It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I dont think smoking is as bad as they say

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by gman55

Originally posted by Azza
I Have no problem with smokers, so long as they do it a couple hundred feet away from me, or at least so long as I Cannot inhale it.


What about people with liquor on their breath? I find that offensive yet I don't ask them to leave the area.



maybe because you can smell liquor on their breath from 1 foot away but a smoker in the area makes a 10 foot radius stink like something awful. it's not the same thing and you really can't compare it.

fact of the matter is that when you are in public the non smokers do not bother smokers when they do not smoke but the smokers bother the non smokers when they smoke. people should not have to smell the filth and breath in smoke in public. if you are waiting in a restaurant waiting area with a guy that is drunk off his but, when you leave you still smell fine. when you are in the same area with a guy smoking a cigg, you leave smelling like smoke. your hair smells like it and your slothes smell like it. it's just not a comparison.


hopefully one day it will be benned in all public places. thats just my opinion and that is coming from a former smoker. hope i didn't piss you off but if i did, i guess you'll relax when you suck on that nice cancer stick




posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
An easy answer to this would be to deny public health services to anyone suffering from a smoking related disease, such as lung cancer.


By now there can't be a single person in the devloped world who doesn't know about the effects of smoking, therefore any illnesses arising from it must be considered to be self inflicted, and a form of slow suicide.


My advice would be under this senareo, to smoke your lungs out, as my tax dollars wouldn't have to pay for your addiction. And as smokers are fully aware of the consequences they can carry the full cost of their addiction.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
An easy answer to this would be to deny public health services to anyone suffering from a smoking related disease, such as lung cancer.


This is why insurance companies charge a whole lot more if you smoke and want life insurance. More tot he point, Its not just those getting healthcare from the government that pay for these habbits. The cost of my insurance is always adjusted to compensate for the huge numbers of health care dollars smokers eat up. I pay more than I have to, they pay alot less.

This is not a genetic factor that you have no controll of.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
An easy answer to this would be to deny public health services to anyone suffering from a smoking related disease, such as lung cancer.


By now there can't be a single person in the devloped world who doesn't know about the effects of smoking, therefore any illnesses arising from it must be considered to be self inflicted, and a form of slow suicide.


My advice would be under this senareo, to smoke your lungs out, as my tax dollars wouldn't have to pay for your addiction. And as smokers are fully aware of the consequences they can carry the full cost of their addiction.



totally agree. i still fail to see why smokers don't understand why they are not allowed to smoke in some/most public places?

a fellow above mentioned a bar that sells "liquid poison" but that bar won't let him smoke. i mean, that "liquid poison" does not make the person beside you drunnk or smell like filthy smoke. however the smoke effects the person beside you directly.

and about the 8 dollars a pack for ciggs. don't smoke and you won't have to worry about that. how can you complain? you are choosing to buy those ciggs, nobody is forcing you. 8 bucks a pack at a pack a day, thats $56 per week. $224 per month. $2688 a year. seems foolish to dump that much money on something that could "possibly" cause your death and make you smell horrible.

people can argue all they want that smoking may or may not be bad for you. however, it is a fact that smoking is not goo dfor you. why spend close to 3 grand a year on something like that? i don't understand



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon
Smoke up! I'm in VA so you not only support the farmers in my state and the companies that make their home here, you help keep my taxes lower by paying so much tax on each pack.

I also work in healthcare, so you're keeping me employed for a long long time
Ahhh job security.

Thanks!

Also just a thought - one theory is some people are born with so called onocogenes that predispose them to cancer when exposed to the right stimuli. Perhaps you are one of the lucky ones without that cancer jump start. One thing smoking can do for sure and does for any smoker is reduce your body's ability to heal from infection and major trauma. As long as you're accident free, you may never realize the effects on your body and may lead a long life.

Believing that the anti-smoking folks are wrong may also have somewhat of a placebo effect. If you're not stressed over your health or lack of control etc, you may be happier and therefor healthier. Worrying and expecting to be struck ill may be some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.


Yes it does provide you with job security and lower taxes over the long term. I have been smoking for some 30 yrs. and have not experienced any problems yet and not to ever. I do have one regret that I wish my dad had kicked my a$$ a little harder when he found out I was smoking. It is one of the most addictive drug out there. I can quit doing this or that but when it comes down to it, I cannot quit right now. I had just about 3 weeks ago enrolled in a smoking cessation program at my local V.A. and went into it with a very positive attitude and it lasted about one day due to the fact that I broke up with my girlfriend. So when my current stash is gone, I will give it another shot. I think the key to quitting is to change your lifestyle and especially acts or situations that trigger your mind in wanting to smoke. Like when I have a beer I have to have a smoke, along with my morning expresso. My meds. also are another trigger but I cannot do without them so, I guess I'm stuck for awhile. Would'nt it be nice to have a pill that will make you sick as hell if you smoke like they give antibuse to those with drinking problems? Just a thought or three.




posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Ive been smoking for 40 years and im fine , no coughs or anything, perhaps the anti smoking brigade are wrong.


Your lucky, watched my mother die from cancer that efventually spread from her lungs to her brain. It is as bad as they say. Don't kid yourself and justify a personal waste of money and life.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I believe some of you may be missing the point of what us smoking are saying. Perhaps you should go back and read through the past four pages again, however, this time try to see things from a less biased standpoint. If you can pull yourself out of the media induced frenzy for a few moments you may relaize that we are not the uneducated slobs theTruth.com would have you believe we are. Smokers have been demonized to such an extent that many these days regard them as less worthy of the simple rights and pleasures enjoyed by the rest of the country. As humans we have a natural tendency to agree with anyone who tells us we are better than any given group of people. This is how commercialism works, massive amounts of money have been spent to convince you that if you buy this Polo shirt you're better than everyone without it. Unless Paris Hilton surfs ATS I don't think anyone would argue the falsehood of such a frame of mind. Why then, is it perfectly alright to think the same way about smokers?

Many onthe anit-smoking side of this argument take an air of arrogant superiority when speaking (down) to a smoker, often times without listening to a word a smoker has to say. I have read many statements made by non-smokers in regards to what they should do about the "Smoking Menace". Their suggestions have ranged from the assinine to the down right unconstitutional, I even read a letter in The New York Times that suggested creating "Smokatoriums". For some reason that reader was unable to see the idiocy of his statement, I suppose he never read an issue of Judge Dredd. My point is that the interests behind the anti-smoking movement have convinced the general public that smokers are subhuman half citizens, people who need their lives moderated by those more equipped to live "the right way". Imagine the arrogance needed to claim to know the answer to a question first posed by Plato.

It frightens me to see how readily people will sell out their fellow citizen's constitutional rights. Perhaps you are not a smoker and think these infringments don't affect you, but everytime you help the government take away one of our rights you endanger even those we hold most dear. I don't believe that anyone on this board will suggest that smoking is completely harmless. Rather the original topic of this thread stated that the poster did not believe smoking to be as bad as they say it is. Such a thought process stems from a simple and healthy distrust of media propegated information. However, most of those who have responded conveniently glossed over the original point of this thread and proceeded to parrot back information they have been given. Shielding themselves behind so called facts they propose the further persecution of smokers. The sad fact of the matter is that many of you have been so content in your position of superiority that you have neglected to do your own research. I find it quite amazing that, on a board such as this where almost evreything is questioned, people still blindly tow the anti-smoking line.

I have heard the reports on second hand smoke mis-qouted and paraphrased ad naeseum, both on ATS and in my general life. So if you will, brew a cup of coffee and allow me to enlighten you.

Your dear report on second hand smoke is baseless, grossly unscientific, and simple propaganda. More over, it has been thrown out!!

Gasp! Yes, it's true, as it turns out the EPA's 1993 report of second hand smoke (SHS) and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) was hardly a study at all. Rather it was what is known as a Meta Study, a study of other studies. The EPA's report consisted of a meta study of 33 previous studies conducted by unrelated groups at seperate times. From the beggining it was clear the EPA had an agenda of it's own and began to skew the statistics. Simply put the EPA made a list of all participants in the study who had died during a given period of time, they then cross referenced that with the number of participants who died, and cross referenced that with the participants who lived with a smoker. If you lived with a smoker, and died with in the the time frame, according to the EPA, you died of SHS and ETS. Anyone who has gone through high school statistics can see how false this report really was, but before I'm inundated with responses calling me a Tobacco disinfo agent let me provide you with some reading material. (Not that I should have to, as this is all readliy available on Google)


Fact: The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies. The EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates.

Fact: The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30.

Fact: On page 3-46 of the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, "this would translate to the equivalent of about one-fifth of a cigarette per day."

Fact: Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.)

Fact: In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA report.



In addition to their false research the EPA released their "findings" before the report was even finished. Upon having done so it was handed over to the Congressional Research Committee, headed by judge Osteen. Upon reviewing the EPA's report the CRS found, among other things, that the EPA had ignored data that suggested SHS and ETS was harmless. In addition, the studies that did suggest any harm at all stated that such harm was "statically insignificant", giving a relative risk of cancer from SHS and ETS at 1.19. An RR of 2.0 is generally considered insignificant and an RR of 3.0 would be desireable. More over, it was concluded that SHS and ETS from a smoky work place, i.e a bar, is equivalent to about six cigarettes a year. I'd wager a bet that you do more damage to your lungs breathing in Bus fumes.

Hoepfully by no you have read the facts I have posted and are beggining to wonder why a group like the EPA would falsify research when it seems there is little for them to gain. In the interests of time and space I will simply reference you to my previous post on this thread. I have already done the work of following the money trail for you, all I ask is that you read it and conisder it. Now that we have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that we ar in fact being lied to, can we please stop the infighting and begin fighting the true enemy. I will end my post here as I am interested to see the responses from the anti-smokers after having read the information I provided. Perhaps this will serve as a lesson to prove, once again, the necessity to do our own research before taking sides in an argument lest we all become fools.

The qouted information was found at: www.davehitt.com...
I'd suggest you read the entire thing as there is much I haven't covered.


[edit on 28-7-2005 by Shadowflux]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
shadowflux, i don't look down on smokers or think i am better than smokers. for every link someone puts up to prove that smoking really is not harmful to your health, someone else can put up a link that says it is.
are you saying that smoking does not cause cancer? it does not cause cancer in everyone but there are people that have gotten cancer because they smoke?

you and others talk about rights.
can we touch on the topic of smoking in public? do you feel that it is wrong to ban smoking in public places? if so, why do you feel that way?
why should people that do not smoke have to be forced to breathe in the second hand smoke? why should they be forced to walk out of a restaurant with their hair and clothes smelling like smoke? whether smoking is harmful to your health or not, which i believe it most certainly is, smoking in public directly effects other people.


out of the hundreds or so chemicals contained in a cigg, these are the worst
tar, a carcinogen (substance that causes cancer)


nicotine is addictive and increases cholesterol levels in your body


carbon monoxide reduces oxygen in the body


poeple shouldn't be forced to breathe that filth. the title of this thread says that smoking may not be as bad as "they" say it is and that very well may be true. fact is smoking is bad for you. it certainly is not good.


i support the smoker right to smoke up all they want as long is it does not effect people that do not smoke.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I fully support smokers rights!

In particular I am in full support of the right of smokers to give up this cancer inducing, smelly, socially degrading habit.

Lets help smokers overcome their addictions so that they can reintergrate back into society as productive members again.

Excuse me, for this short post, I have to step outside and shoot up another fix of heroin. Its MY choice to spend money on it, and no one is going to stop me!



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
*sigh*

No Boondock, I do not believe that smoking is completely safe for you, nor do I deny that it causes cancer. However, it is quite obvious you did not read the material I provided and have entirely missed the point of what I was trying to say. You're right, we could have a link by link debate on the dangers of smoking, but if you were to have read my posts and the information I provided there in you would've hopefully realised that the basis of the current Crusade against tobacco is simply money. It all started thanks to the multi million dollar settlements won by certain lawyers and their clients. Part of the agreement was to participate in the vilification of the very industry Tobacco companies are a part of. Would you have read the link I provided you would have also found out that the dangers of SHS and ETS are so low as to be "insignificant". More over this study done by the EPA has been the only source of evidence used by the anti-tobcacconists. Think for a second, about how much money is being made off of convincing people they need to quit, not just for themselves but for the safety of those around them. Hypnotism, pills, patches, gum, all of these products and serivces are making people a lot of money.

Yes, I believe it is wrong to ban smoking in public areas. Why, you ask? Because it is a PUBLIC area, it is no more your area than it is mine, you have no more right to tell me what to do there than I do to tell you to stop somthing. Should we also ban black people from public areas because we don't like rap music, and some people have created false reports claiming it increases violent tendancies? I'd also like to point out the often ignored fact that a resturant or bar is NOT a public area. It is privately owned and therefor the rules of the establishment should be at the discretion of the owner, not the state. I beleive that a citizen of the united states should be afforded all the rights and privelages as any other citizen. Simply because I smoke is not a valid reason for infringing on my enjoyment of my life. The only reason anti-tobacconists have given is the EPA report which I have proven to false. I'm not evil because I smoke. I try to be considerate enough not to do it around people like yourself, children, or sick people. But I firmly believe that the regulations of my own actions should be left up to my discretion, not the propaganda induced insanity of local and federal governments.

Smokers are also not the only ones affected by this new legislation. Business owners in every region under the thumb of this unconstitutional set of laws have been complaining of a loss in business. Many bars and resturants have had loyal customers for decades who are smokers and have since been forced to give them a reason to go elsewhere.

Yes, there are many many substances found in tobacco that can be harmful to your health. Yes, nicotine is addictive. Yes, tobacco has been linked to cancer among other illnesses. However, these side efffects have been found almost solely in smokers and not friends, relatives, co workers or well wishers. This whole anti-tobacco movement has been perpetrated by those in charge who wish to make you think it is harmful to you. The simple fact of the matter is that if you wish to avoid the ill effects of smoking, then don't smoke. There is ABSOLUTELY no need to tell me, or any of my fellow smokers what they may and may not do. You may not think you are placing yourself above these smokers but you are. By advocating the denial of certain rights to a given group of people is to proclaim that you have the knowledge and right to do so. By advocating legislation that benefits you and restricts the rights of others you are inheirantly stating that you are more worthy of protection under the law than those you rally against. To continually parrot back well known facts is to insinuate that us smokers are of diminished intellect.

I will make my point as simple as I can: You do not have the right to tell me how to live, you do not have the right to take away my liberties. I consider you and I to be equals, you should do the same. Ask yourself if you would stand for such legislation if the topic was different. Say for instance that a group of christian fundementalists wished to restrict how women are allowes to dress in public, would you still feel the same way? The very report used as a basis for the anti-smoker legsilature is a falsified, unscientific document which has been proven as such by a Congressional Comittee. The reason this has not been made abundently clear in public media is because someone doesn't want you to know they lied. For every fact you can provide as to how harmful tobacco is to a smoker, I can provide an equal amount of evidence proving that many of the things you do or ingest are just as harmfull to you.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
*sigh*

No Boondock, I do not believe that smoking is completely safe for you, nor do I deny that it causes cancer. However, it is quite obvious you did not read the material I provided and have entirely missed the point of what I was trying to say. You're right, we could have a link by link debate on the dangers of smoking, but if you were to have read my posts and the information I provided there in you would've hopefully realised that the basis of the current Crusade against tobacco is simply money. It all started thanks to the multi million dollar settlements won by certain lawyers and their clients. Part of the agreement was to participate in the vilification of the very industry Tobacco companies are a part of. Would you have read the link I provided you would have also found out that the dangers of SHS and ETS are so low as to be "insignificant". More over this study done by the EPA has been the only source of evidence used by the anti-tobcacconists. Think for a second, about how much money is being made off of convincing people they need to quit, not just for themselves but for the safety of those around them. Hypnotism, pills, patches, gum, all of these products and serivces are making people a lot of money.

Yes, I believe it is wrong to ban smoking in public areas. Why, you ask? Because it is a PUBLIC area, it is no more your area than it is mine, you have no more right to tell me what to do there than I do to tell you to stop somthing. Should we also ban black people from public areas because we don't like rap music, and some people have created false reports claiming it increases violent tendancies? I'd also like to point out the often ignored fact that a resturant or bar is NOT a public area. It is privately owned and therefor the rules of the establishment should be at the discretion of the owner, not the state. I beleive that a citizen of the united states should be afforded all the rights and privelages as any other citizen. Simply because I smoke is not a valid reason for infringing on my enjoyment of my life. The only reason anti-tobacconists have given is the EPA report which I have proven to false. I'm not evil because I smoke. I try to be considerate enough not to do it around people like yourself, children, or sick people. But I firmly believe that the regulations of my own actions should be left up to my discretion, not the propaganda induced insanity of local and federal governments.

Smokers are also not the only ones affected by this new legislation. Business owners in every region under the thumb of this unconstitutional set of laws have been complaining of a loss in business. Many bars and resturants have had loyal customers for decades who are smokers and have since been forced to give them a reason to go elsewhere.

Yes, there are many many substances found in tobacco that can be harmful to your health. Yes, nicotine is addictive. Yes, tobacco has been linked to cancer among other illnesses. However, these side efffects have been found almost solely in smokers and not friends, relatives, co workers or well wishers. This whole anti-tobacco movement has been perpetrated by those in charge who wish to make you think it is harmful to you. The simple fact of the matter is that if you wish to avoid the ill effects of smoking, then don't smoke. There is ABSOLUTELY no need to tell me, or any of my fellow smokers what they may and may not do. You may not think you are placing yourself above these smokers but you are. By advocating the denial of certain rights to a given group of people is to proclaim that you have the knowledge and right to do so. By advocating legislation that benefits you and restricts the rights of others you are inheirantly stating that you are more worthy of protection under the law than those you rally against. To continually parrot back well known facts is to insinuate that us smokers are of diminished intellect.

I will make my point as simple as I can: You do not have the right to tell me how to live, you do not have the right to take away my liberties. I consider you and I to be equals, you should do the same. Ask yourself if you would stand for such legislation if the topic was different. Say for instance that a group of christian fundementalists wished to restrict how women are allowes to dress in public, would you still feel the same way? The very report used as a basis for the anti-smoker legsilature is a falsified, unscientific document which has been proven as such by a Congressional Comittee. The reason this has not been made abundently clear in public media is because someone doesn't want you to know they lied. For every fact you can provide as to how harmful tobacco is to a smoker, I can provide an equal amount of evidence proving that many of the things you do or ingest are just as harmfull to you.



black people? rap music? yeah, thats the same thing

rap music does not force me to ingest chemicals. it does not force me to have to go about with foul smelling har and foul smelling lcothes. sitting in a waiting room in a restaurant does. i'm sure you see the difference. your link states the dangers of shs is insegnificant. well, not to me it't not. if i have to beathe in one breath of shs, thats significant to me and i shouldn't have to do it. you have to understand that your smoking in these public places directly effects other people and that is why it should be banned. about the dresses in public, yes i would feel differently. some braod wearing a dress does not make me stink. it does not force me to ingest chemicals. smokers do force that on people. surely you see this as you seem intelligent. i'm sure you can provide a link to things that i ingest are harmful to me. so what. if i choose to eat something nasty or bad fo rme thats my choice.
i'm sure there is money to be made and being made with this anti smoking campains. further, i treally don't care why or how it happens, as long as people can't smoke around me anymore when i go to restaurants and such then i'm happy. don't make it sound like i think i am a better person that you cause i don't. thats not a valid argument.
some people are sensative to smoke too man. some people get headaches from it, their eyes burn, they cough..why should someone have to put up with that casue you want to drag on a butt? thats why it needs to be banned. people shoould have liberties like you mention but not at the expense of hurting other people.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   


some braod wearing a dress does not make me stink


Yes, a "braod" wearing a dress has no effect on your life at all. Given your shortsightedness I fear I have wasted my time. Maybe some of the "braods" here on ATS can help explain it to him



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux



some braod wearing a dress does not make me stink


Yes, a "braod" wearing a dress has no effect on your life at all. Given your shortsightedness I fear I have wasted my time. Maybe some of the "braods" here on ATS can help explain it to him


you gonan freak out cause i used a slang term?
unreal

maybe someone can explain to me why smoking in public is the same as a "female homosapian" or an "african american" listening to rap music.
geez man. don't be so sensative



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux



some braod wearing a dress does not make me stink


Yes, a "braod" wearing a dress has no effect on your life at all. Given your shortsightedness I fear I have wasted my time. Maybe some of the "braods" here on ATS can help explain it to him


you gonna freak out cause i used a slang term?
unreal

maybe someone can explain to me why smoking in public is the same as a "female homosapian" or an "african american" listening to rap music.
geez man. don't be so sensative



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Alright, it's well established that smoking's bad. I know that, I still smoke, I smoke a lot too. The way I look at it, I enjoy it and I could just as easily die tomorrow from any number of other possibilities, so I'm going to just enjoy it now. I agree with a public ban in certain situations, like restaurants or hospitals, or enclosed places where kids might be around. Places like bars, nightclubs, casinos, essentially adults-only places should allow it.

That's not the point I'm trying to make, just wanting to get that out of the way. According to www.lungusa.org, second hand smoke causes roughly 38,000 deaths each year due to lung cancer (3,000) and heart disease (35,000). According to MADD, there were over 16,000 people killed in alcohol-related accidents last year. While that's still only about half the number of the second-hand smoke deaths, that's still quite a bit. Why aren't people trying to get alcohol banned? At least you can see a smoker and avoid them if you're that worried, last time I checked a car driven by a drunk looked just the same as any other car. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone get in a fight or shoot their wife because they had too many cigarettes.

I've worked at a bar before; I'd just as soon see alcohol banned myself, as much as I like to drink. I don't think I've ever seen a good couple broken up because of smoking, except where one wants the other to quit (in which case they shouldn't have gotten together in the first place if it's that bad.) No one's ever beat their kids because their cigar was too strong, no one's ever gotten killed just because they smoked one too many. The Marin Institute has a quick fact sheet on alcohol:



• Alcohol use is frequently associated with violence between intimate partners. Two-thirds of victims of intimate partner violence reported that alcohol was involved in the incident.

• In one study of interpersonal violence, men had been drinking in an estimated 45 percent of cases and women had been drinking in 20 percent of cases.


And my personal favorite:



• An estimated 480,000 children are mistreated each year by a caretaker with alcohol problems.


Can anyone show me similar statistics for tobacco usage? I know second hand smoke does effect children to a large part, but that's the parent's stupidity for smoking around the kid. Like I said, the places I feel smoking should be allowed, a parent shouldn't be taking their kids anyways. But if you're wanting to ban certain chemicals because of the effects they have on the general public, start with Jack or Bud. Then move on to Camel and Marlborough.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I believe any person has a right to self-medicate themselves, since it is their body.

But I think that anyone who smokes, knowing the truth about nicotine and tobacco addiction, is a weak-willed fool who is simply not strong enough to do the right thing for their health -- and compounds that mental and spiritual weakness with a dose of self-delusion.

Like I was, until I finally got tired of being a fool and a coward and found the strength to quit three years ago after thirty-five years of smoking.

Be a man!

Face up to your weakness and overcome it!



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I can't--and won't--speak for any other smoker out there, but I know I'm a fool. I know I have a heck of a lot more weaknesses than most "normal" people, and I'm sure there's many more that I haven't found yet. Smoking is most likely one of them. I don't see it as such though, and I don't see it as a strength either. To me smoking is something I enjoy doing, and I don't feel it's important enough to judge anyone as better or worse because they do or do not smoke. I count the smartest and friendliest people I've ever met in my life, and there's roughly the same number of smokers as non-smokers.

The weaknesses and foolishness that I prefer to focus my attention on have nothing to do with smoking; they involve other aspects of my life that, as stupid as I'm sure it sounds, are more important to me than my health. My weaknesses in dealing with my fellow humans, my weakness in dealing with my internal issues, my weakness in music or programming or writing. It's stupid, I know, but I'd rather worry about trying to write one song that impresses some emotion on someone than whether I'll be alive to see that tear or smile. That part's irrelevant to me.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I believe any person has a right to self-medicate themselves, since it is their body.

But I think that anyone who smokes, knowing the truth about nicotine and tobacco addiction, is a weak-willed fool who is simply not strong enough to do the right thing for their health -- and compounds that mental and spiritual weakness with a dose of self-delusion.

Like I was, until I finally got tired of being a fool and a coward and found the strength to quit three years ago after thirty-five years of smoking.

Be a man!

Face up to your weakness and overcome it!


Given the fact that the tendancy towards addiction has been found to be related to genetics would you still call an over wheight person a "fool and a coward"? Have you ever met a true heroin addict or seen them try and kick the habit? I would hardly call someone a coward to be afraid to go through that.

If you consider adddiction a weakness should we vilify people for other weaknesses as well? If you're generally a messy person, yet I keep my hosue spotless, does that give me any basis to call you weak? The fact of the matter is that some people are genetically predisposed to addiction, nicotine, along with alcohol, caffeine, and sugar simply seeks to take advantage of that predisposition.

Let me make a suggestion, if you wish to make someone stop smoking you shouldn't demoralize them, you should support them and help them to the best of your ability. If you hate smoking, then don't punish the smokers. Don't underestimate the power of an addiction, some people can wake up one day and decide to never smoke again. Others may quit 6 or 7 times before they find somthing that works. That hardly makes one group of people stronger, braver or smarter than another.

Let me get something straight, I'm not arguing for smoker, I'm not against quitting. What I am against is the fact that people treat smokers as second class citizens, obviously unable to decide things for themselves. Smokers are no different from non-smokers, so stop treating them as such.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boondock78

Originally posted by Shadowflux



some braod wearing a dress does not make me stink


Yes, a "braod" wearing a dress has no effect on your life at all. Given your shortsightedness I fear I have wasted my time. Maybe some of the "braods" here on ATS can help explain it to him


you gonan freak out cause i used a slang term?
unreal

maybe someone can explain to me why smoking in public is the same as a "female homosapian" or an "african american" listening to rap music.
geez man. don't be so sensative


Actually I'm not "freaking out" I simply think you discredited yourself with that statement.


I tried explaining it to you, so let me try again:

Just because you do not like somthing doesn't mean it should not be there

I do not like rap, but other people do, live and let live



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux

Originally posted by Boondock78

Originally posted by Shadowflux



some braod wearing a dress does not make me stink


Yes, a "braod" wearing a dress has no effect on your life at all. Given your shortsightedness I fear I have wasted my time. Maybe some of the "braods" here on ATS can help explain it to him


you gonan freak out cause i used a slang term?
unreal

maybe someone can explain to me why smoking in public is the same as a "female homosapian" or an "african american" listening to rap music.
geez man. don't be so sensative


Actually I'm not "freaking out" I simply think you discredited yourself with that statement.


I tried explaining it to you, so let me try again:

Just because you do not like somthing doesn't mean it should not be there

I do not like rap, but other people do, live and let live


having to listen to someones rap music while you sit in a room is quite a bit different than having to breath in second hand chemicals. it's different cause the music won't effect the way my clothes and hair smells. it does not effect each breath i take. smoking does. clearly you see the point i am making here you are just playing like you don't. you keep mentioning music and you mention someones clothes. not even the same thing. not even close and you know this.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join