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

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jun 4 2006, 05:25 PM) [snapback]265720[/snapback]</div>

It is a choice at first...but once nicotine takes hold of the brain you no longer can make a neutral choice about use. Nicotine is a very powerful drug.

 

of course, take into account, the quality of the air excluding cigarette smoke. i read somewhere sometime just breathing in LA is roughly equivalent to two packs of cigarettes... Of course, what about those situations where an 18 wheeler or something goes by belching a toxic cloud of exhaust, or something like being stuck behind a school bus... might actually be overall healther for me to take in 20 minutes of second hand smoke out in the country somewhere, than 5 seconds in LA... I see it this way, there are risk factors everywhere you turn, I avoid what I can, but don't worry about it too much...

To answer the question directly though, I'd say tobacco companies hands down.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 4 2006, 12:37 PM) [snapback]265671[/snapback]</div>

So do you agree that the tobacco companies are as bad as Al Queda? Do you want our military to mount a raid on the offices of Brown and Williamson and kill the executives? Or are the smokers terrorists too, who should be killed? THAT is the question here, not the wisdom of smoking. The question is if the tobacco companies "are the same" as Al Queda. Its an idiotic question.

I don't like smoking either, but there is certainly a moral difference between doing something that irritates you, costs you money, and may have a slight health effect on you, and something that kills you. Or perhaps you feel having a smoker twenty feet from you is as offensive as having a suicide bomber with ball bearings and nails packed into a bomb that sets it off next to you.

As far as the financial end of things, the insurance pool is just that ... it spreads out the risk of many people to make it economical for all people. You can find a health insurance plan that does NOT insure smokers if you wish ... they do exist, but because their universe of people is smaller, they have higher rates, not lower. If you want Social Security to apply those rules, we can agitate for that, but there are many minority groups that have early onset of certain diseases, so we'll have to make other rules that are race based to be fair. Since white men live 10 years longer than black men, perhaps we should cut black people out of the system because they die early and their children collect survivor's benefits longer?

There is no way you can compare tobacco companies to a terrorist organization. Its an insult to the thousands of Americans slaughtered by Al Queda.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 4 2006, 03:37 AM) [snapback]265503[/snapback]</div>

Well, now that you put it that way, it's obvious to me that we shouldn't be concerned about terrorists. For that matter, we can forget about just regular old murderers too. After all, they only kill around 16,000 people a year.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 4 2006, 03:37 AM) [snapback]265503[/snapback]</div>

Having been part of this BB for a number of months now, this post has lost its shock value - at least form my perspective.

Maybe you should find a way to get all those al qaeda folks that you equate with the BOD of tobacco companies to smoke??

And 3000 Americans died 9/11 and you have failed to include others killed in attacks from during the Clinton (please keep hitting me) administration.

I believe someone below said it most succinctly - one you choose to kill yourself, the other someone chooses to kill you. Does al qaeda pay taxes?? Does al qaeda have women in top management positions?

Ridiculous post.

Wonder how the canadians are feeling towards al qaeda today??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jun 4 2006, 03:25 PM) [snapback]265720[/snapback]</div>

Second-hand smoke kills, and when a person has to be in a place where others are smoking, then that person is indeed being forced to smoke. And when parents smoke in the presence of their children, as most smoking parents do, they are guilty of child abuse.

I have never met a person who began smoking as an adult. There are probably exceptions, but nearly every smoker began as a child. Tobacco companies use carefully-crafted propaganda to deceive children into believing that smoking is cool, and is a "grown-up" thing to do, enticing them into the addiction before they are old enough to make a rational choice. We say that a 12-year-old is not mature enough to make the decision to have sex (and it's true, they're not!) and by the same token, when tobacco propaganda entices a 12-year-old to become addicted to smoking, that child has not made a reasoned, thoughtful choice to enter upon a course of long, slow sickness and death.

No, the army should not go in and kill tobacco company executives. But they should be put in prison for the rest of their lives, along with the other drug kingpins, and their property should be confiscated, and the tobacco companies' assets should be confiscated, and the drugs (tobacco, in this case) should be destroyed, and the non-tobacco-related assets auctioned off. (Tobacco companies now own considerable stock in other industries.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 5 2006, 10:00 AM) [snapback]265932[/snapback]</div>

Why stop at the tobacco industry? What about gun makers? How about alcohol companies, wine makers included here? How about car makers since 40,000 Americans die each year in car accidents? Dont forget chewing gum companies for those that accidently swallow gum and choke to death. And how about meat processors for all the heart disease they cause and death they cause and cancer too? Then please done forget the tire makers for enabling the automakers to kill. And of course the sugar based companies that cause diabetes and weight related disorders that kill tens of thousands of others each year.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jun 4 2006, 04:17 PM) [snapback]265699[/snapback]</div>

If you watched the movie "Thank You for Smoking", the main character Nick said the reasons he is a spokesman for the Tobacco Industry is population control (said with a smile) and for the mortgage. Population control......you think some government numbers cruncher actually takes smoking deaths into account when looking at Social Security benefits for the elderly?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 4 2006, 04:39 PM) [snapback]265706[/snapback]</div>

Tony...that sucks!!! Sorry. That's like having the new neighbor with the barking dog, the loud stereo, etc...except that smoke smell really is annoying.

I went to a comedy club a few months ago, smoking is OK (here in Missouri), and it was really bad. Years ago in college, I didn't mind it because I was used to it, now it's so tough to be in a room with smokers. My throat hurt, my eyes stunk, I felt like crap. My wife and I walked out into the cold, winter night air and just took in huge breaths of air to cleanse our lungs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 5 2006, 10:40 AM) [snapback]265951[/snapback]</div>

Spending billions to keep mexicans out?? You mean spending billions of dollars on mexicans here illegally. If we spent billions of dollars to keep them out the wall would be built by now and manned and we would be enforcing the laws on the books concerning employing illegals.

You mix up, on purpose, legal vs. illegal substances...

We should not control whether or not people use seat belts or helmets - make them responsible for the consequences of their action or lack of action - including smoking. Smoke and pay a higher insurance rate, etc.

American logic - what is that?? Canadian logic you can define and wonder about.

 

"How marriage ruins a man! It is as demoralizing as cigarettes, and far more expensive."
Oscar Wilde

But better for your health.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 5 2006, 11:52 AM) [snapback]265978[/snapback]</div>

marijuana alters cortical functioning while tobacco does not. you have a better argument with booze.

400,000 people dying is wrong - it is their decision to smoke - let people live and die by their own means - the government does not belong regulating that decision - gay marrage is dangerous too... no - % of homosexuals with hiv much higher than heterosexuals so i am sure you are against gay marrage???
Cars are usefull - i thought you wanted to do away with the ICE??

Legality is based on the Constitution and the peoples will - not too many coroporations around in 1777??

You gotta stop using religions you have no respect for or dont believe as a source of defense for your alleged points. Stay true to yourself. And I believe suicide is against the Jewish religion in most circumstances - not sure about the others.

Glad to here you are a Second Amendment believer.

Your mexican argument is as full of holes as is our southern border. The more time i spend on this BB, the more i believe we should seal the northern border too - except for those canadians we cherry pick that fill needs of ours - do they have a left fullback for our world cup team??

and above all....

And seeing how you think having 400,000 people die annually is wrong - well thank you for your support of getting rid of Saddam who killed multiples of that

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 5 2006, 09:18 AM) [snapback]265919[/snapback]</div>

I never said it wasn't your "right", only that I happen to have a condition that colognes and perfumes (overuse or not) can and does trigger, something that does happen to many people, BTW. However, you were the one making the point that others ought not have the right to have certain odors eminating from them, either from a lit cigarette or from the stench it leaves behind. I was merely pointing out your own hypocracy when you mentioned your own use of colognes. YOU may find it to be a "superior" odor. I do not. Cigarette smoke, in general, does not cause the allergic reactions that I frequently get when in close proximity to someone wearing cologne or perfume.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 5 2006, 09:18 AM) [snapback]265919[/snapback]</div>

Your "First" and "Second" points are identical. Did you mean to make a different second point or only emphasize the first. And like I already suggested, you can take it up with your Homeowner's Association. You could also take it up with your new neigbors directly or just live with it and continue to complain about it as though there should be some public policy on it to protect you from the drifting cigarette smoke which is eminated from someone else's private property.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eyeguy13 @ Jun 5 2006, 10:24 AM) [snapback]265943[/snapback]</div>

Since smoking is a very significant predictor of longevity/mortality rates in this country, yes, of course they do. Smoking rates in the US have dropped from about 50% three decades ago to under 20% now. You don't think that's going to have a direct correlation to longevity/mortality rates in this country?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 4 2006, 11:58 PM) [snapback]265874[/snapback]</div>

Excuse me, all I did was to challenge your assertion that: "If I want to take a 1 in 3 chance that I will shorten my life by smoking, it's none of your business."

It is my business if it affects my physical and financial well being.

I did not address the moral equivalency of selling death sticks to blowing people up

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 5 2006, 02:49 PM) [snapback]266240[/snapback]</div>

Please do. From your post, I would put you on the side that says Al Queda is morally equivalent to Big Tobacco. And that surprises me.

I suspect we would have similar views on this issue, and on other "morally equivalent" statements made far too often today.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 5 2006, 07:10 AM) [snapback]265937[/snapback]</div>

Tobacco was the subject of this thread. So that's the issue I addressed. Tobacco is the only legal consumer commodity that when used as intended kills people. And it kills not only the smoker, but the innocent bystander as well. Al Queda kills for hate. Tobacco companies kill for money.

Since you bring up guns, I favor extremely stringent gun control.

And since you bring up alcohol and cars, I favor extremely draconian prison terms for drunk drivers. I also favor mandatory jail time for people who assault other people while under the influence of alcohol, and very long jail terms when the victim of such violence is relatively helpless, such as a child or a person who is obviously weaker than the assailant. (Frequently the case in wife-beating, but can also be the other way around occasionally.)

Your other examples are silly and require no reply, other than to say that people who cloose unhealthy lifestyles ought to pay higher insurance premiums.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 6 2006, 10:54 AM) [snapback]266631[/snapback]</div>

How you even possibly put al qaeda and tobacco together is amazing - do you not see the differences - unless you are of course referring to those cigarettes that are laden with ammonium nitrate, ball bearings, nails and explode when you light them.

So silly examples start from the start of this silly thread - unless obviously you believe that al qaeda and "big tobacco" are similar.

And your first paragraph supposition is incorrect. Guns are designed to kill if used properly and is a legal consumer commodity, and can kill innocent bystanders too :blink: