Who's more dangerous, Al Qaeda or tobacco companies?

And the tobacco companies have been killing year after year for years...enemies come and go but tobacco is here to stay. Be smart...don't start!!! :angry:

 

Tobacco companies also export death to other countries, with the aid and support of the U.S. government. When the Japanese government wanted to ban tobacco advertisement, the U.S. government threatened trade retaliation, and forced them to back off, assuring that U.S. tobacco companies could continue to brainwash Japanese children into smoking.

This makes the U.S. governemt a bigger terrorist than any other government or organization in the world.

 

I think it's just a little too convenient to brush over the fact that Al Qaeda actually kills other people, while tobacco companies allow people to kill themselves.

I'm not defending the tobacco companies (some of the memos that have come out about standard operating procedures 30ish years ago are disgusting!) but it's not fair to compare the situations.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jun 4 2006, 09:03 AM) [snapback]265549[/snapback]</div>

We put Dr. Kavorkian (sp.?) in jail for assisted suicide...isn't that what the tobacco companies are doing except that they are making it slow suicide so they can get 30 or 40 years of money out of you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Jun 4 2006, 11:05 AM) [snapback]265566[/snapback]</div>

Well, I don't think we should be putting people in jail for assisted suicide at all, but I understand that it's a point of contention all around. It's not that I like what the tobacco companies have done - there are even things that they have done that I think should probably be punished criminally (such as their earlier efforts to get kids to smoke.) In the end, though, adults who start smoking today know what they are getting themselves into, and make that choice anyway. Allowing mature adults to choose to hurt (and even kill) themselves by degrees is just a different scenario than terrorist attacks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 4 2006, 09:45 AM) [snapback]265544[/snapback]</div>

of course, we can't possibly blame Japan can we? Who is REALLY at fault here? Seems to me, the Japanese, in this case, in essence, cared more about the $ than their people.... Is it really fair to blame the US for *supposed* strong arm tactics, if the country at hand fails to make the right decision for themselves? What if the situation, via a similar mechanism, was reversed? Would you blame us for essentially *caving in*, or them?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 4 2006, 12:37 AM) [snapback]265503[/snapback]</div>

The moral distinction between the two is that people choose to smoke, or do any other dangerous activity, and the victims of Al Qaeda have no choice.

If I want to take a 1 in 3 chance that I will shorten my life by smoking, it's none of your business. If I want to blow you up when you are taking your kid to pre-school, it is indeed your business.

I know making moral distinctions is a foreign concept to many here in PC-Land, but if you stretch your brain a little, you might be able to do it. If you can't make the moral distinctions between choices as a result of personal freedom and terrorist acts, you probably also have trouble telling the difference between slavery and working at a job 8 - 5, marriage and prostitution, and a car that gets 50 MPG and one that gets 8.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 4 2006, 10:37 AM) [snapback]265638[/snapback]</div>

Yes it is.

I am constantly forced to inhale second hand smoke. Even though smoking is prohibited in pubic buildings in California, it is hard to enter one without having to cross the smokers' gauntlet at the entry to most government, office and commercial buildings.

In addition, my health insurance premiums are used to pay for treating those who chose to take the risk of getting lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease and other smoking related illnesses. The result is higher insurance premiums for me and other non smokers. Since the uninsured with smoking related maladies are treated in public hospitals or through Medicaid and Medicare, my tax dollars are used to pay for their choices.

Then there is the drain on the Social Security system by those who collect SSI payments due to smoking related disabilities.

Don't tell me it is none of my business when tobacco addiction of others affect my physical and financial well being.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 4 2006, 03:37 PM) [snapback]265671[/snapback]</div>

As long as the smokers are out of doors, I see no real issues with second hand smoke. Worst case, you hold your breath and quickly walk through it. Second hand smoke is an issue if you have to work or live with others who smoke and you are being exposed to it on a more or less constant basis.

I'm sure that there are those on SSI disability from smoking related diseases, but really, what's going to cost more in the long run regarding SSI? With fewer and fewer smokers (and that's a really very good thing), the life span of Americans is once again on the increase. Who's going to be paying for the SSI for all the retirees who live longer and longer because they now don't smoke? SSI was originally entirely based on the fact that, on average, most people died before they had a chance to retire.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 4 2006, 05:39 PM) [snapback]265706[/snapback]</div>

I generally find the use of most colognes and perfumes quite offensive and invasive to me as they give me sinus attacks.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 4 2006, 05:39 PM) [snapback]265706[/snapback]</div>

I can certainly sympathize with the scenario you describe here, but perhaps it's your choice of living in a high-density townhouse-condo that's part of the problem if you have that level of intolerance for your neighbors smoking on their own balcony (which is their deeded property, is it not?). I would have the same problem and that's one of many reasons I would choose not to live in a high-density townhouse-condo situation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jun 4 2006, 02:17 PM) [snapback]265699[/snapback]</div>

Just try to stand in line to go through security screening when you enter a courthouse or a government office building. Some times the wait can exceed five or ten minutes. I don't know about you, but I cannot hold my breath that long. Then there are the lines to buy tickets and to go into movie theaters and concerts. What about attending outdoor sporting events?

Smokers infringe on my space. Oh, you never rebutted my argument that my health insurance premiums are adversely affected by this filthy and disgusting habit.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jun 4 2006, 02:49 PM) [snapback]265707[/snapback]</div>

Not everyone is in the enviable position of living out in the country. If your neighbors were to blast rock music in the middle of the night while on their deeded property would you also consider that to be their god given uninfringed right as property owners? Just wondering.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 4 2006, 06:00 PM) [snapback]265711[/snapback]</div>

I can't recall being in a situation out of doors where this was a problem for me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 4 2006, 06:00 PM) [snapback]265711[/snapback]</div>

I didn't 'rebut' the argument because there was nothing to rebut as I don't disagree with you on this point. But since you asked, there are many other poor habits, like eating lots of processed junk food (yeah, the Standard American Diet that's loaded with over 150 pounds of sugar per person on average!) that leads to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. that drives insurance costs up equally if not moreso. Should these poor behaviors also be regulated in a supposedly "free" society just because you or I might happen to find them "filthy and disgusting"?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 4 2006, 06:00 PM) [snapback]265711[/snapback]</div>

It's happened and I've called the police and that was the end of that! There are noise ordinances out here in the country and hopefully in townhouse-condos and other high-density areas as well. Since townhouse-condos are invariably within a Homeowner's Association (another reason I would never want to live in one), there should certainly be noise regulations within the Association.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jun 4 2006, 03:09 PM) [snapback]265714[/snapback]</div>

I'll be happy to show you such situation on any day of the week at the entrances to most of the courthouses in Los Angeles County as well as terminal 1 at LAX (Southwest) where the line to clear security often snakes all the way to terminal 2.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jun 4 2006, 03:09 PM) [snapback]265714[/snapback]</div>

Well, at least obese people do not directly infringe on my well being except when they sit next to me on crowded airplanes and insist on raising the armrest in order to fit in the seat. Southwest Airlines, by the way, compels passengers who need seat belt extenders to purchase a second ticket.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 4 2006, 06:17 PM) [snapback]265716[/snapback]</div>

I'll count myself fortunate not to have to wait in such outdoor security lines. In Connecticut, it is illegal to smoke anywhere on the property of a state office building or courthouse. Smokers must go out to the street to smoke. The airports that I use, the security lines are all indoors and therefore smoke-free. Perhaps you should complain to the administrators of the courthouse and the airport.

 

Hmm, I do not see a point here....

No one is holding a person down and shoving a cigerette into everyones mouths and saying SMOKE IT.

I look at it, as its a choice smoke or dont smoke.. Oh wait maybe they will find out we are born with a gene that tells us to smoke.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Heres a nightclub where you have to go outside to smoke, what a great way to hook up the chicks come to you!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Next in line is Obesity & then drinking, but wait drinking doesnt kill people does it? :huh:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 4 2006, 06:17 PM) [snapback]265716[/snapback]</div>

I've traveled with an obese person on Southwest who did require a seatbelt extender. She was not required to buy an additional ticket as she did not encroach on the adjacent seats, they only refused to let her sit in an exit row. They only charge for 2 seats if you actually are wide enough to actually require 2 seats. Thankfully, she has lost a considerable amount of weight and that is not a problem for her now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jun 4 2006, 03:22 PM) [snapback]265718[/snapback]</div>

California law prohibits smoking within 20 feet of entrances and windows of publicly owned buildings.

Unfortunately, most mornings the security lines are considerably longer than twenty feet. Even when I am within twenty feet of the entrance, smokers are inevitably upwind from me and the wind ignores the letter and spirit of the law. Then there are the violators who will puff away regardless of prohibitions. At busy times, the inadequate number of security officers means that often the law goes unenforced.