http://www.thetruth.com/
I do. I can't say I feel sorry for anyone who gives lung cancer to another person though second hand smoke then too develop the disease.
The Assassination of Brad Pitt's Career by the Coward Angelina Jolie?
Maserati777
[deleted]
I know what you mean. I love laughing at fat people when they have heart attacks. What idiots...
shareOnce when I was at the hospital, a code blue (respiratory/cardiac arrest) was called on the smoking deck. I couldn't help but give a grim chuckle.
Rien n'arrete nos esprits.
Guns can't kill what soldiers can't see.
Fat people don't cause other fat people to be fat. Your point is invalid.
Real Steel - 9/10
Escape from the Planet of the Apes - 9/10
I'm sure that would be your reaction if it were a family member or close friend.
shareIt's OK Eleo, I think they work for the cigarette industry.
shareTV, food, cigarettes, booze, pills, narcotics, cosmetics, caffeine....if it weren't for human addictions, the world's economy would crumble.
**Truth**
I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .
None of those thing also kill other people when you use them.
**Truth**
Real Steel - 9/10
Escape from the Planet of the Apes - 9/10
and neither does smoking? whats your point?
shareThat is incorrect. Just because you are ignorant to common knowledge facts, doesn't mean I don't have a point. To you proof doesn't prove anything, so I'm not even going to try. You don't care if other people are harmed, so you'll do what you want. It's that simple.
Jack and Jill - 2/10
A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas - 8/10
Tower Heist - 7/10
why do you think the independently run smoking studies find no real risk from second hand smoke?
looks like your the ignorant dumbass who just believes what the anti smoking crowd tells you.
I don't care what a small minority says. Every reputable doctor and scientist knows that smoking is quite harmful. Plus, what exactly are these studies. I googled, and I get blogs from smokers. Studies in fact show that one WHIFF of second hand smoke damages the body. The fact is most smokers just need to get their fix, and they don't care what happens to others. I'm not saying all of them, some people do care about their children and go outside, but it's the minority.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3COMKA_tM
Yeah, the experts are all just crazy, except very small minority. Yeah, the people who happen to LOVE smoking, are not biased at all and have all the facts not the people who actually make these reports. Sure, there's no way I can convince you of the truth. I guess you believe all the firemen who got lung cancer after 9/11 made it up. I guess you believe the fact that a child gets lung cancer at a very young age, has nothing to do with constantly breathing in smoke and they are just wanting attention. My Grandma didn't really die from smoking 6 packs a day, that's just coicidence huh? And the fact that my Grandfather (who has never smoked)now is going through the same thing, that just coincidence, huh? My uncle who was around it growing up, lost his voice and his tongue had to be removed. The doctor was just lying, huh? He just enjoys chopping of tongues? The fact my sister had no problems as a kid and I was born asthmatic after my mom starting smoking during pregnancy. oh no logic can't be right can it? The government warn us of these problems for nothing, sure even though they could get tons of money from lobbyists.
Jack and Jill - 2/10
A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas - 8/10
Tower Heist - 7/10
let me get this straight: you dont even know what a medical study is, or where to find them, and yet you claim your right? wow.
why dont you actually look up the studies and read them. not the catchy headline by the news. read the ACTUAL Reports. second hand smoke is considered such a non issue as to be statistically insignificant.
since i have to hold your hand and walk you through grown up things, here is a site to check out first: http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html
This is clearly not reputable and a site made by people who are fans of smoking. Showing me some outdated site made by smakers/conspiracy theorists just proves that there is no legitimate proof that second hand smoke is harmless. This actually just shows reports, made by REAL scientists disagreeing with them.
That's honestly the best you can do? The reason I needed you to provide these "reports" reports made by smokers, is because there is so little of them supporting your belief. You don't have to SEARCH for the info supporting the truth, because it's just that, truth. Common, widely accept knowledge. Showing some pro smoking site trying to rebute actual reports does nothing but show ho desperate you were to find anything supporing your incorrect view. The entire internet, vs a poorly designed, site that hasn't been updated in years, ha. The very name of this site alone C.L.A.S.H: Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, makes it lose all credibility. For it even to be considered legit, it needs to be done by real scientists and doctors, not just a group of people mad because they can't smoke in bars anymore. And that catchy news segment was made, because there was a REAL SCIENTIFIC report supporting those claims.
oh my god. the site shows the actual smoking studies, rather than second hand interpretations (which is what we get from thr anti smoking lobby). why dont you just read the reports and see if you come to the same conclusions rather then just basing your whole opinion on ant smoking commercials.
and whats your argument? you dont have to search for truth because its just out there huh? commonly accepted knowledge huh? your right, cause its not like commonly accepted knowelege has ever been wrong in history. i guess the world really is flat.
and why dont you stop using political tactics by insulting what the name of the site is. you are trying to discredit based on style rather than substance. its an age old cheap trick.
For someone who is championing this site, you don't know a whole lot about it. This site takes the actual studies, showing how harmful second hand smoke is, and then they try and refute that information. They aren't doing any real studies, just saying why they disagree with those studies. And a news segment talking about a new report, again, a real unbiased report,isn't anti-smoking ad. It's a news station doing their job for a change.
So your argument is that a theory that earth was flat, back when it was extremely difficult to prove either way, that was based on basically nothing, just what everyone assumed. means that all current knowledge, that is actually based on scientific data, is in the same league as that theory.
Those aren't political tactics, just truth. The site hasn't been updated in years because it's a lost cause. It's completely about substance. The site hasn't been updated since 2005. Where is the substance attempting to refute more recent studies? The fact of the matter is real scientists get better financing, a group of people "lobbying", in their own words, are not scientists and don't get money to say why they think those studies are incorrect.
Perhaps they saw the light, and realized smokers aren't being harassed for not allowing them to make others breathe toxic chemicals, it's actually the other way around.
Jack and Jill - 2/10
A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas - 8/10
Tower Heist - 7/10
The truth is that it doesn't matter if second-hand smoke kills, provided an individual has a choice to move away from me. I don't support it in hospitals or government-operated facilities, for instance, because there is no alternative choice. But in a restaurant, bar, mall, etc. there is the freedom to walk away from a smoker.
it's too bad that people would rather give government more power over people rather than accepting that power themselves.
"Atlas Shrugged- Part 1"- NOW on DVD!
So people should take the risk of getting sick if they want to go out to eat? Or to go shopping? You are advocating violence as long as it's something you like to do. So if somone shoots a gun, they have a right to move away, therefore shooting guns at people shouldn't be illegal
And as I've shown in one of my other posts, one whiff causes damage to the body. THey literally would not have time to move away before taking one whiff unless they happened to be psychic or constantly holding their breath. And also as air movies, the smoke doesn't simply stay in one spot. In fact if you just look at your cigarette as you are smokeing you will see a trail of smoke. It doesn't just come out at an inch radius and evaporate on its own.
Arthur's Christmas - 6/10
Terri - 9/10
I don't propose that smoking or 2nd hand smoke is not unhealthy. There's enough data out there for people to determine that for themselves.
Now, about your gun analogy, one major difference is that smoke dissipates more easily than bullets. Another difference is that a bullet won't get sucked up through ventilation shafts. If I blow a single puff of smoke at you, it won't kill you. If I blow a single bullet at you, the damage is obvious and hard to move away from before the next puff of gunsmoke.
Add to that there are very few business owners who want people shooting guns in their shops and that is an issue that takes care of itself.
And so it is with smoking. Left to its own devices, most businesses were voluntarily choosing to abolish smoking in their establishments. It was a good business move. But with that, customers would have a choice to patronize the establishment or not, based on their preferences.
I think the better analogy would be perfumes which can be just as dangerous as 2nd hand smoke. But as damaging as that is to my body, I would not venture to lawfully ban perfumes in restaurants, bars and malls because I find it unhealthy or offensive- as long as I have a choice to go elsewhere.
"Atlas Shrugged- Part 1"- NOW on DVD!
I never said a single puff will kill you. But it does harm to the body, destroys blood vessels. So you think it's fine to hurt people as long as it doesn't kill them? And perfumes can't be just as dangerous as second hand smoke. I'm not saying they arn't bad, trust me, my asthma can flair up just from a good whiff of it as someone walks by but simply think about it. But do you honestly believe an equal or more amout of people have died from this? People generally put perfume on them before leaving the house. And there it stays on there bodies. Smokers go to a place, smoke, and it goes where ever the wind chooses it to. So if in a building, every person will breath in some if they are there for a decent amount of time, depending on how small the building is. Bars, for instance, would be the worst because they are generally quite small. If someone smokes in a bar, just about everyone is being harmed. "Oh, but alcohol is bad too." True, but it's a personal choice that harms nobody else unless you decide to start driving, which is the individual's fault. It's this simple, smoking kills. Some people like it, so they take the risk. But us who don't want to take the risk, or go home having an asthma attack just for choosing to have a meal in a public place, shouldn't have to. Face it, the only place to smoke isn't unethical is in your own home, if you live alone. Or outside your home. Or maybe your car if you are the only one in it.
Arthur's Christmas - 6/10
Terri - 9/10
Face it, the only place to smoke isn't unethical is in your own home, if you live alone. Or outside your home. Or maybe your car if you are the only one in it
Okay, so you agree it's wrong so why not do the right thing and just make sure you do it where nobody else will breath it in besides other smokers? Perhaps they should make places for ONLY smokers to go. Or bars where there are signs saying smoking is fine so people know the risks before entering the building. Of course there's no way to rid of it entirely, every time somone opens a door smoke gets out. Personaly, I'd just wish they would stop the production of them altogether. But I've personally been affected by this and it bothers me to no end when people make false claims that second hand smoke is harmless, and that it is their "right" to smoke anywhere, not the right of others to go to a public place with out being exposed to toxins. And smoking is worse than it used to be, there are tons of chemicals (stuff found int paint for instance) that were not always in them. Not saying they weren't always bad, but they've since become much worse.
Drive Me Crazy - 4/10
Arthur's Christmas - 6/10
The human body is not meant to breathe smoke. Which is weird since man needs fire. Ironic.
The thing is that it used to be that all bars and restaurants were smoking establishments. Owners started to see real value in going non-smoking and many made that switch. This was great. Smokers had a choice to be with smokers and non-smokers had a place to go as well. The free market was working the way it's supposed to.
Then the government came along and mandated an end to smoking in restaurants and bars, and those owners with vision, who took the risk of going non-smoking were suddenly not so unique. Many non-smoking establishments in my town went under because of the smoking ban. They were doing great business, but after the ban, their customers could now go anywhere for a beer or bacon & eggs. And i gotta say, that three years after the ban took effect, my bar still hadn't recovered what we had lost when we were forced to go non-smoking.
I don't argue the negative health effects. To me, it's obvious. But I also think that choice should be maintained in order to avoid a "slippery slope" of oppression. Like I said before, I fully advocated banning smoking in places where choice was not an option, like courtrooms, hospitals and government offices where they are public property with zero alternatives. But I don't support banning it in a person's private business (or home or car) against their will. I think the general public is quite capable of operating within the framework of a free market.
"Atlas Shrugged- Part 1"- NOW on DVD!
I am a non smoker who agrees with you completely.
It's about freedom of choice. If I own a bar or indeed any other business it should be up to me whether or not I let my patrons smoke.
I personally would choose to take my family to non-smoking establishments but there is no reason why smokers should not be catered for too.
Here in the UK we need somkers - 9bn GBP per annum is raised by them and they die younger and therefore don't drain the pension pot so much.
The more the government tells me what to do, the more stress is applied through my already nerve-wracked high blood pressured body. I think they should put a ban on government intrusion in certain establishments, then I can go there and not be bothered and interfered with by a group of people who do things that I object strongly to.
shareFood and booze kill other people. Obese people tend to have obese kids. They instill a poor life style onto there children same goes for alcohol. Not to mention drunks, druggies, and pill poppers who get behind the wheel.
share