New Zealand set to ban smoking

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: CthruU
Filthy disgusting smelly unsanitary habit that it is, it's not like smokers have any type of etiquette about whose about when they smoke or where they leave their UNBIODEGRADABLE butts.

Pooping is filthy, smelly and unsanitary. Let's ban it! Well, except for Biden, that is. He does it in his pants.

While we're at it, let's ban bad breath, body odor, foot odor, obnoxious perfumes & colognes, stinky candles, smelly incense, food-scented room spray, and essential oils -- essential oils because if you're going to throw one odor under the bus, we might as well go ham.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: CthruU
Filthy disgusting smelly unsanitary habit that it is, it's not like smokers have any type of etiquette about whose about when they smoke or where they leave their UNBIODEGRADABLE butts.

Pooping is filthy, smelly and unsanitary. Let's ban it! Well, except for Biden, that is. He does it in his pants.

While we're at it, let's ban bad breath, body odor, foot odor, obnoxious perfumes & colognes, stinky candles, smelly incense, food-scented room spray, and essential oils -- essential oils because if you're going to throw one odor under the bus, we might as well go ham.

How

Dare

YOU!

*cries into the incense*

a reply to: JinMI
Hey
You got a permit for that incense?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: JinMI
Hey
You got a permit for that incense?

Freedom of scents shall not be infringed!

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: CthruU
Filthy disgusting smelly unsanitary habit that it is, it's not like smokers have any type of etiquette about whose about when they smoke or where they leave their UNBIODEGRADABLE butts.

Pooping is filthy, smelly and unsanitary. Let's ban it! Well, except for Biden, that is. He does it in his pants.

While we're at it, let's ban bad breath, body odor, foot odor, obnoxious perfumes & colognes, stinky candles, smelly incense, food-scented room spray, and essential oils -- essential oils because if you're going to throw one odor under the bus, we might as well go ham.

How

Dare

YOU!

*cries into the incense*

Tighten that man-bun, buttercup! You can do without!


Edit: And you better be buying carbon credits to offset this in-home polluting offense, too. EVIL bastard, ugh.

a reply to: Nyiah

It's not a man bun....it's a topknot! Vikings did it first!


Therefore....viking.

ETA to your ETA;

BLAH BLAH BLAH!

*relights candles*

a reply to: chr0naut

You aren't making any sense now.

Try speaking without bootlicking.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

You get on a rather slippery slope if you abandon real rights for some loop-de-loop crazy thing which you then try and portray as a right.

So in your eyes, rights are subjective?

No I was suggesting quite the opposite. Unless something is already defined explicitly as a human right, it isn't.

Article 2 of the UDHR:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

In case you're unfamiliar with the definition of liberty....

the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely

the power to do or choose what you want to

So, everyone should have a right to do, or say, whatever they damn well like to you? That's liberty?

How does that jibe with your 'security of person' bit?

And what of the protection of the law? Does that go out the window, too?

Seems like the further you abstract this "liberty" definition, the worse you come off?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Your cited study is an attitude of or to, not a measurement of fact.

How about this one:

Implications: (1) Recent epidemiologic data suggest a paradoxical link between smoking and COVID-19. (2) Among the 1688 crewmembers (with an attack rate of 76% and exposed at the same time in the same place to SARS-CoV2), we found a significantly lower risk for developing COVID-19 in current smokers (71%) versus former and nonsmokers (80%). This finding strongly supports the need for further research on nicotine physiological pathway and its impact on COVID-19 infection whilst emphasizing that tobacco smoking should not be considered as efficient protection against COVID-19.

Link

Now I would concede a point you didn't make and that would be that smokers are more likely to suffer more complications including hospitalization from covid. However that is obvious as we know smoking isnt healthy and can be labled as 'comorbididty."

The people who want to block every attempt to stop it spreading (don't mask, don't vaccinate, don't lock-down, congregate and protest in crowds, even deny it is happening) are the ones promoting its spread.

However these arent' the ones who are forcing the evolution and play a part in the enrichening of the pharma industry as well as your favorite part, government overeach into authoritarianism.

The birth of new strains of the virus due to mutation is a random event and its primary contributing factors are time, chemistry, and the size of the host population.

Those that oppose efforts to limit the size of the host population, and the time those cases are active, are the ones 'forcing' the 'evolution'.

are the one's forcing the evolution the natural immunity folks who don't get it or spread it, or is it the vaxxed group that seems to both get it and spread it?

originally posted by: Robbo2006

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: thebtheb

As a NZ resident, who has had children, and where many of their friends are now addicted to cigarettes, I applaud this.

We have been through decades of falsehoods promulgated by a tobacco industry, and centuries of preventable disease unambiguously linked to tobacco smoking.

Governments have cooperated in the crimes of these companies promoting addiction, even raising excise from sales, it is good that there is now action to reduce and eliminate the industry. And starting with the youngest is a reasonable method to achieve that goal.

But a potential mother can still murder her unborn foetus if she wants to, am i right.

That doesn't sound particularly 'motherly'. Sounds more like infanticide.

a reply to: chr0naut

So, everyone should have a right to do, or say, whatever they damn well like to you? That's liberty?

How does that jibe with your 'security of person' bit?

So you don't understand liberty. Fair enough.

Seems like the further you abstract this "liberty" definition, the worse you come off?

Again, your failure to understand what liberty is, is not my problem. I gave you the literal definition, nothing abstract about it.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Your cited study is an attitude of or to, not a measurement of fact.

How about this one:

Implications: (1) Recent epidemiologic data suggest a paradoxical link between smoking and COVID-19. (2) Among the 1688 crewmembers (with an attack rate of 76% and exposed at the same time in the same place to SARS-CoV2), we found a significantly lower risk for developing COVID-19 in current smokers (71%) versus former and nonsmokers (80%). This finding strongly supports the need for further research on nicotine physiological pathway and its impact on COVID-19 infection whilst emphasizing that tobacco smoking should not be considered as efficient protection against COVID-19.

Link

Now I would concede a point you didn't make and that would be that smokers are more likely to suffer more complications including hospitalization from covid. However that is obvious as we know smoking isnt healthy and can be labled as 'comorbididty."

The people who want to block every attempt to stop it spreading (don't mask, don't vaccinate, don't lock-down, congregate and protest in crowds, even deny it is happening) are the ones promoting its spread.

However these arent' the ones who are forcing the evolution and play a part in the enrichening of the pharma industry as well as your favorite part, government overeach into authoritarianism.

The birth of new strains of the virus due to mutation is a random event and its primary contributing factors are time, chemistry, and the size of the host population.

Those that oppose efforts to limit the size of the host population, and the time those cases are active, are the ones 'forcing' the 'evolution'.

are the one's forcing the evolution the natural immunity folks who don't get it or spread it, or is it the vaxxed group that seems to both get it and spread it?

You don't get to natural immunity without the vast majority of people getting the disease. So the "natural immunity folks" rely on it spreading.

Yes the vaccinated and unvaccinated both can catch, host, and spread the virus. However, the vaccinated people aren't as infectious as long, and they are less likely to catch the virus than the unprotected.

As more and more people are vaccinated, there will be fewer and fewer unvaccinated people, however, in an interview today with a doctor at a COVID-19 ICU, he pointed out that of all the thousands of patients hospitalized at his hospital, many of whom have been vaccinated, none of the cases that become serious enough to come into his ICU acute COVID-19 care ward have been vaccinated.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: chr0naut

People should really just do some independent research. The Tobacco lie was the first one that they got a divide and rule thing going on. Moderate smoking of decent natural tobacco is certainly not harmful in the smallest sense. In fact, pipe smokers live longer than nonsmokers. Smokers have significantly fewer joint replacement operations. They have a seventy-five percent less likelihood of getting Parkinson's' or Alzheimer's disease. Nill risk of getting Beri Beri, plus so many more positive effects that it is no wonder big pharma want to ban smoking. Smokers' lungs are used in transplants and surgeons cant tell the difference between a smoker's lungs and a nonsmoker. They started with this lie and most fell for it.

Bullchute and YouTwit are not 'independent research'. They are entertainment media.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Please NEVER again atrempt to convince me you understand or respect individual freedom in any way.

You and your chosen fascist nation are a pox on the ass of the planet.

I thought that we were supposed to be leftist here?

Now you are saying that they are far right-wing?

Fascism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surgeon General Warning
Smoking causes Covid19

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

So, everyone should have a right to do, or say, whatever they damn well like to you? That's liberty?

How does that jibe with your 'security of person' bit?

So you don't understand liberty. Fair enough.

Seems like the further you abstract this "liberty" definition, the worse you come off?

Again, your failure to understand what liberty is, is not my problem. I gave you the literal definition, nothing abstract about it.

You gave a definition of liberty. But once not too long ago, someone who had liberty was someone who was not imprisoned or in forced servitude.

The USA, which has the highest number of incarcerated citizens, both in absolute numbers and per capita, of any country in the world, must have the least liberty (in an actual and measurable sense) of any country in the world.

Anyone who is forced to follow a political line, or social convention, and cannot be allowed to have a dissenting opinion is not at liberty. I.e: following a party line, and decrying those that don't, is not liberty.

a reply to: chr0naut

Oh, you were moving the goalposts.


It's amazing how everytime you are confronted about your clear authoritarian nature that happens.

Weird eh?


I've long spoken out about the 3 letter agencies. Keep it on the field.

a reply to: thebtheb

Anything that the psychopathic arseholes that claim to be our leaders want to ban : piques my interest.

originally posted by: generik
well at least it looks like they are actually doing it the right way.

New Zealand has announced it will outlaw smoking for the next generation, so that those who are aged 14 and under today will never be legally able to buy tobacco. New legislation means the legal smoking age will increase every year, to create a smoke-free generation of New Zealanders, associate health minister Dr Ayesha Verrall said on Thursday.

this is actually the way i have said in the past that it should be done. my only issue is instead of those 14, the currant age of cutoff should be 10-12, since many are already addicted to it by 14.

by doing it this way it doesn't cause harm to those heavily addicted and can't quit, while at the same time stopping people from starting, and thus getting addicted in the first place.

SO, THIS IS FOR THEIR OWN GOOD?!

a reply to: chr0naut

I thought that we were supposed to be leftist here?

Yeah so did Mussolini.

What will your government outlaw next?
Smiling?
Sending mail?