BF2S Forums Smoking in movies

jord wrote:

lowing wrote:

jord wrote:

I don't smoke...

and yet I am still completely indifferent. I speak in general terms, not specifically to you.

The general theme of your posts in this thread is anything but indifferent. You're making sweeping generalizations on a group that probably numbers in the hundreds of millions, you're assuming smokers don't enjoy smoking yet do not smoke and you're tone is that of resentment.

Furthermore, and be honest here, if it were up to you how would you legislate smoking? No smoking in public places, outright ban or other?

Yup I did, as I said, there are only 2 possibilities here, you are weak minded and succumb to peer pressure, or if you chose to do this for your own pleasure, you are an idiot, for the reason listed.


I would allow KNOWN smoking establishments and then non-smoking establishments. I would let the proprietor decide which he wanted.

If a non- smoker CHOOSES to enter an KNOWN smoking establishment then that person waives all rights to any complaints.
Separate but equal is the rule of thumb for me on this issue.

Last edited by lowing (2010-08-22 16:16:14)

lowing wrote:

jord wrote:

lowing wrote:

and yet I am still completely indifferent. I speak in general terms, not specifically to you.

The general theme of your posts in this thread is anything but indifferent. You're making sweeping generalizations on a group that probably numbers in the hundreds of millions, you're assuming smokers don't enjoy smoking yet do not smoke and you're tone is that of resentment.

Furthermore, and be honest here, if it were up to you how would you legislate smoking? No smoking in public places, outright ban or other?

Yup I did, as I said, there are only 2 possibilities here, you are weak minded and succumb to peer pressure, or if you chose to do this for your own pleasure, you are an idiot, for the reason listed.


I would allow KNOWN smoking establishments and then non-smoking establishments. I would let the proprietor to decide which he wanted.

If a non- smoker CHOOSES to enter an KNOWN smoking establishment then that person waives all rights to any complaints.
Separate but equal is the rule of thumb for me on this issue.

Not every teenager cares about their health when they're 70. I don't enjoy it and probably never will, but I hold no anger for those that do enjoy it. Nor am I particularly concerned about passive smoke, but I can see why some people might be. For that reason I agree with what you'd do, I said the same years ago when smoking in public places including bars/clubs/etc was banned. Now bars are going out of business rapidly. Personal choice advocate right here.

bed time

jord wrote:

lowing wrote:

jord wrote:

The general theme of your posts in this thread is anything but indifferent. You're making sweeping generalizations on a group that probably numbers in the hundreds of millions, you're assuming smokers don't enjoy smoking yet do not smoke and you're tone is that of resentment.

Furthermore, and be honest here, if it were up to you how would you legislate smoking? No smoking in public places, outright ban or other?

Yup I did, as I said, there are only 2 possibilities here, you are weak minded and succumb to peer pressure, or if you chose to do this for your own pleasure, you are an idiot, for the reason listed.


I would allow KNOWN smoking establishments and then non-smoking establishments. I would let the proprietor to decide which he wanted.

If a non- smoker CHOOSES to enter an KNOWN smoking establishment then that person waives all rights to any complaints.
Separate but equal is the rule of thumb for me on this issue.

Not every teenager cares about their health when they're 70. I don't enjoy it and probably never will, but I hold no anger for those that do enjoy it. Nor am I particularly concerned about passive smoke, but I can see why some people might be. For that reason I agree with what you'd do, I said the same years ago when smoking in public places including bars/clubs/etc was banned. Now bars are going out of business rapidly. Personal choice advocate right here.

No they don't, teenagers care about being accepted.....Peer preasure. and as I said, I have no anger toward smokers that keep that bullshit habit to themselves. however, those people are rare.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ATG wrote:

BAN TOBACCO

http://www.truthdig.com/images/reportup … ty_350.jpg

BAN CONSPIRACY THEORY FUCKHEADS

wiki wrote:

The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6, and injured more than 680 people.

wiki wrote:

Lung cancer, the most common cause of cancer-related death in men and women, is responsible for 1.3 million deaths worldwide annually, as of 2004.

Sure, not all of those were smoking-related, but it puts things in perspective, if you're going to draw comparisons.

Not all lung cancer is caused by smoking. Heck, it's not even the cause in the majority of cases.

I find it fucking hilarious that the same people who think weed should be decriminalized want to criminalize tobacco. How's that War on Drugs working out anyway? I can't wait to spend a month in jail for possessing an ounce of tobacco...

jsnipy wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I find it fucking hilarious that the same people who think weed should be decriminalized want to criminalize tobacco. How's that War on Drugs working out anyway? I can't wait to spend a month in jail for possessing an ounce of tobacco...

criminalize? No, but if a state truly believes it to be harmful to people's health and wants to sue for billions of dollars, then why would it sell it to its citizens? Beside commercial cigarettes are far more then just tobacco.

JohnG@lt wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I find it fucking hilarious that the same people who think weed should be decriminalized want to criminalize tobacco. How's that War on Drugs working out anyway? I can't wait to spend a month in jail for possessing an ounce of tobacco...

criminalize? No, but if a state truly believes it to be harmful to people's health and wants to sue for billions of dollars, then why would it sell it to its citizens? Beside commercial cigarettes are far more then just tobacco. Commercial marijuana could end up the same way.

Since when does the state sell anything? Private stores sell tobacco. If you're going to ban the sale of tobacco, you have to ban the possession of, and growing of, as well.

States collect taxes from it. In fact most packs have some state issued seal on it. Some states in the example of alcohol control the sale of it. In VA for example we have ABC stores which sell spirits and such.

So its more controlled, then say HFCS.

JohnG@lt wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Since when does the state sell anything? Private stores sell tobacco. If you're going to ban the sale of tobacco, you have to ban the possession of, and growing of, as well.

States collect taxes from it. In fact most packs have some state issued seal on it. Some states in the example of alcohol control the sale of it. In VA for example we have ABC stores which sell spirits and such.

Yes, they place an excise tax on them. The state doesn't sell a damn thing though, they just tack on a tax. States have their own gasoline taxes too, does the state sell or own any of the gasoline?

And so? That's Virginia. Move out of an ass backward state where the government has a monopoly on liquor sales.



Cigarettes are not a controlled substance beyond the need to buy a license to sell them.

Nothing backwards about Virginia at all really, its quite balanced in many regards, but back on topic ...

All I am pointing out is that it is hypocritical for a state to sue a company for selling a product is deems dangerous and then profit from its continuous sale. Agree?

If a state wanted to discontinue their sale it would not have to be a police state ban as you described. Fireworks are illegal in most states but states don't have tasks forces hunting them down.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I find it fucking hilarious that the same people who think weed should be decriminalized want to criminalize tobacco. How's that War on Drugs working out anyway? I can't wait to spend a month in jail for possessing an ounce of tobacco...

Not sure anyone said anything about criminalizing tobacco. All that is asked for is for you assholes that smoke to keep it to yourselves. Not really sure where you think you have the "right" to impose your fucked up habits on other people.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I find it fucking hilarious that the same people who think weed should be decriminalized want to criminalize tobacco. How's that War on Drugs working out anyway? I can't wait to spend a month in jail for possessing an ounce of tobacco...

Not sure anyone said anything about criminalizing tobacco. All that is asked for is for you assholes that smoke to keep it to yourselves. Not really sure where you think you have the "right" to impose your fucked up habits on other people.

this post is spot on!

Smog hurts my lungs, we should only produce and drive hybrids.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I hope they ban it, then maybe Cig prices would go down again. Crime would raise, you'd have junkies breaking into peoples houses to make money for their tobacco fix.

Lowings whole life is based on Gallants life from Highlights and he's never done anything wrong.

Lowing, Soda is horrible for people and children and addictive cause caffeine is one of the most addictive drugs out there, we should ban caffeine.

where have I said anything about banning anything? I said do what you want, keep it to yourself. As far as your analogy to soda. I don't give a fuck if you drink a case of coke a day. You are only fucking yourself up, and by doing so you are not harming anyone else. Drink up.

Regarding your assertion that I "have never done anything wrong". This is also incorrect. I have done plenty wrong, difference is, I accept it, I acknowledge it, I try to learn form it, and I do not blame others for it. Is it so bad to expect you to do the same?