Nobody is better than anybody in my books.Konfusion0 wrote:
We are better than smokers, as we don't have an addiction - assuming we don't take cocaine or something instead. Addiction, in my opinion, is a weakness, not a strength.mKmalfunction wrote:
Seriously, you guys are soooooo bad ass with your 'I don't smoke and that makes me better than you, and you deserve a long and slow death' bullshit.
-konfusion
Poll
Should smoking be outlawed?
| Yes, it belongs outlawed along with canabis. | 25% | 25% - 78 | ||||
| Yes | 16% | 16% - 51 | ||||
| Don't know, don't care. | 4% | 4% - 13 | ||||
| No - I smoke | 6% | 6% - 21 | ||||
| No - I don't smoke | 13% | 13% - 40 | ||||
| No - and canabis should be made legal. | 33% | 33% - 103 | ||||
| Total: 306 | ||||||
You are seriously saying all non-smokers have no addictions? And having a bad addiction does NOT make you less of a person. That is porbably the cockiest thing I have ever heard.Konfusion0 wrote:
We are better than smokers, as we don't have an addiction - assuming we don't take cocaine or something instead. Addiction, in my opinion, is a weakness, not a strength.mKmalfunction wrote:
Seriously, you guys are soooooo bad ass with your 'I don't smoke and that makes me better than you, and you deserve a long and slow death' bullshit.
-konfusion
Wow dude... Pull your head out of your ass. Do you have a cup of coffee every morning? Caffeine is an addictive drug. Oh but wait, you haven't had propaganda about the evils of caffeine shoved down your throat for 15 years.Konfusion0 wrote:
We are better than smokers, as we don't have an addiction - assuming we don't take cocaine or something instead. Addiction, in my opinion, is a weakness, not a strength.mKmalfunction wrote:
Seriously, you guys are soooooo bad ass with your 'I don't smoke and that makes me better than you, and you deserve a long and slow death' bullshit.
-konfusion
You sir, are quickly earning the distinction of being the biggest douche bag on bf2s. Congrats.
Nope - I do not drink coffee in the mornings. I think it's terrible to have chemical addictions. I've had my problems with money, and buying addictions. I see myself as a lesser person for it, because I hurt people around me with it. I wont rewrite that post, because I wanted it to stir some conversation.
@mKmalfunction - I may have views that are very controversial, but I'm sick of people who mess my life up. My aunt smoked, so did my uncle, mother, grandfather, other grandfather, step grandfather - you know what? Half my family. You don't need evil propaganda about cigarettes - I get first hand accounts, and one of my grandfathers hasn't managed to stop smoking until today. I think it's repulsive how some people take in one cigarette after the other, almost as if gobbling them down.
I appreciate the feedback on that comment. My opinion, however, stays similar. I think that addictions are terrible, and I know various forms of them, to be honest. My dad is pretty much addicted to work - and it hurts other people in his (respectively my) family.
I think people who have addictions that hurt other people (such as smoking, any form of drugs, money abuse, work etc), and aren't trying to get rid of them may be viewed as "douche bag"s, as they tend to hurt other people. I hope you can, even if you do not agree with me, understand where my statement is coming from.
-konfusion
PS: (again) @mKmalfunction: I wrote my comment in the form it is to reply to the tone in your post. You think I'm cocky? Look at what you wrote that 'inspired me' to write my post.
@mKmalfunction - I may have views that are very controversial, but I'm sick of people who mess my life up. My aunt smoked, so did my uncle, mother, grandfather, other grandfather, step grandfather - you know what? Half my family. You don't need evil propaganda about cigarettes - I get first hand accounts, and one of my grandfathers hasn't managed to stop smoking until today. I think it's repulsive how some people take in one cigarette after the other, almost as if gobbling them down.
I appreciate the feedback on that comment. My opinion, however, stays similar. I think that addictions are terrible, and I know various forms of them, to be honest. My dad is pretty much addicted to work - and it hurts other people in his (respectively my) family.
I think people who have addictions that hurt other people (such as smoking, any form of drugs, money abuse, work etc), and aren't trying to get rid of them may be viewed as "douche bag"s, as they tend to hurt other people. I hope you can, even if you do not agree with me, understand where my statement is coming from.
-konfusion
PS: (again) @mKmalfunction: I wrote my comment in the form it is to reply to the tone in your post. You think I'm cocky? Look at what you wrote that 'inspired me' to write my post.
So your saying i should stay in my house for the rest of my life? I'm not allowed to go to a pub once every couple of months because some people think it is their right to be able to poison a complete strangers lungs? Why did a strangers "lifestyle" become part of mine?nlsme wrote:
Maybe, just MAYBE, you could stop putting the blame on others "lifestyle" and think that if YOU did NOT congregate where smoking is expected, YOU would not hurt the next morning. That being said, it should be illegal in public.
I rarely goes to pubs anymore because it's not worth it but why should i have to say "nah i can't go too much passive smoke". I don't understand why smokers expect other people to be happy to inhale their smoke without it bothering them.
I'm generally Libertarian when it comes to most social issues.
Let businesses decide if they want to allow smoking. The government should stay out of it.
This is also the basis for why I want pot legalized. Why is it the government's business if I want to smoke a joint?
Let businesses decide if they want to allow smoking. The government should stay out of it.
This is also the basis for why I want pot legalized. Why is it the government's business if I want to smoke a joint?
Well, I'm not going to read 6 pages of this, but let me play devils advocate for just a moment.
What would happen if you were to just outlaw tobacco?
Well, lets first consider what would happen to revenue. Many cities, counties, states, and the feds rely on income from this source. This revenue would simply dry up overnight, and I doubt you would find any way to quickly replace it.
Not all of the revenue from tobacco taxes goes directly to combating or supporting those harmed by tobacco. So even if tobacco was gone you would still be dealing with the effects of those that had smoked for many years, for decades to come. Who is willing to deal with the effects of it, without any revenue from the source of the problem?
What would happen if you were to just outlaw tobacco?
Well, lets first consider what would happen to revenue. Many cities, counties, states, and the feds rely on income from this source. This revenue would simply dry up overnight, and I doubt you would find any way to quickly replace it.
Not all of the revenue from tobacco taxes goes directly to combating or supporting those harmed by tobacco. So even if tobacco was gone you would still be dealing with the effects of those that had smoked for many years, for decades to come. Who is willing to deal with the effects of it, without any revenue from the source of the problem?
I'm sorry to say that your point has already been mentioned, and we have argued that the costs for NHS will make out another fraction for it. Furthermore, those taxes are there for prevention, so that smokers can't afford to smoke. It has also been argued that if you need the government to tell you that you have to stop, you will probably keep buying cigarettes on a black market, and die younger.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Well, I'm not going to read 6 pages of this, but let me play devils advocate for just a moment.
What would happen if you were to just outlaw tobacco?
Well, lets first consider what would happen to revenue. Many cities, counties, states, and the feds rely on income from this source. This revenue would simply dry up overnight, and I doubt you would find any way to quickly replace it.
Not all of the revenue from tobacco taxes goes directly to combating or supporting those harmed by tobacco. So even if tobacco was gone you would still be dealing with the effects of those that had smoked for many years, for decades to come. Who is willing to deal with the effects of it, without any revenue from the source of the problem?
Some people would even argue that smokers deserve at least some of the consequences for what they inflict onto others.
-konfusion
PS: I'm sure the government would be creative enough to think out a new way to get taxes off of you, so don't worry about them going bankrupt
Maybe another hash mark in the ole' "win" column next to the bubbalo arguments??lowing wrote:
Nope I can not "account for everyone else out there". See, the beauty of "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY" is, I do not HAVE to account for everyone else out there, just me, and my kids, until they are 18. THAT is how personal responsibility works. Pretty neat stuff I think.Konfusion0 wrote:
I do, I'm just not too sure about the rest of the world out there. Can you account for everyone else out there?lowing wrote:
"Get the whole society fucked up"??? I don't get strung out on drugs now, and I won't if it is legalized. I am sure I am not alone. I put personal responsibility and choice at the head of the line.How 'bout you??
-konfusion
PS:@UON: thanks for the numbers
But of course if you are a liberal and void of personal responisibilty, you can always just sue the fuck outta someone.
I still think that people can't be fully blamed for starting to smoke with the amount of propaganda out there - unless they had it in school or somethinglowing wrote:
Maybe another hash mark in the ole' "win" column next to the bubbalo arguments??lowing wrote:
Nope I can not "account for everyone else out there". See, the beauty of "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY" is, I do not HAVE to account for everyone else out there, just me, and my kids, until they are 18. THAT is how personal responsibility works. Pretty neat stuff I think.Konfusion0 wrote:
I do, I'm just not too sure about the rest of the world out there. Can you account for everyone else out there?
-konfusion
PS:@UON: thanks for the numbers
But of course if you are a liberal and void of personal responisibilty, you can always just sue the fuck outta someone.
-konfusion
Well, we will agree to disagree because I think we are all held ( or should be held) accountable for our choices and actions ( even in school)Konfusion0 wrote:
I still think that people can't be fully blamed for starting to smoke with the amount of propaganda out there - unless they had it in school or somethinglowing wrote:
Maybe another hash mark in the ole' "win" column next to the bubbalo arguments??lowing wrote:
Nope I can not "account for everyone else out there". See, the beauty of "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY" is, I do not HAVE to account for everyone else out there, just me, and my kids, until they are 18. THAT is how personal responsibility works. Pretty neat stuff I think.
But of course if you are a liberal and void of personal responisibilty, you can always just sue the fuck outta someone.
-konfusion
You also mention coccaine and such.........Do you honestly not want to blame these people for starting up on this stuff??and hold them accountable for their actions because of it??
Last edited by lowing (2007-03-31 07:13:11)
I want to, but I don't know if I can.lowing wrote:
Well, we will agree to disagree because I think we are all held ( or should be held) accountable for our choices and actions ( even in school)Konfusion0 wrote:
I still think that people can't be fully blamed for starting to smoke with the amount of propaganda out there - unless they had it in school or somethinglowing wrote:
Maybe another hash mark in the ole' "win" column next to the bubbalo arguments??
-konfusion
You also mention coccaine and such.........Do you honestly not want to blame these people for starting up on this stuff??and hold them accountable for their actions because of it??
As you stated above: we can agree to disagree...
-konfusion
Ok agree to disagree, but out of curiosity, who do expect to blame for an individuals actions if not the individual??? If his conduct is something other than a matter of survival? IE. I can not hold a person caught up in a disaster from looting food and clothing from an abandoned store. I do not hold these people in the same light as those that can't "survive" unless they get their hands on that 60 inch flat screen.Konfusion0 wrote:
I want to, but I don't know if I can.lowing wrote:
Well, we will agree to disagree because I think we are all held ( or should be held) accountable for our choices and actions ( even in school)Konfusion0 wrote:
I still think that people can't be fully blamed for starting to smoke with the amount of propaganda out there - unless they had it in school or something
-konfusion
You also mention coccaine and such.........Do you honestly not want to blame these people for starting up on this stuff??and hold them accountable for their actions because of it??
As you stated above: we can agree to disagree...
-konfusion
Dont smoke, you do damage to other's, your countries economy and health care system (if you have one)
I think that those people were probably (not all though) convinced to take another drug first (you usually don't start with cocaine...). So that's where they're not fully responsible. From there on, I agree with you.lowing wrote:
Ok agree to disagree, but out of curiosity, who do expect to blame for an individuals actions if not the individual??? If his conduct is something other than a matter of survival? IE. I can not hold a person caught up in a disaster from looting food and clothing from an abandoned store. I do not hold these people in the same light as those that can't "survive" unless they get their hands on that 60 inch flat screen.Konfusion0 wrote:
I want to, but I don't know if I can.lowing wrote:
Well, we will agree to disagree because I think we are all held ( or should be held) accountable for our choices and actions ( even in school)
You also mention coccaine and such.........Do you honestly not want to blame these people for starting up on this stuff??and hold them accountable for their actions because of it??
As you stated above: we can agree to disagree...
-konfusion
-konfusion
Yes.
I don't smoke. Never will. I hate it.
I don't smoke. Never will. I hate it.
fair enough. although from there first "experimentation" THEY are responsible, in my world.Konfusion0 wrote:
I think that those people were probably (not all though) convinced to take another drug first (you usually don't start with cocaine...). So that's where they're not fully responsible. From there on, I agree with you.lowing wrote:
Ok agree to disagree, but out of curiosity, who do expect to blame for an individuals actions if not the individual??? If his conduct is something other than a matter of survival? IE. I can not hold a person caught up in a disaster from looting food and clothing from an abandoned store. I do not hold these people in the same light as those that can't "survive" unless they get their hands on that 60 inch flat screen.Konfusion0 wrote:
I want to, but I don't know if I can.
As you stated above: we can agree to disagree...
-konfusion
-konfusion
Yay!lowing wrote:
fair enough. although from there first "experimentation" THEY are responsible, in my world.Konfusion0 wrote:
I think that those people were probably (not all though) convinced to take another drug first (you usually don't start with cocaine...). So that's where they're not fully responsible. From there on, I agree with you.lowing wrote:
Ok agree to disagree, but out of curiosity, who do expect to blame for an individuals actions if not the individual??? If his conduct is something other than a matter of survival? IE. I can not hold a person caught up in a disaster from looting food and clothing from an abandoned store. I do not hold these people in the same light as those that can't "survive" unless they get their hands on that 60 inch flat screen.
-konfusion
This is probably one of the first times I have come to an agreement on everything (pretty much) with someone who I was arguing at first.
*shakes hands with lowing*
-konfusion
Which was the result of improper testing and an example of why they wait for known side effects. The fact that your buddies at the FDA screwed up is irrelevant to what's supposed to be happening.lowing wrote:
except, Fen-Phen and such huh??Bubbalo wrote:
So you're complaining that they should release in case the side effects aren't bad? You do realise that no drug is legalised until it's side effects are known?
You feel free to believe that..................lowing wrote:
Maybe another hash mark in the ole' "win" column next to the bubbalo arguments??lowing wrote:
Nope I can not "account for everyone else out there". See, the beauty of "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY" is, I do not HAVE to account for everyone else out there, just me, and my kids, until they are 18. THAT is how personal responsibility works. Pretty neat stuff I think.Konfusion0 wrote:
I do, I'm just not too sure about the rest of the world out there. Can you account for everyone else out there?
-konfusion
PS:@UON: thanks for the numbers
But of course if you are a liberal and void of personal responisibilty, you can always just sue the fuck outta someone.
Hmmmmm, so does Fen-Phen prove your statement wrong, or are you simply offering another excuse as to why this example should be excluded from it?Bubbalo wrote:
Which was the result of improper testing and an example of why they wait for known side effects. The fact that your buddies at the FDA screwed up is irrelevant to what's supposed to be happening.lowing wrote:
except, Fen-Phen and such huh??Bubbalo wrote:
So you're complaining that they should release in case the side effects aren't bad? You do realise that no drug is legalised until it's side effects are known?
Lol I had a cigarette once. When I was about 13. I didn't like it, and thats a good enough reason for me to not smoke.
Thanks bubbalo. Just remember, everytime you ignore me..............I win.Bubbalo wrote:
You feel free to believe that..................lowing wrote:
Maybe another hash mark in the ole' "win" column next to the bubbalo arguments??lowing wrote:
Nope I can not "account for everyone else out there". See, the beauty of "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY" is, I do not HAVE to account for everyone else out there, just me, and my kids, until they are 18. THAT is how personal responsibility works. Pretty neat stuff I think.
But of course if you are a liberal and void of personal responisibilty, you can always just sue the fuck outta someone.
I'm surprised so many people voted yes. I don't smoke but I enjoy a cigar on those rare occasions.
And legalize pot too. Something I don't do either.
And legalize pot too. Something I don't do either.
I don't get why people like cigars. They taste like crap, and it's not like they relax you, or whatever it is that cigarettes do to you.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I'm surprised so many people voted yes. I don't smoke but I enjoy a cigar on those rare occasions.
And legalize pot too. Something I don't do either.