Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

a motion introduced to place a ban on cigarette sales to anyone born after the year 2000?

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Poopooplatter
 


If you think the debunking of propaganda isn't important, why are you on this site?




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Poopooplatter
 


The smell of mushrooms may not be hazardous, but car exhaust is.
ehealthforum.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

So let us ban the burning of gasoline. If this is about health, we need to look to the true killers.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Well no,
You brought booze up saying its bad and therefore should be outlawed.

I disagreed, because:

If your drunk, you cannot buy booze.
You cannot drink booze on the streets.
You cannot drink booze on the trains.
You drinking booze, doesnt put alcohol in my mouth, its personal. Smoke drifts!

therefore, you drinking booze doesnt affect me.

but your smoking does.

Your the one who argued about it!
but a good debate it was fair squire!


I am multitasking so am a bit all over the place.

Ok, so booze doesn't need to be banned because it is restricted? Then why tobacco? It is just as restricted as far as where it can be consumed yet we still have people complaining. The same is happening with booze. You will find many out there wanting more and more restrictions, tighter control and higher taxes.

Look back on this thread and read these responses in 10 years when it's alcohol under the ban hammer and you may understand people annoyance.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by aaron2209
 


I shouldn't have to breathe stinky ass cigarettes that are harmful if I'm not a smoker. It infringes upon me. If people weren't so rude and considered others this wouldn't be an issue. Smoke at home.


If you don't like it...

Then you could stay at home


See the knife cuts both ways. I just would rather be on the free side of it Haha.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
This is true, booze is restricted, yet it is still freely enjoyed by many.
Yet, Cigs are not restrictd (to the point i can smoke in the streets surrounded by children) and people are already calling bloody mary over 'proposed' restrictions.
If Cigs had a value, if they had benefits of some sort or brought feelings of euphoria etc, then ok maybe there would be an argument.
But cigs are nothing but a corporations way of making money by making you hooked. Its as simple as that. Cigs prey on weak willpower (which is easy when you use chemicals to alter that willpower)
Cheers for the debate, work sucks today!





posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
reply to post by Poopooplatter
 


The smell of mushrooms may not be hazardous, but car exhaust is.
ehealthforum.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

So let us ban the burning of gasoline. If this is about health, we need to look to the true killers.


I'm all for an alternative transportation? Ideas? People can quit smoking, people survive getting to work. Nice try.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican
 


but thats not fair,
your arguing about your right to smoke, just like they are arguing about their right to walk around without having to breathe in the exhaust from your chemical addiction.
Now, them leaving the house doesnt harm you in any way (unless they are shockingly ugly)
however your actions of smoking does degrade their health, and the health of their family/kids.

So tell me,

should they be allowed to walk along the street without having to breathe in your chemicals?
Or should you be made to stop smoking something that does nothing but KILL you and others around you?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by aaron2209
 


I shouldn't have to breathe stinky ass cigarettes that are harmful if I'm not a smoker. It infringes upon me. If people weren't so rude and considered others this wouldn't be an issue. Smoke at home.


If you don't like it...

Then you could stay at home


See the knife cuts both ways. I just would rather be on the free side of it Haha.

Yes I should stay at home. I'm harming no one and you are knowingly. Wrong.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop


Its not a personal belief but,
Its a sociological problem.
Your smoke, affects me.
Your addiction to smoke, clogs up the hospitals
Smoking doesnt give you anything, there's no pro's, no advantages, your doing it because your addicted and if you deny your addicted your also not very bright.

 


Einstein, Tolkien, Van Gogh, Mark Twain, and a number of others all fans of tobacco.


Please inform us of the "bright" things you've done in your life...



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by Poopooplatter
 


If you think the debunking of propaganda isn't important, why are you on this site?


All I did was prove your debunking of an out dated article not important. This doesn't explain my overall view of debunking propaganda. Get real!



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


I smoke maybe one to five cigarettes a month. And on the times im not smoking and someone is smoking I don't stand in the smoke. Its Soo easy. Im not asking you to sit in the car with me im not forcing you to breathe it. You can just avoid walking around smokers.

Here in California the only place where you can smoke inside is a casino. And they still have non smoking sections. Its your choice to go into there just as its my choice to smoke. I don't blow smoke into peoples faces and try to keep it away. There's alot worse stuff in the air than cigarette smoke. That should be the easiest problem to solve.

Is that so hard? Just to walk around the smoker?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Poopooplatter
 


I have a few friends who do not drive. They get to work through public transportation, which burns fuel, all fuels have a carbon footprint, which all lead back to poisons and pollutants in the air. I'm all for the removal of motorized transportation, but sadly it does not seem practical to today's society.
In the mean while, conduct an experiment of your own to find out which between second hand smoke, or car exhaust is what we should be focusing on as a health risk.
Here's a simple experiment: Lock a cat in a two car garage for 20 minutes with 20 cigarettes lit. Lock a different cat in a different garage with a car on for 20 minutes.
See the results.
And no, don't really do that.

reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Your argument fails in that you forget that your rights stop where his begin.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Poopooplatter
 


My one cigarette is nothing compared to driving behind a diesel truck with a strait pipe. But I guess windows don't roll up anymore Haha. I don't complain to ban diesel trucks do I? I just do the logical thing and respect their right to do something perfectly legal.

I think your over reacting or your just in a bad nicotine addicted town Haha


If you want nasty I can smoke a juicy cigar for ya



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by randomtangentsrme
 

The two can't be compared is the whole point. People need a car, people don't need cigarettes.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican
reply to post by Poopooplatter
 


My one cigarette is nothing compared to driving behind a diesel truck with a strait pipe. But I guess windows don't roll up anymore Haha. I don't complain to ban diesel trucks do I? I just do the logical thing and respect their right to do something perfectly legal.

I think your over reacting or your just in a bad nicotine addicted town Haha


If you want nasty I can smoke a juicy cigar for ya


Somme people have to drive diesel trucks for livelihood. People doing because redneck is cool is different and equally unacceptable if not more. Semi trucks shipping goods can't be compared though. There's no choice when's its your livelihood.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by randomtangentsrme
 

The two can't be compared is the whole point. People need a car, people don't need cigarettes.


You actually DON'T need a car you have two legs that's what they were made for , transport.

Just because its easier didn't mean you need it.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
As a smoker.. I can honestly say that I am so sick and tired of "non-smokers" complaining all the time.

In New York, we are not allowed to smoke near buildings, not allowed to smoke in bars, etc etc etc. We are taxed like crazy ($10+ for one pack). We are constantly put down, ridiculed and called stupid names by people such as the OP. And its all nonsense.

Don't want your kids to smoke? Be a better parent and educate them. Don't say "oh well all cigarettes should be illegal" because someone doesn't have the power or the ability to educate their children.

Don't want to breath second hand smoke? That's fine. As a smoker, who knows plenty of other smokers I can say that I don't know any one of them who blows smoke in others faces. Or who blows smoke at kids. When I would smoke at work, we would intentionally go away from the buildings, side walks or any other "public" area. Not that we had to. We were just being courteous.

If you want to get rid of cigarettes because they "clog up your hospitals" then you damn well better press for getting rid of ALL alcohol. I know the innocent victims of drunk drivers clog up your hospitals right? Or the chronic alcoholics who need constant treatment, or liver transplants. They too clog up your hospitals.

I'm just sick of this one sided view on smoking.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


It's going to create a whole new black market for a completely corrupt bunch of bureaucrats to get rich off of when they decide to "declare WAR on it."



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


What!?!?! I pay $3.70 for a pack!!! $10 that's nuts I thought I was ripped off
sorry bro.





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join