a self-righteous dick about it.

Speaking of self-righteous...
Why is it anti-smokers want to save me from myself?
If it is so dumb to smoke, why not just let me smoke, die, and remove myself from the gene pool?
Hell, I only smoke a cigar a month, and a few cigs when I drink.
I don't think I really qualify as a "smoker" and that pisses me off.

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:18:39 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
"Here's an article written for this topic from my pro gun friend, Walter Williams":

The largest losers of America's anti-tobacco crusade aren't tobacco companies and smokers; it's the American people who are incrementally giving up private property rights. You say, "Hold it, Williams, I agree that people have the right to smoke and harm themselves, but they don't have the right to harm others with those noxious tobacco fumes!" Let's look at it, because harm is a two-way street. If you're allergic to tobacco smoke or just find its odor unpleasant, and I smoke in your presence, I harm and annoy you. However, if I'm prohibited from smoking a cigarette in your presence, I'm harmed because of a denial of what I find a pleasurable experience.

There's an obvious conflict. One of us is harmed. How can it be resolved? There are several ways. You might consider the harm I suffer trivial compared to yours. You could organize a sufficiently large number of people and lobby lawmakers to enact smoking bans in bars, restaurants and workplaces. Alternatively, I might consider the harm you suffer trivial, and organize a bunch of people and lobby lawmakers to mandate that smoking be permitted in bars, restaurants and workplaces.

Let's think about this for a moment. If you owned a restaurant and did not allow smoking, wouldn't you find it offensive if a law were enacted requiring you to permit smoking? I'm guessing you'd deem such a law tyranny. After all, you'd probably conclude, it's your restaurant, and if you don't want smoking it's your right. Similarly, I'd deem it just as offensive if smoking were allowed in my restaurant and a law were enacted banning smoking in restaurants.

The totalitarian method to resolve the conflict is through political power and guns. In other words, the group with the greatest power to organize government's brute force decides whether there'll be smoking or no smoking in restaurants. Totalitarians might justify their actions by claiming that bars, restaurants and workplaces deal with the public, and thus the public should decide how they'll be used. That's nonsense. Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it public property.

The liberty-oriented method to resolve conflict is through the institution of private property. In fact, conflict resolution is one of the primary functions of private property, namely it decides who gets to decide how what property is used in what way. Put another way: Who may harm whom in what ways? In a nutshell, private property rights have to do with rights held by an owner to keep, acquire and use property in ways so long as he doesn't interfere with similar rights held by another. Private property rights also include the right to exclude others from use of property.

Under the liberty-oriented method of private property, as a means to conflict resolution, we'd ask the question of ownership. If the owner wishes his restaurant to be smoke-free, it is his right. Whether a smoker is harmed or inconvenienced by not being allowed to smoke in his restaurant is irrelevant. Similarly, if a restaurant owner wishes to permit smoking, it is his right, and whether a nonsmoker is harmed or annoyed is also irrelevant. In the interest of minimizing possible harm either way, it might be appropriate for restaurant owners, by way of a sign or other notice, to inform prospective customers of their respective smoking policy. That way, customers can decide whether to enter upon the premises.

In today's America, the successful anti-tobacco campaign has become a template for conflict resolution through the forceful imposition of wills through the political system. It's part of a continuing trend of attacks on private property rights. Private property rights are the bulwark for liberty and should be jealously guarded and not be sacrificed for the sake of expediency.

"Still think you have a right to petition the state to tell others how to behave on someone else's private property, you totalitarians? You don't have that right, only state controlled powers!" (IllinoisGun)

This needs to be read by gun owning "freedom lovers" who love to tell others what their freedoms should and shouldn't be.

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:20:26 AM EDT

[#5]

Smokers are drug addicts.

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:22:04 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
"Here's an article written for this topic from my pro gun friend, Walter Williams":

The largest losers of America's anti-tobacco crusade aren't tobacco companies and smokers; it's the American people who are incrementally giving up private property rights. You say, "Hold it, Williams, I agree that people have the right to smoke and harm themselves, but they don't have the right to harm others with those noxious tobacco fumes!" Let's look at it, because harm is a two-way street. If you're allergic to tobacco smoke or just find its odor unpleasant, and I smoke in your presence, I harm and annoy you. However, if I'm prohibited from smoking a cigarette in your presence, I'm harmed because of a denial of what I find a pleasurable experience.

There's an obvious conflict. One of us is harmed. How can it be resolved? There are several ways. You might consider the harm I suffer trivial compared to yours. You could organize a sufficiently large number of people and lobby lawmakers to enact smoking bans in bars, restaurants and workplaces. Alternatively, I might consider the harm you suffer trivial, and organize a bunch of people and lobby lawmakers to mandate that smoking be permitted in bars, restaurants and workplaces.

Let's think about this for a moment. If you owned a restaurant and did not allow smoking, wouldn't you find it offensive if a law were enacted requiring you to permit smoking? I'm guessing you'd deem such a law tyranny. After all, you'd probably conclude, it's your restaurant, and if you don't want smoking it's your right. Similarly, I'd deem it just as offensive if smoking were allowed in my restaurant and a law were enacted banning smoking in restaurants.

The totalitarian method to resolve the conflict is through political power and guns. In other words, the group with the greatest power to organize government's brute force decides whether there'll be smoking or no smoking in restaurants. Totalitarians might justify their actions by claiming that bars, restaurants and workplaces deal with the public, and thus the public should decide how they'll be used. That's nonsense. Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it public property.

The liberty-oriented method to resolve conflict is through the institution of private property. In fact, conflict resolution is one of the primary functions of private property, namely it decides who gets to decide how what property is used in what way. Put another way: Who may harm whom in what ways? In a nutshell, private property rights have to do with rights held by an owner to keep, acquire and use property in ways so long as he doesn't interfere with similar rights held by another. Private property rights also include the right to exclude others from use of property.

Under the liberty-oriented method of private property, as a means to conflict resolution, we'd ask the question of ownership. If the owner wishes his restaurant to be smoke-free, it is his right. Whether a smoker is harmed or inconvenienced by not being allowed to smoke in his restaurant is irrelevant. Similarly, if a restaurant owner wishes to permit smoking, it is his right, and whether a nonsmoker is harmed or annoyed is also irrelevant. In the interest of minimizing possible harm either way, it might be appropriate for restaurant owners, by way of a sign or other notice, to inform prospective customers of their respective smoking policy. That way, customers can decide whether to enter upon the premises.

In today's America, the successful anti-tobacco campaign has become a template for conflict resolution through the forceful imposition of wills through the political system. It's part of a continuing trend of attacks on private property rights. Private property rights are the bulwark for liberty and should be jealously guarded and not be sacrificed for the sake of expediency.

"Still think you have a right to petition the state to tell others how to behave on someone else's private property, you totalitarians? You don't have that right, only state controlled powers!" (IllinoisGun)

Whoda thunk it, that those opposed to smoking would be alienating themselves without realizing it. Guess some should have just dealt with the smokers, as annoying as it is. I hope no gun owners jumped on the Anti-Tobacco bandwagon.

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:22:41 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
And they treat the world as their ashtray.

+1 inconsiderate pukes.

Smoking is a disgusting waste of money

And?
What's your point?
Do you, or anyone else, have the right to dictate what others should spend their money on?
Christ.

Every anti-smoker who has posted in this thread is a fucking liberal - you just don't know it yet.
Liberal: one whose interests are not at stake at the moment.

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:24:41 AM EDT

[#8]

Not to jump on the flame band wagaon of smokers, but...I must say they are the most selfish people on earth. They know how it kills you, they know how nothing good health wise comes out of it, but they choose to continue to abuse a product that will kill them slow and drag their family down with them when they have lung cancer, etc...

To me that is worse then my wife and I coming home smelling like an ashtray after dinner...But that is a different rant.....We chose to go to those places....

Good luck in your slow death smokers, way to take care of your family!

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:24:56 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Smokers are drug addicts.

So by that same logic - a man drinks one beer he is a alcoholic.

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:25:45 AM EDT

[#10]

Couple of weird things I've seen regarding smoking.

Went to a hypnotist to help me quit smoking....leaving I see the guy exiting via the back door and stairs while lighting up. I was actually laughing, knowing right then and there that it wasn't going to work.

Remember a guy who had one of those permanent holes in their necks blowing smoke rings with it.

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:29:08 AM EDT

[#11]

I treat my share of smokers, and I know first hand the damage it does, but the thing that demonstrated just how powerfully addictive it is was my internship year rotation thru the VA hospital, seeing these guys smoking through their tracheotomies.

WTF? It wasn't bad enough that they had their whole fucking head and neck destroyed by the cancer, it wasn't enough that they will never speak again without a little electronic machine, it wasn't bad enough that they will exist on a liquid diet for however many years they have left, it wasn't enough that they have no normal tissue between there eyes and their collar bones, they are still sneaking outside to drag the fucking smoke thru the hole in their necks, most of them dressed in their hospital gowns and stupid foam slippers, in the snow, the rain, whatever.

Nicotine is bad, real real bad.

Man, I gotta dig out my pictures.

ETA: I support the right to smoke, don't miscategorize me please. I am against smoking legislation too. I just think it is the stupedist thing one can do to oneself, short of actually killing youself outright.

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:44:26 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I treat my share of smokers, and I know first hand the damage it does, but the thing that demonstrated just how powerfully addictive it is was my internship year rotation thru the VA hospital, seeing these guys smoking through their tracheotomies.

WTF? It wasn't bad enough that they had their whole fucking head and neck destroyed by the cancer, it wasn't enough that they will never speak again without a little electronic machine, it wasn't bad enough that they will exist on a liquid diet for however many years they have left, it wasn't enough that they have no normal tissue between there eyes and their collar bones, they are still sneaking outside to drag the fucking smoke thru the hole in their necks, most of them dressed in their hospital gowns and stupid foam slippers, in the snow, the rain, whatever.

Nicotine is bad, real real bad.

Man, I gotta dig out my pictures.

ETA: I support the right to smoke, don't miscategorize me please. I am against smoking legislation too. I just think it is the stupedist thing one can do to oneself, short of actually killing youself outright.

You are in the medical field?

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:48:50 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
You are in the medical field?

Actually PPO, if you look carefully, there are actually two spelling errors in that post. Think you can spot the other?

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:50:55 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You are in the medical field?

Actually PPO, if you look carefully, there are actually two spelling errors in that post. Think you can spot the other?

LOL....They never stop do they?

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:53:24 AM EDT

[#15]

You should meet my dad....

Cigs are the worst... They will kill you SLOWLY... All of a sudden it seems... You cant hunt with your buddies anymore, you cant go camping anymore..... You cant even walk from the grocery store, to a car parked right by the curb in the front of the store without lighting up, coughing, and being out of breath walking 10 feet...

Like I said......

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:53:35 AM EDT

[#16]

Smokers are worse then (sic) drug addicts

They are drug addicts. Nicotine is highly addictive both physically and psychologically.

Posted: 3/7/2006 10:56:05 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You are in the medical field?

Actually PPO, if you look carefully, there are actually two spelling errors in that post. Think you can spot the other?

Thru?

What did I win?

A pack of smokes I hope.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:01:01 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And they treat the world as their ashtray.

+1 inconsiderate pukes.

Smoking is a disgusting waste of money

And?
What's your point?
Do you, or anyone else, have the right to dictate what others should spend their money on?
Christ.
Every anti-smoker who has posted in this thread is a fucking liberal - you just don't know it yet.
Liberal: one whose interests are not at stake at the moment.

Im not a liberal. I am an ex smoker who doesnt support any regulation... Its you own choice.

And I dont like seeing my dad wasting away.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:10:16 AM EDT

[#19]

Since I do not like smokers, well, the action of...I must be a liberal.

I think I will go to the South Dakota thread and call all those crazy 'Pro-Choice' guys Liberals.

That'll change them.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:11:04 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are in the medical field?

Actually PPO, if you look carefully, there are actually two spelling errors in that post. Think you can spot the other?

Thru?

What did I win?

A pack of smokes I hope.

Actually thru is an acceptable spelling. I was referring to my use of "there" is one of my comments, that should have been "their".

However, given the fact that you made the effort, IM me your address, and I will send you a pack of butts, just tell me the brand you prefer.

BTW, a pack is up to $8 minimum in NYC thanks to Bloomberg's draconian legislation.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:11:48 AM EDT

[#21]

i go thorugh about a pack every three months. i am not addicted. i enjoy the flavor and the oral fixation of blowing smoke out of my mouth. i do not inhale and therefore recieve no nicotine buzz and no lung damage. i puff the smoke into my mouth, like smoking a cigar, but never draw it into my lungs. i'm sure i'm increasing my risk of tongue/larynx cancer very very slightly, but drinking alcohol, eating spicy food, etc etc will all do that as well.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:20:12 AM EDT

[#22]

Second-hand smoke has been documented to kill people.

Is SHS Dangerous?

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:20:16 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
You should meet my dad....

Cigs are the worst... They will kill you SLOWLY... All of a sudden it seems... You cant hunt with your buddies anymore, you cant go camping anymore..... You cant even walk from the grocery store, to a car parked right by the curb in the front of the store without lighting up, coughing, and being out of breath walking 10 feet...

Like I said......

Sorry to hear that. Addictions, whatever they are, can get the best of you.

My step grandfather died of Emphysema.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:22:08 AM EDT

[#24]

Well I'm not going to enter the debate on smoking in bars etc, all I
can say is that I am on day 11 today of no twigs and I'm glad I'm doing it...

...all though it is fucking hard!

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:22:13 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
i go thorugh about a pack every three months. i am not addicted. i enjoy the flavor and the oral fixation of blowing smoke out of my mouth. i do not inhale and therefore recieve no nicotine buzz and no lung damage. i puff the smoke into my mouth, like smoking a cigar, but never draw it into my lungs. i'm sure i'm increasing my risk of tongue/larynx cancer very very slightly, but drinking alcohol, eating spicy food, etc etc will all do that as well.

f_f, not every single smoker is a hard core addict, as you yourself point out, but truly, you are the exception, not the rule.

and BTW, not inhaling will certainly decrease your odds of lung cancer. Status quo on oral cancer.

But you are absolutley getting nicotine into your system, direct absorption thru the mucous membranes that line the mouth. Cigar smokers and dippers too, for that matter. Ask a dipper if they get the nicotine into their system.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:30:31 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
i go thorugh about a pack every three months. i am not addicted. i enjoy the flavor and the oral fixation of blowing smoke out of my mouth. i do not inhale and therefore recieve no nicotine buzz and no lung damage. i puff the smoke into my mouth, like smoking a cigar, but never draw it into my lungs. i'm sure i'm increasing my risk of tongue/larynx cancer very very slightly, but drinking alcohol, eating spicy food, etc etc will all do that as well.

f_f, not every single smoker is a hard core addict, as you yourself point out, but truly, you are the exception, not the rule.

and BTW, not inhaling will certainly decrease your odds of lung cancer. Status quo on oral cancer.

But you are absolutley getting nicotine into your system, direct absorption thru the mucous membranes that line the mouth. Cigar smokers and dippers too, for that matter. Ask a dipper if they get the nicotine into their system.

there are plenty of occasional smokers who are not addicted, but they usually stick to cigars, and again, do not inhale. i smoke an occasional cigar as well. cigar smoke, when not inhaled, will actually deliever a significant amount of nicotine because the tobacco fermentation process for cigars make the tobacco quite alkaline, unlike cigarette smoke. therefore, oral absorption of nicotine from cigar smoke is much greater than from cigarette smoke.

and don't get me started on dip.... that stuff is vile, never want to touch it again. tried it once and ended up puking all over my dorm room. my roommates did not appreciate it!

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:30:54 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

2) Second-hand smoke has been documented to kill people. I'm allergic to tobacco and go into a major asthma attack and break out in hives any time I walk through the cluster of smokers always standing around the door to every building in town. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts. You've got every right to own and shoot a gun, right? Do you have a right to walk around in the middle of town and just pop off shots whenever you feel like it?

Stop ruining your lungs and giving yourself cancer. More importantly, stop being a self-righteous dick about it.
Some people react that way to peanuts, why not just throw away peanut and peanut butter as well?

Do you see people being force fed peanuts in bars and restaurants?

i have never seen anyone who was forced to walk into a restaurant or bar.

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:08:27 PM EDT

[#28]

This thread really gets me. If someone someone doesn't see something their way, then something needs to change, or have legislation. Bullshit! There is no difference in this argument then those that bitch about gun rangesor business owners that post "NO FIREARMS", yada yada...If the business owner wants to allow smoking, it should be his choice not the .gov's. If you do not agree or dont like it, simply eat elsewhere. And the comment that smoking is worse then drug addicts? Well that statement is downright ignorant! I have never seen somone gun someone down in a drive-by over a pack of marlboros! I can understand having regulations where people dont have a choice to leave (airplanes, city buses etc) but everywhere else, ya dont like it...go somewhere else...

Man I'm gonna have to go burn one just due to the stress of this thread

Hope everyone shoots winclean, otherwise you could get led poisoning from the fumes at the range

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:49:00 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i hate how smokers seem to think they have the RIGHT to smoke.

What country do you live in? img86.imageshack.us/img86/7638/dunno1fs.gif

The USA, where smokers have a RIGHT to smoke on THEIR PROPERTY, and I have a right to NOT BREATHE SMOKE on PUBLIC property.

Hey Post Whore Champion, Where did ya go to school, fuckin Russia?

I hope you enjoy your right to own a gun.

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:51:10 PM EDT

[#30]

Again - the I don't smoke so no one should attitude.

I get so tired of this crap. Lets all just be the same. Freeking nuts.

Posted: 3/7/2006 1:17:32 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Again - the I don't smoke so no one should attitude.

I get so tired of this crap. Lets all just be the same. Freeking nuts.

I don't think anyone here is saying that.

I don't smoke, but if you want to fire away. I fully support your right to smoke as much as you want. It's none of my business.

But, to all the smokers out there, please don't make it my business by:

- MAKING ME SMOKE THAT SHIT. If it's a public place (that means we both equally have the right to be there), I won't do anything that will violate your right to breath clean air and I expect you will do the same. Right? The day I walk into your home and tell you not to smoke is the day you can tell me to fuck right off and be right in doing so.

- THROWING THOSE BUTTS ON THE GROUND. For the love of Christ they're EVERYWHERE. I can just hear the thought process of each individual smoker thinking it's no big deal .... it's only one little butt. Now multiply that times millions of smokers and google-fucking-plex cigarettes. Look down at the ground the next time you pull up to an intersection. What do you see? Look down at the ground at the entrance of any store / bar / etc. What do you see? Many, many smokers are thoughtless, inconsiderate slobs. Clean that shit up.

Posted: 3/7/2006 1:33:38 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
i hate how smokers seem to think they have the RIGHT to smoke.

What country do you live in? img86.imageshack.us/img86/7638/dunno1fs.gif

he lives in Miami. trust me its NOT part of the USA.

Posted: 3/7/2006 1:44:15 PM EDT

[#33]

tag

Posted: 3/7/2006 1:53:07 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Again - the I don't smoke so no one should attitude.

I get so tired of this crap. Lets all just be the same. Freeking nuts.

I don't think anyone here is saying that.

I don't smoke, but if you want to fire away. I fully support your right to smoke as much as you want. It's none of my business.

But, to all the smokers out there, please don't make it my business by:

- MAKING ME SMOKE THAT SHIT. If it's a public place (that means we both equally have the right to be there), I won't do anything that will violate your right to breath clean air and I expect you will do the same. Right? The day I walk into your home and tell you not to smoke is the day you can tell me to fuck right off and be right in doing so.

- THROWING THOSE BUTTS ON THE GROUND. For the love of Christ they're EVERYWHERE. I can just hear the thought process of each individual smoker thinking it's no big deal .... it's only one little butt. Now multiply that times millions of smokers and google-fucking-plex cigarettes. Look down at the ground the next time you pull up to an intersection. What do you see? Look down at the ground at the entrance of any store / bar / etc. What do you see? Many, many smokers are thoughtless, inconsiderate slobs. Clean that shit up.

I think that has been done, I have to smoke outside. I CAN'T SMOKE INSIDE.. YOU ALL HAVE WON. IT IS OVER. Move on with your next anti - whatever.

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:02:05 PM EDT

[#35]

About the original post: That's just sad. I can understand your frustration.

If people choose to smoke, that's their choice. If I don't like it, I can walk away. Simple.

Unfortunately an unborn child doesn't have that same luxury, does it? When you consider that a baby in the womb gets everything from its mother, it obtains nourishment and oxygen through the placenta and umbilical cord, so if the mother smokes, the foetus is also exposed to the toxins present in tobacco smoke. Consider that cigarette smoke contains over 2500 chemicals many of which are known carcinogens and it's not yet known how many of them affect the foetus. It's a big risk to take in my opinion and one not worth taking.

We're warned about the dangers of smoking with regards to increasing our risk of getting cancer. I wonder if there have been any studies regarding possible links to babies who were exposed in the uterus developing cancer at a later date, ie: as adults, by early exposure to the carcinogens in tobacco smoke.

Maybe too much of a reach, maybe not.

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:02:18 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Again - the I don't smoke so no one should attitude.

I get so tired of this crap. Lets all just be the same. Freeking nuts.

I don't think anyone here is saying that.

I don't smoke, but if you want to fire away. I fully support your right to smoke as much as you want. It's none of my business.

But, to all the smokers out there, please don't make it my business by:

- MAKING ME SMOKE THAT SHIT. If it's a public place (that means we both equally have the right to be there), I won't do anything that will violate your right to breath clean air and I expect you will do the same. Right? The day I walk into your home and tell you not to smoke is the day you can tell me to fuck right off and be right in doing so.

- THROWING THOSE BUTTS ON THE GROUND. For the love of Christ they're EVERYWHERE. I can just hear the thought process of each individual smoker thinking it's no big deal .... it's only one little butt. Now multiply that times millions of smokers and google-fucking-plex cigarettes. Look down at the ground the next time you pull up to an intersection. What do you see? Look down at the ground at the entrance of any store / bar / etc. What do you see? Many, many smokers are thoughtless, inconsiderate slobs. Clean that shit up.

I think that has been done, I have to smoke outside. I CAN'T SMOKE INSIDE.. YOU ALL HAVE WON. IT IS OVER. Move on with your next anti - whatever.

I agree. You anti-smoking fucktards even got us in North Dakota. So a big thank you to those of you who know how I should live better than I do.

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:04:45 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Since I do not like smokers, well, the action of...I must be a liberal.

I think I will go to the South Dakota thread and call all those crazy 'Pro-Choice' guys Liberals.

That'll change them.

Trying to legislate away rights because you don't like them is part and parcel of the liberal ideology.
Besides, I don't trust anti-smokers (not non-smokers, anti-smokers)
Anyone care to guess who the original anti-smoking Nazis were?

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:17:05 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
My husband passed away in 2001 from a brain tumor, and I used to drive him to all his appointments. His chemo doctor in Atlanta of course saw all kinds of cancer patients.
There was one gentleman in there who used to come in to see the doctor, and he seemed to be on the same schedule as we were. Half of his nasal area was eaten away by cancer, and he was still smoking! Just blew me away.

Sorry for your loss. That must have been hard.

My grandfather had cancer of the mouth and throat and whenever I'd go to see him in the hospital he'd be sitting in a designated area with his friends from the Oncology ward smoking. It sort of blew my mind that they'd have that there. (This was in London, about 12 years ago, Guys hospital to be exact.) I guess they (the patients) felt like there was no sense locking the stable door after the horse had bolted. In my opinion NOT the attitude to have. It should be more of a case of 'what can I do to maximise my chances of survival?'

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:24:39 PM EDT

[#39]

It's been seen over and over on this board. A bunch of people screaming about liberty and freedom for all when they really mean liberty and freedom for those who agree with them on everything.

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:32:07 PM EDT

[#40]

I'm kind of on the fence with this topic. As an ex-smoker that had a very difficult time kicking the habit, I'd be happy if the damned things were banned. I'd rather not have them within arm's reach. That said, if somebody else wants to smoke I guess it's their business.

I'd almost like to see something put in place where smokers have to buy their own special smoker's health insurance so the rest of us aren't burdened by their irresponsibility. Other than that... puff away.

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:40:39 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Your girlfriend likes it when I light one up after we have sex.

Quoted:

And?
What's your point?
Do you, or anyone else, have the right to dictate what others should spend their money on?
Christ.
Every anti-smoker who has posted in this thread is a fucking liberal - you just don't know it yet.
Liberal: one whose interests are not at stake at the moment.

You sir are a troll. You take delight in making personal attacks on people with the express intent of insulting the individual while offering NOTHING to the discussion at hand. You are the definition of the arrogant smoker who feels that they have the RIGHT to make the life of everyone else around them miserable. I bet you are the kind of person who drives down the road sucking on your fag of choice, and then when you get it down to the fliter, flick it out the window. When people like you cause brush fires that destroy thousands of acres and hundreds of homes, it is never YOUR fault. You were exercizing your RIGHT to smoke, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a "liberal"

as stated before, your right to swing your fist (puff your fag, smoke your cig, ect) stops at MY nose.

and just because it is private property does not give people the right to make conditions inside miserable. If I were to go into a resturaunt and be punched in the face it would be wrong. Even if the owner condoned it, even if the owner DID it, it would still be wrong. Do I have the choice of not frequenting the establishment? Of course. I also have the right to not be assaulted while I am trying to enjoy me meal at an establishment that is catering to the public at large.

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:46:25 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Your girlfriend likes it when I light one up after we have sex.

Quoted:

And?
What's your point?
Do you, or anyone else, have the right to dictate what others should spend their money on?
Christ.
Every anti-smoker who has posted in this thread is a fucking liberal - you just don't know it yet.
Liberal: one whose interests are not at stake at the moment.

You sir are a troll. You take delight in making personal attacks on people with the express intent of insulting the individual while offering NOTHING to the discussion at hand. You are the definition of the arrogant smoker who feels that they have the RIGHT to make the life of everyone else around them miserable. I bet you are the kind of person who drives down the road sucking on your fag of choice, and then when you get it down to the fliter, flick it out the window. When people like you cause brush fires that destroy thousands of acres and hundreds of homes, it is never YOUR fault. You were exercizing your RIGHT to smoke, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a "liberal"

as stated before, your right to swing your fist (puff your fag, smoke your cig, ect) stops at MY nose.

and just because it is private property does not give people the right to make conditions inside miserable. If I were to go into a resturaunt and be punched in the face it would be wrong. Even if the owner condoned it, even if the owner DID it, it would still be wrong. Do I have the choice of not frequenting the establishment? Of course. I also have the right to not be assaulted while I am trying to enjoy me meal at an establishment that is catering to the public at large.

I kind of had a vision of you pulling off one of your long white gloves and slapping him across the face with it while reading your post.

Dunno why.

Posted: 3/7/2006 3:00:02 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Your girlfriend likes it when I light one up after we have sex.

Quoted:

And?
What's your point?
Do you, or anyone else, have the right to dictate what others should spend their money on?
Christ.
Every anti-smoker who has posted in this thread is a fucking liberal - you just don't know it yet.
Liberal: one whose interests are not at stake at the moment.

You sir are a troll. You take delight in making personal attacks on people with the express intent of insulting the individual while offering NOTHING to the discussion at hand. You are the definition of the arrogant smoker who feels that they have the RIGHT to make the life of everyone else around them miserable. I bet you are the kind of person who drives down the road sucking on your fag of choice, and then when you get it down to the fliter, flick it out the window. When people like you cause brush fires that destroy thousands of acres and hundreds of homes, it is never YOUR fault. You were exercizing your RIGHT to smoke, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a "liberal"

as stated before, your right to swing your fist (puff your fag, smoke your cig, ect) stops at MY nose.

and just because it is private property does not give people the right to make conditions inside miserable. If I were to go into a resturaunt and be punched in the face it would be wrong. Even if the owner condoned it, even if the owner DID it, it would still be wrong. Do I have the choice of not frequenting the establishment? Of course. I also have the right to not be assaulted while I am trying to enjoy me meal at an establishment that is catering to the public at large.

It would not be wrong if you had it comming, and for some reason, I think you got one comming from somebody, for some reason.

Posted: 3/7/2006 3:00:45 PM EDT

[#44]

If I could find a response I made to a previous smoking thread, I would quote it verbatim.

All this talk between smokers and non-smokers is a complete waste of time. It will never be solved while such a powerful drug is so readily available.

Real smokers are addicts, no more no less.

Addicted to a very powerful drug, with that addiction helping to form their ideas and opinions with one goal ........... to protect their ability to get their next fix, and to calm their shakey nerves.

Posted: 3/7/2006 3:07:33 PM EDT

[#45]

I agree that smoking while you are pregnant is akin to child abuse. She might as well have got an abortion.

I also agree you should be allowed to smoke if you want to. But you should not get any of the benefits.

You should pay more for your healthcare then nonsmokers, life insurance, be excluded from certain smokefree establishments.

If you want to poision yourself, it should be your right. But by the same token it should not cost nonsmokers. Like it does now.

Posted: 3/7/2006 3:25:25 PM EDT

[#46]

Smokers have been paying more for health insurance for almost 15 years. Is that a fucking secret?

And no, you do not have the right in this country to enjoy anyfuckingthing on someone else's private property without the govt. forcibly and unconstitutionally securing that right for you. And we wonder how and why our once free country went to Hell. Govt. schools??

Posted: 3/7/2006 3:45:26 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Smokers have been paying more for health insurance for almost 15 years. Is that a fucking secret?

And no, you do not have the right in this country to enjoy anyfuckingthing on someone else's private property without the govt. forcibly and unconstitutionally securing that right for you. And we wonder how and why our once free country went to Hell. Govt. schools??

Thats a fucking lie, dude if you going to make things up at least try do with people do not work with health insurance for a living.

LIFE insurance costs more for smokers but usually health insurance does not.

What is true is that smokers suck up more then their share of healthcare dollars in addition to the smoke. The amount of extra tax they pay to smoke no where nears the cost to taking care of someone with lung cancer or oral cancer. In their last 6 months of their life they will suck up several million dollars. MUCH MUCH more then they ever put into the system.

Posted: 3/7/2006 4:20:12 PM EDT

[#48]

Back in the day when I was born (before the internet and such) my mother smoked two packs a day of Benson and Hedges (while she was pregnant with my sister and myself). I'm OK; really.

Guy I work with has his lymphoma go into remission. Never quit smoking 1 pack a day Marlboro Lights. He's doing fine right now.

Wife never smoked and never will, but she still had complications and there was danger to our first daughter. My daughter is great and the problem was treated when my wife was pregnant with our second child.

An old neighbor used to work at a bar and smoked quite a bit while in a bar with people smoking. She worked up to the point where she had to go to the hospital and was in labor. Baby was OK.

I understand that smoking and being pregnant is not good and should probably not be done.

People make stupid choices. I guess my mother did but it worked out OK for her and me. I'm not holding a grudge for her habit and really don't think that its the end of the world.

Posted: 3/7/2006 4:49:47 PM EDT

[#49]

Ahhh Jeez, not this shit again. OK doc, smokers pay a small fortune in tobacco taxes and according to you (I say that humbly sir) they don't live long enough to be a real burden to society. What would the US economy do without the taxes they pay? The jobs they provide?

And they do pay more for life insurance......that is, unless you say they don't.

Posted: 3/7/2006 5:05:33 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Ahhh Jeez, not this shit again. OK doc, smokers pay a small fortune in tobacco taxes and according to you (I say that humbly sir) they don't live long enough to be a real burden to society. What would the US economy do without the taxes they pay? The jobs they provide?

And they do pay more for life insurance......that is, unless you say they don't.

Dude you need to read the shit you write. You said health not life insurance.

And you are wrong, smokers suck billions of dollars out the health system every year. Mostly in their last days before they croak.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Smokers are worse then drug addicts (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us