Libs think smokers need much more persecution

[NoNukes]

"Persecuting" smokers is one of the best things our society has ever done

Controlling other people's lives is never a good thing.

It could be viewed as having a control on your life and what effects you and your family.

 

[bodecea]

I disagree with all the taxes on cigarettes. But as for laws concerning second-hand smoke I'm all for it.

The alleged "dangers" of second hand smoke are an absolute crock.

Nope.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Persecuting" smokers is one of the best things our society has ever done

Controlling other people's lives is never a good thing.

It could be viewed as having a control on your life and what effects you and your family.

And that's not up to you is it?

 

[rightwinger]

Controlling other people's lives is never a good thing.

Smacking smokers around and putting them in their place was a major step forward for our society. I grew up in a time when smokers ruled. They smoked wherever and whenever they felt like it. When they were done, they threw the butt on the ground and said....somebody pick that up
They exhaled and smiled as they said.......breathe my filth
Our clothes and hair reeked of their filth and they sneered....I'll smoke anywhere I damned want to

Poor, poor persecuted smokers

If they litter ticket them for littering. I see a lot of people throwing their trash in the streets. ticket them too.

It's none of your business if a person wants to smoke in the privacy of their own home or vehicle for that matter.

Smokers have become social outcasts in our society....it was long overdue

Find a way to smoke without subjecting others to your stench and I don't have a problem with it

 

[Katzndogz]

Anyone ever wonder how much is costs to treat lung cancer? Emphasema(sp)?

Why can't the tobacco companies pay for the health care costs associated with tobacca addiction?

Why should people that don't smoke have to bear increasing insurance costs for a entirely preventalbe illness like lung cancer?

Why can't liquor companies pay for car accidents and costs associated with cirrohis? Why should the public be saddled with the costs of drug addiction, rehab centers, half way houses, and all the other costs?

 

[rightwinger]

Controlling other people's lives is never a good thing.

Smacking smokers around and putting them in their place was a major step forward for our society. I grew up in a time when smokers ruled. They smoked wherever and whenever they felt like it. When they were done, they threw the butt on the ground and said....somebody pick that up
They exhaled and smiled as they said.......breathe my filth
Our clothes and hair reeked of their filth and they sneered....I'll smoke anywhere I damned want to

Poor, poor persecuted smokers

Sounds like you would like to gas them, rw.

They gassed me first

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/o...ion-of-smoking.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&

and what is wrong with making a products addictive property fall so low in content as to not cause addiction?


are you insane?

why did no one answer this question?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Anyone ever wonder how much is costs to treat lung cancer? Emphasema(sp)?

Why can't the tobacco companies pay for the health care costs associated with tobacca addiction?

Why should people that don't smoke have to bear increasing insurance costs for a entirely preventalbe illness like lung cancer?

Why should they? No one is forcing anyone to smoke cigarettes.

And in case you haven't noticed smokers do pay higher premiums.

Why should they you ask. Well how about the fact that they knowingly sell a product that addicts and kills.

A legal product. Should alcohol producers be responsible for all the costs of alcohol abuse and would you want your next 6 pack to cost 30 dollars so as to pay for it?

If tobacco were just discoverd today, with its posions and addictive properites, guess what, it would either be well regulated or outlawed.

No it wouldn't. People would still want to smoke it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Liberals pushed their do goodism during prohibition. Didnt work out too well back then for them.

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers brought their persecution on themselves. Our public spaces are much better because of it

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Libs never cease to amaze me. Bring up abortion, and they offer up the "her body, her choice" line ad nauseum. But bring up soda or cigarettes and they suddenly forget about the "choice" mantra. As a whole, they sure are a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[zeke]

Why should they? No one is forcing anyone to smoke cigarettes.

And in case you haven't noticed smokers do pay higher premiums.

Why should they you ask. Well how about the fact that they knowingly sell a product that addicts and kills.

A legal product. Should alcohol producers be responsible for all the costs of alcohol abuse and would you want your next 6 pack to cost 30 dollars so as to pay for it?

If tobacco were just discoverd today, with its posions and addictive properites, guess what, it would either be well regulated or outlawed.

No it wouldn't. People would still want to smoke it.

Legal is not the issue. Perscription drugs are legal. People still get addicted.

Problem with tobacco is that the addiction is almost 100%. IN other words, if you smoke for lets say a year, you will be addicted. And you will practice this addiction every day. And the harm full effects will be almost immediate.

With drinking, you can have a drink occasionally and not be addicted. Hardly anyone smokes on occassion. Tobacco has the distinction of being an addictive substance that goes well with everything. I know, I smoked for years, and thereby lends itself to constant use and then before you know it you are addicted. And it is a tough addiction to beat.

But yes, the idea that alcohol makers contribute monies to education or treatment for alcohol addiction is not a bad idea at all.

Which do you think there are more of in the country; smoking addicts or alcoholics?

Why should people that become addicted to things they know will harm them and cause termendous medical bills be able to have general society absorb, or at least mitigate the true cost or their decisions concerning by their health? I say that the costs are absorbed by society because this behaviour causes more increases in overall medical costs than should be, if the individual either didn't engage in the harmfull addictive activity or paid much much much more of their medical costs or received no medical care for their illness caused by themselves.

Or the source's of their addictive substances paid some toward the costs of care.

People addicted to illegal drugs get nothing in treatment, but do get help to stop the addiction.

I am glad to see that some companies understand that addicts cost them money they should not have to spend for health care. A company here in town will not hire you if you smoke. If you lie about it and get caught, you are fired. Company feels that there is no good reason that the entire work force should absorb higher health care premiums because the company employs smokers. So they don't.

That's the way the free market works. The company is being smart about it. Reynolds and Reynolds is the company.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Smokes and then sodas and certain foods and probably coffee next ..... only heaven knows what will they persecute next... Big Brother is well and truly with us.

Coffee is an all natural, fat free, low calorie drink that has more antioxidants in it than green tea. And caffeine is a perfectly safe and natural substance to ingest, as long as its not taken out of moderation.

But if you're talking about that crap they sell at Starbucks. Yeah, that stuff is all calories and fat.

 

[rightwinger]

Libs never cease to amaze me. Bring up abortion, and they offer up the "her body, her choice" line ad nauseum. But bring up soda or cigarettes and they suddenly forget about the "choice" mantra. As a whole, they sure are a bunch of hypocrites.

I love the soda addicts too

People who used to smoke three packs of cigs a day now drinking three six packs of soda a day

 

[rightwinger]

Things I miss from when smokers ruled the country

1. Going to a movie theater and watching the movie projected through a cloud of smoke
2. Cigarettes filling urinals
3. Entering a (bar, restaurant,bowling alley, barber shop...) and hitting a cloud of smoke
4. Cigarette butts all over floors, roadsides, parks, parking lots.......Hey! somebody pick that up for me
5. Your clothes and hair smelling like smoke even though you don't smoke
6. Ashtrays all over the place and butts still on the ground
7. People stinking up your house and car
8. Burn marks on furniture

 

[NoNukes]

Controlling other people's lives is never a good thing.

It could be viewed as having a control on your life and what effects you and your family.

And that's not up to you is it?

I do not see what is wrong with being protected from what can harm you and your family. I smoked for years, and I still occasionally have a cigarette, but I see nothing wrong with protecting people from inhaling second hand smoke. If a person owns a bar or restaurant, I think it should be up to them if they want to allow smoking in their establishment. People do not have to be customers or employees there if they choose not to. Like many things, they have carried the smoking ban too far.

 

[NoNukes]

Smacking smokers around and putting them in their place was a major step forward for our society. I grew up in a time when smokers ruled. They smoked wherever and whenever they felt like it. When they were done, they threw the butt on the ground and said....somebody pick that up
They exhaled and smiled as they said.......breathe my filth
Our clothes and hair reeked of their filth and they sneered....I'll smoke anywhere I damned want to

Poor, poor persecuted smokers

Sounds like you would like to gas them, rw.

They gassed me first

Not long after I quit smoking my wife and I were in a restaurant in Vienna. This was before Austria had to go along with the EU smoking ban. The people at the table next to us were smoking while we were eating. I realized immediately why non smokers always objected to people smoking around them while they were eating.

 

[bendog]

What strikes me is that Koop would be hounded from the gop for his positions on abortion not being harmful to a woman, using govt to coerce people to not smoke and condoms. LOL

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why should they you ask. Well how about the fact that they knowingly sell a product that addicts and kills.

A legal product. Should alcohol producers be responsible for all the costs of alcohol abuse and would you want your next 6 pack to cost 30 dollars so as to pay for it?

If tobacco were just discoverd today, with its posions and addictive properites, guess what, it would either be well regulated or outlawed.

No it wouldn't. People would still want to smoke it.

Legal is not the issue. Perscription drugs are legal. People still get addicted.

Problem with tobacco is that the addiction is almost 100%. IN other words, if you smoke for lets say a year, you will be addicted. And you will practice this addiction every day. And the harm full effects will be almost immediate.

If you drink a liter of Vodka everyday for a year you'll be addicted to alcohol too.

With drinking, you can have a drink occasionally and not be addicted. Hardly anyone smokes on occassion. Tobacco has the distinction of being an addictive substance that goes well with everything. I know, I smoked for years, and thereby lends itself to constant use and then before you know it you are addicted. And it is a tough addiction to beat.

I know people who smoke occasionally and are not addicted. If you want to use one or two alcoholic drinks a week as an example for your addiction argument then use one or two cigarettes a week

But yes, the idea that alcohol makers contribute monies to education or treatment for alcohol addiction is not a bad idea at all.

Which do you think there are more of in the country; smoking addicts or alcoholics?

Don't know don't care. If you want to drink and/or smoke to excess it's none of my business.

 

[NoNukes]

Libs never cease to amaze me. Bring up abortion, and they offer up the "her body, her choice" line ad nauseum. But bring up soda or cigarettes and they suddenly forget about the "choice" mantra. As a whole, they sure are a bunch of hypocrites.

I love the soda addicts too

People who used to smoke three packs of cigs a day now drinking three six packs of soda a day

And soda is very bad for you, anything carbonated, even water.