Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[23_Tauri]

One of the reasons why I hate the "truth" ads (these are television commercials here in the US that try to deter people from smoking by making the cigarette industry an evil entity). The ads they produce are calling cigarette companies murderers. That's just like calling Hostess murderers because all they produce is sugary fattening snacks.

It's 'Reefer Madness' all over again. Remember those ads in the 30s (well, not first time round, obviously ) about how smoking pot made you insane and kill people. Hell, they must be on youtube somewhere....

*Tauri toddles off to youtube*

Of course they are!

 

[23_Tauri]

Another point they miss with this approach is that some of us actually enjoy being associated with evil entities... it does one's Rock 'n' Roll cred a ton of good. Especially when it is as unjustifiable as these anti-smoking ads are.

Politicians fighting Nazis too!

 

[23_Tauri]

Hostess has a 100 calorie line.

Marlboro make Lights. American Spirit has no additives. What's your point?

 

[JFrankA]

Sometimes a cigar is just EX TER MIN ATE!

LOL The only good Dalek is a smoking Dalek!!!!!!

 

[JFrankA]

It's 'Reefer Madness' all over again. Remember those ads in the 30s (well, not first time round, obviously ) about how smoking pot made you insane and kill people. Hell, they must be on youtube somewhere....

*Tauri toddles off to youtube*

Of course they are! [qimg]http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p133/debs711/smoke2.gif[/qimg]

I LOVE this movie. It was one of the things that convinced me that pot should be legal.

Ever see the musical?

There were a bunch of "drugs are bad" movies from that time. All of them depicted the drug as more fun than it actually is.

 

[Belgian thought]

Having just had to give up after 33 years -

Ooh the smell, the smell,
And its many pleasures in bars,
Haunts, whores and more.


Banned Universally my arse!
That would be banning
And deriding my past!

 

[23_Tauri]

I LOVE this movie. It was one of the things that convinced me that pot should be legal.

Ever see the musical?

No, I didn't know there was a musical!

There were a bunch of "drugs are bad" movies from that time. All of them depicted the drug as more fun than it actually is.

That's what I thought about pot decades ago as a youngster. I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about, I thought drugs were supposed to blow you mind and there I was puking up and feeling awful after a few drags on a spliff.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It is a form of assault through poisons inflicted on your fellow man. It kills others slowly, but still kills them, ad kills the smoker itself. Assualt and suicide are already illegal so the precedent is already there.

It's not enough to publicly ban it, it should be probable cause for the law to enter your house take the cancer sticks from you. You know I'm right.

I would kill the smokers too. They're already killing themselves, of course, but not fast enough for me.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I would kill the smokers too. They're already killing themselves, of course, but not fast enough for me.

That's reprehensible, and completely intolerant, inhumane, and evil! There is money to be made from treating them, even if treatment is unsuccessful. Do try to focus on what is at stake, here! Personal liberty! Freedom of choice! Whether I can afford a big TV! For all these reasons and more, people should not only be free to smoke, they ought to smoke as much as they can depending on the limits of their insurance and what the terms of the provider contracts are, particularly the drugs listed in the insurer fee schedule. The ethics of any given situation really depend on whether we're talking paying just the flat Medicare allowable, or whether there's actually a real profit margin. Damned if I'm going to advocate for the freedom of other people if they're only paying 0.5% above. And generics are for dorks, go for the good stuff!

 

[JFrankA]

That's reprehensible, and completely intolerant, inhumane, and evil! There is money to be made from treating them, even if treatment is unsuccessful. Do try to focus on what is at stake, here! Personal liberty! Freedom of choice! Whether I can afford a big TV! For all these reasons and more, people should not only be free to smoke, they ought to smoke as much as they can depending on the limits of their insurance and what the terms of the provider contracts are, particularly the drugs listed in the insurer fee schedule. The ethics of any given situation really depend on whether we're talking paying just the flat Medicare allowable, or whether there's actually a real profit margin. Damned if I'm going to advocate for the freedom of other people if they're only paying 0.5% above. And generics are for dorks, go for the good stuff!

....I like turtles.....

 

[TragicMonkey]

....I like turtles.....

There's a drug made from sea turtles that's used to treat bladder cancer, which is one of the ones you can get from years of smoking (people always assume lung, and boy are they surprised when their doctor sticks a burning needle up their urethra!). It costs about twelve thousand dollars for a course of it.

 

[23_Tauri]

There's a drug made from sea turtles that's used to treat bladder cancer, which is one of the ones you can get from years of smoking (people always assume lung, and boy are they surprised when their doctor sticks a burning needle up their urethra!). It costs about twelve thousand dollars for a course of it.

I never knew you got sea turtles from smoking.

 

[JFrankA]

I never knew you got sea turtles from smoking.

I like turtles.


So I'm going to start smoking so I can get them.

 

[JFrankA]

So this thread might end up coming true.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42704643/ns/health-addictions

 

[23_Tauri]

Tragically, that doesn't surprise me at all. The goal of the anti-smoking lobby has always been prohibition. Protecting health is an - ahem - smokescreen.

The history of the anti-tobacco movement shows that such organisations were closely linked in terms of membership to the alcohol prohibitionists of the late 19th and early 20th century. Once tobacco is made illegal in the USA there will be another bogey-man to blame for the ills of a debauched and godless society. Alcohol again maybe?

As the anti-saloon preacher Billy Sunday proclaimed in 1919, "Prohibition is won, now for tobacco".

 

[fleabeetle]

Tragically, that doesn't surprise me at all. The goal of the anti-smoking lobby has always been prohibition. Protecting health is an - ahem - smokescreen.

The history of the anti-tobacco movement shows that such organisations were closely linked in terms of membership to the alcohol prohibitionists of the late 19th and early 20th century. Once tobacco is made illegal in the USA there will be another bogey-man to blame for the ills of a debauched and godless society. Alcohol again maybe?

As the anti-saloon preacher Billy Sunday proclaimed in 1919, "Prohibition is won, now for tobacco".

Given achievement of that goal, would Billy's next one have been, prohibiting of sex -- save between married couples, and that solely and only for procreation, with enjoyment of the act strictly forbidden?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Given achievement of that goal, would Billy's next one have been, prohibiting of sex -- save between married couples, and that solely and only for procreation, with enjoyment of the act strictly forbidden?

In the prohibition era, something very close to that was already on the books in most states, with such things as extramarital sex and oral sex prohibited by law.

 

[23_Tauri]

In the prohibition era, something very close to that was already on the books in most states, with such things as extramarital sex and oral sex prohibited by law.

Not fornication!!!

 

[dirtywick]

Sodomy laws were around until pretty recently in some places.

 

[23_Tauri]

Sodomy laws were around until pretty recently in some places.

But soon, we'll all be at liberty to have as much anal sex as we like, but we get into trouble with the law if we dare to light up a post-coital cigarette.