MovieChat Forums > Rush Limbaugh Discussion > Do you blame the tobacco corporations?

Do you blame the tobacco corporations?


Yes, less people smoke than before but they still sell their diabolically addicting cancer products. We all probably know people who've died of lung/stomach/mouth cancer, emphysema, etc. Millions of people have died and millions more will die in the future. Do you blame them for Rush's tobacco addiction?

reply

No.

reply

Do you blame them for Rush's tobacco addiction?
What makes you say he is addicted to tobacco? Seems like he smokes because he likes Cigars.

reply

You aren't very bright, are you?

reply

Of course not.

They'd already outlawed guns in England, so now they've got a problem with people using vehicles as means of mass slaughter and knives to kill them in quick succession. They can't outlaw vehicles in modern society, so they did the next best thing -- you couldn't carry knives on the streets of London. Did that stop knifings? Of course not. Just as we always said, it's the people.

Rush chose to smoke cigars. I chose to smoke cigarettes for decades. I finally quit; Rush didn't. Choices.

And I can guarantee you that Rush would be the last one to blame the makers of his favorite cigars. Fans would no doubt know what those are, but no, he wouldn't blame them.

reply

[deleted]

Why, I have my very own creeper! And the quality of debate remains the same!

First, my supposed liberal friend, Democrats don't use "retarded" as a pejorative anymore. It isn't considered PC. The funny thing is you'd been pretending to be a Bernie Booster while using insults like "cuckservative" and "snowflake." You used them wrong, of course, and just called me names and laughed like Biff in Back to the Future when I'd point out your mistakes.

Here's another one: personal responsibility isn't stupid. Blaming the fellow who chose to smoke the cigars rather than the cigar companies isn't stupid. Blaming everyone else for your own mistakes is something children do. Or a guy like Biff...

reply

[deleted]

There must be something about Canadians, then, because we used to get told the British didn’t have such a violent crime problem because they had gun control. Now, a few years later, and they’re facing more violent crime. As for why we have so many school shootings, I don’t know. Is there more bullying down here? I’m told anyone who wants to could make a gun, so banning them here would be pointless.

But, Biff, at least now I know why you know so little about our political system.

O, Canada....

reply

[deleted]

Do you have a problem reading? What I said was, "we used to get told the British didn’t have such a violent crime problem...." NOT "we used to get told the British didn't have any violent crime." Can you honestly not tell the difference, or is it your fetish with the Strawman logical fallacy again?

Once again, you miss the point -- on purpose (Strawman) or because of your reading comprehension? Anyone here -- or in Canada -- could have access to a gun. Or England, too, for that matter. Smugglers exist in both countries, and guns are as easy to smuggle as illegal drugs. My husband is a mechanic and he tells me he could make a gun right now with the material and tools he has in his shop. You would say he's lying, of course, because you know what he has in his shop. 🙄

I usually ask folks like you precisely what law you would write that would stop a determined mass murderer from carrying out his crime -- since criminals don't care about laws. Do you think making guns illegal would stop it? It worked so well with drugs, didn't it? Again, criminals don't care about laws -- murderers especially.

You type in all caps; you literally write out "hahahahhahaha;" when you need to use capitals -- such as the beginning of sentences -- you don't most of the time; you wrote "has less shootings" which would grate on the ear of any educated person; you don't know anyone could construct an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) but you don't want them "easily accessible;" and you want me to believe you have a degree in political science with a focus in North American politics -- where I assume you never had to write a paper in proper English. The focus in NA politics omitted important things like the rise of the alt-right or politically correct movements. You pretend to be liberal but use incredibly un-PC terms like "retarded" and "cuck."

I wouldn't give a flying fig for your supposed degree.

reply

[deleted]

Guns wouldn't need to be home-manufactured; they could be smuggled in. The guns could be easily gotten, but apparently folks in those countries would rather use knives, cars and explosives to commit their crimes -- although some still do use guns, proving they are available.

"because a law is not 100 effective does not mean its 100% ineffective." Golly. Then why are all those illegal murders occurring in gun-free zones down here, often with stolen weapons? All those laws broken, but one more would have solved the problem.

And I notice you didn't give an example of that law criminals would obey.

"I guarantee your family is embarrassed by you when you open you own mouth." As opposed to my opening someone else's? 🤦🏼‍♀️ No, my family and friends don't think I'm stupid. Then again, they don't say things like "you open you own mouth." 🙄

I live in a state with strong gun laws. A few years ago, around Christmastime, some fellow walked into a crowded local mall and started shooting. A man who'd ignored the "Gun-Free Zone" sign outside whipped out his gun and fired back, wounding the gunman. Seeing that he wasn't going to get by with it, the would-be mass murderer turned his gun on himself. The strong gun laws did nothing. The good man who fired back did. BTW, the would-be mass murderer had an illegal gun, in a gun-free zone, committing attempted homicide. He wouldn't have cared if there was one more law to break -- he'd have done it anyway. We have a mental illness problem. At the latest gun rally we had thousands of armed people and not a single casualty. The problem isn't with the guns, it's with the people.

"lol that's all you got? wow you sad embarrassment. please give up on life. no one will care. your family must be embarrassed by" That's the whole sentence.

You quoted only part of the long list, so that's not "all [I] got." You couldn't answer any of it. If that degree is real, I hope you can get your money back.

reply

[deleted]

Oh, one more point -- I used to be on the badly-moderated IMDb boards, so I'm used to people with crippled grammar telling me I should kill myself. But some day you're going to type something like, "wow you sad embarrassment. please give up on life. no one will care" to someone who suffers from severe depression. The results could be tragic.

You like to gloat and belittle when you have no argument. Please try to respond to people with more basic human decency. You can disagree with someone without sinking to the point you did.

reply

[deleted]

Remember, you followed me here. If you don’t want to see my posts, don’t stalk me. No one is forcing you to click on my posts. 🤷🏼‍♀️

reply

[deleted]

And you're a repetitious stalker who has to substitute schoolyard insults for argument. 🤷🏼‍♀️

reply

that's why I destroyed every time. Hey destin-A please explain that language gender argument you tried and embarrassed yourself sooo hard at last time.

reply

You're a legend in your own mind. 😂

G'bye! 👋🏻

reply

[deleted]

Everyone dies whether they smoke or not. I don't blame tobacco for selling tobacco, but I blame them for lying about the danger.

reply

This. Lying about the addictive nature of nicotine while deliberately controlling the levels of nicotine in cigarettes puts them on the hook for damages to smokers back in the day.

reply

Watch "What the Health" on Netflix.

reply

I enjoyed it

reply

Can you summarize

reply

Summary: Cancer happens typically more via meat-eating than smoking. Makes a surprisingly strong case.

reply

Cancer and tobacco did their job on this one.

reply

No. All they do is sell the product. It isn't their fault that customers choose to use it and poison their bodies. That's like blaming the gun in a murder instead of the person pulling the trigger.

One issue that a lot of people still don't get is, you don't have to smoke to get lung cancer. One of my classmates at the trade school I was attending told us how she lost her husband to lung cancer, and the guy had never smoked a day in his life. (I blame second-hand smoke on that one).

Another thing they don't teach enough in health class and with the DARE program, are long-term effects of smoking, despite quitting and staying clean for many decades. Sometimes even then, former smokers still suffer health complications, such as COPD, or getting cancer that's totally unrelated to smoking, but it spreads to the lungs and to damaged tissue in there.

reply

You are all over the map with these arguments and they are all wrong.

I say, a company selling a product that is injurious to health should be curtailed, as is the case with guns.

Just because people develop health problems outside of the norm for the disease is not an excuse for shrugging our shoulders as what is more likely to bring about this disease.

And there isn't much reason to tell someone not to quit a bad habit because they may have already suffered the consequences of it.

I don't understand what you are trying to tell us.

reply

I liken addiction to a big party. When you're an addict you're going to have the time of your life as long as you get your fix. The end of the party is always a huge mess.

reply

I've heard it described something like this. On the best day of your life (non drug abuser), your brain gives out a dopamine hit with a score around 100. On heroin (not even the strongest opioid) the brain gives out a dopamine hit of 600. That's why people have such a hard time abstaining forever. The body cannot naturally compete with the high. It's an awful cycle, I'm so fortunate to have avoided this fate. People of all social spectrums are at risk.

reply

nicely put, thanks!

reply