- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
What's next? Further prohibition?
What's next? Further prohibition?
Why am I not surprised that John the Boner would stand up in defense of one of the largest causes of horrifying disease and long, painful deaths on the planet?
Either one of two things. Either did you not listen to his argument, or simply didn't understand it. He was standing up for liberty, not for lung cancer. Second, you obviously believe the FDA and others are right in this instance. You obviously have not learned the lessons of prohibition.
Uhh. Cigarrettes are still legal.
Where? What kind of cigarrettes? And finally, for how long?
Where? What kind of cigarrettes? And finally, for how long?
I have no problem with Cigarrettes being banned in public. There is this thing called Second Hand Smoke, I'd rather not find out that I have cancer because of someone elses lifestyle choice. Other then that I see no need to ban cigarrettes for what kind they are, even though I think they definitely should ALWAYS make it plain that you are basically slowly commiting suicide by smoking them.
Just about everywhere. Most kinds. For the forseeable future.
Is it 1995? Didnt this already happen?
Either one of two things. Either did you not listen to his argument, or simply didn't understand it. He was standing up for liberty, not for lung cancer. Second, you obviously believe the FDA and others are right in this instance. You obviously have not learned the lessons of prohibition.
In all seriousness, I smoke for two reasons:
1) Stress reduction
2) Brain chemistry modification not related to stress
Back when I did smoke, I told myself similar lies. However, now I have to admit the truth, I smoked for one reason, and one reason only, I was addicted. Completely and helplessly addicted. Addicted to a substance that would kill me, in a long, ugly, and painful way. That is the reality of why people still smoke, given everything we KNOW about the results of it, not some obscure notion of "liberty" or other such noble reasons. Addiction, nothing more, nothing less.
Back when I did smoke, I told myself similar lies. However, now I have to admit the truth, I smoked for one reason, and one reason only, I was addicted. Completely and helplessly addicted. Addicted to a substance that would kill me, in a long, ugly, and painful way. That is the reality of why people still smoke, given everything we KNOW about the results of it, not some obscure notion of "liberty" or other such noble reasons. Addiction, nothing more, nothing less.
Okay, well, maybe you were lying to yourself. As for me, I'm not.
I've quit in the past, cold turkey. It was hard, but I made myself work through it. I felt all proud of myself, until I remembered why I'd been smoking to begin with. I then made a conscious decision that the benefits outweighed the risks, and I picked it back up.
back when I smoked it was for two reasons. stress reduction and boredom. (I only smoked while in uniform) once I decided to quit, I finished of the pack currently in my pocket and I haven't had a smoke in 4 months.
Is smoking bad for you? yes but so is being a fat bastard and the FDA isn't trying to ban butter.
Benefits? Of smoking?
I'm sorry, but that is about as funny a line as I've ever heard.
Smoking isn't required to keep living, eating is.
Your analogy doesn't make sense.
eating is required to keep living....eating so much that you weigh 400 pounds is not. the analogy makes perfect sense. the fact that you happen to disagree is irrelevent
I no longer smoke and I don't weigh 400 lbs. nor do the vast majority of Americans, so no, your analogy is false.