• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Tobacco expected to kill 1 billion this century

Ikari said:
Well on that point you are correct. The unfortunate situation is that if we were ever to actually hit police state, that a police state is a stable equilibrium which can't be easily broken from. It is also true that people are lazy and don't quite want to accept their duties and responsibilities as freemen. We may not get things this election, but I ain't gonna give up trying; freedom and liberty are always worth fighting for. One day we will awaken the people, I hope by that point it isn't too late; but I have faith in the American people that when push comes to shove enough will stand up for freedom.
Click to expand...

And thats why we should be thankful that cops aren't enfocing all the laws that they could. Otherwise we would already be at that police state you speak of, and it would be too late. If public drunkeness is something you guys think is heavily enforced, you have not been to Madison before or after a Badgers football game.
 
I understand that on the short term some leniency in enforcement isn't necessarily bad. The problem is that we have aggregated it over a much larger set of laws and that has become bad. I'm not so happy that police selectively enforce because if they never did we would have had a better feedback mechanism from the people into which laws are allowed to exist and much of the unjust selectively enforced laws wouldn't have lived long; we wouldn't reach police state because there would be enough of a servo on the part of the people to prevent it. Maybe if there was a step potential right now wherein all laws become enforced equally, we would end up with a lot of people in jail and such. But even that could be the jarring movement necessary to put people into actively watching what laws are passed and preventing unjust ones from being established.

If you start affecting a large portion of people's daily lives, you will motivate the people to respond; that is why I think all laws should be uniformly enforced. Unjust laws would quickly be stricken down, we would be left with the majority of the laws doing nothing more than protecting the rights of the individual...which is all laws should be doing, if you ain't infringing upon the rights of others you should be free to do as you like.
 
WI Crippler said:
Maybe cops should start enforcing every little illegal thing they see happen, and then people will probably realize the long leash the police give the public.
Click to expand...

I wish they would start here in New Haven - and they could begin with people who take traffic lights and stop signs as mere suggestions.
 
Ikari said:
I understand that on the short term some leniency in enforcement isn't necessarily bad. The problem is that we have aggregated it over a much larger set of laws and that has become bad. I'm not so happy that police selectively enforce because if they never did we would have had a better feedback mechanism from the people into which laws are allowed to exist and much of the unjust selectively enforced laws wouldn't have lived long; we wouldn't reach police state because there would be enough of a servo on the part of the people to prevent it. Maybe if there was a step potential right now wherein all laws become enforced equally, we would end up with a lot of people in jail and such. But even that could be the jarring movement necessary to put people into actively watching what laws are passed and preventing unjust ones from being established.

If you start affecting a large portion of people's daily lives, you will motivate the people to respond; that is why I think all laws should be uniformly enforced. Unjust laws would quickly be stricken down, we would be left with the majority of the laws doing nothing more than protecting the rights of the individual...which is all laws should be doing, if you ain't infringing upon the rights of others you should be free to do as you like.
Click to expand...

I guess its just a matter of preference on how we want to achieve the same goal. You seem to advocate the "if it disrupts people, it motivates them to change" which is kind of like gambling IMO. It may work, but if it doesn't then it makes things worse. I prefer a more moderate approach where we enforce change from a more free position rather than a less free one.
 
Smoking should be banned in all public places, including places of public accomodation. It should also be banned in your home/car if you have children under 18 residing there. If you want to smoke, do so in a way where the majority of us don't have to put up with your noxious fumes.

All men who smoke should read this: Smokers may flop in bed. One would think that if this were widely known, the rates of male smoking would drop immediately.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
Smoking should be banned in all public places, including places of public accomodation. It should also be banned in your home/car if you have children under 18 residing there. If you want to smoke, do so in a way where the majority of us don't have to put up with your noxious fumes.
Click to expand...

No one is forcing you to be around smokers. Smokers chose to smoke, and you chose to secondhand-smoke by being around them.
 
ludahai said:
Smoking should be banned in all public places, including places of public accomodation. It should also be banned in your home/car if you have children under 18 residing there. If you want to smoke, do so in a way where the majority of us don't have to put up with your noxious fumes.
Click to expand...

What about the fumes of fascism?
 
I love to smoke. I can't stand breathing the same air as those nasty non-smokers especially in a restaurant. Eck! cough cough.
If smoking doesn't kill me then I'll probably die in an auto accident or be shot by a burglar. I might start drinking three Mountain Dews a day and die of liver cancer.
One thing's for certain. I'm not getting out of this world alive and neither is the article's author or any of you guys! Unless you take faith in eternal life into consideration. Then all bets are off!:mrgreen:
 
ludahai said:
Smoking should be banned in all public places, including places of public accomodation. It should also be banned in your home/car if you have children under 18 residing there. If you want to smoke, do so in a way where the majority of us don't have to put up with your noxious fumes.
Click to expand...


Driving should be banned in all public places, including places of public accommodation. It should also be banned in your neighborhood if you have children under 18 residing there. If you want to drive, do so in a way that the majority of us don't have to put up with your noxious fumes.

Being smelly should be banned in all public places, including places of public accommodation. It should also be banned in your home/car if you have children under 18 residing there. If you want to be smelly, do so in a way where the majority of us don't have to put up with your noxious rank smell.

Being gay should be banned in all pubic places, including places of public accommodation. It should also be banned in your home/car if you have children under 18 residing there. If you want to be boned in the ***, do so in a way where the majority of us don't have to be scarred for life by watching it.

See where I am getting at here partner?
 
aps said:
We all know how much I hate smoking (hence, the posting of this thread). ;)



I just don't get it (although maybe it will help with overpopulation).

:gunner: :smoking: :blastem:
Click to expand...

---
You don't really believe all of that Bull$hit do you?
---
Wars usually cut down the population.
---
Keep cool, and have another butt!:mrgreen:
 
Kandahar said:
No one is forcing you to be around smokers. Smokers chose to smoke, and you chose to secondhand-smoke by being around them.
Click to expand...

I don't choose to be around them if they come to where I am and smoke around me. Children don't choose to be around them if they light up in teir home. Smokers are the most selfish people on earth. If you want to smoke, fine. However, don't do so in a way that affects the civilized people of the world who don't smoke.
 
Caine said:
Driving should be banned in all public places, including places of public accommodation. It should also be banned in your neighborhood if you have children under 18 residing there. If you want to drive, do so in a way that the majority of us don't have to put up with your noxious fumes.
Click to expand...

While I agree that there should be more stringent controls on emmissions, at least people using automobiles has an economically constructive purpose. BEsides, you won't get me on that one as I generally use a bicycle as my primary means of transportation.

Being smelly should be banned in all public places, including places of public accommodation. It should also be banned in your home/car if you have children under 18 residing there. If you want to be smelly, do so in a way where the majority of us don't have to put up with your noxious rank smell.

Being gay should be banned in all pubic places, including places of public accommodation. It should also be banned in your home/car if you have children under 18 residing there. If you want to be boned in the ***, do so in a way where the majority of us don't have to be scarred for life by watching it.

See where I am getting at here partner?
Click to expand...

These last two are so asanine as to not deserve comment. Smoking is one of the most noxious activities in the world today. Personally, I think it should be banned. Short of that, smoke where it won't affect anyone else. Comparing any of these other things to cigarette smoke is simply absurd and rediculous.
 
saltwn said:
I love to smoke. I can't stand breathing the same air as those nasty non-smokers especially in a restaurant. Eck! cough cough.
If smoking doesn't kill me then I'll probably die in an auto accident or be shot by a burglar. I might start drinking three Mountain Dews a day and die of liver cancer.
One thing's for certain. I'm not getting out of this world alive and neither is the article's author or any of you guys! Unless you take faith in eternal life into consideration. Then all bets are off!:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yeah, we're all gonna die. Personally, I'd rather not have to try to suck in air with half a lung. I watched my dad suffer for years until his blood was so poisoned he couldn't eat, breathe, or have the energy to move. A bullet to the head would have been kinder.
 
ludahai said:
While I agree that there should be more stringent controls on emmissions, at least people using automobiles has an economically constructive purpose. BEsides, you won't get me on that one as I generally use a bicycle as my primary means of transportation.



These last two are so asanine as to not deserve comment. Smoking is one of the most noxious activities in the world today. Personally, I think it should be banned. Short of that, smoke where it won't affect anyone else. Comparing any of these other things to cigarette smoke is simply absurd and rediculous.
Click to expand...
---
Is that you Joe???
 
ludahai said:
I don't choose to be around them if they come to where I am and smoke around me. Children don't choose to be around them if they light up in teir home. Smokers are the most selfish people on earth. If you want to smoke, fine. However, don't do so in a way that affects the civilized people of the world who don't smoke.
Click to expand...

You DID choose to be around them even if you were there first, because you knew that smoking was allowed in that establishment. If being around smokers is such a big problem for you, then you can eat/work/relax at some place that doesn't allow smoking.
 
ludahai said:
Smoking is one of the most noxious activities in the world today. Personally, I think it should be banned. Short of that, smoke where it won't affect anyone else. Comparing any of these other things to cigarette smoke is simply absurd and rediculous.
Click to expand...

So it should be banned completely? Because YOU don't like it? I see that the nanny state is alive and well. It's really none of your business what someone else puts into their body.

As for smoking only where it doesn't affect others: You chose to be there. If smokers think that it's too unhealthy, they'll change their habits and stop smoking. If you think that secondhand-smoking is too unhealthy, you can change your habits, and stop being around smokers and stop going to establishments that allow it.
 
Psychoclown said:
Such a simple concept, I don't understand why people can't grasp it.
Click to expand...

It's not as simple as you would think. When I walk to get my hair cut after work, I get stuck walking behind someone who's smoking. I pass them so they're behind me. Yet, there's another person walking in front of me smoking. There are people standing outside of buildings smoking. I can't get away from it. I walk from the subway station to my home. There are people smoking all along that short walk. It drives me nuts.
 
ludahai, I LOVE what you're saying, and I totally, totally agree.
 
aps said:
It's not as simple as you would think. When I walk to get my hair cut after work, I get stuck walking behind someone who's smoking. I pass them so they're behind me. Yet, there's another person walking in front of me smoking. There are people standing outside of buildings smoking. I can't get away from it. I walk from the subway station to my home. There are people smoking all along that short walk. It drives me nuts.
Click to expand...

If you're outside and someone near you is smoking, you are exposed to almost NO secondhand smoke. If you just don't like it (for reasons other than health), that isn't a good enough reason to ban it.
 
I, for one, am far more affected by being in an enclosed space (store, elevator, office, church, post office, etc) next to a woman who has puffed, powdered, perfumed, lacquered, peeled, painted and fds'ed herself into a stupor.

It makes me sick - literally. I hate, Hate, HATE being around smokers. But they're NOT the worst things to be around IMO.
 
Since they brought the smoking ban here smokers hang outside of bars all night but non smokers still hang around outside too.Which is annoying because i dont like the way non smokers smell and the people who smoke are good enough for me.
 
tristanrobin said:
I, for one, am far more affected by being in an enclosed space (store, elevator, office, church, post office, etc) next to a woman who has puffed, powdered, perfumed, lacquered, peeled, painted and fds'ed herself into a stupor.

It makes me sick - literally. I hate, Hate, HATE being around smokers. But they're NOT the worst things to be around IMO.
Click to expand...

That's right--IN YOUR OPINION.
 
Kandahar said:
If you're outside and someone near you is smoking, you are exposed to almost NO secondhand smoke. If you just don't like it (for reasons other than health), that isn't a good enough reason to ban it.
Click to expand...

I really don't care what you think, Kandahar. I don't like having smoke in my face--whether it affects my health or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom