NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060603/hl_hsn/lawsbanningtobaccosalestominorsdontwork

"As long as cigarettes are a legal, over-the-counter product, keeping kids from smoking will require a large, multi-strategy effort. There's still no good science to say we should abandon tobacco sales laws and enforcement," added Levinson.

**begin rant**

This type of shit just pisses me off. It is no different than alcohol prohibition. "Oh now, we must ban it because of the cheeeldren".

Bullshit. I don't even smoke and I say FUCK YOU to these fuckers who want to ban tobacco sales. We treat American kids like infantile imbeciles until the age of 21 then act all surprized when they make stupid rookie mistakes when thy suddenly develop (overnight on their 21st birthday) the responsibility to manage their own life.

It pisses me off that people in this country - supposedly the 'leader of the free world' - restrict the rights of their own citizens - regardless of their age. If I want to send my fifteen year old down to the liquor store to buy me a six pack, some smokes and a Hustler that's between me, the liquor store and my child. The government has no fucking business there. They are not only wasting tremendous resources being the 'morality police' (what next - burkas?) but they are deferring life experience and making the abuse of these a post-adult right of passage rather than the continuation of experiences learned under the watchful eye of family and friends. In other words - if kids had acess to beer from the age of 10 then they would not feel the need to abuse it at 21, they would have years of experience to help them, they would be able to drink in safe establishments rather than dark alleys, and they would learn responsible habits from their parents. Makes a heluvalot more sense than sheltering them until 21 then throwing them to the wolves.

**rant over**

Screw the tobacco industry. They're all about getting people hooked at a young age and milking them for life. Just ban the fuckers.

If you want to smoke, fine, but grow it yourself. It is not your right to demand that people sell you something.

Dunno about people being more responsible if they start early.. iv'e seen people who started smoking and drinking at 12 completely destroy houses and hurt themselves because they were too wrecked. It's more a question of the individual than their age- some people are as stupid at 40 as they were at 15.

Originally posted by B0zzy
- if kids had acess to beer from the age of 10 then they would not feel the need to abuse it at 21
They wouldn't feel the need to abuse it at 21 because they would be alcoholics by 12 :( . Young adults hit alcohol hard because they are young adults. Not because they are inexperienced. Your late teens to early twenties are the party time of your life :) .

As to the smoking bit .... again keeping kids away from it is the best idea. Introduce them to it at an age when everything is new and exciting and all you'll do is create an 11 year old adict :( . At least when they are 16-18 they will have a more mature (relatively speaking) outlook and can make their own decision :rolleyes: .

Personally, I hate smoking and think the recent ban on smoking in public buildings in Scotland is fantastic. If you want to smoke then stink up your own home till you barf up a lung for all I care. Wouldn't dream of stopping some-one doing something in their own home. But at least my right to be a non-smoker is now being respected .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060603/hl_hsn/lawsbanningtobaccosalestominorsdontwork

"As long as cigarettes are a legal, over-the-counter product, keeping kids from smoking will require a large, multi-strategy effort. There's still no good science to say we should abandon tobacco sales laws and enforcement," added Levinson.

**begin rant**

This type of shit just pisses me off. It is no different than alcohol prohibition. "Oh now, we must ban it because of the cheeeldren".

Bullshit. I don't even smoke and I say FUCK YOU to these fuckers who want to ban tobacco sales. We treat American kids like infantile imbeciles until the age of 21 then act all surprized when they make stupid rookie mistakes when thy suddenly develop (overnight on their 21st birthday) the responsibility to manage their own life.

It pisses me off that people in this country - supposedly the 'leader of the free world' - restrict the rights of their own citizens - regardless of their age. If I want to send my fifteen year old down to the liquor store to buy me a six pack, some smokes and a Hustler that's between me, the liquor store and my child. The government has no fucking business there. They are not only wasting tremendous resources being the 'morality police' (what next - burkas?) but they are deferring life experience and making the abuse of these a post-adult right of passage rather than the continuation of experiences learned under the watchful eye of family and friends. In other words - if kids had acess to beer from the age of 10 then they would not feel the need to abuse it at 21, they would have years of experience to help them, they would be able to drink in safe establishments rather than dark alleys, and they would learn responsible habits from their parents. Makes a heluvalot more sense than sheltering them until 21 then throwing them to the wolves.

**rant over**

I agree in as much as stuff the children.

But what about all those people who die each year from passive smoking through no fault of their own? And financial strain that places on the healthcare system (which it could do without). Ban smoking, all it is is paying for suicide.

=____O
Okay, free world in the United States means you have economic freedom, which means you have the freedom to buy and sell. In Canada, it means you have the freedom to any and all goverment issued rights, like welfare and healthcare.
In anycase, we do not pass the bills. The congress/cabinet does. If I had my way with the issue, I'd completely ban all ciggarettes and any tobacco related products and advertisement. There is one girl in my school who is already dying of cancer and she is 16, thanks to her smoking.
We're better off without nicotine/any other drugs and contraband. Hell, I might as well ban gambling too, and pornography.
I can't wait till this issue comes up with my nation x3

im in favor of keeping vice away from children but the laws about it do bug me. i remember buying a case of beer at a store and being told my 16 year old son couldnt carry it out of the store for me.

it is so stupid when the 17 year old store clerk (or does she have to be 21? i dont remember) cant push the bottle of wine across the scanner because she is too young.

i dont like smoking but i hate this forcing people to quit thing. its not the governments business to regulate our lives. get enough lawyers involved and it WILL be a slippery slope down to closing fast food joints, regulating the sales of candy, banning automobiles (think of the children killed each year by running into the street) and a total ban on sharp sticks!

I dont have a problem with banning tobacco. Health reasons alone are enough reason.

Its not like the big tobacco industries dont see it coming. They have buying other companies for years. You would be suprised to know what companies like Phillip Morris already own.

Screw the tobacco industry. They're all about getting people hooked at a young age and milking them for life. Just ban the fuckers.

If you want to smoke, fine, but grow it yourself. It is not your right to demand that people sell you something.

Ahh yes, because the profitable and violent black market created by prohibition is far preferable to a group of sleazy corporations that harm only those weak or foolish enough to begin(or continue) using their product.

Tobacco products should be banned 100%.

Tobacco products should be banned 100%.

yes, because that will work:rolleyes:

And you wonder why kids in this day and age are so corrupt... :rolleyes:

tax it loads then the government can also screw the idiots who start and use it to pay for their lung cancer treatmant...

Liasia']Dunno about people being more responsible if they start early.. iv'e seen people who started smoking and drinking at 12 completely destroy houses and hurt themselves because they were too wrecked. It's more a question of the individual than their age- some people are as stupid at 40 as they were at 15.
And were their parents involved or were they sneaky about it? I'm betting sneaky - meaning the trouble wasn't the smokes - it was the kids.

They wouldn't feel the need to abuse it at 21 because they would be alcoholics by 12 :( . Young adults hit alcohol hard because they are young adults. Not because they are inexperienced. Your late teens to early twenties are the party time of your life :) .

In nations with more liberal drinking ages your theory does not proove out.

As to the smoking bit .... again keeping kids away from it is the best idea. Introduce them to it at an age when everything is new and exciting and all you'll do is create an 11 year old adict :( . At least when they are 16-18 they will have a more mature (relatively speaking) outlook and can make their own decision :rolleyes: .

according to.... ?

Personally, I hate smoking and think the recent ban on smoking in public buildings in Scotland is fantastic. If you want to smoke then stink up your own home till you barf up a lung for all I care. Wouldn't dream of stopping some-one doing something in their own home. But at least my right to be a non-smoker is now being respected .
I think a person should be allowed to decide for himself what behavior he will or will not accept from customers in his own business. (hence the term "minding his own business) I'm old fashioned that way.

I agree in as much as stuff the children.

But what about all those people who die each year from passive smoking through no fault of their own? And financial strain that places on the healthcare system (which it could do without). Ban smoking, all it is is paying for suicide.


First - demonstrate what evidence you have that secondhand smoke is so deadly. Second - in most instances regular exposure to second hand smoke is as much a decision as choosing to smoke is - it can be easily avoided. Last - Smoking does not place any strain whatsoever on the healthcare system - it is the people who smoke and do not have the means to pay their own bills who do. Understand the difference?

Tobacco products should be banned 100%.

Yup - it worked so well for prohibition and marijuana. :rolleyes:

And you wonder why kids in this day and age are so corrupt... :rolleyes:


Because we don't treat them as capable decision making human beings until well into their adulthood.

tax it loads then the government can also screw the idiots who start and use it to pay for their lung cancer treatmant...


Or don't tax it at all and let the idiots pay for their lung cancer treatments themselves. Why should the government get involved at all?

Hell, I might as well ban … pornography.

ARE YOU INSANE?

Or don't tax it at all and let the idiots pay for their lung cancer treatments themselves. Why should the government get involved at all?
Or tax it AND force them to pay for it themselves.

I disagree, tobacco should not be banned. A free society must be completely free or not at all. Free to buy what we want, and put in our bodies what we want. Health consequences are the responsibility of the user/abuser.

Ahh yes, because the profitable and violent black market created by prohibition is far preferable to a group of sleazy corporations that harm only those weak or foolish enough to begin(or continue) using their product.
It's ridiculous to assume that anyone who doesn't smoke now will take it up just because it's illegal to adults as well. This black market of which you speak will exist solely to take advantage of those people still addicted. If you think that only the weak and foolish are drawn in by commercial tobacco, how much more weak and foolish would they have to be to look for criminal supplies?

Besides, people who would sell smokes illegally would be the kind who would sell other kinds of substance anyway. If we can use the market to increase the chance of cracking down on narcotics at the same time, it's an extra bonus.

And are you aware of the industry's involvement in China and African nations? They're not getting enough smokers here, so they're relocating and launching huge advertising campaigns. People here know it's damaging to your health, so we'll go where people don't know that.

Disgusting. We already have a black market. It's about time we stopped appeasing it and did something about it.

big tobacco didnt invent smoking. people smoked for centuries before phillip morris existed.

smoking is an extremely mild vice. it hurts no one but the person who smokes (and perhaps those who live with him/her if they dont take any reasonable precautions) it doesnt make the user inattentive while driving. there is no such thing as a "mean smoker" like there are mean drunks. it doesnt accelerate until a smoker needs to turn to crime to support his habit.

all it does is make you stink, turn your teeth and fingertips yellow, give you emphysema, lung cancer, heart attacks, tooth loss and a bit of impotence.

it should be a personal choice.

Originall Posted by B0zzy
First - demonstrate what evidence you have that secondhand smoke is so deadly. Second - in most instances regular exposure to second hand smoke is as much a decision as choosing to smoke is - it can be easily avoided.
Firstly, http://macombtobaccoprevention.com/img/prevdeth.gif
The evidence for second hand smoke causing death is overwhelming. You might as well demand proof that radiation causes cancer. Only vested interest denies it.

Secondly, no it isn't. Unless you live your life like a commando trying to anticipate the actions of smokers before they make them. And why should non-smokers have to plan their lives round smokers.

This is ridiculous. If someone wants to fuck themselves over, destroy there lungs - well, that's their choice. You can demand they don't do it in your home, and I don't even have a problem with a government disallowing it in public places, but any private company should be allowed to sell it and anyone should be allowed to buy it.

If you want to smoke, fine, but grow it yourself.

If you want to eat, fine, but grow it yourself.

But what about all those people who die each year from passive smoking through no fault of their own? And financial strain that places on the healthcare system (which it could do without).

What about them? They made their choices too. A bartender knows a bar is going to be smokey, if he doesn't like it he can find a new line of work or apply at a non-smoking establishment. Even if he doesn't, do you really mean to suggest that ambient smoke in the air for a few years of your life is roughly equivilent to smoking two packs a day every day for a few decades?

Have you stopped to consider the implications of your it-might-hurt-society-so-lets-start-legislating attitude? Heart disease is a bigger problem than lung cancer, perhaps we should ban calorie-dense foods? Too many children are a drain on the educational system, perhaps we should limit breeding. Casual sex is one of the major reasons for the spraid of HIV and Hepatits C, perhaps we should ban singles bars and shut down CraigsList. Is there really any intrusion you couldn't justify with the public health crap?

Ban smoking, all it is is paying for suicide.

Umm...so what? At some point you have to realize that laws which are designed to prevent people from making choices you disagree with doesn't make you right. A smoker really only does physical harm to themselves. It is an issue of choice, an issue of freedom, and a distinctly personal one at that. Once you begin to allow the government to interfere with the right of individuals to make choices about what they will or will not put into their own bodies you have decided to allow the government to make any choice for any citizen for any reason. Liberty does not exist in a vaccuum. Giving the government the authority to ban tobacco use(or trans-fat, caffine, plastic surgery, whatever) is essentially giving the government the authority to interfere with consentual activity of all kinds. It is giving up soverignship of our own bodies. Sure, when it is progressive liberals in power you'll see evil corporate schemes like tobacco and alcohol banned. When it is traditional conservatives, you'll see sodomy and abortion go on the chopping block. One leads to another, and your team won't always be in power.

I'm getting so sick of this myopic gamesmanship I could scream. Stand back for a second and consider the long-term implications of the policies you support. Think about the power you would like the goverment to wield in the hands of the opposition. This is how we end up with presidents like Bush. It isn't that he is some man of great evil and tyranny who happened to be president at a time in history when we were ready to give him power. It is that every single president has been given just a little bit more power by people who never bothered to stop and consider what someone else might use that authority for down the line. All we care about is what points we can score and how quickly, tomarrow is just too far away to bother with.

Originally Posted by The Moaning Banshees
This is ridiculous. If someone wants to fuck themselves over, destroy there lungs - well, that's their choice. You can demand they don't do it in your home, and I don't even have a problem with a government disallowing it in public places, but any private company should be allowed to sell it and anyone should be allowed to buy it.
Agreed. I have absolutely no problem with people buying,selling or using tobacco. So long as I am not forced to inhale it along with them, or have my clothes and person stunk up by them.

I disagree, tobacco should not be banned. A free society must be completely free or not at all. Free to buy what we want, and put in our bodies what we want. Health consequences are the responsibility of the user/abuser.
Banning the industry is not affecting the rights of the individual. If you want tobacco, you can grow it yourself and there are no problems with that.

But commercial entities do not have the right to exploit people for profit. The very aim of the tobacco companies' existence is to get people to think smoking is cool by advertising tricks and social manipulation then to get them hooked for life.

It's outrageous professional behaviour. If people were to do that in any other line of work they'd be jailed for life.

Firstly, http://macombtobaccoprevention.com/img/prevdeth.gif
The evidence for second hand smoke causing death is overwhelming. You might as well demand proof that radiation causes cancer. Only vested interest denies it.

Oh how convenient. Anyone who disagrees has a 'vested' interest. Much easier way to dispute the data. I suppose that the American Cancer Society is 'vested' too, no?
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

Also, what kind of fucked up chart is that?? AIDS victims are preventable deaths comparable to second hand smoke?? You're saying it is their own fault? That's a pretty specific number for second hand smoke deaths too. Reeks of estimation based on flawed assumptions.

Secondly, no it isn't. Unless you live your life like a commando trying to anticipate the actions of smokers before they make them. And why should non-smokers have to plan their lives round smokers.[/QUOTE]
Umm? What the fuck are you talking about. Do you have smokers coming into your home? Into your business? Your grocery store? Hosiptal? Then where the fuck are you having to go commando?

Meh, I think kids still shouldn't be able to buy them, even if it doesn't keep them from smoking, at least it restricts their access. Adults should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt other people.

Banning the industry is not affecting the rights of the individual. If you want tobacco, you can grow it yourself and there are no problems with that.

But commercial entities do not have the right to exploit people for profit. The very aim of the tobacco companies' existence is to get people to think smoking is cool by advertising tricks and social manipulation then to get them hooked for life.

It's outrageous professional behaviour. If people were to do that in any other line of work they'd be jailed for life.


Right - and if you want whisky you can brew it yourself. Fuck big business!

If you want to eat, fine, but grow it yourself.
Oh yeah, tobacco is necessary to live...:rolleyes:

Right - and if you want whisky you can brew it yourself. Fuck big business!
Moonshine for the win!

What about them? They made their choices too. A bartender knows a bar is going to be smokey, if he doesn't like it he can find a new line of work or apply at a non-smoking establishment. Even if he doesn't, do you really mean to suggest that ambient smoke in the air for a few years of your life is roughly equivilent to smoking two packs a day every day for a few decades?

Have you stopped to consider the implications of your it-might-hurt-society-so-lets-start-legislating attitude? Heart disease is a bigger problem than lung cancer, perhaps we should ban calorie-dense foods? Too many children are a drain on the educational system, perhaps we should limit breeding. Casual sex is one of the major reasons for the spraid of HIV and Hepatits C, perhaps we should ban singles bars and shut down CraigsList. Is there really any intrusion you couldn't justify with the public health crap?



Umm...so what? At some point you have to realize that laws which are designed to prevent people from making choices you disagree with doesn't make you right. A smoker really only does physical harm to themselves. It is an issue of choice, an issue of freedom, and a distinctly personal one at that. Once you begin to allow the government to interfere with the right of individuals to make choices about what they will or will not put into their own bodies you have decided to allow the government to make any choice for any citizen for any reason. Liberty does not exist in a vaccuum. Giving the government the authority to ban tobacco use(or trans-fat, caffine, plastic surgery, whatever) is essentially giving the government the authority to interfere with consentual activity of all kinds. It is giving up soverignship of our own bodies. Sure, when it is progressive liberals in power you'll see evil corporate schemes like tobacco and alcohol banned. When it is traditional conservatives, you'll see sodomy and abortion go on the chopping block. One leads to another, and your team won't always be in power.

I'm getting so sick of this myopic gamesmanship I could scream. Stand back for a second and consider the long-term implications of the policies you support. Think about the power you would like the goverment to wield in the hands of the opposition. This is how we end up with presidents like Bush. It isn't that he is some man of great evil and tyranny who happened to be president at a time in history when we were ready to give him power. It is that every single president has been given just a little bit more power by people who never bothered to stop and consider what someone else might use that authority for down the line. All we care about is what points we can score and how quickly, tomarrow is just too far away to bother with.


OMG! I think I've found Jesus!!!

Nice post.

If you want to eat, fine, but grow it yourself.
I buy food from my local market. I am directly supporting the people who work hard for providing what we need. Your local co-operative would be just fine, if you don't live near a market.

Commercial smoking is just about further lining the pockets of the industry's CEOs with gold at the expense of addicts and labourers alike.

This entire "fuck smokers" fad has me furious. Jersey recently banned smoking within all public places, and my own state of Pennsylvania is currently considering it.

First of all, no government has the right to decide whether or not a private business owner allows smoking. I have absolutely no problem with restaurants not offering a smoking section. I'm not going to whine to the government to get them to force all restaurants to have a smoking section. That's the owner's call. Just like nobody should be infantile enough to complain about a smoking section. You don't like smokers, don't sit there.

I'm not a rude smoker. I try not to smoke around non-smokers, will usually ask permission from others before lighting up, and even then I'll do my best to blow the smoke away from them. If someone tells me politely that the smoke bothers them, I will happily move or stub it out.

There's this growing attitude in the U.S. that is starting to frighten me. It's like children in the backseat of the car complaining about someone being on their side of the seat. People feel that if they don't like what someone else is going, they can go cry to the government and ban whatever it is. I don't like Jessica Simpson, and I think watching/listening to her makes you verifiably dumber, but I'm not going to complain. You want to listen to awful music, that's your business. I want to smoke, that's my business.

All you advocates for banning smoking, beware. If this attitude continues, eventually someone who doesn't like one of your activities will complain. Then they'll ban cars because they hit people, or soap operas because they make people cry, or Nationstates because the message boards make 19 year olds unnecessarily pissed off 15 minutes before he has to go to work. :)


there is no such thing as a "mean smoker" like there are mean drunks.


Haha, yeah. . . deprive me of a cigarette for a day. I can be a bitch without one.

EDIT: Damn, JesusChristLooksLikeMe beat me to the angry defensive rant. Bravo, old boy.

The difference between smoked tobacco and most other drugs is that the smoker forces other to ingest their drug.

If I walked around forcing people to drink beer, especially when they objected due to allergies, I'd be rightly arrested for assault. Smokers do exactly that every day, and ought to be arrested on the same grounds.

I'm not a rude smoker.

Sorry, but I have yet to meet a smoker who isn't rude.

The difference between smoked tobacco and most other drugs is that the smoker forces other to ingest their drug.

If I walked around forcing people to drink beer, especially when they objected due to allergies, I'd be rightly arrested for assault. Smokers do exactly that every day, and ought to be arrested on the same grounds.

I'm not a rude smoker.

Sorry, but I have yet to meet a smoker who isn't rude.

The difference between smoked tobacco and most other drugs is that the smoker forces other to ingest their drug.

If I walked around forcing people to drink beer, especially when they objected due to allergies, I'd be rightly arrested for assault. Smokers do exactly that every day, and ought to be arrested on the same grounds.

I'm not a rude smoker.

Sorry, but I have yet to meet a smoker who isn't rude.

Sorry, but I have yet to meet a smoker who isn't rude.
's a bit harsh, isn't it? Smoking isn't what makes people rude, ya know. And what about those jolly old men with pipes?

These are the kinds of issues that can be argued until the cows come home. So let me just say.. MOO

There are a few things that I want to address in this forum. First of all, as in Europe, there really isn't a drinking age because children grow up around alcohol and are taught how to consume it responsibly. Now I'm not saying that there aren't alcoholics in Europe (or other places without drinking ages) but what you have to realize is that there is a better chance of people being able to handle alcohol responsibly if alcohol isn't held over their heads all their life, like some proverbial carrot.

As to the whole smoking-ban debate. Do what youwant. Kill yourself for all I care, but don't force your choices on me. While some argue that the "government" has no right to control what a person does or doesn't do, I say that "you" have no right to force me to inhale toxic fumes while having dinner. Again...moo.

JesusLooksLikeMe made a great point about allowing political positions to have more and more power, without thought to what later appointees will do with that power. Case in Point: Bush.

Stop expecting others to take care of you and stand up for yourself. Don't expect the government to take care of you (I think it's proven at this point that it doesn't care about us). Smokers- don't expect to be supported by laws allowing smoking. Non-smokers-don't expect laws banning smoking. If you have a problem with someone smoking, ask them to stop. That being said, I know it's addicting-but smoking doesn't have any benefits...unless you enjoy dying from cancer.

Anywho....moo moo munch munch.

's a bit harsh, isn't it? Smoking isn't what makes people rude, ya know. And what about those jolly old men with pipes?
Who? Santa Claus?

This is another one of those things where we look to the government for too much. Before Georgia effectively outlawed smoking, we just didn't go to Waffle House. Big deal. Quite a few generations have coexisted with smokers. I suspect that quite a few more could do so. We are just coping with the current whims of the whiny generation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060603/hl_hsn/lawsbanningtobaccosalestominorsdontwork

*Hogwash*

More libertarian bullshit...

Screw the tobacco industry. They're all about getting people hooked at a young age and milking them for life. Just ban the fuckers.

If you want to smoke, fine, but grow it yourself. It is not your right to demand that people sell you something.

And if they banned soda because its rots kid's teeth, you'd feel the same way, understanding of course that Coca-cola, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper all contain the highly addicting substance commonly known as SUGAR and are marketed to youth?

Originally Posted by B0zzy
Also, what kind of fucked up chart is that?? AIDS victims are preventable deaths comparable to second hand smoke?? You're saying it is their own fault? That's a pretty specific number for second hand smoke deaths too. Reeks of estimation based on flawed assumptions.
It was the first chart that came to hand when I did a search. It is not the chart. The medical world overwhelmingly agrees that second-hand-smoke is a danger to non-smokers. Even the link you gave only says the danger may be exagerated.

Originally Posted by B0zzy
Umm? What the fuck are you talking about. Do you have smokers coming into your home? Into your business? Your grocery store? Hosiptal? Then where the fuck are you having to go commando?
The point I was making (and you may have got it if you'd turn the rant down a notch) is that in an unregulated situation, the chances of avoiding exposure to other peoples smoke is impossible unless you severly restrict your own movements, so as to avoid all chances of it. And again .... why should non-smokers have to plan their lives around smokers?

It is not just the health issues anyway. It is the fact that my clothes and person are stunk up by the stuff. Why should I have to throw perfectly clean clothes in the laundry as soon as I get home just because smokers insist on lighting up in public places? One friend is glad of the ban in Scotland because his dry cleaning bill has gone through the floor. The big difference between smoking and other vices is that if I drink alcohol and you don't, I can have a beer beside you and you wouldn't have to imbibe a drop. Same with pills and IV drugs. With smoking, as soon as some-one lights up, everyone is a smoker whether they want to be or not!

I agree in as much as stuff the children.

But what about all those people who die each year from passive smoking through no fault of their own? And financial strain that places on the healthcare system (which it could do without). Ban smoking, all it is is paying for suicide.

You are more likely to die in a car accident than from passive smoke, and yet who would support a ban on cars? The strain on the healthcare system is equalized by the lack thereof on retirement entitlements, cuz face it, smokers don't live long enough to use much of what they have coming to them. More for you. As for smoking being suicide, so my dear, is breathing oxygen. Oxygen is killing you just as surely as anything else you could breathe...it just takes longer.

Ahh yes, because the profitable and violent black market created by prohibition is far preferable to a group of sleazy corporations that harm only those weak or foolish enough to begin(or continue) using their product.

Good Point. Worth a quote.

I much better prefer the idea of kids going in a crack house to buy cigarettes.

tax it loads then the government can also screw the idiots who start and use it to pay for their lung cancer treatmant...

I am pretty sure that is already being done. That is why you see smokes for $3.89, but they ring up between $5-6 a pack. Taxes. Taxes that go to pay for war, not healthcare.

First - demonstrate what evidence you have that secondhand smoke is so deadly. Second - in most instances regular exposure to second hand smoke is as much a decision as choosing to smoke is - it can be easily avoided. Last - Smoking does not place any strain whatsoever on the healthcare system - it is the people who smoke and do not have the means to pay their own bills who do. Understand the difference?

I completely agree with this. The non-smoking lobby needs to throw away their "victim" stance and take a more gutsy line if they want any respect from me, a smoker. I can't stand any adult who whines that they are a victim. I mean come on. Get some balls. This pretense of being concerned about other adults who have chosen to work in smoking establishments is paper thin. Thes militant non-smokers don't give a rats ass about these other workers or they would also be concerned about exposure to other chemicals such as degreasers, lye and solvents. But they don't give a shit about that because its not in THEIR face. So thats a worthless pretense. And as for the kids, they don't come into the bars anyway, so that's a mute point.

I disagree, tobacco should not be banned. A free society must be completely free or not at all. Free to buy what we want, and put in our bodies what we want. Health consequences are the responsibility of the user/abuser.

Well said.

Bullshit. I don't even smoke and I say FUCK YOU to these fuckers who want to ban tobacco sales.

It pisses me off that people in this country - supposedly the 'leader of the free world' - restrict the rights of their own citizens - regardless of their age. If I want to send my fifteen year old down to the liquor store to buy me a six pack, some smokes and a Hustler that's between me, the liquor store and my child. The government has no fucking business there.

Hear, hear! I agree 100%.

It's ridiculous to assume that anyone who doesn't smoke now will take it up just because it's illegal to adults as well. This black market of which you speak will exist solely to take advantage of those people still addicted.

Kind of like the heroin market died out with the little old ladies and their luadenum?

<smirk>

big tobacco didnt invent smoking. people smoked for centuries before phillip morris existed.

smoking is an extremely mild vice. it hurts no one but the person who smokes (and perhaps those who live with him/her if they dont take any reasonable precautions) it doesnt make the user inattentive while driving. there is no such thing as a "mean smoker" like there are mean drunks. it doesnt accelerate until a smoker needs to turn to crime to support his habit.

all it does is make you stink, turn your teeth and fingertips yellow, give you emphysema, lung cancer, heart attacks, tooth loss and a bit of impotence.

it should be a personal choice.

Like beating off. They tried to ban that during the Victorian era. Can't bann something people find comfort in.

Go ahead and smoke as much as you want; Have fun dying a horrible Lung-cancer induced death years later.

Firstly, http://macombtobaccoprevention.com/img/prevdeth.gif
The evidence for second hand smoke causing death is overwhelming. You might as well demand proof that radiation causes cancer. Only vested interest denies it.

Secondly, no it isn't. Unless you live your life like a commando trying to anticipate the actions of smokers before they make them. And why should non-smokers have to plan their lives round smokers.

Same way smokers have to plan their lives around whiners....

If you want to eat, fine, but grow it yourself.

LOL! Love it!

Haha, yeah. . . deprive me of a cigarette for a day. I can be a bitch without one.

EDIT: Damn, JesusChristLooksLikeMe beat me to the angry defensive rant. Bravo, old boy.
here's a rant you can have...

the sadistic laws banning smoking at airports.

what IDIOT thinks its necessary to prevent smokers from grabbing a bit of nicotine between flights? all these laws are are a way of punishing smokers for making a choice that some people dont agree with.

smoking rooms should be mandated in every concourse of every airport in the united states as a means of preventing air rage. (not that it would prevent all air rage but smokers not being allowed to smoke does tend to make them extra grumpy)

I completely agree with this. The non-smoking lobby needs to throw away their "victim" stance and take a more gutsy line if they want any respect from me, a smoker. I can't stand any adult who whines that they are a victim. I mean come on. Get some balls. This pretense of being concerned about other adults who have chosen to work in smoking establishments is paper thin. Thes militant non-smokers don't give a rats ass about these other workers or they would also be concerned about exposure to other chemicals such as degreasers, lye and solvents. But they don't give a shit about that because its not in THEIR face. So thats a worthless pretense. And as for the kids, they don't come into the bars anyway, so that's a mute point.

Yep. From arguments I've seen against smoking, most anti-smokers are opposed to it because they, personally, do not like the smell and they, personally view it as disgusting. And that's it. Well, that and the rather paranoid fear that they're getting lung cancer, right now, because of smokers.

Originally Posted by Unrestrained Merrymaki
Same way smokers have to plan their lives around whiners....
Seems to me it's the smokers that are doing the whining :rolleyes: . Over here it's non stop from them :p . It's good for a laugh though :).

Commercial smoking is just about further lining the pockets of the industry's CEOs with gold at the expense of addicts and labourers alike.

Actually, doll, this definition fits any commercial enterprise. Its ALL about lining the pockets of the CEO's at the expense of underpayed workers and addicted consumers. (And if you don't think consumerism is an addiction, just try not to buy anything but food for a month....it will make ye right mad, it will!):p

The difference between smoked tobacco and most other drugs is that the smoker forces other to ingest their drug.

If I walked around forcing people to drink beer, especially when they objected due to allergies, I'd be rightly arrested for assault. Smokers do exactly that every day, and ought to be arrested on the same grounds.



Sorry, but I have yet to meet a smoker who isn't rude.



Really? Smokers force their way into your home take a drag them exhale directly into your mouth? Gasp! Your life must be hell!

The difference between smoked tobacco and most other drugs is that the smoker forces other to ingest their drug.

If I walked around forcing people to drink beer, especially when they objected due to allergies, I'd be rightly arrested for assault. Smokers do exactly that every day, and ought to be arrested on the same grounds.



Sorry, but I have yet to meet a smoker who isn't rude.

Your kind of a whiney ass yourself...

Originally posted by Ashmoria
what IDIOT thinks its necessary to prevent smokers from grabbing a bit of nicotine between flights? all these laws are are a way of punishing smokers for making a choice that some people dont agree with.
Hmmm. Sounds like a whine to me :p .

These are the kinds of issues that can be argued until the cows come home. So let me just say.. MOO

There are a few things that I want to address in this forum. First of all, as in Europe, there really isn't a drinking age because children grow up around alcohol and are taught how to consume it responsibly. Now I'm not saying that there aren't alcoholics in Europe (or other places without drinking ages) but what you have to realize is that there is a better chance of people being able to handle alcohol responsibly if alcohol isn't held over their heads all their life, like some proverbial carrot.

Amen and well said.

As to the whole smoking-ban debate. Do what youwant. Kill yourself for all I care, but don't force your choices on me. While some argue that the "government" has no right to control what a person does or doesn't do, I say that "you" have no right to force me to inhale toxic fumes while having dinner. Again...moo.

Smokers break into your home take a drag and exhale into your mouth too? eek! European smokers really are rude!

JesusLooksLikeMe made a great point about allowing political positions to have more and more power, without thought to what later appointees will do with that power. Case in Point: Bush.

Stop expecting others to take care of you and stand up for yourself. Don't expect the government to take care of you (I think it's proven at this point that it doesn't care about us). Smokers- don't expect to be supported by laws allowing smoking. Non-smokers-don't expect laws banning smoking. If you have a problem with someone smoking, ask them to stop. That being said, I know it's addicting-but smoking doesn't have any benefits...unless you enjoy dying from cancer.

Anywho....moo moo munch munch.

If you have a problem with someone smoking, ask them to stop.
Or ask the owner of the establishment to deal with it - or just take your busines elsewhere if they do not.

That being said, I know it's addicting-but smoking doesn't have any benefits...unless you enjoy dying from cancer. Actually it does give you a bit of a buzz - and then there is that glorious lifestyle. (sarcam)

Can anyone list a single benifit of smoking, or is it just going to be this "we have a right to do this!" sorta thing?

Personally I'm only against smoking in crowded public areas because I can't breath and if I don't have my inhaler then there's a good chance if I don't get out I'll be on the floor.

More libertarian bullshit...


wow - you really are insightful and thought provoking. You must have gone to a really really neat university.

The point I was making (and you may have got it if you'd turn the rant down a notch) is that in an unregulated situation, the chances of avoiding exposure to other peoples smoke is impossible unless you severly restrict your own movements, so as to avoid all chances of it. And again .... why should non-smokers have to plan their lives around smokers?

Sorry - I still have to say bullshit. You have not demonstrated any sch 'unregulated' sitouation where you are being forced to breath second hand smoke for dangerous periods.

It is not just the health issues anyway. It is the fact that my clothes and person are stunk up by the stuff. Why should I have to throw perfectly clean clothes in the laundry as soon as I get home just because smokers insist on lighting up in public places? One friend is glad of the ban in Scotland because his dry cleaning bill has gone through the floor. The big difference between smoking and other vices is that if I drink alcohol and you don't, I can have a beer beside you and you wouldn't have to imbibe a drop. Same with pills and IV drugs. With smoking, as soon as some-one lights up, everyone is a smoker whether they want to be or not!
Well then - go to a pub where smoking is not allwed. If there aren't any then open one - I'm sure the demand for such a place is high enough to sustain the market. You don't need to inflict your lifestyle on them any more than they do on you.

Go ahead and smoke as much as you want; Have fun dying a horrible Lung-cancer induced death years later.

Any you will escape death how?

The purpose of life isn't to arrive whole and healthy, perfectly safe and sheltered at the end. The purpose of life is to experience it, whole-hog, full blast, no holds-barred, and if that is only for 3 minutes, then at least you have had a good ride.

Gimme tobacco, booze, sex, rock n'roll, a little nitrous here and there, good fattening as hell food, great books, intense movies, and a great sense of humour and I don't need to live to be 90. I don't even need to live to be 70. In fact, anytime is fine with me. And as far as the "horribleness" of cancer. Simple. Refuse treatment except for pain medication, (because hell, when else are you going to get morphine by the pint?) Cuts the time in half.

So I will enjoy my cancer and you enjoy your alzheimers and dementia and incontinence and hearing loss and broken hip and skin cancer all that other fun shit that comes with living too long. Anyone got a lighter?

And if they banned soda because its rots kid's teeth, you'd feel the same way, understanding of course that Coca-cola, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper all contain the highly addicting substance commonly known as SUGAR and are marketed to youth?
Banned Soda? No. Clamped down on specific Soda brands known for extortionist advertising schemes and deliberate addiction-inducement, certainly.

It's not the soda or the tobacco that are the problem; it's the business tactics adopted by their creators. Home-made lemonade, for instance, is fine; it's a drink made with a little sugar so that people enjoy it when they drink it. If you deliberately include too much sugar to get people hooked, it becomes unethical. If you support this, then, with a huge advertising campaign designed to make other people want to try it, you're going well into the realms of extortionism.

The same is true of much in the Alcohol business and especially in Gambling. Advertising and deliberate product placement is a major problem, and this is compounded by the addictive nature of the product or service. While I'm all in favour of friendly wagers and games, the odd pint or a bottle of wine over dinner, it's when people try to jump on these interests, take them to extremes and bleed you dry of your assets in the process that I get really ticked off.

I'm saying it's fine for people to smoke if they're willing to get local sources. The problem is with the industry's methods, and, like the weapons manufacturers, it is something that, regardless of our opinion on smoking or the right to bear arms, we should be fighting against.

Can anyone list a single benifit of smoking, or is it just going to be this "we have a right to do this!" sorta thing?

Personally I'm only against smoking in crowded public areas because I can't breath and if I don't have my inhaler then there's a good chance if I don't get out I'll be on the floor.

Here is a benefit of smoking: I FUCKING LOVE IT.

Actually, doll, this definition fits any commercial enterprise. Its ALL about lining the pockets of the CEO's at the expense of underpayed workers and addicted consumers. (And if you don't think consumerism is an addiction, just try not to buy anything but food for a month....it will make ye right mad, it will!):p
What, no rent?

I've got to pay the upkeep on my room, surely! =S

Okay, I tell you what. I'll take you up on that. For the next four weeks, I will buy everything from local providers.

Fortunately, as a member of my university, I have a free connection to the net. That's one less thing to worry about, anyway! :D

Banned Soda? No. Clamped down on specific Soda brands known for extortionist advertising schemes and deliberate addiction-inducement, certainly.

It's not the soda or the tobacco that are the problem; it's the business tactics adopted by their creators. Home-made lemonade, for instance, is fine; it's a drink made with a little sugar so that people enjoy it when they drink it. If you deliberately include too much sugar to get people hooked, it becomes unethical. If you support this, then, with a huge advertising campaign designed to make other people want to try it, you're going well into the realms of extortionism.

The same is true of much in the Alcohol business and especially in Gambling. Advertising and deliberate product placement is a major problem, and this is compounded by the addictive nature of the product or service. While I'm all in favour of friendly wagers and games, the odd pint or a bottle of wine over dinner, it's when people try to jump on these interests, take them to extremes and bleed you dry of your assets in the process that I get really ticked off.

I'm saying it's fine for people to smoke if they're willing to get local sources. The problem is with the industry's methods, and, like the weapons manufacturers, it is something that, regardless of our opinion on smoking or the right to bear arms, we should be fighting against.

I see. So your beef isn't with tobacco at all, per se. Your issue is with big business. You would like to see a return to the day where everyone was self-reliant, worked a 16 hour day to keep the farm going, as well as all the sewing, blacksmithing and woodworking. Am I understanding you right? Like pioneers? Go back to a barter economy. Eggs for nails? That sort of thing?

Can anyone list a single benifit of smoking, or is it just going to be this "we have a right to do this!" sorta thing?

It is right up there with the benefit of drinking carbonated soda, watching reality TV and dancing to the Chicken Dance. That's really not the point though. There is no reason to ban any of these things. Except, well maybe the chicken dance thing.

Personally I'm only against smoking in crowded public areas because I can't breath and if I don't have my inhaler then there's a good chance if I don't get out I'll be on the floor .
In public places I would agree (subways, hospitals, etc. ) and AFIK it pretty much is that way - at least here is the states. As for private places (bars, restaurants, casinos, etc) it is up to the onwer of the establishment to decide if he wants to allow that or not on his property. Some private places - such as grocery stores, would have to ban it for health reasons and the fact that they are unavoidable. (could you imagine finding cigarette butts in your produce? -eww!)
Either way - It does not need to be an all or none issue. Most new smoking restrictions are imposing overbearing judgemental and inappropraitly abusive to personal freedom.

Originally Posted by B0zzy
Well then - go to a pub where smoking is not allwed. If there aren't any then open one - I'm sure the demand for such a place is high enough to sustain the market. You don't need to inflict your lifestyle on them any more than they do on you.
Doesn't work. When people go out there is the likliehood that at least one of the company will be a smoker. Therefore all will have to go to a smoking establishment so as the smokers can satisfy their addiction. Therefore the non-smoking pubs will go down the tubes, not because people want to be in a smoky atmosphere, but because people will always stick with their pals. A pub in Elgin tried it and had to close due to the very reasons I have just outlined. So it has to be a level playing field.

Any you will escape death how?

The purpose of life isn't to arrive whole and healthy, perfectly safe and sheltered at the end. The purpose of life is to experience it, whole-hog, full blast, no holds-barred, and if that is only for 3 minutes, then at least you have had a good ride.

Gimme tobacco, booze, sex, rock n'roll, a little nitrous here and there, good fattening as hell food, great books, intense movies, and a great sense of humour and I don't need to live to be 90. I don't even need to live to be 70. In fact, anytime is fine with me. And as far as the "horribleness" of cancer. Simple. Refuse treatment except for pain medication, (because hell, when else are you going to get morphine by the pint?) Cuts the time in half.

So I will enjoy my cancer and you enjoy your alzheimers and dementia and incontinence and hearing loss and broken hip and skin cancer all that other fun shit that comes with living too long. Anyone got a lighter?

This post nearly made me experience incontinence!

Hmmm. Sounds like a whine to me :p .
cant be a whine, i dont smoke

i just know stupid when i see it.

its STUPID to ban smoking at airports. walking past one of those nasty little glass booths filled with nervous smokers once or twice a year isnt going to hurt anyone

its STUPID to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants. to suggest that someone smoking WAYYYYY Over there in the smoking section is going to hurt me is stupid. to say that there is NO WAY to design ventillation good enough to protect restaurant workers is stupid. for god's sake they have ventillation systems that protect hospital workers from tuberculosis, i think they can figure out how to deal with smoke.

and its stupid to fashion tax policy on the basis of taxing the addicted. where would the money for these programs that have nothing to do with smoking come from if people actually quit?

Banned Soda? No. Clamped down on specific Soda brands known for extortionist advertising schemes and deliberate addiction-inducement, certainly.

It's not the soda or the tobacco that are the problem; it's the business tactics adopted by their creators. Home-made lemonade, for instance, is fine; it's a drink made with a little sugar so that people enjoy it when they drink it. If you deliberately include too much sugar to get people hooked, it becomes unethical. If you support this, then, with a huge advertising campaign designed to make other people want to try it, you're going well into the realms of extortionism.


Damn those bastards who make better lemonade than mom. Damn them all to hell!

Doesn't work. When people go out there is the likliehood that at least one of the company will be a smoker.
Gee - what a great pal you are. Rather than ask your pal not to smoke (or find mates who don't) you just PASS A FUCKING LAW AGAINST ALLOWING THEM TO SMOKE! With friends like you who needs enemas?

Can anyone list a single benifit of smoking, or is it just going to be this "we have a right to do this!" sorta thing?

Personally I'm only against smoking in crowded public areas because I can't breath and if I don't have my inhaler then there's a good chance if I don't get out I'll be on the floor.

Like all recreational activities, its not done because of any bulleted list of "benefits." It's done because its fun.

For many smokers that fun can take many different forms. For example, cigarettes are...

*A method of measuring distance (It is 5 cigarettes from one side of the campus to the other!)
*A method of measuring time (I'll be there in a cigarette or two!)
*An ice-breaker in conversations
*An affectation for emphasis and gesticulation
*A form of dessert to punctuate meals
*A way of celebrating and coming down from sex
*Something for your non-beer-holding hand to do
*A form of currency
*A cult badge signifying membership
*A way to counter inflation by diminishing one's horded wealth
*A coming-of-age celebration product
*A way of helping your lungs become resistant to smoke, in case you need to rescue someone from a building that's filled with burning tobacco.


But all of that is irrelevant. Things are not banned simply for not having enough health benefits. What are the benefits of watching TV, physically speaking? I can't think of any. Nor are things banned for being health hazards. Can't you still drive an SUV wherever you like, polluting the atmosphere with carcinogens and greenhouse gases? Yes, yes you can.

Doesn't work. When people go out there is the likliehood that at least one of the company will be a smoker. Therefore all will have to go to a smoking establishment so as the smokers can satisfy their addiction. Therefore the non-smoking pubs will go down the tubes, not because people want to be in a smoky atmosphere, but because people will always stick with their pals. A pub in Elgin tried it and had to close due to the very reasons I have just outlined. So it has to be a level playing field.
so because no one wants a non smoking pub it has to be mandated that ALL pubs are non smoking?

interesting theory. force people to have what they dont want.

Originally Posted by B0zzy
Gee - what a great pal you are. Rather than ask your pal not to smoke (or find mates who don't) you just PASS A FUCKING LAW AGAINST ALLOWING THEM TO SMOKE! With friends like you who needs enemas?
How naive are you about smokers. They are addicts. They will smoke where-ever and whenever they can. If they have the option to smoke then they will, no matter how often you ask them not to. And you can't go round the pub asking each and every smoker if they wouldn't mind not smoking. You'd be spending the whole night talking to increasingly hostile addicts. But of course it wouldn't come to that because fisticuffs would have broken out long before that :( . And also, smoking is not banned. It is only restricted. most pubs provide an area outside where addicts can score if it's that desperate. Strangely, after the ban, pubs still do a brisk trade :) .

How naive are you about smokers. They are addicts. They will smoke where-ever and whenever they can. If they have the option to smoke then they will, no matter how often you ask them not to. And you can't go round the pub asking each and every smoker if they wouldn't mind not smoking. You'd be spending the whole night talking to increasingly hostile addicts. But of course it wouldn't come to that because fisticuffs would have broken out long before that :( . And also, smoking is not banned. It is only restricted. most pubs provide an area outside where addicts can score if it's that desperate. Strangely, after the ban, pubs still do a brisk trade :) .

So what? The point is that ther was not enough demand for non-smoking pubs to support a market - so you just banned all smoking in all pubs. Nice. The fact that pubs are still profitable is hardly a ringing endorsement of inflicting your values on others.

How naive are you about smokers. They are addicts. They will smoke where-ever and whenever they can. If they have the option to smoke then they will, no matter how often you ask them not to.

Untrue on all counts. You obviously aren't a smoker, and I suggest you speak from a position of ignorance if you believe anyone who smokes is "an addict."

I've refrained from smoking on occasion when asked nicely.

But according to your lopsided worldview, me and people like me don't exist, because all smokers are "addicts" and incapable of being polite. Frankly, given your willingness to stereotype (the comments about smokers being "whiners") and dismiss (the comment about "addicts") other people, I don't see where you get off calling for other people to be polite.

Originally Posted by Ashmoria
interesting theory. force people to have what they dont want.
People did want a ban on smoking in public places. It has been a very popular move. But I think you should read my post again. I said the non-smoking pubs would fail because addicts would be the deciding factor in the decision for where groups would go. Not because people didn't want non-smoking pubs.

Originally Posted by Trostia
Untrue on all counts. You obviously aren't a smoker, and I suggest you speak from a position of ignorance if you believe anyone who smokes is "an addict."

I've refrained from smoking on occasion when asked nicely.

But according to your lopsided worldview, me and people like me don't exist, because all smokers are "addicts" and incapable of being polite. Frankly, given your willingness to stereotype (the comments about smokers being "whiners") and dismiss (the comment about "addicts") other people, I don't see where you get off calling for other people to be polite.
The comments about whining were a direct response to the plethora of pro-smokers referring to the anti's as whiners. I wanted to point out that use of the whining word was subjective.

As for being polite, I've been very polite compared to the language and tone being used by B0zzy and others on your side of the debate.

As for the use of the word "addict". Smokers are addicts, At least the overwhelming majority are. And I'm sure plenty of smokers will politely put out there cig when asked but not all. It is just impractical to expect non-smokers to spend their time on a constant smoke-watch when they go into a public place. Especially if they don't want a fight to break out.

As far as I'm concerned i haven't been rude or impolite.

People did want a ban on smoking in public places. It has been a very popular move. But I think you should read my post again. I said the non-smoking pubs would fail because addicts would be the deciding factor in the decision for where groups would go. Not because people didn't want non-smoking pubs.

If it were so popular then it would have not requred a law - it would have been commercially viable on it's own merits. The correct grammar is 'NON-smokers did want a ban on smoking in public places.' What next banning non-whites from public places?

Once again - if you went to a smoking pub to make things more comfortable for your frined it was your choice to go there - nobody forced you. If your friend refused to go anywhere else it was still your choice to accomodate him - nobody forced you to hang with their intolerance. You've now removed all choice for your friend and inflicted your own intolerance. Where I come from we call people like that 'assholes'.

I see. So your beef isn't with tobacco at all, per se. Your issue is with big business. You would like to see a return to the day where everyone was self-reliant, worked a 16 hour day to keep the farm going, as well as all the sewing, blacksmithing and woodworking. Am I understanding you right? Like pioneers? Go back to a barter economy. Eggs for nails? That sort of thing?
Not quite; the issue is one of calculated exploitation and deception rather than the notions of big business or profit themselves. The Tobacco and Fast Food industries just happen to be particularly good examples of those.

Curiously enough, I'm thinking of the IT industry primarily (where, funnily enough, my interests lie). We create things for the purpose of providing solutions to specific problems that already exist. Yes, we're making a profit in doing so, but it's (preferrably; we do get the odd Microsofts that create their own problems, of course, but they get plenty of flakk for that) a problem that arose independently of any IT companies (for example, managing patient records, keeping track on our personal expenditure, governing how the traffic lights change in town and so on) that we're doing our part to resolve. The same is true of, say, the medical profession, local professional services such as plumbing/water supply, electrical maintenance etc. and, even, international transport (though we definitely need some sort replacement for the jet engine in the near future).

Tobacco, alcoholic drinks, fashion, junk-food, gambling and (in my opinion) arms companies are these days all about making you think you have a need, as well as fulfilling that need and, in the worst cases, actually getting you addicted, that wouldn't actually exist were it not for their presence. The benevolent corporation is dead, as they say. That's essentially my beef. I can't possibly condone this sort of behaviour in a profession, which is why I dislike the sale of cigarettes. It's not the smokers, who are free to do what they like with what is available; it's the attitude ingrained within the manufacturers.

As for the use of the word "addict". Smokers are addicts, At least the overwhelming majority are.

No, they aren't, and your attempt to portray any cigarette smoker as being "an addict" is an ad hominem argument.

Originally Posted by B0zzy
If it were so popular then it would have not requred a law - it would have been commercially viable on it's own merits.
This is one situation where the market could not fill a gap for the reasons I've already given. The market should not be the sole arbiter of what laws are and are not passed in any case. And you can't go to the old "freedom under threat" line every time a law is passed. It just devalues it.

Doesn't work. When people go out there is the likliehood that at least one of the company will be a smoker. Therefore all will have to go to a smoking establishment so as the smokers can satisfy their addiction. Therefore the non-smoking pubs will go down the tubes, not because people want to be in a smoky atmosphere, but because people will always stick with their pals. A pub in Elgin tried it and had to close due to the very reasons I have just outlined. So it has to be a level playing field.

I smoke, along with 30% of all Americans and I think my behavior is pretty typical. When I go to a restaurant with non-smokers I always speak up and ask for the non-smoking section. That way the whole debate is avoided and no one is put out. If then, I wish to have a smoke, I go outside. Again, I think this is typical courtesy. To take the behavior of the most inconsiderate smokers, those who drag non-smokers into the smoking section, and paste it accross the board calling it typical is inflammatory. It is NOT typical. The non-smoking section, at any given time, is 30% smokers choosing not to smoke.

Tobacco, alcoholic drinks, fashion, junk-food, gambling and (in my opinion) arms companies are these days all about making you think you have a need, as well as fulfilling that need and, in the worst cases, actually getting you addicted, that wouldn't actually exist were it not for their presence. The benevolent corporation is dead, as they say. That's essentially my beef. I can't possibly condone this sort of behaviour in a profession, which is why I dislike the sale of cigarettes. It's not the smokers, who are free to do what they like with what is available; it's the attitude ingrained within the manufacturers.

Yes. You also forgot to include musicians, theater, dancers, artists, landscapers, authors, bookstores, toy stores, sporting goods of all kinds, professional sports, etc. etc. who all create a need for their poduct simply by creating the product. Those evil evil bastards! How dare they try to bring pleasure into my life!

This is one situation where the market could not fill a gap for the reasons I've already given. The market should not be the sole arbiter of what laws are and are not passed in any case. And you can't go to the old "freedom under threat" line every time a law is passed. It just devalues it.


So if the market cannot support what you want it is OK to pass a law forcing it to. Or, in otherwords, if everyone won't do what you want them to, it is OK to pass a law forcing them to.

Nope - still reeks of authoritarianism.

Gee - what a great pal you are. Rather than ask your pal not to smoke (or find mates who don't) you just PASS A FUCKING LAW AGAINST ALLOWING THEM TO SMOKE! With friends like you who needs enemas?

Its called PASSIVE AGGRESSION.

Yes. You also forgot to include musicians, theater, dancers, artists, landscapers, authors, bookstores, toy stores, sporting goods of all kinds, professional sports, etc. etc. who all create a need for their poduct simply by creating the product. Those evil evil bastards! How dare they try to bring pleasure into my life!
But the need for entertainment is different than the specific need for one method of fulfilment of it, surely? After all, would you allow a film to air that hypnotised you into needing to continually come and visit it several times over?

People did want a ban on smoking in public places. It has been a very popular move. But I think you should read my post again. I said the non-smoking pubs would fail because addicts would be the deciding factor in the decision for where groups would go. Not because people didn't want non-smoking pubs.
so youre saying that non smokers are so spineless that instead of telling their smoking friends they want to go to a nonsmoking pub, they wanted the STATE to insist on it?

i would suggest that they wanted to go to the smoking pub because thats where the action was not because of any sympathy for their ONE smoking friend who could just as easily have stepped outside.

How naive are you about smokers. They are addicts. They will smoke where-ever and whenever they can. If they have the option to smoke then they will, no matter how often you ask them not to. And you can't go round the pub asking each and every smoker if they wouldn't mind not smoking. You'd be spending the whole night talking to increasingly hostile addicts. But of course it wouldn't come to that because fisticuffs would have broken out long before that :( . And also, smoking is not banned. It is only restricted. most pubs provide an area outside where addicts can score if it's that desperate. Strangely, after the ban, pubs still do a brisk trade :) .

I find it amusing that you have the huevos to tell a smoker that you are an expert on smokers. LOL

You are exposing yourself as a "know-it-all", typical of the teenage years. If only it were charming. But its not.

Originally Posted by B0zzy
You've now removed all choice for your friend and inflicted your own intolerance. Where I come from we call people like that 'assholes'.
Oh (edit)Trostia, what was that about me being impolite. As I said I've been very polite throughout this thread whilst being subjected to this kind of thing. Doesn't bother me like, but I feel you should be aware of it :p .

Technically I should take it as a victory since it's usually the loser in a debate that resorts to name calling.

People did want a ban on smoking in public places. It has been a very popular move. But I think you should read my post again. I said the non-smoking pubs would fail because addicts would be the deciding factor in the decision for where groups would go. Not because people didn't want non-smoking pubs.

If the public smoking ban goes into effect in our town, which I don't think it will, but if it does, I am having a huge SMOKERS ONLY party in my back yard, inviting the whole town and meeting alot of good people. I will not allow non-smokers to attend mind you. Not a single one. They will be stopped at the gate if they are not carrying ciggarettes. It will be great. If the movement takes off, our money will be missed in the clubs. We drink more, we tip better, and we will be missed.

Tobacco, alcoholic drinks, fashion, junk-food, gambling and (in my opinion) arms companies are these days all about making you think you have a need, as well as fulfilling that need and, in the worst cases, actually getting you addicted, that wouldn't actually exist were it not for their presence. The benevolent corporation is dead, as they say. That's essentially my beef. I can't possibly condone this sort of behaviour in a profession, which is why I dislike the sale of cigarettes. It's not the smokers, who are free to do what they like with what is available; it's the attitude ingrained within the manufacturers.
maybe you could just grow up and think for yourself. decide for yourself if you want to smoke, drink, eat junk food, spend money on fancy clothing, gamble or buy a gun.

all advertising is designed to convince you to buy a product. an adult figures out what products are right for them and what ones arent.

Originally Posted by Unrestrained Merrymaki
I find it amusing that you have the huevos to tell a smoker that you are an expert on smokers. LOL

You are exposing yourself as a "know-it-all", typical of the teenage years. If only it were charming. But its not.
Actually I'm far from being a teenager. I grew up in a home where my mother smoked heavily and I had to watch her die of lung cancer when she was in her mid-fifties. It wasn't pretty. I work in a hospital where the consequences of smoking are all to apparent. And you only have to watch the non-addicts (as (edit)Trostia would have us believe) trapse out to the smoking areas round the hospital every chance they get, in every weather conditions imaginable, to realise they are not doing it simply because they enjoy it.

It is you that is making asumptions here.

Oh Ashmoria, what was that about me being impolite. As I said I've been very polite throughout this thread whilst being subjected to this kind of thing. Doesn't bother me like, but I feel you should be aware of it :p .

Technically I should take it as a victory since it's usually the loser in a debate that resorts to name calling.
oh i dont recall saying anything about anyone being impolite.

stupid but not impolite.

not that im sure i DIDNT....

anyway, i find that when they start calling me names (which doesnt happen often) i just repeat the same points calmly over and over again until they have a brain aneurysm. what was that you said about passive-aggressive?

Actually I'm far from being a teenager. I grew up in a home where my mother smoked heavily and I had to watch her die of lung cancer when she was in her mid-fifties. It wasn't pretty. I work in a hospital where the consequences of smoking are all to apparent. And you only have to watch the non-addicts (as Ashmoria would have us believe) trapse out to the smoking areas round the hospital every chance they get, in every weather conditions imaginable, to realise they are not doing it simply because they enjoy it.

It is you that is making asumptions here.
now i KNOW i didnt say that there are smokers who arent addicted. there are those who are addicted and those who will be addicted. and those who quit.

its kinda like suggesting that one can be a regular user of herion and not get addicted. people claim it but i dont believe it

i prefer the example of the emphysema patient smoking while on oxygen. or those who put the cig up to their tracheotomy hole.

big tobacco didnt invent smoking. people smoked for centuries before phillip morris existed.

smoking is an extremely mild vice. it hurts no one but the person who smokes (and perhaps those who live with him/her if they dont take any reasonable precautions) it doesnt make the user inattentive while driving. there is no such thing as a "mean smoker" like there are mean drunks. it doesnt accelerate until a smoker needs to turn to crime to support his habit.

all it does is make you stink, turn your teeth and fingertips yellow, give you emphysema, lung cancer, heart attacks, tooth loss and a bit of impotence.

it should be a personal choice.
Shit fire and save matches, are you serious? ANYTHING that you do "while driving" makes you inattentive. It doesn't take more than a second of inattention to create a collision or other automotive misfortune. Smoking while driving, while not unique in its cause of inattention, exacerbates the already staggering lack of attention most US drivers have. I remember reading a Consumer Reports article about German cars and how they used to get poor marks on small points like conveniences because they didn't have any cupholders. German manufacturers didn't put cupholders in their cars because they believed the tasks of driving and drinking a beverage were mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Ashmoria
oh i dont recall saying anything about anyone being impolite.

stupid but not impolite.

not that im sure i DIDNT....

anyway, i find that when they start calling me names (which doesnt happen often) i just repeat the same points calmly over and over again until they have a brain aneurysm. what was that you said about passive-aggressive?
I've never called you a name or been the slightest bit impolite to you. Why the hostility?

maybe you could just grow up and think for yourself. decide for yourself if you want to smoke, drink, eat junk food, spend money on fancy clothing, gamble or buy a gun.

all advertising is designed to convince you to buy a product. an adult figures out what products are right for them and what ones arent.
"We ignore it, so grow up and ignore it", in other words. Forgive me for not being so struck by the ennui of life just yet. If to be an adult is to take the world for granted then I hope I may stay young for a good while to come.

My decisions are always influenced by the world around me on all sorts of matters in life, though the fact I recognise that may perhaps indicate less of an influence than I think. If you really suggest that decisions are always made internally as to what to do with ourselves, then I wonder whether it is indeed I who am the naive one...

Firstly, http://macombtobaccoprevention.com/img/prevdeth.gif
The evidence for second hand smoke causing death is overwhelming. You might as well demand proof that radiation causes cancer. Only vested interest denies it.
That graph uses the EPA study, which has been largely discredited as selectively-chosen science (ignoring, for example, a 1998 WHO report showing little or no link).

http://www.junkscience.com/feb01/perske.htm

its STUPID to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants. to suggest that someone smoking WAYYYYY Over there in the smoking section is going to hurt me is stupid. to say that there is NO WAY to design ventillation good enough to protect restaurant workers is stupid. for god's sake they have ventillation systems that protect hospital workers from tuberculosis, i think they can figure out how to deal with smoke.

Agreed.

A casino back home (The Tulalip, north of Everett, WA) has an ass-kicking ventilation system. Relatives of mine from Marquette, MI came for a visit two summers ago and were excited at the prospect of going to the casino. I took them there and they lit up constantly without me so much as batting an eyelash. It is possible to coexist.

Like all recreational activities, its not done because of any bulleted list of "benefits." It's done because its fun.

For many smokers that fun can take many different forms. For example, cigarettes are...

*Something for your non-beer-holding hand to do



Hell, in my group of friends, that off hand is for making points, making bets and grabbing asses (okay, just the first two, but a guy can dream). The ciggy is held in the same hand as the martini, just like Frank Sinatra.

Untrue on all counts. You obviously aren't a smoker, and I suggest you speak from a position of ignorance if you believe anyone who smokes is "an addict."

I've refrained from smoking on occasion when asked nicely.

But according to your lopsided worldview, me and people like me don't exist, because all smokers are "addicts" and incapable of being polite. Frankly, given your willingness to stereotype (the comments about smokers being "whiners") and dismiss (the comment about "addicts") other people, I don't see where you get off calling for other people to be polite.
Everyone's an addict to something. Just because you can politely not smoke for a few minutes doesn't mean you're not an addict. The fact that you need the cigarette and that the need for it alters your behavior, that's what makes you an addict.

Apologies to Ashmoria. It was Trostia who was accusing me of being impolite.

It was also Trostia who took offence at the use of the word "addict".

My only defence is that I was being hit from several sides at the time.

Sincerest apologies again.

But the need for entertainment is different than the specific need for one method of fulfilment of it, surely? After all, would you allow a film to air that hypnotised you into needing to continually come and visit it several times over?
Now you are changing your tune. There is nothing addictive about most of the products you mentioned.

Oh (edit)Trostia, what was that about me being impolite. As I said I've been very polite throughout this thread whilst being subjected to this kind of thing. Doesn't bother me like, but I feel you should be aware of it :p .

Technically I should take it as a victory since it's usually the loser in a debate that resorts to name calling.


Jokes on you - I'm not a smoker! Besides - nobody called YOU and asshole... but if you want to adopt it yourself I most certainly won't stop you. :)

Actually I'm far from being a teenager. I grew up in a home where my mother smoked heavily and I had to watch her die of lung cancer when she was in her mid-fifties. It wasn't pretty. I work in a hospital where the consequences of smoking are all to apparent. And you only have to watch the non-addicts (as (edit)Trostia would have us believe) trapse out to the smoking areas round the hospital every chance they get, in every weather conditions imaginable, to realise they are not doing it simply because they enjoy it.

It is you that is making asumptions here.


WEll wait now. You said that as addicts they would smoke all the time and everywhere without any control. Now you are saying they can actually make it through a work shift and smoke only in designated areas. Which is it?

Shit fire and save matches, are you serious? ANYTHING that you do "while driving" makes you inattentive. It doesn't take more than a second of inattention to create a collision or other automotive misfortune. Smoking while driving, while not unique in its cause of inattention, exacerbates the already staggering lack of attention most US drivers have. I remember reading a Consumer Reports article about German cars and how they used to get poor marks on small points like conveniences because they didn't have any cupholders. German manufacturers didn't put cupholders in their cars because they believed the tasks of driving and drinking a beverage were mutually exclusive.

We should ban cup holders now!

"We ignore it, so grow up and ignore it", in other words. Forgive me for not being so struck by the ennui of life just yet. If to be an adult is to take the world for granted then I hope I may stay young for a good while to come.

My decisions are always influenced by the world around me on all sorts of matters in life, though the fact I recognise that may perhaps indicate less of an influence than I think. If you really suggest that decisions are always made internally as to what to do with ourselves, then I wonder whether it is indeed I who am the naive one...

ust because you are more suscepible to advertizing and not mature enough to deal with it does not give you any right or authority to determine that nobody is. You are welcome for your decisions to be influenced by the world around you - but stay the fuck out of MY decisions.

It's ridiculous to assume that anyone who doesn't smoke now will take it up just because it's illegal to adults as well. This black market of which you speak will exist solely to take advantage of those people still addicted. If you think that only the weak and foolish are drawn in by commercial tobacco, how much more weak and foolish would they have to be to look for criminal supplies?

Besides, people who would sell smokes illegally would be the kind who would sell other kinds of substance anyway. If we can use the market to increase the chance of cracking down on narcotics at the same time, it's an extra bonus.

And are you aware of the industry's involvement in China and African nations? They're not getting enough smokers here, so they're relocating and launching huge advertising campaigns. People here know it's damaging to your health, so we'll go where people don't know that.

Disgusting. We already have a black market. It's about time we stopped appeasing it and did something about it.


I think that history has demonstrated that prohibitions of any kind fail. Yes, people would still start smoking, Marijuana has been effectively illegal in the US for over 100 years and somehow new people keep discovering it, along with a host of other things that are in high demand. People still smoke pot, snort coke, shoot heroin, screw prostitutes, and do all the other little consentual things that society has decided to forbid. Even in countries with far harsher penalties than in the west you still see people willing to have sex with members of the same gender or people other than their husband/wife. Do you really think prohibition is going to do anything other than make a handful of violent criminals even more wealthy and our streets just a little less safe?

As for tobacco prohibition helping a crackdown on narcotics, you must be insane. The united states has one of the highest rates of incarceration on the planet, and definately the highest rate in the developed world. We don't have enough prisons for all our petty drug offenders as is, what on earth makes you think it is going to be cost effective to start locking up smokers?

Finally, your little culturally racist strike about China and Africa falls flat. I don't think that all those poor, ignorant black Africans and Chinamen need western whites to save them from the evil corporations who control their feeble minds through marketing. Were talking about people, here, not children. They might not be as wealthy as those of us lucky enough to have been born in the west, but they aren't stupid. Everyone who has ever known a smoker knows that its bad for you, healthy people don't hack up wads of black mucus. Still, some people make the choice. Some people believe that the simple satisfaction of a cigarette is worth the risks. I don't necessarily agree, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that my opinion should have the force of law behind it.

OMG! I think I've found Jesus!!!

Nice post.

Thankee kindly, Boz. It's been awhile since I posted here so I thought I'd jsut start fresh.

Oh, and by the way, I though Jesus does resemble me, I am not him. I don't really go for all that soft socialism stuff. ;)

We should ban cup holders now!
Huh. Did I say that? I think not.

I believe I was presenting a cultural dichotomy with regard to automobile manufacture and use.

But hey, if you want to stretch that into some kind of alarmist consumer-negative posture, you go right ahead.

I think that history has demonstrated that prohibitions of any kind fail. Yes, people would still start smoking, Marijuana has been effectively illegal in the US for over 100 years and somehow new people keep discovering it, along with a host of other things that are in high demand. People still smoke pot, snort coke, shoot heroin, screw prostitutes, and do all the other little consentual things that society has decided to forbid. Even in countries with far harsher penalties than in the west you still see people willing to have sex with members of the same gender or people other than their husband/wife. Do you really think prohibition is going to do anything other than make a handful of violent criminals even more wealthy and our streets just a little less safe?

As for tobacco prohibition helping a crackdown on narcotics, you must be insane. The united states has one of the highest rates of incarceration on the planet, and definately the highest rate in the developed world. We don't have enough prisons for all our petty drug offenders as is, what on earth makes you think it is going to be cost effective to start locking up smokers?

Finally, your little culturally racist strike about China and Africa falls flat. I don't think that all those poor, ignorant black Africans and Chinamen need western whites to save them from the evil corporations who control their feeble minds through marketing. Were talking about people, here, not children. They might not be as wealthy as those of us lucky enough to have been born in the west, but they aren't stupid. Everyone who has ever known a smoker knows that its bad for you, healthy people don't hack up wads of black mucus. Still, some people make the choice. Some people believe that the simple satisfaction of a cigarette is worth the risks. I don't necessarily agree, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that my opinion should have the force of law behind it.
You must have read the late Peter MacWilliams book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society. You sound just as reasoned and well thought-out as he did. If you haven't read it, I implore you to do so. You won't be disappointed.

Great post.

Actually I'm far from being a teenager. I grew up in a home where my mother smoked heavily and I had to watch her die of lung cancer when she was in her mid-fifties. It wasn't pretty. I work in a hospital where the consequences of smoking are all to apparent. And you only have to watch the non-addicts (as (edit)Trostia would have us believe) trapse out to the smoking areas round the hospital every chance they get, in every weather conditions imaginable, to realise they are not doing it simply because they enjoy it.

It is you that is making asumptions here.

I watched my mother die of colon cancer, but I am not asking for a ban on refined food....

So I presumed, from your behavior that you were immature. Not sure my base assumption was too far off the mark. You are certainly an unreasonable, angry, controlling personality. Not sure what your excuse is for that...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060603/hl_hsn/lawsbanningtobaccosalestominorsdontwork

"As long as cigarettes are a legal, over-the-counter product, keeping kids from smoking will require a large, multi-strategy effort. There's still no good science to say we should abandon tobacco sales laws and enforcement," a

*snip*


The answer is simple. Tabacco for many years kept facts as limited as possible.

Make tabacco pay for health costs.

That will motivate them to drop the filters really fast.....

Thankee kindly, Boz. It's been awhile since I posted here so I thought I'd jsut start fresh.

Oh, and by the way, I though Jesus does resemble me, I am not him. I don't really go for all that soft socialism stuff. ;)

Can we have sex anyway? I have always had a sexual fantasy about doin' Jesus raw.

Now you are changing your tune. There is nothing addictive about most of the products you mentioned.
Alcohol, nicotine, gambling and junk food all have addictive elements. Fashion and weaponry are self-perpetuating entities. The essence is the same.

-Snip on decision making-
Your personality is the product of things you have nothing to do with. To quote Oscar Wilde,
People are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their actions a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
Nothing you have ever done is due solely to your own power, because you are identified by everything else around you. Rights and Authority simply don't come into it. To think otherwise is to delude yourself and deny the essence of your very existence.

Finally, your little culturally racist strike about China and Africa falls flat. I don't think that all those poor, ignorant black Africans and Chinamen need western whites to save them from the evil corporations who control their feeble minds through marketing.
... Allow me to draw a little analogy here.

During a Grand Prix, one of the officials drops a big barricade in the middle of the track. One of the mechanics tells him that he should take it away immediately before the cars crash into it, since it would be incredibly dangerous to the drivers and seems to have been put there for little more than the official's own twisted interests. The official then attacks the mechanic for his lack of faith that the drivers would be skilled enough to drive around it.

Isn't this nothing more than further indulgence of the official's own desire to gain livlihood at the expense of those on the track? Isn't this sheer irresponsibility on the part of the man who put the barrier there in the first place? Isn't the mechanic justified in his fear and anger?

Maybe it is arrogant of the mechanic to step out of line and directly order the immediate removal of the blockage. But the official sure isn't going to do anything about it, and somebody has to. Other mechanics may join in, and probably will, but that doesn't mean the first is exempt from acting on what he feels needs to be done.

here's a rant you can have...

the sadistic laws banning smoking at airports.

what IDIOT thinks its necessary to prevent smokers from grabbing a bit of nicotine between flights? all these laws are are a way of punishing smokers for making a choice that some people dont agree with.

smoking rooms should be mandated in every concourse of every airport in the united states as a means of preventing air rage. (not that it would prevent all air rage but smokers not being allowed to smoke does tend to make them extra grumpy)

Heh, I get grumpy, but I wouldn't go that far. Quoting one of my favorite books, American Gods, "Don't piss off those bitches at airports." Being nice to the people keeping the plane in the sky comes before my nic fits.

So I will enjoy my cancer and you enjoy your alzheimers and dementia and incontinence and hearing loss and broken hip and skin cancer all that other fun shit that comes with living too long. Anyone got a lighter?

You, sir, are a delight.

In other words - if kids had acess to beer from the age of 10 then they would not feel the need to abuse it at 21, they would have years of experience to help them, they would be able to drink in safe establishments rather than dark alleys, and they would learn responsible habits from their parents. Makes a heluvalot more sense than sheltering them until 21 then throwing them to the wolves.

Really? Because the scientific evidence says otherwise. Not only does raising the drinking age reduce drinking among minors, but research has shown that people who cannot obtain alcohol when they are young continue to drink less when they can drink legally than do those who had access at a younger age.

Raising the drinking age, meanwhile, also reduces lethal automobile accidents among minors.

For a representative study, see O'Malley, P.M., & Wagenaar, A.C. Effects of minimum drinking age laws on alcohol use, related behaviors and traffic crash involvement among American youth: 1976-1987. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 52(5):478-491, 1991.

Huh. Did I say that? I think not.

I believe I was presenting a cultural dichotomy with regard to automobile manufacture and use.

But hey, if you want to stretch that into some kind of alarmist consumer-negative posture, you go right ahead.


Sorry - I forgot to turn my sarcasm font on.

Thankee kindly, Boz. It's been awhile since I posted here so I thought I'd jsut start fresh.

Oh, and by the way, I though Jesus does resemble me, I am not him. I don't really go for all that soft socialism stuff. ;)


Gee - talk about being a bit self-serving. I think the CORRECT term would be 'I resemble Jesus'. heh. Aslo - I'm pretty sure Jesus was not a socialist or anything else. He stayed preudently clear of politics. Too bad most churches (or mosques) don't these days.

Read this (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13246.html).

# A higher MLDA results in fewer alcohol-related problems among youth, and the 21-year-old MLDA saves the lives of well over 1,000 youth each year (Jones et al, 1992; NHTSA, 1989). Conversely, when the MLDA is lowered, motor vehicle crashes and deaths among youth increase. At least 50 studies have evaluated this correlation (Wagenaar, 1993).

# A common argument among opponents of a higher MLDA is that because many minors still drink and purchase alcohol, the policy doesn't work. The evidence shows, however, that although many youth still consume alcohol, they drink less and experience fewer alcohol-related injuries and deaths (Wagenaar, 1993).

# Research shows that when the MLDA is 21, people under age 21 drink less overall and continue to do so through their early twenties (O'Malley & Wagenaar, 1991).

In nations with more liberal drinking ages your theory does not proove out.Really? Do you have research to back that up?

Regarding Europeans and alcohol use among youth, research confirms that Europeans have rates of alcohol-related diseases (such as cirrhosis of the liver) similar to or higher than those in the U.S. population (Single, 1984). However, drinking and driving among youth may not be as great a problem in Europe as in the U.S. Compared to their American counterparts, European youth must be older to obtain their drivers' licenses, are less likely to have a car, and are more inclined to use public transportation (Wagenaar, 1993).

Source already posted.

The answer is simple. Tabacco for many years kept facts as limited as possible.

Make tabacco pay for health costs.

That will motivate them to drop the filters really fast.....


Yeah - theat whole smoking is bad for you was a real shocker for me too the first time I heard it. :rolleyes:

MEanwhile - tObacco companies ARE supposedly paying for healthcare - among other things. Funny how the money disappears before it gets there. Once again we learn not to trust the government...

There are a few things that I want to address in this forum. First of all, as in Europe, there really isn't a drinking age because children grow up around alcohol and are taught how to consume it responsibly. Now I'm not saying that there aren't alcoholics in Europe (or other places without drinking ages) but what you have to realize is that there is a better chance of people being able to handle alcohol responsibly if alcohol isn't held over their heads all their life, like some proverbial carrot.

Again, I have to ask for evidence. All of the scientific studies I can find indicate that alcoholism is as high or higher in Europe than it is in the United States. So are cirrhosis and other alcohol-related ailments.

It's just not as much of a public issue because Europeans, and especially European youth, are more likely to take the bus home from the bar than to drive their car off the road.

Alcohol, nicotine, gambling and junk food all have addictive elements. Fashion and weaponry are self-perpetuating entities. The essence is the same.
Umm - bullshit. For the vast majority of people alcohol is not habit forming. Nor is gambling and junk food. Don't tell me you bought into some junk science brain-rot.


Your personality is the product of things you have nothing to do with. To quote Oscar Wilde,

Nothing you have ever done is due solely to your own power, because you are identified by everything else around you. Rights and Authority simply don't come into it. To think otherwise is to delude yourself and deny the essence of your very existence.

Again you are wrong. You have bought into the rantings of a poet. Let me post my own then;

"You are who you choose to be" -Ted Hughes.

Of course - if you prefer to stay within the realm of psycology, then you sshould consider the modern works of Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan. Most of Freud's and Pavlov's work has been proven far too simplistic.


... Allow me to draw a little analogy here.

During a Grand Prix, one of the officials drops a big barricade in the middle of the track. One of the mechanics tells him that he should take it away immediately before the cars crash into it, since it would be incredibly dangerous to the drivers and seems to have been put there for little more than the official's own twisted interests. The official then attacks the mechanic for his lack of faith that the drivers would be skilled enough to drive around it.

Isn't this nothing more than further indulgence of the official's own desire to gain livlihood at the expense of those on the track? Isn't this sheer irresponsibility on the part of the man who put the barrier there in the first place? Isn't the mechanic justified in his fear and anger?

Maybe it is arrogant of the mechanic to step out of line and directly order the immediate removal of the blockage. But the official sure isn't going to do anything about it, and somebody has to. Other mechanics may join in, and probably will, but that doesn't mean the first is exempt from acting on what he feels needs to be done.

Gawd what a fucking stupid analogy. No really. It is stupid. It has no relevance to the discussion whatsoever. Maybe from some bizarrely distorted myoptic view of the world it makes sense to you - but for everyone else it could only be described in a nice way as 'lame'.

Here - I can do one too; So this Canadian comes to a Subway store in Jersey and decides to put a beer in his sandwich. So the owner says 'Hey - I don't have a liquor license - you have to take that away". Then a cop shows up and drinks the beer. Should the Canadian have to pay for the sandwich?

Nothing you have ever done is due solely to your own power, because you are identified by everything else around you. Rights and Authority simply don't come into it. To think otherwise is to delude yourself and deny the essence of your very existence.

Now we're getting all philosophical up in here. While I'd agree that external sources help to shape who someone becomes, there's no way I'd agree that all people rely on the same external sources to make those decisions. Who someone is is a culmination of countless different stimuli, which ends up becoming something wholly individual. Unless you're one of those people without a personality.

That was a collective 'you' by the way, not specifically you.

... Allow me to draw a little analogy here.

During a Grand Prix, one of the officials drops a big barricade in the middle of the track. One of the mechanics tells him that he should take it away immediately before the cars crash into it, since it would be incredibly dangerous to the drivers and seems to have been put there for little more than the official's own twisted interests. The official then attacks the mechanic for his lack of faith that the drivers would be skilled enough to drive around it.

Isn't this nothing more than further indulgence of the official's own desire to gain livlihood at the expense of those on the track? Isn't this sheer irresponsibility on the part of the man who put the barrier there in the first place? Isn't the mechanic justified in his fear and anger?

Maybe it is arrogant of the mechanic to step out of line and directly order the immediate removal of the blockage. But the official sure isn't going to do anything about it, and somebody has to. Other mechanics may join in, and probably will, but that doesn't mean the first is exempt from acting on what he feels needs to be done.


Did that actually happen? Just a few less race car drivers to worry about. Maybe the resulting crash took out a few fans too. [/joke]

That's not really a good analogy. As I've stated earlier, one asshole smoker does not represent all smokers. It doesn't even represent the majority. Someone asks me not to smoke around them, I don't. If me and my friends go out to a non-smoking establishment, I don't smoke. If somebody doesn't like smoking and rides in my car, I don't smoke. If you were to come into my house for a couple shots and a Full House marathon (invitation open to anyone on this thread, by the way), I'd go outside to smoke.

So no, not everybody is affected by the presence of smokers, whereas everyone is affected by the barricade at the Gran Prix. Which, after a google search, I found out didn't happen, and am mildly disappointed. Does anyone watch car races for reasons other than crashes anyway? Ratings would skyrocket.

Really? Because the scientific evidence says otherwise. Not only does raising the drinking age reduce drinking among minors, but research has shown that people who cannot obtain alcohol when they are young continue to drink less when they can drink legally than do those who had access at a younger age.

Raising the drinking age, meanwhile, also reduces lethal automobile accidents among minors.

For a representative study, see O'Malley, P.M., & Wagenaar, A.C. Effects of minimum drinking age laws on alcohol use, related behaviors and traffic crash involvement among American youth: 1976-1987. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 52(5):478-491, 1991.

Sure.. and lowering the speed limit reduced traffic deaths... until they raised it again and trraffic deaths continued to decline. The trouble with this study is that it studies only reduced drinking ages - not eliminated ages. Reduced drinking ages only means that instead of a 21 year old binging you get an 18 year old binging. oooh - big improvement. Remove the drinking age completely and you get a much different result. Sadly - the US culture would take a while to adapt - but other places have been far more successful simply by treating people as people instead of perpetuating childhood past the age of TWENTY! On that line - just IMAGINE how many deaths would be prevented if we COMPLETELY BANNED ALL ALCOHOL SALES!!! W00T prohibition!

Forcing prohibition on an adult simply because they are only two decades old is stupid - even if it is 'for their own good' it is no less stupid than prohibition was. It is on the same linne as the mullahs in the middle east dictation moral law for citizens 'for their own good'...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11090214&postcount=43



There are a few things that I want to address in this forum. First of all, as in Europe, there really isn't a drinking age because children grow up around alcohol and are taught how to consume it responsibly. Now I'm not saying that there aren't alcoholics in Europe (or other places without drinking ages) but what you have to realize is that there is a better chance of people being able to handle alcohol responsibly if alcohol isn't held over their heads all their life, like some proverbial carrot.

It's not the soda or the tobacco that are the problem; it's the business tactics adopted by their creators. Home-made lemonade, for instance, is fine; it's a drink made with a little sugar so that people enjoy it when they drink it. If you deliberately include too much sugar to get people hooked, it becomes unethical. If you support this, then, with a huge advertising campaign designed to make other people want to try it, you're going well into the realms of extortionism.

Have you ever really been involved in marketing or consumer psychology? It is VERY difficult to convince a population to do anything new(just look at how many products fail yearly, the Segway scooter is a good example). Advertising isn't about inducing someone to do something, it is about convincing someone already doing something to come to you for it. Coke and Pepsi don't fight over new markets, they fight over cola drinkers. Beer companies don't advertise at sporting events hoping that a teetotaler will try a drink, they advertise to convince the guy drinking Miller to try Bud.

More to the point, I think that you are projecting alot of your values into the motives of companies. You seem to have this romanticised view of the good old days. Aside from the fact that we live longer, healtheir, more leisure-filled lives than our counterparts fifty years ago, your logic has a few flaws. Buisness is a conservative sport, and CEOs(especially ones running established companies) don't take risks. The formula of Coke doesn't get changed without dozens of rounds of market testing, trial releases, customer surveys, and CBAs. There isn't some evil man sitting in a boardroom trying to up the sugar content to get people addicted. If sugar content goes up it is because Coke has determined, after exhaustive study, that more people prefer a sweeter product. Remember, you are talking about companies for whom the status quo is earning enough money to make everyone in charge wealthy on a scale few can imagine for the rest of their lives. People who try to improve products that aren't broken don't last.

Sure.. and lowering the speed limit reduced traffic deaths... until they raised it again and trraffic deaths continued to decline. The trouble with this study is that it studies only reduced drinking ages - not eliminated ages. Reduced drinking ages only means that instead of a 21 year old binging you get an 18 year old binging. oooh - big improvement.Did you even read the study--or, for that matter, my summary of it?

Note that one of the key findings is that when you raise the drinking age people drink less once they become legal.

Let me spell it out for you. After prohibition, the drinking age was almost universally 21. In the early 70s, some states began to lower the drinking age to 18, 19, or 20... and guess what? Not only were 18-year-olds drinking more, but 21-year-olds were drinking more too!!! Okay, so the federal government pressured the states to switch back to 21... and guess what happened? Not only are 18-year-olds drinking less, but 21-year-olds are drinking less too!!

In other words, the scientific evidence shows that this "binge at 21" argument is largely a fantasy. Young people drink heavily because they are young... and when they do they create habits that continue into adulthood. If you can keep them from drinking until they are a bit older, have more responsibility, and the hormones have cooled a little... surprise surprise, they drink less.

Remove the drinking age completely and you get a much different result. Sadly - the US culture would take a while to adapt - but other places have been far more successful simply by treating people as people instead of perpetuating childhood past the age of TWENTY!

Clearly you didn't read my other post either. The "responsible European drinking culture" is also a myth. Their drinking is less of a problem (if it is) because they drive less, not because they drink less.

You need to start looking at the world as it is, with real empirical data, rather than making policy arguments based on your own fantasies.

Tobacco, alcoholic drinks, fashion, junk-food, gambling and (in my opinion) arms companies are these days all about making you think you have a need, as well as fulfilling that need and, in the worst cases, actually getting you addicted, that wouldn't actually exist were it not for their presence. The benevolent corporation is dead, as they say. That's essentially my beef. I can't possibly condone this sort of behaviour in a profession, which is why I dislike the sale of cigarettes. It's not the smokers, who are free to do what they like with what is available; it's the attitude ingrained within the manufacturers.

I'm sorry, but you need to aim your anger elsewhere. The perception of need doesn't come from the corporations, it comes from an increasingly wealthy base of consumers. Human beings want, it is in our nature. Many of us in the west have the resources to get what we want often, and as we do we look for new ways of amusing ourselves or streamlining our lives. Lets examine each of your examples.

-Fast food exists because people are willing to pay a premium for food that requires so little effort you don't have to get out of your car. I work in a buisness where I drive constantly, and without fast food I'd either be hungry alot or have to spend much more time preparing food at home. At the end of a 10 hour day I'd rather just pull up to a drive through than fire up the stove.

-Tobacco/Alcohol is something that goes back further than our modern culture. Man enjoys altering his perceptions, thats why every single society on earth learned how to ferment grain just as soon as they learned how to cultivate it.

-Fashion exists for the same reason any luxury good exists. Conspicuous consumption is a sign of a wealth populace. Haute coture simply gives rich fools something to throw their money away on. More to the point, fashion exists because self esteem is important in an individualistic society. Lots of choice means that someone can fine-tune their image, look a way they want to in order to identify with whatever tribe makes them feel best.

-Gambling is another thing very much like alcohol. It has existed for far longer than modern consumer society. In many ways, the proliferation of legal gambling has been a boon for gambling addicts. A legal, regulated industry can take your home and destroy your credit, but it can't break your legs.

-Firearms. What can I say here? The concept that firearms are not necessary, or that the companies somehow create the perception of need, is mindboggling. Aside from the fact that weapons are a necessary part of human society(we're predators and sometimes some of us do not conform to the rules of our society, that is when others need to defend themselves), when have you ever actually encountered a firearm ad? I shoot competitively, I find it relaxing, and I enjoy the craftsmanship of the machines themselves, and I've seen alot of gun ads. I read the trade magazines, I go to the specialty stores, I keep up on their websites, and I see ad after ad, but I have never seen a gun ad in anything that wasn't already a firearms-related medium. It isn't like you open up time magazine and see Taurus advertising their new titanium CCW models or anything. Saying that the gun industry tries to addict people is like saying that a graduate level english literature class tries to expose the masses to the wonders of William Blake.

But the need for entertainment is different than the specific need for one method of fulfilment of it, surely? After all, would you allow a film to air that hypnotised you into needing to continually come and visit it several times over?

Damn that Ozzy Osbourne and his subliminal messages! Sometimes I wonder how he makes any money at all, what with all his fans killing themselvess because of all the backmasking and hypersynch.

You must have read the late Peter MacWilliams book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society. You sound just as reasoned and well thought-out as he did. If you haven't read it, I implore you to do so. You won't be disappointed.

Great post.

I dunno, I've always kind of thought of political books as a secondary source. Why would I read a book about consensual crimes when I could read Nozick and Locke to get a better understanding of why liberty is important?

Did you even read the study--or, for that matter, my summary of it?

Note that one of the key findings is that when you raise the drinking age people drink less once they become legal.


funny how an agency almost always always concludes something friendly to their premise or the premise of their funder...

Let me spell it out for you. After prohibition, the drinking age was almost universally 21. In the early 70s, some states began to lower the drinking age to 18, 19, or 20... and guess what? Not only were 18-year-olds drinking more, but 21-year-olds were drinking more too!!! Okay, so the federal government pressured the states to switch back to 21... and guess what happened? Not only are 18-year-olds drinking less, but 21-year-olds are drinking less too!!
Oh noooo! 21 year olds were drinking more!! What HORRIBLE news for the prohibitionists! Good thing we nipped THAT in the bud.

Even more weird - when pepole could buy sopmething legally they consumed more of it? How weird is that!


In other words, the scientific evidence shows that this "binge at 21" argument is largely a fantasy. Young people drink heavily because they are young... and when they do they create habits that continue into adulthood. If you can keep them from drinking until they are a bit older, have more responsibility, and the hormones have cooled a little... surprise surprise, they drink less.
So? What's so bad about drinking?


Clearly you didn't read my other post either. The "responsible European drinking culture" is also a myth. Their drinking is less of a problem (if it is) because they drive less, not because they drink less.

Umm, so are you saying they are more iresponsible because they have a lower drinking age - or just as responsible in spite of it?


You need to start looking at the world as it is, with real empirical data, rather than making policy arguments based on your own fantasies.

If I were arguing my own fantasies then I'd be arguing that college co-eds should all have to serve as sex-interns for middle-aged intenet junkies for at least one semester.

But no - I'm just arguing that 21 is far too late of an age to prolong childhood to. Even 18 is questionable.

... Allow me to draw a little analogy here.

During a Grand Prix, one of the officials drops a big barricade in the middle of the track. One of the mechanics tells him that he should take it away immediately before the cars crash into it, since it would be incredibly dangerous to the drivers and seems to have been put there for little more than the official's own twisted interests. The official then attacks the mechanic for his lack of faith that the drivers would be skilled enough to drive around it.

Isn't this nothing more than further indulgence of the official's own desire to gain livlihood at the expense of those on the track? Isn't this sheer irresponsibility on the part of the man who put the barrier there in the first place? Isn't the mechanic justified in his fear and anger?

Maybe it is arrogant of the mechanic to step out of line and directly order the immediate removal of the blockage. But the official sure isn't going to do anything about it, and somebody has to. Other mechanics may join in, and probably will, but that doesn't mean the first is exempt from acting on what he feels needs to be done.

...No

I'm sorry, but no. Your comment regarding Africa and China revealed a deep negative implicit attitude and I will not allow you to dance out of it. It is all to common for progressive to treat individuals in underdeveloped nations as children who need to be protected, as inferior minds that cannot be trusted to make their own choices. I refuse to stand by and not point out the inherant subtle racism which is the foundation of your argument.

If you want to live in a world of equals you need to begin treating others as rational human beings who are free to make their own discision, even if you disagree. To do otherwise would be to draw a bold line between two catagories of people: the masters who know better and the slaves who are chained for their own good. A clockwork orange only ends up destroying everything that surrounds it.

I dunno, I've always kind of thought of political books as a secondary source. Why would I read a book about consensual crimes when I could read Nozick and Locke to get a better understanding of why liberty is important?


I read 'Monster Island' with my 4 yr old last night.

I'm sorry, but you (snip) Blake.

THis all sounds familiar. What is your 'Formerly know as' name?

im in favor of keeping vice away from children but the laws about it do bug me. i remember buying a case of beer at a store and being told my 16 year old son couldnt carry it out of the store for me.

it is so stupid when the 17 year old store clerk (or does she have to be 21? i dont remember) cant push the bottle of wine across the scanner because she is too young.

i dont like smoking but i hate this forcing people to quit thing. its not the governments business to regulate our lives. get enough lawyers involved and it WILL be a slippery slope down to closing fast food joints, regulating the sales of candy, banning automobiles (think of the children killed each year by running into the street) and a total ban on sharp sticks!
actually I agree with almost all of those bannings except shap sticks and candy

Here - I can do one too; So this Canadian comes to a Subway store in Jersey and decides to put a beer in his sandwich. So the owner says 'Hey - I don't have a liquor license - you have to take that away". Then a cop shows up and drinks the beer. Should the Canadian have to pay for the sandwich?

Yeah but what about the snake in the cooler? See? It blows your whole analogy....

People who try to improve products that aren't broken don't last.

I think it reads better like this;

People who try to improve products that aren't broken don't last. (http://www.buildingbrands.com/didyouknow/08_new_coke.shtml)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060603/hl_hsn/lawsbanningtobaccosalestominorsdontwork
It pisses me off that people in this country - supposedly the 'leader of the free world' - restrict the rights of their own citizens - regardless of their age. If I want to send my fifteen year old down to the liquor store to buy me a six pack, some smokes and a Hustler that's between me, the liquor store and my child. The government has no fucking business there. They are not only wasting tremendous resources being the 'morality police' (what next - burkas?) but they are deferring life experience and making the abuse of these a post-adult right of passage rather than the continuation of experiences learned under the watchful eye of family and friends. In other words - if kids had acess to beer from the age of 10 then they would not feel the need to abuse it at 21, they would have years of experience to help them, they would be able to drink in safe establishments rather than dark alleys, and they would learn responsible habits from their parents. Makes a heluvalot more sense than sheltering them until 21 then throwing them to the wolves.

**rant over**

Hey genius.
Explain where in the fucking constitution you see the word tobacco.

http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html

Oh wait.
You don't?
That's because tobacco isn't fucking sanctioned or secured by your 'rights'.
You have no idea what the word freedom means, you think it actually means you are allowed to do anything?
You have alot to learn my boy.

Aww- you shouldn't have deleted that post. I was just responding. I do hope you caught my tongue- in - cheek yness iun the first part of my post you quoted.

I still disagree that religion and socialism are so well suited. maybe another thread?

Hey genius.
Explain where in the fucking constitution you see the word tobacco.

http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html

Oh wait.
You don't?
That's because tobacco isn't fucking sanctioned or secured by your 'rights'.
You have no idea what the word freedom means, you think it actually means you are allowed to do anything?
You have alot to learn my boy.


Gee - nor does it say anything about tennis shoes. Damn! (removes Nikes)

But no - I'm just arguing that 21 is far too late of an age to prolong childhood to. Even 18 is questionable.

The real age of onset of social maturity rises with the standard of living. Spoiled kids mature later. A recent study indicates that this age in the United States is closer to 25 than 18. We have certainly screwed up by giving our kids such a cushy life. In view of that fact, I would like to see the Legal Drinking Age raised to 25. I know its harsh. But I think until you can be completely self-sufficient you have no business getting hammered and annoying all us older drunks with your puking and fighting.

Gee - nor does it say anything about tennis shoes. Damn! (removes Nikes)

Aren't you a witty one.
Learn to read my boy, learn to read.
If the government wants to ban the sale of all tennis shoes, they can.
If the government wants to ban the sale of all tobacco products, they can.
Unless it is protected by the constitution - such as firearms - the government can intervene.

Hey genius.
Explain where in the fucking constitution you see the word tobacco.

http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html

Oh wait.
You don't?
That's because tobacco isn't fucking sanctioned or secured by your 'rights'.
You have no idea what the word freedom means, you think it actually means you are allowed to do anything?
You have alot to learn my boy.

Nice flame. I'd like to direct you first to the 9th amendment. Next I'd like to direct you to article 1, section 8 and ask where exactly you see the authority to determine what Americans can and cannot ingest. Taken together, I would say that while tobacco use is not a right, congress does not have authority to legislate it except as a matter of interstate commerce.

caveat: I know, Raich v. Gonzalez says that congress does have the authority. The supreme court bent over backwards to give the government the power to bend you over forwards. It was a close case, and I doubt that it would be considered a matter of settled law.

Aww- you shouldn't have deleted that post. I was just responding. I do hope you caught my tongue- in - cheek yness iun the first part of my post you quoted.

I still disagree that religion and socialism are so well suited. maybe another thread?

I caught the tounge-in-cheek, but tobacco policy and the interplay between christianity and socialism are rather different topics. Another thread could work.

...No

I'm sorry, but no. Your comment regarding Africa and China revealed a deep negative implicit attitude and I will not allow you to dance out of it. It is all to common for progressive to treat individuals in underdeveloped nations as children who need to be protected, as inferior minds that cannot be trusted to make their own choices. I refuse to stand by and not point out the inherant subtle racism which is the foundation of your argument.

If you want to live in a world of equals you need to begin treating others as rational human beings who are free to make their own discision, even if you disagree. To do otherwise would be to draw a bold line between two catagories of people: the masters who know better and the slaves who are chained for their own good. A clockwork orange only ends up destroying everything that surrounds it.

Man, you are good. Really good.

Nice flame. I'd like to direct you first to the 9th amendment. Next I'd like to direct you to article 1, section 8 and ask where exactly you see the authority to determine what Americans can and cannot ingest. Taken together, I would say that while tobacco use is not a right, congress does not have authority to legislate it except as a matter of interstate commerce.

caveat: I know, Raich v. Gonzalez says that congress does have the authority. The supreme court bent over backwards to give the government the power to bend you over forwards. It was a close case, and I doubt that it would be considered a matter of settled law.

Yes I forgot, the government can't take things off the market!
I mean, it's not like they annually ban pesticides because of hazardous reasons.
If the government deams smoking hazardous to the general public they do have the right to take it off the shelf.

No, you don't live in an anarchist society, too bad for you.

actually I agree with almost all of those bannings except shap sticks and candy
sharp sticks dont poke your eye out, YOU poke your eye out?

Yes I forgot, the government can't take things off the market!
I mean, it's not like they annually ban pesticides because of hazardous reasons.
If the government deams smoking hazardous to the general public they do have the right to take it off the shelf.

No, you don't live in an anarchist society, too bad for you.

I'm a bit puzzled at why you're so firey. I was simply pointing out that the constitution(which you brought up) is actually silent on the subject of tobacco. It neither grants congress the specific power to legislate in the area of consumption nor supports the right of consumption. It isn't an easy issue, it is one which has been argued for the entire life of our contry. The same court often times comes up with different answers for different situations depending on whose rights conflict with another's. The fundamental difference between banning tobacco and banning abortion or sodomy is fairly small.

Aren't you a witty one.
Learn to read my boy, learn to read.
If the government wants to ban the sale of all tennis shoes, they can.
If the government wants to ban the sale of all tobacco products, they can.
Unless it is protected by the constitution - such as firearms - the government can intervene.
no

just no

we are not at "the governments" mercy when it comes to anything not mentioned in the constitution. it still has to pass constitutional muster. some pencil pushing bureaucrat cant suddenly decide that koolaid is wrong and ban it.

and since there are 30 tobacco producing states in the united states i would suggest that your wetdream of banning it is impossible.

no

just no

we are not at "the governments" mercy when it comes to anything not mentioned in the constitution. it still has to pass constitutional muster. some pencil pushing bureaucrat cant suddenly decide that koolaid is wrong and ban it.

and since there are 30 tobacco producing states in the united states i would suggest that your wetdream of banning it is impossible.

Well obviously.
Democracy is the slowest form of bill-passing government.
Here in Canada it takes months, years to get it through HoC then it is shipped over to Senate so they can pencil-fuck the bill to death and then they pass it after a long period of time.
And if a new PM is elected during that course, the whole bill is scrapped.

The point is, democracy is slow.
I'm not saying you live in a dicatorship, I'm saying that unless Camel gets a place within your government, the government doesn't have to listen to dick shit of what the companies in capitalism want.

And the argument about commerce is good I suppose.
However, the government still has the final say, not businesses.
If I made donuts, instant hit, international but then years later it was discovered they contain cancer-causing agents, the government will destroy me.

Aren't you a witty one.
Learn to read my boy, learn to read.
If the government wants to ban the sale of all tennis shoes, they can.
If the government wants to ban the sale of all tobacco products, they can.
Unless it is protected by the constitution - such as firearms - the government can intervene.


Aren't you the ready one - learn to use your wits child, learn to use your wits.

The government only has the power the people surrender to it.

The government only has the power the people surrender to it.

I have no idea what you just said.
Grammar errors?
Elsewise you are calling America a dictatorship.

Regarding the point of giving alcohol to children:
It is legal for the parents/legal guardians to allow their children alcohol in the privacy of their own homes. I grew up in an Italian-heritage family and my brothers, cousins and I were allowed to have a glass of wine or a beer whenever we asked. No, we didn't grow up to be alkies, in fact the opposite is true (even though my biological profile has alcoholism on both sides).

That having been said...

I'm a cancer survivor. I fight against cancer every day and never lit up a cig in my life. And I'm against prohibition of tobacco. It's an endemic part of Native American culture and God knows we've chopped up enough of that as it is. The other thing is, and we're STILL learning this lesson...PROHIBITION! DOESN'T!! WORK!!! It opens up a black market and then the shit really hits the fan because black markets have precisely ZERO checks and balances, ethics, oversight and safety precautions. Ban cigarettes and it'll make it worse.

I agree that if people want to smoke, they should grow their own. The tobacco companies load up cigarettes with formaldehyde to preserve them while in transit and in distribution, add arsenic to keep them lit, and the way they're processed (slow cure drying) brings up the cyanide already endemic in the plant material. Home-grown, home-dried (it only takes an old clothes dryer) tobacco doesn't have any of these additives and the cyanide content is a fraction of slow-cure. And since most people don't have a lot of room to grow stuff, that's another natural limitation on how many cigs you can smoke.

I'm for shutting down the big cigarette companies and decentralizing the industry. Let smokers grow their own tobacco.

Everyone's an addict to something. Just because you can politely not smoke for a few minutes doesn't mean you're not an addict. The fact that you need the cigarette and that the need for it alters your behavior, that's what makes you an addict.

If everyone's an addict, may as well throw out the word - it's now meaningless.

Just because I smoke a cigarette doesn't mean I "need" it.

funny how an agency almost always always concludes something friendly to their premise or the premise of their funder...What "agency"? I refered to a scientific, peer-reviewed study. What do you have?

Oh noooo! 21 year olds were drinking more!! What HORRIBLE news for the prohibitionists! Good thing we nipped THAT in the bud.Whether it's good or bad, the point is that your "kids binge when they hit the drinking age" myth doesn't hold up against the empirical evidence. So if you want to oppose drinking ages (for whatever reason), you'll have to come up with something else.

Even more weird - when pepole could buy sopmething legally they consumed more of it? How weird is that!Still not reading, are we? Yes, 18-year-olds drink less when they can do so legally--it would be quite a surprise if they didn't! But the critical evidence that you continue to ignore is that 21-year-olds drink less when the drinking age is 21!!!

What's so bad about drinking?There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Did I say there is? I love alcohol.

Umm, so are you saying they are more iresponsible because they have a lower drinking age - or just as responsible in spite of it?I'm saying that the data indicates that they are just as irresponsible or worse when it comes to drinking in excess... but that they are more responsible when it comes to driving.

In other words, if you want to convince me that the United States should lower or eliminate the drinking age, you might start by arguing that we should improve public transportation or alter our society's obsession with cars.

But no - I'm just arguing that 21 is far too late of an age to prolong childhood to.Why? Most people still behave like children at that age, so why not treat them like children? When 21-year-olds start acting like adults, maybe I'll be convinced. In the meantime, if I had my way (which isn't likely) the drinking age would be 22 or higher. At 21, far too many legal drinkers are still in college, vastly improving access for children as young as seventeen or eighteen who start college and get to know them. Raise it a year or two, and the great majority of legal drinkers will be out of college with job and/or family responsibilities that make them much less likely to risk an embarassing and costly arrest for supplying to minors.

And before you start that hackneyed "our boys can fight, but they can't drink" line, I think the age for enlistment should be raised, too.

Even 18 is questionable.Why? Seriously, give me a good reason to believe that childhood ends at 18 or before.

I teach at a university, and I see these kids every day. The great majority of them only just begin to grow up around twenty or twenty-one.

The real age of onset of social maturity rises with the standard of living. Spoiled kids mature later. A recent study indicates that this age in the United States is closer to 25 than 18. We have certainly screwed up by giving our kids such a cushy life. In view of that fact, I would like to see the Legal Drinking Age raised to 25. I know its harsh. But I think until you can be completely self-sufficient you have no business getting hammered and annoying all us older drunks with your puking and fighting.

Agreed!! Absolutely every word of it. Plus, raising the drinking age even a few years would make it much harder for college students to get it. As it is, it is all too easy to get 21-year-old seniors to buy for freshman... but by 22, most of them have graduated. The kids would have to try getting it from non-traditional students--who have usually grown up a bit and/or have responsibilities that increase the risks of breaking the law--or at best (for them) they can try grad students... but there is a much more significant social divide between a grad student and a freshman than between a college senior and a freshman.

For the same reason, smoking ages should be raised to at least 19. While the study mentioned by the OP finds that smoking ages have little effect, this is probably because most states allow kids to buy at 18... and plenty of 18 year-olds are still in high school, hanging out with younger friends on a regular basis. Raise it to 19 (as New Jersey just did), and you minimize this effect. (Yes, some kids will always be able to get older friends or relatives to buy... but that one year would make it much, much harder.)

Nice flame. I'd like to direct you first to the 9th amendment. Next I'd like to direct you to article 1, section 8 and ask where exactly you see the authority to determine what Americans can and cannot ingest. Taken together, I would say that while tobacco use is not a right, congress does not have authority to legislate it except as a matter of interstate commerce.Congress may not, but the states certainly do. Just like many of them ban or heavily regulate gambling. It's part of their broad police powers.

caveat: I know, Raich v. Gonzalez says that congress does have the authority. The supreme court bent over backwards to give the government the power to bend you over forwards. It was a close case, and I doubt that it would be considered a matter of settled law.

You are right to question the long-term impact of Raich, especially given that the legacy of the Rehnquist Court and the likely course of the current Court seems to be in the direction of a more strictly limited commerce clause--a development that I happen to welcome. Raich was an uncharacteristically federal-leaning decision, and I certainly would not expect it to hold with respect to less controversial drugs, such as alcohol or tobacco. The "compelling" nature of the (supposed) harm caused by marijuana played a large role in the decision.

no

just no

we are not at "the governments" mercy when it comes to anything not mentioned in the constitution. it still has to pass constitutional muster. some pencil pushing bureaucrat cant suddenly decide that koolaid is wrong and ban it.

Not a federal bureaucrat, no. But a state bureaucrat... probably.

Assuming the state constitution had no protective clause, the only "constitutional muster" such a law would have to pass is the 14th Amendment's substantive due process protections. Since drinking Kool-Aid does not implicate a "fundamental" right in the meaning of due process doctrine, the state would only have to show that the ban bears a rational relationship to a "legitimate" government interest--such as, for instance, protecting children from tempting tooth-rotting sweets.

Of course, it might fail if it really just singles out Kool-Aid... but if, instead, the ban were on products that contain more than a certain amount of sugar, then I don't see why it wouldn't work.

and since there are 30 tobacco producing states in the united states i would suggest that your wetdream of banning it is impossible.Actually, of late the tobacco producing states have been remarkably ambivalent toward tobacco. While the companies are obviously large employers, these states also face the highest smoking rates... and they are, by and large, among the least wealthy states in the country. Thus, tobacco-producing states were among the first to attempt lawsuits alleging that the companies should pay health-care costs of aging smokers. Also, the lost tobacco fields might be quickly replaced with alternative agricultural employers. Indeed, given recent studies indicating that marijuana does NOT (rather surprisingly) increase one's chance of getting cancer, it seems reasonable that in the not-too-distant future tobacco states might lobby to ban tobacco while legalizing weed.

Now THAT is my wet dream. ;)

Regarding the point of giving alcohol to children:
It is legal for the parents/legal guardians to allow their children alcohol in the privacy of their own homes. I grew up in an Italian-heritage family and my brothers, cousins and I were allowed to have a glass of wine or a beer whenever we asked.Well, depends on the state.

No, we didn't grow up to be alkies, in fact the opposite is true (even though my biological profile has alcoholism on both sides).Anecdotal evidence. I'm sure there are plenty of children who start drinking early but do not become alcoholics. That does not change the fact that, statistically, they are more likely to.

I agree that if people want to smoke, they should grow their own.I'll agree to that. It should just be illegal to grow in greater quantities than would be reasonable for personal use... and that's a regulation that should be relatively easy to enforce.

Congress may not, but the states certainly do. Just like many of them ban or heavily regulate gambling. It's part of their broad police powers.

Well, that depends heavily on state constitutions. My problem sits mainly with small local governments that are not beholden to either the voters or logic in any meaningful way. The smoking ban where I live(Chicago) is a good example of a place where smoking in bars was banned largely because activists managed to complain more loudly than restaurateurs while the general populace was completely apathetic. I find it disturbing that small groups of vocal issue advocates can so broadly affect policy changes and legislation that has an impact on so many people and such a negative impact on buisness, even though most people can't be bothered to care.

My problem sits mainly with small local governments that are not beholden to either the voters or logic in any meaningful way.I think you're going to have to explain what you mean by that, since it is anything but obvious. The smoking ban where I live(Chicago) is a good example of a place where smoking in bars was banned largely because activists managed to complain more loudly than restaurateurs while the general populace was completely apathetic.Sounds like most democratic politics, local or otherwise. I find it disturbing that small groups of vocal issue advocates can so broadly affect policy changes and legislation that has an impact on so many peopleWhy? If most people don't care one way or the other, it makes perfect sense that the group that combines numbers and voice in the most effective way should get what they want. If not them, then who? and such a negative impact on buisness
You're going to have to document that. When New York passed a smoking ban, restauranteurs grumbled before it went into effect... but ultimately found that it did not hurt business. Indeed, there is some evidence that restaurants have seen marginal increases in profit, since nicotine suppresses appetites. Non-smokers, meanwhile, spend more time--and more money--drinking in previously smoke-filled bars and restaurants.

For this reason, when New Jersey (where I live) proposed a similar ban, restaurant owners were largely positive, arguing that based on New York's experience the ban would not negatively affect their business. The ban went into effect over a month ago, and so far there have been few complaints--and those from smokers more often than restauranteurs.

It is possible that in the case of a city-wide rather than statewide ban, some businesses face marginal losses as smokers choose to drive out of town to eat... but again, I would like to see evidence supporting this claim.

Smoking ban: effects on New York City businesses (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=special_coverage&id=3573803):

Dan Meyer owns several Manhattan restaurants and says business has never been better.

"Every single fear that was injected into this argument in New York has not only not come to pass, but it's been quite the opposite. Restaurants are busier than ever. Bars are busier than ever," said Meyer, Union Square Hospitality Group president.

"I think we were a little slower than usual for about two days, and then after that, we've seen really no negative results from the ban whatsoever," said Michael Steele, Markt Restaurant Association GM.

And a public health study indicates those who work in New York restaurants are healthier now. Employees have fewer chronic sore throats, runny noses, and red eyes, all things that can be caused by secondhand smoke.

"Over the summer, new information came out that actually showed that by reducing exposure to secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars, the saliva of those workers showed a 78 percent reduction in cotinine, which is a key chemical that tracks exposure to tobacco smoke," said Louise Vetter, New York American LUNG Association CEO.

Smoking ban: Effects on Boston Businesses (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/04/04/restaurants_bars_gain_business_under_smoke_ban/):

'Now, we can tell other states considering this kind of law: 'If you implement this law, you're not only going to have a better work environment -- you don't have to affect the economics of your hospitality industry,' " said Gregory Connolly, an author of the Harvard study and former chief of the tobacco control program at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, where he was an ardent champion of initiatives to stop smoking.

The Harvard researchers reviewed state tax records for all restaurants, bars, and nightclubs from July through December of last year -- the first six months of the statewide ban -- and compared them with receipts for the comparable period in previous years.

To make an apples-to-apples comparison, the researchers took into account inflation. Even after doing that, they found that tax collections on meals rose about 9 percent after the ban went into effect compared with the July through December average for 1999 through 2003. The researchers also found that alcoholic beverage excise tax collections remained essentially steady.

Here is the Harvard study (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/php/pri/tcrtp/Smoke-free_Workplace.pdf) to which the article refers.

Sorry, but I'm all about the empirical data. The science is in: smoke bans benefit both public health and economic health.

I think you're going to have to explain what you mean by that, since it is anything but obvious. Sounds like most democratic politics, local or otherwise. Why? If most people don't care one way or the other, it makes perfect sense that the group that combines numbers and voice in the most effective way should get what they want. If not them, then who?

Maybe it is a Chicago thing, though I doubt it. The Chicago city council isn't really much of a democratic body. Somewhere around a third of all the sitting aldermen were appointed by the Mayor. Even in cases when individuals were voted into office, vote-fraud is widespread and oftentimes there only one candidate was on the ballot. Because of the way the Chicago Machine works, politicians who refuse to be a rubber stamp for the Mayor not only lose their jobs(you cannot win a local office without the approval of the Democratic party, and you can't have that unless you always vote the way you're told). I am uncomfortable with any political process that is essentially dictated by executive fiat.

I am more broadly disturbed by the fact that many laws are passed not because of any public support but because a small group of busy bodies happens to have friends in the right places. We are talking about a law which, while not necessarily violating any rights, definately curtails the liberty of many individuals and reduces the amount of choice in the marketplace. I feel that passing laws to restrict conesentual behavior in order to satisfy a small group of busybodies runs counter to the fundamental concepts of our society. I am against tobacco bans for the same reason I am against bans on sodomy or handguns.

You're going to have to document that. When New York passed a smoking ban, restauranteurs grumbled before it went into effect... but ultimately found that it did not hurt business. Indeed, there is some evidence that restaurants have seen marginal increases in profit, since nicotine suppresses appetites. Non-smokers, meanwhile, spend more time--and more money--drinking in previously smoke-filled bars and restaurants.

New York and Chicago are not even similar when considering the impact of a smoking ban. New York has fewer(and further) major metropolitan areas outside of it's city limits. More importantlyl, it is a much more densely populated area with a superior public transportation network. In New York, you don't really have to own a car. The same is not true of Chicago. Everyone drives, and for bars and restaurants that are just a few miles from the city limits, it isn't difficult to drive that extra few minutes so you can have a cigarette. More importantly, Chicago already had a significant number of non-smoking establishments(at the time of the smoking ban nearly every restaurant that wasn't a greasy spoon style diner was completely non smoking and everywhere had to have at least a 50% non-smoking section). The result was that some buisnesses were frequented by smokers, some by non-smokers. Further, the way the law was written, cigar bars were basically outlawed because a buisness could only qualify if it earned more than 50% of it's revenue from tobacco. Now the city is trying to "close that loophole" because some tobacco shops have begun to serve food in an attempt to attract more customers.

I think that last litle example shows that tobacco laws aren't about puiblic health(if you work in a cigar shop you have no expectation of not having to be exposed to smoke), but about forcing people to make the choices you feel they should have made. When the government plays mommy to the whole wide world then matricide starts to seem like a pretty good idea.

Sorry, but I'm all about the empirical data. The science is in: smoke bans benefit both public health and economic health.

Then you should recognize that data from a city like New York and data from a city like Chicago are not necessarily going to apply to one another. There are so many variables that external validity of any study done in one city is going to be very low. Still, lets take a look at your data, shall we?

In the piece about New York buisnesses there is no real empirical data supporting the idea that buisness has either increased or decreased, there is only apocryphal evidence. The assertion of a buisnessman who supported the ban is not empirical evidence. Further, the article you sited admitted that some buisnessed did go out of buisness as a result of the ban.

Lets move on to the public health assertions made in the first article and cited as empirical evidence. The first claim, that "[e]mployees have fewer chronic sore throats, runny noses, and red eyes" is left completely uncited, a big no-no when talking about science. More importantly it appears to have been a survey-style study investigating the instance of subjective symptoms that are not solely caused by tobacco exposure. "[C]hronic sore throats, runny noses, and red eyes" are something quite a few people suffer from during allergy and cold seasons. An uncited study asking people about a subjective experiance of symptoms that are not unique to the subject of your findings is not empirical data. Then there is the American Lung Association's findings. In a nutshell, after the ban there was a decrease in the levels of a chemical that tracks tobacco smoke exposure. Thats about as devastating as finding that being caught in the rain makes you wet. More to the point, any finding from the American Lung Association would be every bit as suspect as findings from Phillip Morris.

Now, onto the Harvard study. I immediately noticed a red-flag in the air-quality methodology: the list of locations to be studied was complied by local tobacco control groups, not by objective third parties. Next we see that two establishments shut down during the period of study. During the data collection phase of the air-quality test measurements were taken on different days at different times, but only one sample was taken from each location. Economic impact was measured by a comparison of reported revenues and taxes paid, adjusted only for inflation. This is a bad idea when talking about a cash buisness where underreporting and skimming are industry standard. If you've ever worked a job where you were paid in tips, you'll know exactly what I mean. When speaking about economic effects, the measured "increase" in revenue was not found to be statistically significant(p=0.609 and 0.278 for patronage and meal tax collection, respectively). The study itself notes that it was too small and limited in scope. Further, the specific establishments chosen for study limited validity: a tredny nightclub or five star restaurant is less likely to feel the effects of a smoking ban than the local dive bar.

I'm all for empirical data, just make sure its, well, you know...empirical.

I dont smoke cigarettes.

The only ban on tobacco I believe there should be is a ban on adding any chemicals/substances to the tobacco itself.

Maybe smoking would be less harmful and easier to quit when people want to.

Originally posted by Unrestrained Merrymaki
So I presumed, from your behavior that you were immature. Not sure my base assumption was too far off the mark. You are certainly an unreasonable, angry, controlling personality. Not sure what your excuse is for that...
What behaviour? Because I stuck to my guns and wouldn't cave to the increasingly abusive posts being sent my way? Because I remained polite and didn't stoop to the level of those who were using the abusive language?

Originally Posted by B0zzy
Umm? What the fuck are you talking about. Do you have smokers coming into your home? Into your business? Your grocery store? Hosiptal? Then where the fuck are you having to go commando?
Originally Posted by B0zzy
Bullshit. I don't even smoke and I say FUCK YOU to these fuckers who want to ban tobacco sales.
Originally Posted by Unrestrained Meryymaki
Same way smokers have to plan their lives around whiners....
Originally Posted by Unrestrained Merrymaki
Your kind of a whiney ass yourself...
Originally Posted by B0zzy
Gee - what a great pal you are. Rather than ask your pal not to smoke (or find mates who don't) you just PASS A FUCKING LAW AGAINST ALLOWING THEM TO SMOKE! With friends like you who needs enemas?
Originally Posted by B0zzy
You've now removed all choice for your friend and inflicted your own intolerance. Where I come from we call people like that 'assholes'.
Originally Posted by Unrestrained Merrymaki
You are exposing yourself as a "know-it-all", typical of the teenage years. If only it were charming. But its not.
Now, where I come from, we call adults who use the kind of tone used in the quotes above immature, unreasonable and angry. In the face of this I remained calm and polite. I believe I showed considerably more maturity than either of you.

Originally Posted by B0zzy
WEll wait now. You said that as addicts they would smoke all the time and everywhere without any control. Now you are saying they can actually make it through a work shift and smoke only in designated areas. Which is it?
If you took your uber-libertarian blinkers off, put your brain in gear and took the time to think about what happens in the real world, you'd realise what a dumb question that was. But then you appear not to care about whether your arguments follow reason or even themselves ...
Originally Posted by B0zzy
Reduced drinking ages only means that instead of a 21 year old binging you get an 18 year old binging. oooh - big improvement. Remove the drinking age completely and you get a much different result. Sadly - the US culture would take a while to adapt - but other places have been far more successful simply by treating people as people instead of perpetuating childhood past the age of TWENTY!

Followed by ...
Originally Posted by B0zzy
Oh noooo! 21 year olds were drinking more!! What HORRIBLE news for the prohibitionists! Good thing we nipped THAT in the bud.
So are you arguing for or against more responsible drinking. You flip flop like a landed fish in your posts. Anyone with even a modicum of sense could look at my posts and see a cogent argument. They might not agree with it (which is fine) but they could at least see it. Your whole game plan in your posts is to be as contraversial and as abusive as possible while having no cogent argument and hope nobody notices.

Now, since it has been several posts since my last, here is my stance for any who are interested:

1. I am in favour of restricting where people can smoke in order to protect the rights (freedom) of non-smokers to be non-smokers.
2. I am not in favour of banning the sale or use of tobacco.
3. People should be allowed to smoke in their own homes and the open air.
4. If smokers are so addicted that a small restriction on their ability to smoke is seriously affecting their abilty to function .... they should seek help.

I do not see any contradiction in that stance. People can disagree with it but their is nothing inherently wrong with the logic.

Glad I got that off my chest. I realise the irony of being a slightly abusive to decry people for being abusive, but I think the situation deserved it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS Originally Posted by B0zzy
Jokes on you - I'm not a smoker!
I knew you were a non-smoker. It was in your OP. Unlike you, it would seem, I actually read the posts rather than just scanning them and going into rant mode :) .

Now, where I come from, we call adults who use the kind of tone used in the quotes above immature, unreasonable and angry. In the face of this I remained calm and polite. I believe I showed considerably more maturity than either of you.

Where I come from we don't equate condescending with polite. You were condescending in order to obtain a reaction. You got it. Then you used the reaction to be further condescending. You really are a treat.

Not to inject reason in what really could be an interesting flame war(one has to happen somewhere eventually, I would suppose) but perhaps if someone dislikes another's tone they should either ignore the tone or ignore the poster rather than whippin' em' out and seeing who has the bigger penis.


And by "penis", I mean "whine". And by "bigger" I mean "more incessant."

Did you know 21 year olds who drink sometimes talk to ther penis?

I say we ban penises.... or would it be peni?

Agreed!! Absolutely every word of it. Plus, raising the drinking age even a few years would make it much harder for college students to get it. As it is, it is all too easy to get 21-year-old seniors to buy for freshman... but by 22, most of them have graduated. The kids would have to try getting it from non-traditional students--who have usually grown up a bit and/or have responsibilities that increase the risks of breaking the law--or at best (for them) they can try grad students... but there is a much more significant social divide between a grad student and a freshman than between a college senior and a freshman.


ROFLMAO!!!

Why not just ban it altogether? Imagine how many lives would be saved! Forget about stretching childhood through grad-school - lets just treat EVERYONE like children! You are a certifiable GENIUS!

Where I come from we don't equate condescending with polite. You were condescending in order to obtain a reaction. You got it. Then you used the reaction to be further condescending. You really are a treat.


Nah - I'm not afraid to use words like 'fucking' and 'bullshit' when they are the most accurate description. It does not surprize me at all that a person who thinks 20 year olds are not mature enough to handle liquor is himself not mature enough to cope with a few grown-up words.

Not to inject reason in what really could be an interesting flame war(one has to happen somewhere eventually, I would suppose) but perhaps if someone dislikes another's tone they should either ignore the tone or ignore the poster rather than whippin' em' out and seeing who has the bigger penis.


And by "penis", I mean "whine". And by "bigger" I mean "more incessant."

I am pretty sure only one of us has a penis. We other two are girls. =)

Nah - I'm not afraid to use words like 'fucking' and 'bullshit' when they are the most accurate description. It does not surprize me at all that a person who thinks 20 year olds are not mature enough to handle liquor is himself not mature enough to cope with a few grown-up words.

B0zzy! I wasn't even talking to you! I was talking to that smoke-hatin bitch!
FFS! If you are gonna shit in our trench, I am getting out.

I am pretty sure only one of us has a penis. We other two are girls. =)


I had a penis. Now my wife has it. Sometimes she lets me take it out on weekends and holidays. :)

B0zzy! I wasn't even talking to you! I was talking to that smoke-hatin bitch!
FFS! If you are gonna shit in our trench, I am getting out.


I was referring to them, not you. Sorry if you stepped in my turd. Here - take my boots.

People Should Smoke If They Want To And The Stupid Government Shouldnt Have Any Say!!!

It is no different than alcohol prohibition.
Well, it's slightly different. Nobody has ever been smoked pretty.

I agree the "think of the children" defense is lame, though.

I say we ban penises.... or would it be peni?

'Penises' is the more historically correct form, but 'peni' has gained a certain amount of respectability due to its relatively widespread 'incorrect' use.

Well, it's slightly different. Nobody has ever been smoked pretty.
.


I'm trying to decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing....

'Penises' is the more historically correct form, but 'peni' has gained a certain amount of respectability due to its relatively widespread 'incorrect' use.

Actually, I think it's "penii"

Your parents can serve you alcohol in a private home. You just can't buy it or drink it in public or without your parents there. The law's not quite as stupid as it looks.

I am pretty sure only one of us has a penis. We other two are girls. =)


And by "penis" you mean?

I had a penis. Now my wife has it. Sometimes she lets me take it out on weekends and holidays. :)

Good lord, man, doesn't it ever scare the children?

I had a penis. Now my wife has it. Sometimes she lets me take it out on weekends and holidays. :)

Sam Kinison rules.

Originally Posted by B0zzy
It does not surprize me at all that a person who thinks 20 year olds are not mature enough to handle liquor is himself not mature enough to cope with a few grown-up words.
If you actually read my posts (but obviously you don't) you would know I think 16-18 is the kind of age for giving kids access to alcohol. Again you've just seen what you want to see and bashed on regardless of the truth. No change there then.

And as for not being mature enough to handle a few grown-up words. If you actually read my posts you'd know I wasn't bothered by them. I was just amazed that an adult could think the use of sweary words was mature and the absence of them as immature. I use plenty of it in my daily life, but I don't see the need for it in what was supposed to be a grown-up discussion ... or am I just being condescending again :rolleyes: .

And as for UM ...
Originally Posted by Unrestrained Merrymakin
B0zzy! I wasn't even talking to you! I was talking to that smoke-hatin bitch!
Abuse is just second nature to you isn't it :p .

Abuse is just second nature to you isn't it :p .

Not really, I just really hate pompous asses. I think it would be healthier if I placed you on ignore. Then I won't be so irritated by your lack of common speech (what you call swearing, I guess) and self-righteousness.

Originally Posted by Unrestrained Merrymakin
Not really, I just really hate pompous asses. I think it would be healthier if I placed you on ignore. Then I won't be so irritated by your lack of common speech (what you call swearing, I guess) and self-righteousness.Look, place me on ignore if you like (whatever that is - I'm relatively new on here) but you have made a few assumptions about me that are just not true. I don't understand why.

All I did was put forward a point of view which you didn't agree with. Fine, as I've said, I have no problem with people who disagree with me. It would be a pretty dull world if everyone thought the same. I then reacted to people questioning my view. I tried to remain reasonable throughout, despite increasing abuse, but you have taken that as condescension. It certainly wasn't my intent to appear condescending. I'm sorry if you took it that way but I still don't think I deserved the abuse I got.

As for the immature, angry, unreasonable and controlling accusations. I am none of these things. Apart from the controlling thing, which you could imply (wrongly) from my defence of the smoking ban in Scotland, I don't see how you could get any of the others from my posts. You don't know me so it is quite some leap of faith to those accusations.

And pompous ass? Not at all. This is the way I write. It probably has more to do with havinng to write lab reports at college, essays for the Open University and official letters in one of my roles at work than with anything else. I dont usually swear when I write unless I'm seriously pissed off (oops :) ). But that is not the case in my daily dealings with others around me. I was a member of a rugby club for years where foul language and binge drinking was practically compulsory :) .

Self righteous? I do have opinions, and in the face of a concerted attempt to discredit them, I will defend them. By the same criteria I could call you self righteous for sticking to your guns and not admitting I'm right.

In short, this is just the way I write, I have opinions I will defend but I don't expect everybody to agree with me and every assumption you have made of me personally misses the mark.

I'm sorry you have taken this negative view of me. I can't understand where you get your views of me from. I'm not entirely happy with someone having such a view of me but, given neither of us has the slightest clue about the other, I'm guessing neither of us will be losing any sleep over it.

Your parents can serve you alcohol in a private home. You just can't buy it or drink it in public or without your parents there. The law's not quite as stupid as it looks.


Ummm, nope. (http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4657912)

Sam Kinison rules.


Do ya love me? Do ya love my guys? If ya see me, you know, out working in the yard.. do me a favor, wil ya?.... (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/6300212955/ref=ord_cart_shr/102-3187164-9865768?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=404272)

If you actually read my posts (but obviously you don't) you would know I think 16-18 is the kind of age for giving kids access to alcohol. Again you've just seen what you want to see and bashed on regardless of the truth. No change there then.

And as for not being mature enough to handle a few grown-up words. If you actually read my posts you'd know I wasn't bothered by them. I was just amazed that an adult could think the use of sweary words was mature and the absence of them as immature. I use plenty of it in my daily life, but I don't see the need for it in what was supposed to be a grown-up discussion ... or am I just being condescending again :rolleyes: .

And as for UM ...

Abuse is just second nature to you isn't it :p .

Well Fuck then. I forgot where we left of and goddamit if I don't know where we got our wires crossed... Shit!