JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: admin on February 14, 2008, 12:00:23 AM
-
Chaim started a similar poll on the Hebrew forum.
I think they should be banned.
-
I think that they should be banned but I want to be clear I am all for freedom but this endangers health of all people so for that reason I think that they should be.
-
No way. And it's sort of a slippery slope, because if that happens then alcohol is next, then there would be something else, etc. Prohibition does more harm then good.
-
No I don't think it should be banned at all.
-
No
-
There should be a way to prevent people to start smoking. In fact tobacco takes more lives than Cannabis. But I don't agree with just banning. Perhaps it should be banned to sell it freely everywhere. Here teens begin smoking very young and that habit is very hard to quit once caught
-
No, we shouldn't be so paternalistic. People should be able to make their own decisions regarding these types of things, and if they make the wrong decisions they have to live with their consequences. It's fundamental in a free country that people should be able to do what they want to their own body (to certain limits of course) And 1986 is right with the slippery slope argument. What would be next? Alcohol, food with higher than certain amounts of grams of fat? Chocolate?
-
I would not ban tobacco, but hate to smoke sigarets , or inhaling an other person's smoke.
That's why I support to forbid smoking in restaurants/bars/public space.
I like a cigar every now and then.
-
No, we shouldn't be so paternalistic. People should be able to make their own decisions regarding these types of things, and if they make the wrong decisions they have to live with their consequences. It's fundamental in a free country that people should be able to do what they want to their own body (to certain limits of course) And 1986 is right with the slippery slope argument. What would be next? Alcohol, food with higher than certain amounts of grams of fat? Chocolate?
Philadelphia banned smoking in pubic buildings and trans fat in restaurants.
Alcohol is healthy in moderation. Tobacco is NEVER healthy.
Fattening food is never healthy if it's eaten to the same extent that heavy smoking is done to. The US has an epidemic of heart attacks, high cholesterol and high blood pressure. The health costs due to fattening foods are much higher than the costs of tobacco use.
Do you really think it's the responsibility of government to tell you what to eat, whether to smoke or not, whether to go mountain biking or extreme skiing?
That's the position of social democrats like Obama and Clinton who want to infringe on people's freedom through government programs, taxes, etc.
-
Banning ANYTHING that does not alter the mind is nazi and facist. This is a liberal/leftist ideology........."we know what's best for eveybody".
Protein cooked at high temperature (meat over flames) is proven to cause cancer. Do we ban BBQs?
Fats cause heart disease. Do we ban lamb chops?
The formaldahyde in dish detergent causes cancer. Wanna ban that, too?
By all means outlaw smoking in enclosed public spaces as it may effect non-consenting others, but banning a legal product enjoyed by consenting adults for several centuries "for their own good" is nazi, facist and DEMOCRAT to the core.
-
Banning ANYTHING that does not alter the mind is nazi and facist. This is a liberal/leftist ideology........."we know what's best for eveybody".
Protein cooked at high temperature (meat over flames) is proven to cause cancer. Do we ban BBQs?
Fats cause heart disease. Do we ban lamb chops?
The formaldahyde in dish detergent causes cancer. Wanna ban that, too?
By all means outlaw smoking in enclosed public spaces as it may effect non-consenting others, but banning a legal product enjoyed by consenting adults for several centuries "for their own good" is nazi, facist and DEMOCRAT to the core.
great post, Newman O0
-
Banning ANYTHING that does not alter the mind is nazi and facist. This is a liberal/leftist ideology........."we know what's best for eveybody".
Protein cooked at high temperature (meat over flames) is proven to cause cancer. Do we ban BBQs?
Fats cause heart disease. Do we ban lamb chops?
The formaldahyde in dish detergent causes cancer. Wanna ban that, too?
By all means outlaw smoking in enclosed public spaces as it may effect non-consenting others, but banning a legal product enjoyed by consenting adults for several centuries "for their own good" is nazi, facist and DEMOCRAT to the core.
I don't take this as a "literal" banning.
Its just a "for fun" thread of pretending to "ban" things.
I think fat chicks, Volvo drivers, drinking red wine with fish, weirdos who carry their babies in those back pack things, people who wear a beard with no mustache and old ladies who insist on showing you photos of their grandchildren should be banned.
-
Banning ANYTHING that does not alter the mind is nazi and facist. This is a liberal/leftist ideology........."we know what's best for eveybody".
Protein cooked at high temperature (meat over flames) is proven to cause cancer. Do we ban BBQs?
Fats cause heart disease. Do we ban lamb chops?
The formaldahyde in dish detergent causes cancer. Wanna ban that, too?
By all means outlaw smoking in enclosed public spaces as it may effect non-consenting others, but banning a legal product enjoyed by consenting adults for several centuries "for their own good" is nazi, facist and DEMOCRAT to the core.
Bingo O0
And now they want to ban us from smoking in cars............ >:(
-
Banning ANYTHING that does not alter the mind is nazi and facist. This is a liberal/leftist ideology........."we know what's best for eveybody".
Protein cooked at high temperature (meat over flames) is proven to cause cancer. Do we ban BBQs?
Fats cause heart disease. Do we ban lamb chops?
The formaldahyde in dish detergent causes cancer. Wanna ban that, too?
By all means outlaw smoking in enclosed public spaces as it may effect non-consenting others, but banning a legal product enjoyed by consenting adults for several centuries "for their own good" is nazi, facist and DEMOCRAT to the core.
Bingo O0
And now they want to ban us from smoking in cars............ >:(
Typical facsist, health-nazi, "we know what's best for them" autocracy!
-
Banning ANYTHING that does not alter the mind is nazi and facist. This is a liberal/leftist ideology........."we know what's best for eveybody".
Protein cooked at high temperature (meat over flames) is proven to cause cancer. Do we ban BBQs?
Fats cause heart disease. Do we ban lamb chops?
The formaldahyde in dish detergent causes cancer. Wanna ban that, too?
By all means outlaw smoking in enclosed public spaces as it may effect non-consenting others, but banning a legal product enjoyed by consenting adults for several centuries "for their own good" is nazi, facist and DEMOCRAT to the core.
Bingo O0
And now they want to ban us from smoking in cars............ >:(
Typical facsist, health-nazi, "we know what's best for them" autocracy!
As I side to one person, theres a window roll it down and use it ::)
-
1. Why did this thread get stickied in the general section of the forum, where there are lots of important other threads?
2. Maybe the thread should be moved to the health section of the forum.
-
1. Why did this thread get stickied in the general section of the forum, where there are lots of important other threads?
2. Maybe the thread should be moved to the health section of the forum.
The question of 'banning' a legal product is not a health issue. It is a question of conservative values of personal freedom versus leftist, facsist, nazi ideology.
-
in as much i despise cigarettes, best to do choice 3 and 4 instead of just banning them
-
Albert Einstein smoked a pipe.
He said that when asked a question by physics students, he would always pause to relight his pipe and savor a puff or two, before answering the question.
Groucho Marx, Sigmund Freud, Sir Winston Churchill, and John F. Kennedy smoked cigars.
Why would G-d create such a beautiful and desirable plant, if He did not want it to be used by humankind?
During modern history's dark periods of war and economic chaos, tobacco has always been one commodity more valuable than money to a very large percentage of population.
Inside prison systems, cigarettes have more value than money, and are used as "payment" for favors, debts, etc... .
How could this be so?
Because nicotein reduces the appetite, stimulates the mind, all while producing a calmative, tranquilizing effect.
I remember hearing numerous "folk tale" accounts from fishermen, who claimed that if stung by a wasp or bitten by snakes, they would immediately put a plug of tobacco over the injury, denaturing the toxins and reducing inflammation.
Recent scientific studies indicate that nicotein usage staves off the development of Alzheimer's Disease.
The average age of onset for lung cancer is 65.
The average life-span of humankind prior to recent scientific advancements was 30 to 40 years.
Could the increased longevity of mankind, prolonging our exposure to cancer-causing chemicals, be the actual reason for the high rates of cancers seen today?
Statistical charts are always used by the "anti-tobacco" lobby to show that cancer rates have risen with the advent of tobacco's widespread use.
However, the popular use of tobacco also correlates with the popular widespread use of the internal combustion engines which power our automobiles, buses, jet planes, and military vehicles; all of which have been spewing far more toxic gases and carcinogenic particulate matter into Earth's breathable air than could be derived from all of the tobacco ignited during the same period.
The other "politically incorrect" sources of carcinogens and mutagens originate from daily exposure to industrial chemicals, from the burning of coal, from the nuclear and microwave radiation to which our planet has been heavily exposed as a result of TV/Radio broadcast transmissions, the above-ground nuclear weapons tests of the 1940's-1970's, and the widespread acceptance of "nuclear power plants" within both the civilian as well as the military sectors of our society.
Nuclear energy produces highly dangerous "radioactive wastes" which remain poisonous and lethal for 50,000 years and longer.
A "dirty little secret" is the fact that all of the militaries of the world have for years been dumping their toxic radioactive wastes directly into the oceans and seas, resulting in radioactivity entering our food chain.
When exposed to radiation, humans accumulate and store it in their breasts, thyroid glands, and prostate glands.
It may well be that the cancer epidemic witnessed throughout the 20th Century has been the result of a combination of factors, including the breathing of poisonous air, tobacco usage, exposure to nuclear radiation, and bombardment by microwave transmissions from TV, radio, computers, cell phones, X-rays, etc...
Currently, the West is experiencing an epidemic of cancerous tumors of the brain, skin, and other organ systems, which do not appear to be the direct result of long-term tobacco use.
Advances in medicine and nutrition have enabled most of us in the West to live far longer than did our ancestors, allowing most of us to reach the age when physical bodies begin a state of decline known as "the aging process", at which time the combined synergistic effects from decades of air pollution, water pollution, nuclear radiation, food chain pollution, electromagnetic pollution, and tobacco use, produce epidemic rates of cancer.
-
smoking only harms other people if you are the type that hangs around people that smoke.
the 2 friend i ever had that smoked, I moved away from when they smoked.
most people that smoke are idiots that I have nothing to do with.
-
No banning! If you don't do something because you are FORCED not to do it, instead of cultivating the self discipline not to do it, you have acomplished nothing but creating a society of weak infantile sheep!!!!
-
No banning! If you don't do something because you are FORCED not to do it, instead of cultivating the self discipline not to do it, you have acomplished nothing but creating a society of weak infantile sheep!!!!
You've just perfectly summed up the liberal-facsist view of mankind.
-
No, we should focus on bigger and better thing that smoking bans and tobacco bans. I think its up to the owner of any establishment to have smoking or non-smoking places of buisness. And what the hell is a bar good for if you cant smoke in it? Ban Muslims not tobacco.
I'm with you, Moshe.
Non-smoking bars go broke.
-
No, if it's not affecting anyone else, who cares if someone uses tobacco or not. Their body.
-
I smoke sometimes a few cigarrettes and I have an old pipe from my father.
But it is true - Smoking is not healthy.
I think the best way to handle this problem is:
1. Nobody should allowed to make promotion for it.
2. Tabacco-products are only allowed to persons over 18
3. They should be sold only in non-viewable store-rooms
4. Smoking in public should be banned in general.
5. If somebody becomes ill because of his smoking, the health-inshurence should take back from him a part of the costs to cure him.
If somebody wants to smoke some tabacco, he should do it, like me, in his own four walls.
But I am not for banning it in general.
P.S.:
I am not for heavy taxes on tabbaco products, because I think it is not righteous from the gouvernment to take profit from unhealthy things. Better is to go the straight way and to limit the access to it.
-
Albert Einstein smoked a pipe.
He said that when asked a question by physics students, he would always pause to relight his pipe and savor a puff or two, before answering the question.
Groucho Marx, Sigmund Freud, Sir Winston Churchill, and John F. Kennedy smoked cigars.
Why would G-d create such a beautiful and desirable plant, if He did not want it to be used by humankind?
During modern history's dark periods of war and economic chaos, tobacco has always been one commodity more valuable than money to a very large percentage of population.
Inside prison systems, cigarettes have more value than money, and are used as "payment" for favors, debts, etc... .
How could this be so?
Because nicotein reduces the appetite, stimulates the mind, all while producing a calmative, tranquilizing effect.
I remember hearing numerous "folk tale" accounts from fishermen, who claimed that if stung by a wasp or bitten by snakes, they would immediately put a plug of tobacco over the injury, denaturing the toxins and reducing inflammation.
Recent scientific studies indicate that nicotein usage staves off the development of Alzheimer's Disease.
The average age of onset for lung cancer is 65.
The average life-span of humankind prior to recent scientific advancements was 30 to 40 years.
Could the increased longevity of mankind, prolonging our exposure to cancer-causing chemicals, be the actual reason for the high rates of cancers seen today?
Statistical charts are always used by the "anti-tobacco" lobby to show that cancer rates have risen with the advent of tobacco's widespread use.
However, the popular use of tobacco also correlates with the popular widespread use of the internal combustion engines which power our automobiles, buses, jet planes, and military vehicles; all of which have been spewing far more toxic gases and carcinogenic particulate matter into Earth's breathable air than could be derived from all of the tobacco ignited during the same period.
The other "politically incorrect" sources of carcinogens and mutagens originate from daily exposure to industrial chemicals, from the burning of coal, from the nuclear and microwave radiation to which our planet has been heavily exposed as a result of TV/Radio broadcast transmissions, the above-ground nuclear weapons tests of the 1940's-1970's, and the widespread acceptance of "nuclear power plants" within both the civilian as well as the military sectors of our society.
Nuclear energy produces highly dangerous "radioactive wastes" which remain poisonous and lethal for 50,000 years and longer.
A "dirty little secret" is the fact that all of the militaries of the world have for years been dumping their toxic radioactive wastes directly into the oceans and seas, resulting in radioactivity entering our food chain.
When exposed to radiation, humans accumulate and store it in their breasts, thyroid glands, and prostate glands.
It may well be that the cancer epidemic witnessed throughout the 20th Century has been the result of a combination of factors, including the breathing of poisonous air, tobacco usage, exposure to nuclear radiation, and bombardment by microwave transmissions from TV, radio, computers, cell phones, X-rays, etc...
Currently, the West is experiencing an epidemic of cancerous tumors of the brain, skin, and other organ systems, which do not appear to be the direct result of long-term tobacco use.
Advances in medicine and nutrition have enabled most of us in the West to live far longer than did our ancestors, allowing most of us to reach the age when physical bodies begin a state of decline known as "the aging process", at which time the combined synergistic effects from decades of air pollution, water pollution, nuclear radiation, food chain pollution, electromagnetic pollution, and tobacco use, produce epidemic rates of cancer.
Fact:
Cigarette smoke results in suffication of blood vessels thereby preventing staving off infections in the mouth and the rest of the body. As bacterial plaque builds up in these blood vessels, the higher the risk of atherosclerosis. Likewise, periodontal disease and definately lung cancer!
Bottom line, like everything else, it's bad for you especially when done too much. Cigarettes are also addicting, which can't be any better. Education and ways of keepin peopel from smoking shoudl be the goal. But banning is the wrong thing to do.
The above post by Massuah...BULLShinnigans! That post is conservative propoganda.
-
Dr. Dan [to MassuhD]: "...The above post by Massuah...BULLShinnigans! That post is conservative propoganda..."
No! No! No!
You've got it all wrong, Dr. D!
Smoke is just like food!
People think it smells good and people think it tastes good too!
How could anything that is so good be bad for you?
Just look at Willy Nelson!
He smokes all day long and all night long too, rides around in an expensive tour bus playing music for a living, and he doesn't have cancer!
Yet, three of his former personal physicians, non-smokers all, have long ago passed away with lung cancer.
This proves my point conclusively.
To suggest that an enjoyable flowering plant will be the cause of one's premature death by cancer, is to deny the fact that only Ha'Shem has the power over life and death!
It is HE who determines the time and the hour!
Sometimes planes crash loaded with passengers who never touched a cigarette in their lives...how, then, can one point to tobacco as a factor shortening the lives of people?
Shouldn't you rather be pointing at jet planes, and warning everyone that "choosing to travel by air leads to premature death, and is dangerous to one's health"?
Or how about that big bridge in Minnesota that collapsed during rush hour?...Did it collapse due to the number of cigarette smokers in the cars which were crossing it?...Or was it in fact an "Act of G-d"?
And...if one professes a belief in "the right to life", is not a cancerous growth alive also?...Does not cancer have the right to live?...Who are we to make such judgements about other living life forms?
Where in Torah are we commanded "Thou shalt never partake of tobacco products!"? We are clearly told which foods are an abomination, and which we may eat. Doesn't it seem logical that the Maker of such distinctions would have spelled out for us which plants we might use, and which plants are forbidden to us?
Why, America could have never become a nation without tobacco! It is the primary reason our land was once so wealthy! And, mark my words, America can never again regain its lost wealth and stature, unless we again turn to "the golden leaf" called tobacco! It is not by chance that the Indians consider it sacred!
-
Nicoteine is also the best known anti-depressant. Smoking prevents suicide which is a sin. Therefore smoking is good.
-
Nicoteine is also the best known anti-depressant. Smoking prevents suicide which is a sin. Therefore smoking is good.
Then I wish I had some now.
They should be discouraged not banned.
-
Nicoteine is also the best known anti-depressant. Smoking prevents suicide which is a sin. Therefore smoking is good.
Then I wish I had some now.
They should be discouraged not banned.
Do an old, English custom. Go down the shop and get 20 Rothmans.
-
Nicoteine is also the best known anti-depressant. Smoking prevents suicide which is a sin. Therefore smoking is good.
Then I wish I had some now.
They should be discouraged not banned.
Do an old, English custom. Go down the shop and get 20 Rothmans.
Thats what I used to smoke in New Zealand very fine ciggie ;)
-
Rothman's are the best there is!
-
Rothman's are the best there is!
Nonsense.
If you must smoke 'readymades', Chesterfield Kings (the original 1940s type without the filter) are tops.
Drum roll-your-owns are the only proper smokes that are relatively chemical-free.
-
Rothman's are the best there is!
Nonsense.
If you must smoke 'readymades', Chesterfield Kings (the original 1940s type without the filter) are tops.
Drum roll-your-owns are the only proper smokes that are relatively chemical-free.
What, do they taste different or something? ??? :o
-
Rothman's are the best there is!
Nonsense.
If you must smoke 'readymades', Chesterfield Kings (the original 1940s type without the filter) are tops.
Drum roll-your-owns are the only proper smokes that are relatively chemical-free.
What, do they taste different or something? ??? :o
Oh yes.
It's like fresh-brewed Twinings tea versus generic bag stuff.
-
Rothman's are the best there is!
Yes yes it is O0
-
Rothman's are the best there is!
Nonsense.
If you must smoke 'readymades', Chesterfield Kings (the original 1940s type without the filter) are tops.
Drum roll-your-owns are the only proper smokes that are relatively chemical-free.
Drum Dark is good, chop chop is better if you get the A grade.
But a pipe is best of all, Irish mead :D
-
Amphora in a pipe is soooooooooo good. Even non-smokers like the smell.
-
Amphora in a pipe is soooooooooo good. Even non-smokers like the smell.
Oh now you are talking................. :P
But must be Red. :D
-
Ever tried the candy cigerrettes where light dusted sugar comes out the other end when you puff. ;D
-
Dr. Dan [to MassuhD]: "...The above post by Massuah...BULLShinnigans! That post is conservative propoganda..."
No! No! No!
You've got it all wrong, Dr. D!
Smoke is just like food!
People think it smells good and people think it tastes good too!
How could anything that is so good be bad for you?
Just look at Willy Nelson!
He smokes all day long and all night long too, rides around in an expensive tour bus playing music for a living, and he doesn't have cancer!
Yet, three of his former personal physicians, non-smokers all, have long ago passed away with lung cancer.
This proves my point conclusively.
To suggest that an enjoyable flowering plant will be the cause of one's premature death by cancer, is to deny the fact that only Ha'Shem has the power over life and death!
It is HE who determines the time and the hour!
Sometimes planes crash loaded with passengers who never touched a cigarette in their lives...how, then, can one point to tobacco as a factor shortening the lives of people?
Shouldn't you rather be pointing at jet planes, and warning everyone that "choosing to travel by air leads to premature death, and is dangerous to one's health"?
Or how about that big bridge in Minnesota that collapsed during rush hour?...Did it collapse due to the number of cigarette smokers in the cars which were crossing it?...Or was it in fact an "Act of G-d"?
And...if one professes a belief in "the right to life", is not a cancerous growth alive also?...Does not cancer have the right to live?...Who are we to make such judgements about other living life forms?
Where in Torah are we commanded "Thou shalt never partake of tobacco products!"? We are clearly told which foods are an abomination, and which we may eat. Doesn't it seem logical that the Maker of such distinctions would have spelled out for us which plants we might use, and which plants are forbidden to us?
Why, America could have never become a nation without tobacco! It is the primary reason our land was once so wealthy! And, mark my words, America can never again regain its lost wealth and stature, unless we again turn to "the golden leaf" called tobacco! It is not by chance that the Indians consider it sacred!
Massuah, I see patients all day long..so I know better than you..
And spare me from your terrible logic.. You sound like one of those self -hating Jews who claim that the IDF is equally as bad as the terrorists and that there are two sides of the coin in the conflict.
Bottom line, smoking is a RISK FACTOR for cancer and periodontal disease etc etc etc... RISK FACTOR.
I'm not saying to make tobacco illegal...quite the contrary. However, certain things like that should be done in moderation. Too much smoking is a very high risk factor for periodontal disease, for atherosclerosis, and lung cancer. I woudl rather not risk it to smoke any cigarettes.
Besides, cigarettes smell really terrible..I hate the smell with the passion!
-
Ever tried the candy cigerrettes where light dusted sugar comes out the other end when you puff. ;D
They had chocolate cigarettes wrapped in white & brown paper that looked real when I was a kid. They were really hard to peal so I used to eat the paper & all.
-
Dr. Dan [to MassuhD]: "...The above post by Massuah...BULLShinnigans! That post is conservative propoganda..."
No! No! No!
You've got it all wrong, Dr. D!
Smoke is just like food!
People think it smells good and people think it tastes good too!
How could anything that is so good be bad for you?
Just look at Willy Nelson!
He smokes all day long and all night long too, rides around in an expensive tour bus playing music for a living, and he doesn't have cancer!
Yet, three of his former personal physicians, non-smokers all, have long ago passed away with lung cancer.
This proves my point conclusively.
To suggest that an enjoyable flowering plant will be the cause of one's premature death by cancer, is to deny the fact that only Ha'Shem has the power over life and death!
It is HE who determines the time and the hour!
Sometimes planes crash loaded with passengers who never touched a cigarette in their lives...how, then, can one point to tobacco as a factor shortening the lives of people?
Shouldn't you rather be pointing at jet planes, and warning everyone that "choosing to travel by air leads to premature death, and is dangerous to one's health"?
Or how about that big bridge in Minnesota that collapsed during rush hour?...Did it collapse due to the number of cigarette smokers in the cars which were crossing it?...Or was it in fact an "Act of G-d"?
And...if one professes a belief in "the right to life", is not a cancerous growth alive also?...Does not cancer have the right to live?...Who are we to make such judgements about other living life forms?
Where in Torah are we commanded "Thou shalt never partake of tobacco products!"? We are clearly told which foods are an abomination, and which we may eat. Doesn't it seem logical that the Maker of such distinctions would have spelled out for us which plants we might use, and which plants are forbidden to us?
Why, America could have never become a nation without tobacco! It is the primary reason our land was once so wealthy! And, mark my words, America can never again regain its lost wealth and stature, unless we again turn to "the golden leaf" called tobacco! It is not by chance that the Indians consider it sacred!
Torah says what things are ritually impure, not what is harmfull. Most poisons would be "Kosher" under the laws of ritual purity, and so in ancients times, when the Temple stood, Jews wouldn't have been requiered to go to mikveh after touching poison.... but it doesn't mean that you are allowed to take poison and coomit suicide. Hashem forbade both Jews and Gentiles to kill themselves. Hashem didn't list what things kill and what things don't. He left us to discover that. Torah says "thou shalt not murder", it doesn't say "thou shallt not fire a gun at your neighbour", but we know that if we fire at someone, we kill him.
Now, tobbaco doesn't necessarily kill, but it increases the risks of several diseases and shortens life expectancy. So, someone who does not smoke yet, should never try it. And those who already smoke had well try to quit if they can.
-
Doctor D [to MassuhD]: You sound like one of those self -hating Jews who claim that the IDF is equally as bad as the terrorists and that there are two sides of the coin in the conflict.
I have no earthly idea how you can suddenly come up with such an implication.
It, in itself, reveals much about you.
And what it reveals is not flattering.
-
Ever tried the candy cigerrettes where light dusted sugar comes out the other end when you puff. ;D
LOL I love those ;D ;D ;D
-
newman: "...Amphora in a pipe is soooooooooo good. Even non-smokers like the smell..."
Newman, I prefer smoking non-aromatic blends (mostly traditional English blends), but I will grant you that Amphora & other aromatics smell absolutely heavenly!
Have you ever smoked that pipe tobacco from Zimbabwe?
It's made by Samuel Gawaith & Sons; distributed as "The 1792 Kendal Flake".
Really packs a punch!
-
I agree that smoking should be banned from any places of employment including restaurants, bars, and casinos. But I don't think that banning the sales of cigarettes alltogether would be beneficial. All that would do is force tobacco to be sold on the black market which would result in much higher incidences of violence and criminalization. The key to stop people from purchasing and consuming tobacco is through education.
-
Doctor D [to MassuhD]: You sound like one of those self -hating Jews who claim that the IDF is equally as bad as the terrorists and that there are two sides of the coin in the conflict.
I have no earthly idea how you can suddenly come up with such an implication.
It, in itself, reveals much about you.
And what it reveals is not flattering.
Dude, you are justifying that tobacco smoke doesnt' cause cancer because willie nelson is one such person that has smoked forever and doesn't have cancer!!!! That's your proof?! Puleez!! You are no Doctor my friend...I studied this stuff...CIGARETTES are bad for you and it is a HIGH CANCER RISK!!!! So smoke all you want you stupid @sshole!!! I dont' care if you lose all your teeth!
-
Re: "...You are no Doctor my friend..."
What you think you know won't even fill a thimble. :o
Doctors kill more people than all the serial killers and negro murderers combined, and
that's a scientific fact! ;D
Once the innocent lives of the unborn children murdered by "Doctors" who perform abortions are counted, it's safe to say that "Doctors" continue to commit a modern day holocaust which rivals anything the Butchers of Buchenwald could have dreamed up. :'( :'(
More deaths occur inside hospitals than out in the streets, and more dangerous plagues are spread inside hospitals than in the jungles of Africa. :'(
Here in America, a "Doctor" isn't a profession...it's a "Social Class" selfishly bent on its continued enrichment through it's collusion with Big Pharma, the A.M.A., the Federal Government, and the Legal Industry. :(
Notice that "doctors" become outlandishly wealthy in direct proportion to the increasingly poor health and financial impoverishment of their fellow citizens. ???
The A.M.A. grew filthy rich by investing in Big Tobacco until the public grew wise to their scam, so now they invest in questionable fascist industrial enterprises including military and surveillance industries to continue with their obscene lust for money. :'(
It's certainly no accident that the MRI clinic recommended by most physicians is the one and the same facility in which they have a major financial investment. ^-^
The rising insurance costs for "Doctors" is the direct result of so many cases of malpractice involving every degeneracy from sexually attacking patients under anesthesia, to cutting someone's brain out of their skull, and then leaving the operating room to go to have a Big Mac for lunch, leaving the poor victim of the "medical profession" awaiting death, permanent disability, and certain financial ruination. :laugh:
"Doctors" not only have suicide and narcotics addiction rates higher than almost any other profession, but they are also notorious for dumping their life-long loyal wives who helped them through medical school the very first chance they get, and taking up with the "gold-digger" nurses in their hospitals and offices who look younger and have large breasts. :-*
If I could buy "Dr. Dan" for what he's worth, and then sell him for what he 'thinks' he's worth, I'd be able to retire tomorrow! :::D
-
Re: "...You are no Doctor my friend..."
What you think you know won't even fill a thimble. :o
Doctors kill more people than all the serial killers and negro murderers combined, and
that's a scientific fact! ;D
Once the innocent lives of the unborn children murdered by "Doctors" who perform abortions are counted, it's safe to say that "Doctors" continue to commit a modern day holocaust which rivals anything the Butchers of Buchenwald could have dreamed up. :'( :'(
More deaths occur inside hospitals than out in the streets, and more dangerous plagues are spread inside hospitals than in the jungles of Africa. :'(
Here in America, a "Doctor" isn't a profession...it's a "Social Class" selfishly bent on its continued enrichment through it's collusion with Big Pharma, the A.M.A., the Federal Government, and the Legal Industry. :(
Notice that "doctors" become outlandishly wealthy in direct proportion to the increasingly poor health and financial impoverishment of their fellow citizens. ???
The A.M.A. grew filthy rich by investing in Big Tobacco until the public grew wise to their scam, so now they invest in questionable fascist industrial enterprises including military and surveillance industries to continue with their obscene lust for money. :'(
It's certainly no accident that the MRI clinic recommended by most physicians is the one and the same facility in which they have a major financial investment. ^-^
The rising insurance costs for "Doctors" is the direct result of so many cases of malpractice involving every degeneracy from sexually attacking patients under anesthesia, to cutting someone's brain out of their skull, and then leaving the operating room to go to have a Big Mac for lunch, leaving the poor victim of the "medical profession" awaiting death, permanent disability, and certain financial ruination. :laugh:
"Doctors" not only have suicide and narcotics addiction rates higher than almost any other profession, but they are also notorious for dumping their life-long loyal wives who helped them through medical school the very first chance they get, and taking up with the "gold-digger" nurses in their hospitals and offices who look younger and have large breasts. :-*
If I could buy "Dr. Dan" for what he's worth, and then sell him for what he 'thinks' he's worth, I'd be able to retire tomorrow! :::D
Ok, fine with me...IF you are sick, don't ever go to any doctors please.
and give your young young children all the cigarettes they want...I want to see them lose all of their teeth and die of cancer while you blame it on the oxygen we breath
Live in your cave or in the mountains of Idaho since the world is more dangerous, you freak of nature.
But if you dare recommend people your life style, you are just as bad as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef who thinks that giving land to the Arabs for Peace will save Jewish lives!
-
You when I first started my job I was told to smoke it killed the pathogens in the air, then I worked in Oncology, and major medical personnel smoked, and then other things and bang I am in pallative where 9 times out of 10 people who have lung ca DIDN'T smoke.
Now two days ago I signed a paper to have a life support switched off a relative of mine. He was 43 and did all the right things...........
Wheres the reason in all of that.
Blaming the smokes is just PC thing to do.
-
You when I first started my job I was told to smoke it killed the pathogens in the air, then I worked in Oncology, and major medical personnel smoked, and then other things and bang I am in pallative where 9 times out of 10 people who have lung ca DIDN'T smoke.
Now two days ago I signed a paper to have a life support switched off a relative of mine. He was 43 and did all the right things...........
Wheres the reason in all of that.
Blaming the smokes is just PC thing to do.
Exactly.
It's like liberals blaming guns for all their failed social policy over 40 years.
-
Another reply to MassuhD: "...you are just as bad as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef who thinks that giving land to the Arabs for Peace will save Jewish lives!..."
This "Rabbi"...does he smoke too?
-
Another reply to MassuhD: "...you are just as bad as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef who thinks that giving land to the Arabs for Peace will save Jewish lives!..."
This "Rabbi"...does he smoke too?
He smokes your dingaling
-
Another reply to MassuhD: "...you are just as bad as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef who thinks that giving land to the Arabs for Peace will save Jewish lives!..."
This "Rabbi"...does he smoke too?
He smokes your dingaling
Arrrrgggghhhhhh Doc are you quite sure thats how you want that sentence to read ::) :( :( :-\
-
There are tobacco products that are used for legitimate means. As for cigarettes, YES. And that's a capital letter YES! Cigarettes should be completely banned!
They destroy the lives of the users, but also those around them...their children, and people see others smoking, and might leed them to smoke. We ban people from using maurijana and other deadly products, and yet we allow people to kill themselfs by using cigarettes. I believe that Judaism should actively be for these views, as it is said so in the Torah.
-
When everything that can be construed as dangerous has been banned we WILL be living in a socialist dictatorship.
Conservatives believe in free-choice for the law abiding, not compulsion.
-
When everything that can be construed as dangerous has been banned we WILL be living in a socialist dictatorship.
Conservatives believe in free-choice for the law abiding, not compulsion.
but Newman, humans have a tendancy to take the stray path. Look at MOSSAD's motto. The early Israeli's needed a strong leader, Moses, and stricts laws and punishment to the people. When Moses and the law was not present...
ALSO, when one smokes, one kills the persons beside you (passive smoking).
-
When everything that can be construed as dangerous has been banned we WILL be living in a socialist dictatorship.
Conservatives believe in free-choice for the law abiding, not compulsion.
but Newman, humans have a tendancy to take the stray path. Look at MOSSAD's motto. The early Israeli's needed a strong leader, Moses, and stricts laws and punishment to the people. When Moses and the law was not present...
ALSO, when one smokes, one kills the persons beside you (passive smoking).
Concerns about passive smoking do not justify a ban on cigarettes. I live alone. NOBODY is affected by my smoking, so there is no justification for banning cigarettes.
They've proven that meat cooked on open flames causes cancer. Should BBQs be banned, too?
-
When everything that can be construed as dangerous has been banned we WILL be living in a socialist dictatorship.
Conservatives believe in free-choice for the law abiding, not compulsion.
but Newman, humans have a tendancy to take the stray path. Look at MOSSAD's motto. The early Israeli's needed a strong leader, Moses, and stricts laws and punishment to the people. When Moses and the law was not present...
ALSO, when one smokes, one kills the persons beside you (passive smoking).
Concerns about passive smoking do not justify a ban on cigarettes. I live alone. NOBODY is affected by my smoking, so there is no justification for banning cigarettes.
They've proven that meat cooked on open flames causes cancer. Should BBQs be banned, too?
ofcourse not! But it's murder whenever one lights a cigarette! Not only are you killing yourself, but those around you...that poisonous smoke will defuse in your house, and eventually exit it. So, you don't mind living right next to an extremeley polluting factory?
I am sure you wish you never smoked, right? Imagine if there were no cigarettes on the shelves in the first place...imagine 18yr old's never having to look down the barrel of a cigarette?
-
When everything that can be construed as dangerous has been banned we WILL be living in a socialist dictatorship.
Conservatives believe in free-choice for the law abiding, not compulsion.
but Newman, humans have a tendancy to take the stray path. Look at MOSSAD's motto. The early Israeli's needed a strong leader, Moses, and stricts laws and punishment to the people. When Moses and the law was not present...
ALSO, when one smokes, one kills the persons beside you (passive smoking).
Concerns about passive smoking do not justify a ban on cigarettes. I live alone. NOBODY is affected by my smoking, so there is no justification for banning cigarettes.
They've proven that meat cooked on open flames causes cancer. Should BBQs be banned, too?
ofcourse not! But it's murder whenever one lights a cigarette! Not only are you killing yourself, but those around you...that poisonous smoke will defuse in your house, and eventually exit it. So, you don't mind living right next to an extremeley polluting factory?
I am sure you wish you never smoked, right? Imagine if there were no cigarettes on the shelves in the first place...imagine 18yr old's never having to look down the barrel of a cigarette?
Those arguments are irrellevent to a free society.
I can make a case for banning any number of things.
Eating fatty meat shortens ones life. Does a government have the right to dictate our diet?
Walking outdoors in winter without a scarf and jacket can lead to pneumonia. Does a government have a right to tell us to 'rug up'?
Read the words of one of the Wests great thinkers on matters of government/ society versus the individual.
John Stuart Mill (20 May 1806 – 8 May 1873), British philosopher, political economist, civil servant and Member of Parliament, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century.
The harm principle is articulated most clearly in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, though it is also articulated in John Locke's Second Treatise of Government and in the work of Wilhelm von Humboldt, to whom Mill is obliged and discusses at length.
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
-
I agree with Newman.
for similar reasons and some of his reasoning i don't agree with...
-
Ever tried the candy cigerrettes where light dusted sugar comes out the other end when you puff. ;D
They had chocolate cigarettes wrapped in white & brown paper that looked real when I was a kid. They were really hard to peal so I used to eat the paper & all.
In nusery we used to have an orange peel eating contest, whoever won got to always go to the front of the line to get on the slide. :)
Smoking is bad for your health.
Though so are most take-aways and sugary cakes.
Don't encourage them but don't ban them. If people want to have them, then it is their choice.
I think if you ban all these things, people will forget how to learn for themselves.
You cannot say that smoking affects others while bad eating doesn't, everything contributes to society. We just hear about more affects then others.
-
Cigarettes should be discouraged and i'm for keeping smoking cigarettes soemthing people can do in the privacy of their own home if they choose not by into their warnings. However, an all out ban is a terrible thing to do.
-
If you ban then people will ring them in from other countries people will be holding up liquor stores to buy a pack for50 dollars..ban liquor stores
-
I enjoy a good hand made cigar or pipe from time to time. I always smoke when I am on my own out of doors or where it will not bother anyone else. I think people need to be educated on how bad smoking is for the smoker and the people around them. Banning tobacco is not the answer since it will only make it a forbidden fruit. I have always been lucky in the fact that I can smoke today and then not bother with it for weeks and months. People who can't do this should avoid getting started on tobacco products. If you smoke its best to cut down or stop. If you don't smoke don't start!
-
If you ban then people will ring them in from other countries people will be holding up liquor stores to buy a pack for50 dollars..ban liquor stores
Good point, Mord.
The mafioso wiseguys would LOVE a ban on tobacco. The last time America indulged in nation, puritanical stupidity was prohibition........ and look how it turned out. It didn't stop drinking but it took the mafia from being local, two bit standover guys to being a billion dollar national corporation.
-
If you ban then people will ring them in from other countries people will be holding up liquor stores to buy a pack for50 dollars..ban liquor stores
but if there is no poison in the first place, people won't need to steal for money for poison. Those that are caught selling cigarettes, are tried just as those selling drugs...charge of murder = death sentence! That way people won't dear to sell it.
Those hat try to smuggle it in (the top crime bosses in foreign nations), will be dealt with MOSSAD way. So if you f with my people...we will seek you out and take you out (Eichmann sort of scenarios).
-
If you ban then people will ring them in from other countries people will be holding up liquor stores to buy a pack for50 dollars..ban liquor stores
but if there is no poison in the first place, people won't need to steal for money for poison. Those that are caught selling cigarettes, are tried just as those selling drugs...charge of murder = death sentence! That way people won't dear to sell it.
Boer,
You're falling into the same fantasy as the gun control crowd.....thinking that bans will work.
Booze banned in 1920s/30s......................failed.
Pot banned.....................failed
Smack, speed, meths etc banned........................failed.
What makes you think banning tobacco will do anything more than banning the above (ie: create another expensive underground criminal enterprise)?
-
because a new government will be required, a RIGHEOUS government that will completely restructure society. A society that is basically one big community. People will understand that smoking kills just as much as heroin does...just a longer live expectancy. A society where cigarette sellers and bosses are frowned upon if not hated, as people will see those people as killling their own blood. Because you know what, it's long-term murder. Government will strongly punish those braking the law (death) which in itself is enough to deter small and medium potential law breakers. As for those trying to make a market from overseas...a strong government intelligence agency will take care of those foreign killers...Think eichmann. But, government will provide the absolute best in psychological and medical rehailitation to those that are addicted to their own suicide-including bringing in people from overseas to help council the people. The next generation will not see cigarettes on the shelves, wont see their parents hooked on, and as such, they simply won't want to kill themselves.
It can be done....I love my people, and will not stand by seeing them being killed!
Also, appart from being addicted to death, they won't want to smoke, because as was said, society will be structured into a stress free society.
I will not see my people killed!!!
-
because a new government will be required, a RIGHEOUS government that will completely restructure society. A society that is basically one big community. ..............
Government will strongly punish those braking the law (death) which in itself is enough to deter small and medium potential law breakers. ..............
But, government will provide the absolute best in psychological and medical rehailitation to those that are addicted to their own suicide-
It can be done....
..............society will be structured into a stress free society.
You're scaring me. The above is straight out of a liberal/left-facsist manifesto........
Liberal ideology is firmly based upon the principle that people are evolved, from nothing, into needy, helpless creatures that must have a large government, a Liberal, ruling elite, to control their personal lives and take care of them.
-
Newman understand...ciggies destroy lives, it's murder! It does one no good!
I just cn't stand seeing people murder themselves...and paying for it!
How can a RIGHTEOUS government allow it's people to commit mass suicide?! How can a righteous government allow people to come into their society, and give their people pure poison?!
We are G-D's temples (our bodies), and now we go and pollute His temples. It's suicide-whether you like it or not! I don't need to talk about what the Torah says about suicide!
-
Newman understand...ciggies destroy lives, it's murder! It does one no good!
I just cn't stand seeing people murder themselves...and paying for it!
So do fatty foods, sunbathing, not wearing sufficiently warm clothes in winter, rinking too much and thousands of other things I could write a book on.
How can a RIGHTEOUS government allow it's people to commit mass suicide?! How can a righteous government allow people to come into their society, and give their people pure poison?!
We are G-D's temples (our bodies), and now we go and pollute His temples. It's suicide-whether you like it or not! I don't need to talk about what the Torah says about suicide!
Smoking is not suicide. If it is then so is sunbathing, insufficient sleep, alcohol (in more than 1 glass per day).
Smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy foods may be unwise, foolish, silly,whatever, but NOBODY has the right to ban them.
As conservatives we believe in personal freedom. The only time we tollerate restrictions on individuals is when the personal safety or property of others is threatened without their consent. Or when our cultural well may be polluted (do it from the chandeleer at home but not in the park). We accept peoples right to own home defense guns but legislate against firing them at the shopping mall. We accept peoples right to eat pork BBQ 7 days a week but legislate for food labeling and fund health awareness.
Sometimes it's hard to sit back while a minority of people make 'unwise' decisions but the alternative is to take the leftist approach and believe that people are evolved, from nothing, into needy, helpless, stupid creatures that must have a large government, a ruling, cultural elite, take care of them and run their lives for them for their own good.
It's Ronald Regan or Nancy Pelosi. There's no middle ground. You choose.
-
But with foods, we need to eat. And your absolutely right, fatty foods etc are a risk. Therefore it'simportant for governmnets to strictly monitor food preparation and the chemicals placed in the food.
Sunbathing. That's a problem with society. That's why society needs to be de-programized towards not being sex robots and whaetver. And not just thinking sex sex sex the whole bloody freakin time!
Insufficient sleep and warm clothes in winter won't kill you just like that.
Alcohol...now government needs to STRICTLY regulate the buying capacity for individuals. With technology, it is possible to regulate how much alcohol one can buy. Alcohol brings me to an important note. Alcohol is a terrible thing! It not only buggers up people's health, famly life, but it also kills. It basically upsets society. Bad family life as result of alcohol misuse will deeply challenge the children etc etc etc. Another thing, alcohol does nothing beneficial. The right quantities, YES, but that's why im saying controlled alcohol consumption.
-
if we can't ban those murderers, we will simply TAX the lifing daylights out of those murdering basterd scum...may they see gehenom!!!
All under the name of public health tax. :). It will be soo expensive for one packet of cigarettes, that those addicted slaves would rather go to therphy to set them loose from their suicide than paying vast sums for a packet. Theraphy being FREE ofcourse.
-
You're being inconsistant and contradictory.
But with foods, we need to eat. And your absolutely right, fatty foods etc are a risk. Therefore it'simportant for governmnets to strictly monitor food preparation and the chemicals placed in the food.
If smoking must be banned- NOT merely regulated (as you say) because it shortens life, then so too must ALL fatty food. Humans can live on lentils and vegetable.
Sunbathing. That's a problem with society. That's why society needs to be de-programized towards not being sex robots and whaetver. And not just thinking sex sex sex the whole bloody freakin time!
You're missing the point. If smoking must be banned (as you say) because it MAY (or may not-depending on the person) cause cancer, then so too should sun bathing.
Insufficient sleep and warm clothes in winter won't kill you just like that.
Nor does tobacco. So if you are prepared to ban one, why not ban the other for the same reason?
Alcohol...now government needs to STRICTLY regulate the buying capacity for individuals.
It does. Not only with alcohol but with tobacco too.
But again you miss the point. You advocate 'regulating' booze (which alters the mind causing violence and dangerous driving etc) but 'banning' tobacco. Why the inconsistancy and where are your priorities?
With technology, it is possible to regulate how much alcohol one can buy.
'Regulate', 'monitor', 'control'..........nazism/communism pure and simple. Alcohol brings me to an important note. Alcohol is a terrible thing! It not only buggers up people's health, famly life, but it also kills. It basically upsets society. Bad family life as result of alcohol misuse will deeply challenge the children etc etc etc. Another thing, alcohol does nothing beneficial.
Yet you only advocate regulation and not a total ban as you do with tobacco. Why the hypocracy?
-
You're being inconsistant and contradictory.
But with foods, we need to eat. And your absolutely right, fatty foods etc are a risk. Therefore it'simportant for governmnets to strictly monitor food preparation and the chemicals placed in the food.
If smoking must be banned- NOT merely regulated (as you say) because it shortens life, then so too must ALL fatty food. Humans can live on lentils and vegetable.
Sunbathing. That's a problem with society. That's why society needs to be de-programized towards not being sex robots and whaetver. And not just thinking sex sex sex the whole bloody freakin time!
You're missing the point. If smoking must be banned (as you say) because it MAY (or may not-depending on the person) cause cancer, then so too should sun bathing.
Insufficient sleep and warm clothes in winter won't kill you just like that.
Nor does tobacco. So if you are prepared to ban one, why not ban the other for the same reason?
Alcohol...now government needs to STRICTLY regulate the buying capacity for individuals.
It does. Not only with alcohol but with tobacco too.
But again you miss the point. You advocate 'regulating' booze (which alters the mind causing violence and dangerous driving etc) but 'banning' tobacco. Why the inconsistancy and where are your priorities?
With technology, it is possible to regulate how much alcohol one can buy.
'Regulate', 'monitor', 'control'..........nazism/communism pure and simple. Alcohol brings me to an important note. Alcohol is a terrible thing! It not only buggers up people's health, famly life, but it also kills. It basically upsets society. Bad family life as result of alcohol misuse will deeply challenge the children etc etc etc. Another thing, alcohol does nothing beneficial.
Yet you only advocate regulation and not a total ban as you do with tobacco. Why the hypocracy?
,Alcohol has been with mankind since...since always, basically. You need to take into account alcohol such as wine (which has religious purposes), but small amounts of alcohol has health benefits. Besides, controlled alcohol will not kill you, and does not permanantly bugger up your body.
Smoking does! It carries no health advantages whatsoever. Evry smoke buggers up your body. Notice how if you smoked 7 years efore pregnancy, your baby can suffer health risks, and with alcohol this is not the case.
Yes, not all smokers get cancer. BUT it buggers up your immune and health systems, compromising one's system to fight diseases etc.
So should we debann drugs?Should we lift bann's on say asbestos? Should governmnets cease their involvement in preventing dangerous products containing harmfull ingredients? Should governments stop ALL imports from China which have been banned from entry due to health hazards (personally id say bann ALL products from china).
So we can just go and build heavilly polluting industries right next to suburbs, nurseries and hospitals?
Call it communism/fascism, i call it seeing to it that MY people are not being murdered!
-
Newman understand...ciggies destroy lives, it's murder! It does one no good!
I just cn't stand seeing people murder themselves...and paying for it!
How can a RIGHTEOUS government allow it's people to commit mass suicide?! How can a righteous government allow people to come into their society, and give their people pure poison?!
We are G-D's temples (our bodies), and now we go and pollute His temples. It's suicide-whether you like it or not! I don't need to talk about what the Torah says about suicide!
Ciggies do not destroy lives. People do!
Ciggies do not cause mass suicide they just shorten most lives.
In a Jewish nation, there shoudln't be an outright ban right away on ciggies if it is determined that it is a type of suicide. On the other hand, more and more restrictions and mass education needs to take place to make ciggies look like the most terrible thing anyone can ever use. At that point, it will be then and only then that a ban won't be needed bcause nobody will ever desire to smoke a ciggy ever!
-
You're being inconsistant and contradictory.
But with foods, we need to eat. And your absolutely right, fatty foods etc are a risk. Therefore it'simportant for governmnets to strictly monitor food preparation and the chemicals placed in the food.
If smoking must be banned- NOT merely regulated (as you say) because it shortens life, then so too must ALL fatty food. Humans can live on lentils and vegetable.
Sunbathing. That's a problem with society. That's why society needs to be de-programized towards not being sex robots and whaetver. And not just thinking sex sex sex the whole bloody freakin time!
You're missing the point. If smoking must be banned (as you say) because it MAY (or may not-depending on the person) cause cancer, then so too should sun bathing.
Insufficient sleep and warm clothes in winter won't kill you just like that.
Nor does tobacco. So if you are prepared to ban one, why not ban the other for the same reason?
Alcohol...now government needs to STRICTLY regulate the buying capacity for individuals.
It does. Not only with alcohol but with tobacco too.
But again you miss the point. You advocate 'regulating' booze (which alters the mind causing violence and dangerous driving etc) but 'banning' tobacco. Why the inconsistancy and where are your priorities?
With technology, it is possible to regulate how much alcohol one can buy.
'Regulate', 'monitor', 'control'..........nazism/communism pure and simple. Alcohol brings me to an important note. Alcohol is a terrible thing! It not only buggers up people's health, famly life, but it also kills. It basically upsets society. Bad family life as result of alcohol misuse will deeply challenge the children etc etc etc. Another thing, alcohol does nothing beneficial.
Yet you only advocate regulation and not a total ban as you do with tobacco. Why the hypocracy?
Alcohol has been with mankind since...since always, basically.
So has tobacco. Ask Amerindians......who used tobacco and and had hardly any cancer.
You need to take into account alcohol such as wine (which has religious purposes), but small amounts of alcohol has health benefits. Besides, controlled alcohol will not kill you, and does not permanantly bugger up your bodySmoking does!.
That is not proven. My grandfather smoked heavily for over 40 years and died at age 93 from NOTHING TO DO WITH tobacco. Please explain.
It carries no health advantages whatsoever. Evry smoke buggers up your body.
Not true. Nicotein has been shown to be the best natural anti-depressent thay've got. Superior to anti-depressant drugs, in fact. Depression is a huge killer in the west, so nicotein is good in that regard.
Notice how if you smoked 7 years efore pregnancy, your baby can suffer health risks
That does not apply to men and infertile women and women past child bearing age so it's a non-argument for banning.
and with alcohol this is not the case.
Have you never heard of feotal alcohol syndrome? :o It's far worse than any smoking related problems a baby can suffer.So why ban one and not the other?
Yes, not all smokers get cancer. BUT it buggers up your immune and health systems, compromising one's system to fight diseases etc.
So does alcohol and a diet lacking vitamin C. So why ban one and not the others?
So should we debann drugs?
Drugs were NEVER a mainstream product. There is no comparison.
Should we lift bann's on say asbestos? Should governmnets cease their involvement in preventing dangerous products containing harmfull ingredients? Should governments stop ALL imports from China which have been banned from entry due to health hazards (personally id say bann ALL products from china).
So we can just go and build heavilly polluting industries right next to suburbs, nurseries and hospitals?
Those are not valid arguments, boer as you well know.
Harmfull ingredients, chemicals and factory pollution are not imbibed by people of their free will and consent. Tobacco, fatty food, booze and other vices are. That is why we outlaw the first and allow the second (with some regulation)
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
------The harm principle is articulated most clearly in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty
Call it communism/fascism, i call it seeing to it that MY people are not being murdered!
Fine. Murder is already banned (and it still occurs, BTW).
The volluntary imbibing by adults of tobacco, alcohol, saturated fat and other things by their own hand and consent is NOT 'murder'. Nor is it 'suicide' by any legal definition in any nation on earth.
-
You're being inconsistant and contradictory.
But with foods, we need to eat. And your absolutely right, fatty foods etc are a risk. Therefore it'simportant for governmnets to strictly monitor food preparation and the chemicals placed in the food.
If smoking must be banned- NOT merely regulated (as you say) because it shortens life, then so too must ALL fatty food. Humans can live on lentils and vegetable.
Sunbathing. That's a problem with society. That's why society needs to be de-programized towards not being sex robots and whaetver. And not just thinking sex sex sex the whole bloody freakin time!
You're missing the point. If smoking must be banned (as you say) because it MAY (or may not-depending on the person) cause cancer, then so too should sun bathing.
Insufficient sleep and warm clothes in winter won't kill you just like that.
Nor does tobacco. So if you are prepared to ban one, why not ban the other for the same reason?
Alcohol...now government needs to STRICTLY regulate the buying capacity for individuals.
It does. Not only with alcohol but with tobacco too.
But again you miss the point. You advocate 'regulating' booze (which alters the mind causing violence and dangerous driving etc) but 'banning' tobacco. Why the inconsistancy and where are your priorities?
With technology, it is possible to regulate how much alcohol one can buy.
'Regulate', 'monitor', 'control'..........nazism/communism pure and simple. Alcohol brings me to an important note. Alcohol is a terrible thing! It not only buggers up people's health, famly life, but it also kills. It basically upsets society. Bad family life as result of alcohol misuse will deeply challenge the children etc etc etc. Another thing, alcohol does nothing beneficial.
Yet you only advocate regulation and not a total ban as you do with tobacco. Why the hypocracy?
Alcohol has been with mankind since...since always, basically.
So has tobacco. Ask Amerindians......who used tobacco and and had hardly any cancer.
You need to take into account alcohol such as wine (which has religious purposes), but small amounts of alcohol has health benefits. Besides, controlled alcohol will not kill you, and does not permanantly bugger up your bodySmoking does!.
That is not proven. My grandfather smoked heavily for over 40 years and died at age 93 from NOTHING TO DO WITH tobacco. Please explain.
It carries no health advantages whatsoever. Evry smoke buggers up your body.
Not true. Nicotein has been shown to be the best natural anti-depressent thay've got. Superior to anti-depressant drugs, in fact. Depression is a huge killer in the west, so nicotein is good in that regard.
Notice how if you smoked 7 years efore pregnancy, your baby can suffer health risks
That does not apply to men and infertile women and women past child bearing age so it's a non-argument for banning.
and with alcohol this is not the case.
Have you never heard of feotal alcohol syndrome? :o It's far worse than any smoking related problems a baby can suffer.So why ban one and not the other?
Yes, not all smokers get cancer. BUT it buggers up your immune and health systems, compromising one's system to fight diseases etc.
So does alcohol and a diet lacking vitamin C. So why ban one and not the others?
So should we debann drugs?
Drugs were NEVER a mainstream product. There is no comparison.
Should we lift bann's on say asbestos? Should governmnets cease their involvement in preventing dangerous products containing harmfull ingredients? Should governments stop ALL imports from China which have been banned from entry due to health hazards (personally id say bann ALL products from china).
So we can just go and build heavilly polluting industries right next to suburbs, nurseries and hospitals?
Those are not valid arguments, boer as you well know.
Harmfull ingredients, chemicals and factory pollution are not imbibed by people of their free will and consent. Tobacco, fatty food, booze and other vices are. That is why we outlaw the first and allow the second (with some regulation)
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
------The harm principle is articulated most clearly in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty
Call it communism/fascism, i call it seeing to it that MY people are not being murdered!
Fine. Murder is already banned (and it still occurs, BTW).
The volluntary imbibing by adults of tobacco, alcohol, saturated fat and other things by their own hand and consent is NOT 'murder'. Nor is it 'suicide' by any legal definition in any nation on earth.
Some drive cars with their whole lives without wearing any seat belts!!
"Oh but Oh!!! explain how my grandpa lived for 99 years without wearing seat belts!!! Oh Oh!! Therefore, I will not wear seatbelts whenever I drive!"
Newman, that's a terrible argument to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer!!!
I will state a fact: Smoking is a HIGH RISK FACTOR in causing cancer.
Do you know the difference between a Risk Factor and a Cause?
Not wearing seatbelts will not cause death when driving. However, it is a very high risk factor of death in a car accident when one chooses not to wear a seat belt.
Hear's another risk factor:
It is a very high risk factor if people listen to Ovadia Yosef that giving land to the arabs will save Jewish lives, that in fact more Jews will die. However, Ovadia Yosef doesn't kill Jews.
Got it? Maspeek?
-
Fine.
'High risk' I can live with. 'x causes y' I will not.
My point being that nobody in church or government may interfere in peoples personal activities based on their assessment of high risk or other concerns unless it effects others.
-
Here's another difference between risk factor and cause:
Foods with a high content of fat eaten is a high risk factor for heart disease.
However, foods high in fat do not directly cause someone to die from heart disease.
You want to roll the dice and smoke 2 packs a day for the rest of your life? Fine
You want to roll the dice and not wear your seatbelt while you drive? Fine (just dont' get pulled over)
You want to roll the dice and have sex with strange women without wearing protection? hey, just stay away from my girls.
You want to eat McDonalds all day long everyday? MMM hmmm
Now illegal drugs like Cocain, Heroin? they actually directly cause lots and lots of problems.
Alcohol? If you have too much, it is a high risk factor for liver disease.
However, a decent amount is actually beneficial for the health.
A little amount of cigarettes (which contains TAR -not tobacco-) has no benefit and can be very addictive.
(remember I'm only referring to cigarettes; not cigars, pipes, hookas...although too much of that isn't healthy either).
-
Fine.
'High risk' I can live with. 'x causes y' I will not.
My point being that nobody in church or government may interfere in peoples personal activities based on their assessment of high risk or other concerns unless it effects others.
Applaud!! This should be everyone's final answer on this post!
However, I will follow up with another question:
What if any high risk behavior one does, doesn't affect anyone directly. However, causes a crisis in the health field?
Like food that a lot of Black people and others like to eat leading to an epidemic of diabetes and heart disease causing a crisis in the health field? Do we make McDonalds illegal?
My answer:
We make a rule of changing the content of certain of known fats to be non existent
We make a rule that the calories and fat content to be published in every known food in every restaurant menu.
We educate about healthy and unhealthy diet.
We change our healthcare insurance rules like the way Huckabee was proposing, as an example.
-
ScienceDaily (Apr. 5, 2007) — While nicotine is highly addictive, researchers have also shown the drug to enhance learning and memory--a property that has launched efforts to develop nicotine-like drugs to treat cognitive deficits in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, schizophrenia, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
It's also an excellent natural anti-depressant. With record suicides from depression it should be encouraged.
As for mucking up the health system, nicotine tax more than offsets extra health costs. Plus if people die 5 to 10 years early, they save a fortune in Social Security and other non-tobacco, old-age related health costs.
Smokers are financial benefactors to their countries and non-smokers sponge off them without paying their way. :D
-
ScienceDaily (Apr. 5, 2007) — While nicotine is highly addictive, researchers have also shown the drug to enhance learning and memory--a property that has launched efforts to develop nicotine-like drugs to treat cognitive deficits in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, schizophrenia, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
It's also an excellent natural anti-depressant. With record suicides from depression it should be encouraged.
As for mucking up the health system, nicotine tax more than offsets extra health costs. Plus if people die 5 to 10 years early, they save a fortune in Social Security and other non-tobacco, old-age related health costs.
Smokers are financial benefactors to their countries and non-smokers sponge off them without paying their way. :D
nicotine doesn't cause cancer. We have nicotinic receptors in our brains which are natural receptors.
It's the tar and the hydrocarbons in the cigarette which are a high risk factor for cancer.
Nicotine in the cigarettes make it more addictive to smoke.
Tobacco, per say, isn't necessarily bad for you either.
However, it's the TAR!
-
Banning ANYTHING that does not alter the mind is nazi and facist. This is a liberal/leftist ideology........."we know what's best for eveybody".
Protein cooked at high temperature (meat over flames) is proven to cause cancer. Do we ban BBQs?
Fats cause heart disease. Do we ban lamb chops?
The formaldahyde in dish detergent causes cancer. Wanna ban that, too?
By all means outlaw smoking in enclosed public spaces as it may effect non-consenting others, but banning a legal product enjoyed by consenting adults for several centuries "for their own good" is nazi, facist and DEMOCRAT to the core.
Yes, I concur.
Its like this obsession with creating a nanny state - why think at all when libs and leftists can do that for us as well. Thinking generates non-liberal ideas.
-
Banning ANYTHING that does not alter the mind is nazi and facist. This is a liberal/leftist ideology........."we know what's best for eveybody".
Protein cooked at high temperature (meat over flames) is proven to cause cancer. Do we ban BBQs?
Fats cause heart disease. Do we ban lamb chops?
The formaldahyde in dish detergent causes cancer. Wanna ban that, too?
By all means outlaw smoking in enclosed public spaces as it may effect non-consenting others, but banning a legal product enjoyed by consenting adults for several centuries "for their own good" is nazi, facist and DEMOCRAT to the core.
Yes, I concur.
Its like this obsession with creating a nanny state - why think at all when libs and leftists can do that for us as well. Thinking generates non-liberal ideas.
Sometimes even conservatives forget they're conservatives and have an attack of liberal 'I-know-what's-best-for-everybody' syndrome.