Author Topic: Smoking: Another debate that's over. (Read 3215 times)

Maverick · « **Reply #90 on:** June 29, 2006, 04:41:54 PM »

I find it ironic that adherants of two addictive substances are arguing the merits of one over the other.

Debonair · « **Reply #91 on:** June 29, 2006, 04:59:43 PM »

btw AH pwns il-2

weaselsan · « **Reply #92 on:** June 29, 2006, 05:10:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Dont know were to find names of individuals weaselsan.. sorry. But you knew that.

Nobody is put in jail here either for for harming anyone wiht cigs, and yes they are for alcohol related stuff.

Yes, and my logic is sound. Pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke even if its a legal product. But here is a twist... You have to be 18 here to be allowed to smoke. A fetus is not 18, but it gets the nicotine and stuff thru the mother.

Nasty nicotine through the mother? How about a sharp instrument through the brain during a partial birth abortion? Of course if mama didn't smoke they'll have a nicotine free dead baby.

Nilsen · « **Reply #93 on:** June 29, 2006, 05:11:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
I find it ironic that adherants of two addictive substances are arguing the merits of one over the other.

who is?

Maverick · « **Reply #94 on:** June 29, 2006, 05:13:45 PM »

If you've read the thread you know the answer to that question Nilsen. FWIW not everything, nor every thread nor every response to a thread is about you.

Nilsen · « **Reply #95 on:** June 29, 2006, 05:14:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Nasty nicotine through the mother? How about a sharp instrument through the brain during a partial birth abortion? Of course if mama didn't smoke they'll have a nicotine free dead baby.

Why are you bringing abortion into this? Cant you find any good arguments for letting pregnant women smoke?

Nilsen · « **Reply #96 on:** June 29, 2006, 05:15:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
If you've read the thread you know the answer to that question Nilsen.

Do you mean that somene is defending alcohol over tobacco?

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #97 on:** June 29, 2006, 06:26:50 PM »

Philip Morris:" thank you for all the $, theyr are well spend, thank you again! may god bless you"

*cough, cough*

weaselsan · « **Reply #98 on:** June 29, 2006, 06:53:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Why are you bringing abortion into this? Cant you find any good arguments for letting pregnant women smoke?

Simple "Point of Fact" My mother smoked, I did for over 50 years, She is still here and healthy for her advanced age, I have diabetes and hemochromatosis, cigarettes apparently did Nada. However had abortion been legal maybe I couldn't have enjoyed smoking for 50 years. In other words smoking is a lot healthier for babies than abortion. Another way to look at it is keep your anti smoking laws off their reproductive rights.

Nilsen · « **Reply #99 on:** June 30, 2006, 01:34:06 AM »

How do you know that the diabetes didnt come from the smoking?.. Not saying it did, but how can you be sure?

If we wanna drag abortion into this, then actually im for abortion, but against smoking while preganant. Does that sound abit strange perhaps?.. Let me explain why and then ill let this debate go. Its only opinions anyway and this one is dragging out..

Im pro abortion, but against smoking while pregant for the simple (for me anyway) reason that If you decide to go ahead with a pregnancy then you should make every effort to make sure the baby is healthy. If you dont want to have the baby then im fine with that too.

This was my closing argument.. go ahead and make yours and we can call this one dead.

Have a nice day

lazs2 · « **Reply #100 on:** June 30, 2006, 08:42:30 AM »

nielsen.... under my rules you would be free to go anywhere you liked without seeing or breathing smoke.... you just couldn't go to a private owned business that wanted to have it a smoking area unless you were willing to be around smoke... just like you have to risk seeing a clown if you go to a circus or hear loud noises if you go to a concert.

You are indeed defending one addiction that kills at least as many people (and causes a lot more difficulty for most of us) over another.

most sane people hate drunks... they are annoying in the extreme and you have to be careful around em cause they are extremely dangerous... they are allowed to get to toxicaly impaired levels of intoxication in public places.... Where is our "freedom" to not be around em?

You are indeed a hypocrite. Rock climbers, hikers and campers and cyclists and swimmers all cost me money.... why shoud I have to pay for their habits? They drown and get lost and eaten and injured and cost fortunes in search parties..

you never answered..... how many lost lives and/or how much expense should a product or activity have before you feel it should be banned?

not only are you a hypocrite but a selfish one at that (a trait of alcoholics btw)....

You claim your drunken crashing of your boat hurt no one? how selfish is that? either that or you don't have any family.... Your drinking affects every one of your family members.... it probly contributes to killing them from stress. You don't care in the least.

When you get sober and off the booze you will probly realize it but then....

We will probly all have to hear all about it on this BB along with some new preachy crap and some new alcohol restriction recomendations from you.

It is not your business what a private bar or resteraunt does so far as smoking or non smoking just as it is not my business if they serve booze.

Why don't you mind your own business?

lazs

Nilsen · « **Reply #101 on:** June 30, 2006, 08:56:01 AM »

Im not selfish,a hypocrite, alcholic nor do you have any insight into my drinking or family so stop speculating on it.

I have commented in the past on your questions. If you cant see them then that is your problem, and not mine.

lazs2 · « **Reply #102 on:** June 30, 2006, 09:03:40 AM »

Yeah... sure your not.

You have never answered the question either.... How many lives or how much money lost should an activity have before you feel that it should be banned?

Drunks annoy everyone....drunks are about 100% of the reasons for domestic violence. No drinking should be allowed in public or in homes with spouses or children.

more than 50% of our auto accidents involve alcohol impaired drivers and another 7% have some alcohol involved. Any amount of booze impairs a person. None should be allowed in public.

Not if you are gonna use your smoking rules anyway.

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #103 on:** June 30, 2006, 09:08:24 AM »

Study Shows a ‘Tidal Wave’ of Underage Drinking Costs

Quote

Each year, underage drinking leads to almost 3,200 deaths and 2.6 million other harmful events, from serious injury to high-risk sex among youth, according to the study published in the July edition of Journal of Studies on Alcohol.

When assigning dollar totals to alcohol-related problems among youth, violence and traffic crashes dominate the costs. The study estimates that youth traffic crashes attributable to alcohol cost $13.7 billion a year while violence costs $34.7 billion. Violence includes the 500,000 incidences of rapes and assaults each year related to underage drinking. Alcohol-related problems cost an average of $4,680 per underage drinker each year.

Let the banning begin!!

If it saves a single life.

Nilsen · « **Reply #104 on:** June 30, 2006, 09:09:30 AM »

Maybe you should get some rules on drinking then. Over here, and any other civilized society has rules on how to behave in public, both drunk and sober. Those numbers you mention must be be very locally surrounding your dwelling.

Are you about done, or do you want to make up a few more things?