goldfish65
Well-Known Member
Wow, I'm seeing from this thread that besides all the other bad things about cigarettes, they cause people to turn on each other. Sad.
What;s wrong with kids these days?
- Thread starter Asktoro
- Start date
-
I'm not sure you got the point Dan is making, or maybe I didn't. I see this as an attempt to say that the gubment is into everything in our lives to make things safer, except tobacco.
Hey Dan! What would you do it get all the world, if not just where you live to stop smoking?
Or better yet, prevent future kids from smoking.
This is really the idea behind the first post. (Not some crack pot OKing P-Wee jerking it!)
I would (If I were king.....) simply make the product illeagal for sale period.
Current smokers to be given some kind of insentive to quit.... but what is the question.
Give current smokers, those who refuse to quit, a sysmbol on there license? in order to purchase the new $50 a pack price.
Now make it a prescription.
Those caught selling it get heavy fines, selling to minors instant jail time, lets say, starting with 7 - 10 years for attempted murder of a child.
It'll take a while, but sooner or later, and probably sooner when the smokers die off, you'll have a smoke free land.
Big Tobaccoooo can sell it elsewhere in the world.
Or better yet, prevent future kids from smoking.
This is really the idea behind the first post. (Not some crack pot OKing P-Wee jerking it!)
I would (If I were king.....) simply make the product illeagal for sale period.
Current smokers to be given some kind of insentive to quit.... but what is the question.
Give current smokers, those who refuse to quit, a sysmbol on there license? in order to purchase the new $50 a pack price.
Now make it a prescription.
Those caught selling it get heavy fines, selling to minors instant jail time, lets say, starting with 7 - 10 years for attempted murder of a child.
It'll take a while, but sooner or later, and probably sooner when the smokers die off, you'll have a smoke free land.
Big Tobaccoooo can sell it elsewhere in the world.
LXguy
Well-Known Member
Umm, dude. The logic here is laughable, and smacks of the tantrum you mentioned.
I quit smoking more than 10 years ago. I'm in the best shape of my life.
What kind of shape would I be in if I quit eating or drinking 10 years ago?
I agree that someone who has never smoked is ignorant of the power the little sticks hold over you. HOWEVER, someone who is currently under the spell of that addiction is equally ignorant of the discomfort their habit causes to those around them, and thus current addicts are not "qualified" to speak on those issues.
Not getting your nic fix causes irritability, sweats, headaches, increased heart rate, and anxiety. The physical addiction passes in 48-72 hours depending on the individual. The remaining effects are entirely psychological.
It is incredibly difficult to quit, yes, but quitting smoking is not dangerous or physically harmful in any way. Neither is it physically harmful or dangerous for a smoker to do without until they get the hell away from me.
ESP47
Well-Known Member
I'm surprised you've taken this stance on the subject. I gotta say I largely disagree with this. If it was impossible to quit or could kill you to quit, then you could place part of the blame on the Tobacco company. But thats not how it works. A smoker may feel the need to smoke in the same way I feel the need to eat food or drink water, but it's not necessary for survival. You don't die when you stop smoking. You may feel an insane temptation to light up and you may feel like crap for a while, but you don't die from it. If food or water was all the sudden bad for you in the same way smoking is, don't you think you could go through a week long hunger or dehydration to get over it? It's all about will power. If people fully blame the tobacco companies, then it's just another way for smokers to justify their addiction.
slantsixdan
=..=
Get back to us once you've done some research on the costs to us all from tobacco-related disease and death and smoking-related fires.
Belief has nothing to do with addiction.
Yeah, it is. We ban (or at least regulate) dangerous consumer products. Tobacco is a hideously dangerous consumer product, and we don't ban and scarcely regulate it.
Same place every other slippery slope leads: to the trashcan of logical fallacy in the garbage dump of sloppy thinking.
Nobody ever said seriously restricting tobacco (or legalizing presently illegal drugs) would solve all the problems. It would solve some problems and create others. I happen to think drugs should be thoughtfully controlled in direct proportion to their potential for harm and addiction. Thoughtful control does not mean "Arrrr, it's illegal so we're going to throw you in prison". It means dealing with addiction as the medical issue it is, not as a moral issue it isn't. Blaming addicts for being addicts ("They should've read the label; it's their problem") achieves nothing.
Agreed -- those are both excellent examples that regulation is not necessarily a bad thing when it's done thoughtfully and for the right reasons.
...and a very entrenched drug enforcement industry that likes it this way. Yes. This is an excellent example that regulation is not necessarily a good thing when it's done thoughtlessly, greedily, or for the wrong reasons.
slantsixdan
=..=
No, it's very clear and directly relevant illustration of the slop in your thought process.
Is that really the best your mind is capable of coming up with…?
On the contrary: I realise we live in a society with representative government, so I -- and many other people like me -- vote for those representatives I think will do the most good for the most people. You, on the other hand, fail to take into account that people are by nature selfish, greedy, and shortsighted. When there were few enough people that your nearest neighbor was miles away, it didn't matter what you did because it affected only you. You could be as greedy and selfish and shortsighted as you wanted, and it didn't affect anyone else. But this is reality, where just about everything we do affects others. When we are greedy and shortsighted and selfish, our gain comes at others' expense, whether we're dumping poison onto our lawn or building and selling cars or employing workers. That's why we have regulations -- and why we need them.
But tellya what: When I run for King of the World, you don't hafta vote for me.
MoparDart68
Well-Known Member
I hate smoking, not necessarily the smoker. But when a smoker says that if you don't like it, leave, then I have a problem with the smoker.
LXguy
Well-Known Member
Not sure where you get that. I guess it depends on your definition of scarcely. Its more regulated than alcohol.
LOL. I addressed this in the original post? Maybe get back to me after you read that.
But do me a favor, what's the net cost of government paid healthcare for smokers, less the tax revenue generated by them?
haha way to sidestep without responding. Is that the best your mind can come up with?
I guess no law has ever expanded beyond its original purpose due to mission creep....
I'll pose the question directly: What other consumer products and activities should we ban because they present a danger to the user? In what other ways should we have the government punish people for their own good?
And I happen to think tobacco already is thoughtfully controlled in direct proportion to its potential for harm and addiction. They can't advertise it very effectively, its age restricted, its heavily taxed, it says right on the side of the box that it will kill you. The rate of smoking in American adults has dropped by 50% in 30 years.
Since it is apparent from the utter failure of the war on drugs that you can't just tell people "Stop doing what you want or we'll throw you in jail", and no one has a magic wand to make people stop, and having to choose from a range of realistic options, I think the regulations on smoking have been HUGELY effective.
HAHA OK, so tell me what government deals with things in this fashion. You can't advocate government control and then suppose they're going to take control in a way that no government ever has.
HAHA again, and how do you think the government would regulate tobacco if they were to ban it?
Texting! A danger to the user and others.
slantsixdan
=..=
You're right, nobody ever died of tobacco withdrawal (well, not directly…spouses and co-workers maybe!), and I used to agree with this exactly. I'm sorely tempted to agree with it again. But this is what I mean by "addiction has nothing to do with reason": those warnings on the cigarette packs, the headlines, the water-cooler chatter, those are all intellectual, thinky-type things. Non-addicts cannot understand addiction; if you have no direct experience, it's an abstract concept with no link to reality. By the time you have the experience to understand what it really is to be addicted, it's too late…you're addicted.
Sure, thoughtful people make the decision to remain inexperienced with respect to addiction and to take it on faith that it's something they don't want. But against that is the billion-dollar tobacco and advertising industries pushing "pleasure" and social facility.
slantsixdan
=..=
When you're ready to participate in the discussion in a grownup manner, maybe I'll be interested in conversing with you.
LXguy
Well-Known Member
HAHA if you were going to try to make the case that we should let the government regulate everything because people are too stupid to live without help, you couldn't ask for better proof than texting while driving.
George R
Mopar Nutcase
Dan-
Why do you feel the need to belittle the person on the other end of your conversations? Ya know, you use a lot of big words to make other readers think you're smarter than most, but even with those words you really don't say anything other than "Dan is right, and whomever disagrees is wrong". You think you can use those fancy words in front of the class, and the smoke screen you create with bewilder the other guy into thinking he's an idiot.
It's my own fault for trying to converse with you anyway so I blame myself. I should have known better. Ya can't win an argument with an idiot, you'll beat everyone else with your experience.
MoparDart68-
If you're ever standing next to me and happen to smell my smoke, feel free to tell me to put it out, OK? You will be told to go stand somewhere else.
I'm out of this one.
Peace
Why do you feel the need to belittle the person on the other end of your conversations? Ya know, you use a lot of big words to make other readers think you're smarter than most, but even with those words you really don't say anything other than "Dan is right, and whomever disagrees is wrong". You think you can use those fancy words in front of the class, and the smoke screen you create with bewilder the other guy into thinking he's an idiot.
It's my own fault for trying to converse with you anyway so I blame myself. I should have known better. Ya can't win an argument with an idiot, you'll beat everyone else with your experience.
MoparDart68-
If you're ever standing next to me and happen to smell my smoke, feel free to tell me to put it out, OK? You will be told to go stand somewhere else.
I'm out of this one.
Peace
slantsixdan
=..=
It would have to be a most-of-the-world effort. And it wouldn't be 100% successful (you can still buy R12 Freon, cocaine, marijuana, human beings, endangered birds, ivory, and all kinds of other banned things). But:
At the production end: phase in a ban on the manufacture, processing, introduction into international or intranational commerce, import, export, advertisement, and *government subsidy* of tobacco (because it's grossly inappropriate for the government -- any government -- to be spending tax money out of both sides of its mouth, on quit-smoking programs out the one side and on tobacco farmer subsidies and tobacco industry tax breaks out the other).
At the consumption end: ban the cultivation, transport and possession of quantities greater than for individual personal use. Treat addiction as the medical issue it is, not as a moral/criminal blame-and-punish-the-victim issue. Increment the minimum legal age, one year at a time, from its present 18 until it's 30 or so, hold it there for some number of years, then place tobacco on the appropriate international schedule as determined by the World Health Organisation.
At the regulatory end: keep a watchful scientific eye on all of the above; make adjustments as necessary in response to which measures are working and which ones aren't.
LXguy
Well-Known Member
Have a nice day.
slantsixdan
=..=
Thanks, you too!
Ooo, I like the plan.
Then sub something in as equaling as the withdraw sysmptoms that the non-smoker can understand in the simplest terms possible an only because the certain someone just doesn't get it.
Been on both sides of the fence, so I'm well qualifided several times over. Sucks iot does, but here I am.
Congrads on your 10 years!
I'd have a major problem with that smoker as well. MAJOR problem.
Theres no smoking in my house. And in some other places I like smoke free. As a smoker, I understand the non-smokers side. I have quit before and stupidly started up, not once, but twice. Let the trashing begin, but understand I do.
earthmover
in the tire smoke
i hate smoke and i use to work with a guy that smoked in the truck we drove to work in..when someone would ask me do you smoke i say yep 2 packs of second hand smoke a day.....he started to smoke before he got in the work truck from then on...lol:rock:
inkjunkie
Well-Known Member
Please don't take this as an attack on you personally, but it is very easy to be a tough guy on the internet........what ever happened to common courtesy?
LXguy
Well-Known Member
I hear you. Can't think of anything.
Its a smoker thing, they wouldn't understand. HA
Thank you. I guess its actually more than that. Looked through my junk drawer, and I haven't had a puff since April 1998. I figure I've saved so much money my car hobby is basically free!
Every couple of years I have a dream where I smoked and I wake up all disappointed in myself for backsliding. If I ever meet Kurt Russell, I'm going to kick him in the jimmies.
goldfish65
Well-Known Member
To all the smokers who have tried to quit...just because so far you haven't been able to, doesn't mean you can't do it. For many people, it takes more than one attempt. Once you make up your mind, pick up the book 'You Can Stop Smoking' by Jacqueline Rogers. It's very systematic, it's smoker-friendly, and it works. It's an old book, you might even find it in a used book store.
Dart_Doctor
Asa style
i mite look that up with i can walk agin ... ive been through most other things whats one more
-
