Cigarettes

[DaMulta]

I don't know what makes me more mad. The new paper that puts out your smoke within 10 secs. Which ends being able to let your smoke hang in your mouth, and some of my best work has been done this way. Or the fact that I now have to pay 5 dollars for a pack of generic Cigarettes or 6 to 7 dollars a pack for name brand Cigarettes.......

I think the tax increase is to make up for all the people that smoked to be honest:mad:

[mlee49]

Smokings bad MKay, You shouldn't smoke cause its bad, MKaaaaaaay.

[DrPepper]

I don't see why smoking is being regulated. It should be up to businesses if smokers are allowed to smoke on their premises. Why add tax onto smoking ? just encourage more people to smoke lower the tax and the government ends up with more tax. All they are doing in the end is hurting the economy.

[3991v]

I don't see why smoking is being regulated. It should be up to businesses if smokers are allowed to smoke on their premises. Why add tax onto smoking ? just encourage more people to smoke lower the tax and the government ends up with more tax. All they are doing in the end is hurting the economy.

Exactly.

Although I'm 16, I think it should be up to the INDIVIDUAL to decide whether or not he/she smokes. And the business to decide if people can smoke in said business.

Rawr.

[JC316]

You know what? I really don't care. I would be a very happy person if cigarettes were illegal. They kill, plain and simple. On top of that, the majority of smokers are inconsiderate assholes. Thinking they have the right to smoke where they want to. In that case, I should have to right to shoot them because they are endangering my health. Secondhand smoke is just as toxic to use non smokers as it is to the ones that smoke.

I hear all the whining, OH I will get fat, OH NOES I get stressed and I have to smoke. You know what? Get some willpower man!

[DaMulta]

I should have a right with as much tax as I pay per pack to smoke anywhere in the US. For one the tax money in the big lawsuit THE BIG ONE didn't even go to smoking related causes......

I like to smoke, and that's my story and I'm keeping too it.


Secondhand smoke is just as bad as all the chemicals they put on all the vegetables; to the non stick Teflon that can be found in new born babies.

[DrPepper]

You know what? I really don't care. I would be a very happy person if cigarettes were illegal. They kill, plain and simple. On top of that, the majority of smokers are inconsiderate assholes. Thinking they have the right to smoke where they want to. In that case, I should have to right to shoot them because they are endangering my health. Secondhand smoke is just as toxic to use non smokers as it is to the ones that smoke.

I hear all the whining, OH I will get fat, OH NOES I get stressed and I have to smoke. You know what? Get some willpower man!

I'm not going to downplay your opinion but alcohol is more damaging to people who are around it and dont drink than second hand smoke. Here in scotland more people have died because of drunken incidents like drunk driving and fights etc than from second hand smoke yet that isn't banned.

[Wile E]

I'm not going to downplay your opinion but alcohol is more damaging to people who are around it and dont drink than second hand smoke. Here in scotland more people have died because of drunken incidents like drunk driving and fights etc than from second hand smoke yet that isn't banned.

Yep. Not to mention the air you breath every day is likely already worse than cigarette smoke if you even live remotely close to a major metropolitan area.

[JC316]

http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html

Sitting in a room for 2 hours with someone that smokes is like smoking 4 cigarettes.

For every 8 smokers that die, 1 bystander does too. Now, if smokers were allowed to smoke in office buildings, restaurants, or anywhere they please then those numbers go up greatly.

No argument that alcohol kills more, but at least you have a fighting chance. You can avoid a drunk driver if you are paying enough attention. A drunken fight is easy to avoid, you don't get drunk and then you walk away, there is choice there, not like sitting next to someone that smokes.

[erocker]

Smoking brings me much pleasure but has proven more difficult to quit than cocaine. I actually quit (cigarettes) a week ago and have to constantly chew nicorette to keep myself from putting my head through a wall. As much pleasure as it brings it is a hindrance on your daily health. Since quitting, I can already tell differences in breathing, stamina, and my singin voice has become much better. My clothes don't stink, nor does my car. So you don't like being taxed for it? Grow your own tobacco, a pack of seeds costs about $1.29 and you'll yield enough cigs to put yourself into an iron lung in no time.

[JC316]

Smoking brings me much pleasure but has proven more difficult to quit than cocaine. I actually quit (cigarettes) a week ago and have to constantly chew nicorette to keep myself from putting my head through a wall. As much pleasure as it brings it is a hindrance on your daily health. Since quitting, I can already tell differences in breathing, stamina, and my singin voice has become much better. My clothes don't stink, nor does my car. So you don't like being taxed for it? Grow your own tobacco, a pack of seeds costs about $1.29 and you'll yield enough cigs to put yourself into an iron lung in no time.

On top of that it would be healthier, no chemicals or addicting agents would be used. That's the thing, they use chemicals to rewire your brain to get you hooked, which makes it a real bitch to come off from them. Congrats on making the decision to stop :cool:

[DaMulta]

Smoking brings me much pleasure but has proven more difficult to quit than cocaine. I actually quit (cigarettes) a week ago and have to constantly chew nicorette to keep myself from putting my head through a wall. As much pleasure as it brings it is a hindrance on your daily health. Since quitting, I can already tell differences in breathing, stamina, and my singin voice has become much better. My clothes don't stink, nor does my car. So you don't like being taxed for it? Grow your own tobacco, a pack of seeds costs about $1.29 and you'll yield enough cigs to put yourself into an iron lung in no time.

You can't grow what they sell. They literally take the tobacco and bust molecules off of it, and that turns it into freebase cocaine.

[erocker]

When I was smoking, I smoked "all natural/organic" American Spirits. Just as addictive if not more.

[Olithereal]

You know what? I really don't care. I would be a very happy person if cigarettes were illegal. They kill, plain and simple. On top of that, the majority of smokers are inconsiderate assholes. Thinking they have the right to smoke where they want to. In that case, I should have to right to shoot them because they are endangering my health. Secondhand smoke is just as toxic to use non smokers as it is to the ones that smoke.

I hear all the whining, OH I will get fat, OH NOES I get stressed and I have to smoke. You know what? Get some willpower man!

+1

Fine, smoke, I couldn't care less, just don't smoke near me or in the same room as me. That's pretty much what I think about it.

I smoke some Shisha from time to time tho.

[DrPepper]

The thing is it should be upto a business if people are allowed to smoke on the premises' not the governments. If they can ban it in citizen owned business' why wouldn't they ban it in your own house. If people want to go to a venue such as a bar and people are allowed to smoke their then they can go to another venue that doesn't allow smoking and the only people who lose out is the business owner. Its the freedom of choice for both the proprietor of the venue to allow it and the freedom for the customer to reject it.

[RevengE]

I am glad they banned smoking in Bars not that I go to them very often. When I sit in a room filled with smoke It drives me insane. My views are if you want to smoke than smoke, around others only outside and not in public places.

[JC316]

The thing is it should be upto a business if people are allowed to smoke on the premises' not the governments. If they can ban it in citizen owned business' why wouldn't they ban it in your own house. If people want to go to a venue such as a bar and people are allowed to smoke their then they can go to another venue that doesn't allow smoking and the only people who lose out is the business owner. Its the freedom of choice for both the proprietor of the venue to allow it and the freedom for the customer to reject it.

Kinda biased since nearly every smoker will stand by his fellow smoker and if the owner smokes, then he will support the employees. I am sure that it's only for businesses that have public employees. Say if you owned an auto shop and you were the only mechanic, then you could smoke.

Smoking is bad for the people around you, whats the big deal waiting on a smoke break, or going outside to the designated smoking area?

[pcgolfer85]

I am glad they banned smoking in Bars not that I go to them very often. When I sit in a room filled with smoke It drives me insane. My views are if you want to smoke than smoke, around others only outside and not in public places.

In Virginia, they recently passed a very watered down version of a smoking ban. Starting last month a restaurant has to have a separate, well ventilated room for smoking. Big deal... that is...if that particular restaurant wants a smoking section.

[LittleLizard]

here more people smoke than people that knows that geforce is not a manufacturer. Nvidia is manufacturer for god sake !

[pcgolfer85]

here more people smoke than people that knows that geforce is not a manufacturer. Nvidia is manufacturer for god sake !

haha!

[DrPepper]

Kinda biased since nearly every smoker will stand by his fellow smoker and if the owner smokes, then he will support the employees. I am sure that it's only for businesses that have public employees. Say if you owned an auto shop and you were the only mechanic, then you could smoke.

Smoking is bad for the people around you, whats the big deal waiting on a smoke break, or going outside to the designated smoking area?

I'm not going to deny its bad for you but it doesn't bother me. I personally don't smoke its a waste of money to me but if people enjoy it then not my problem. Public area's should have smoking banned and I mean like malls, government offices etc places were people need to be and can't choose if they need to go there or not.

[Wile E]

Kinda biased since nearly every smoker will stand by his fellow smoker and if the owner smokes, then he will support the employees. I am sure that it's only for businesses that have public employees. Say if you owned an auto shop and you were the only mechanic, then you could smoke.

Smoking is bad for the people around you, whats the big deal waiting on a smoke break, or going outside to the designated smoking area?

Don't go to places that allow smoking then, if it's that important to you. I think he had the right idea. The primary thing a business owner looks at is profitability. If allowing smoking causes a dent in their profits, they will ban it. Likewise, if banning smoking causes a loss in profitability, they'll allow it. Nobody said you had to go there.

EDIT: I should be more clear here. I meant in reference to Restaurants and Bars. All that should be needed is a separate smoking section. Still should be kept out of malls, and places of that nature. One thing many non-smokers tend to forget is, smokers are humans too, and should also have rights.

[JC316]

Don't go to places that allow smoking then, if it's that important to you. I think he had the right idea. The primary thing a business owner looks at is profitability. If allowing smoking causes a dent in their profits, they will ban it. Likewise, if banning smoking causes a loss in profitability, they'll allow it. Nobody said you had to go there.

EDIT: I should be more clear here. I meant in reference to Restaurants and Bars. All that should be needed is a separate smoking section. Still should be kept out of malls, and places of that nature. One thing many non-smokers tend to forget is, smokers are humans too, and should also have rights.

Problem is that before bans, everyplace allowed smoking. IMO, smoking a cigarette in public is not a right. It's an addiction and dangerous to other people. I mean, you have the right to fart in public because it's not going to hurt anyone.

As far as I am concerned, you have the exact same rights as anyone else. No reason why the majority should suffer because a minority wants to be able to light up anywhere they please.

There are places that cigs belong. Bars, clubs, casino's, etc. But when you are talking about being in a restaurant, or in a bowling alley, or a movie theater, etc, that is not acceptable to me.

[DrPepper]

I mean, you have the right to fart in public because it's not going to hurt anyone.

My arse begs to differ.

[Wile E]

Problem is that before bans, everyplace allowed smoking. IMO, smoking a cigarette in public is not a right. It's an addiction and dangerous to other people. I mean, you have the right to fart in public because it's not going to hurt anyone.

As far as I am concerned, you have the exact same rights as anyone else. No reason why the majority should suffer because a minority wants to be able to light up anywhere they please.

There are places that cigs belong. Bars, clubs, casino's, etc. But when you are talking about being in a restaurant, or in a bowling alley, or a movie theater, etc, that is not acceptable to me.

I never said bowling alleys, or movie theatres, etc should allow smoking. I disagree on restaurants, tho. A separate smoking section, away from non-smoking, is more than sufficient. People complaining about that are just looking for something to complain about.

[JC316]

I never said bowling alleys, or movie theatres, etc should allow smoking. I disagree on restaurants, tho. A separate smoking section, away from non-smoking, is more than sufficient. People complaining about that are just looking for something to complain about.

If there was a true non smoking section, sealed by a door, I wouldn't have a problem, but when there is an imaginary line in the room that separates the smoking from non, then there is a problem.

My family gets bad headaches from cigarette smoke and I personally don't want to smell a cigarette when I am trying to enjoy my food. Smokers think that because the smoke doesn't both them, then it shouldn't bother anyone else. Plus the majority lack courtesy. Take my farting in public analogy, I don't rip off a nice juicy fart in a restaurant because of common courtesy, to me someone that lights up in a restaurant is equal to me aiming my ass at them and letting the gas fly.

I am quite sure that you wouldn't like it if I did that and you would probably lose your appetite.

[Wile E]

Nope. I wouldn't like it, but nothing make me lose my appetite. lol.

Besides, nobody said you had to eat in any restaurant that allowed smoking. It should be at the sole discretion of the owner to allow smoking, the govt should have nothing to do with it, at all.

[JC316]

Nope. I wouldn't like it, but nothing make me lose my appetite. lol.

Besides, nobody said you had to eat in any restaurant that allowed smoking. It should be at the sole discretion of the owner to allow smoking, the govt should have nothing to do with it, at all.

Down south every restaurant allowed it. Even still, if you go to a city that doesn't have a smoking ordinance, then the places will be all smoking. In canton, TX, it's bad, there was one place that I did an about face because there was so much smoke.

[DonInKansas]

I'm a smoker still trying to kick it. It's funny seeing JC talking about Texas and smoking because last night I watched the "Smoking Bandit" episode of King of the HIll and I'm imagining JC's posts in Hank Hill's voice. LOL.

Personally, I don't see how the government can regulate something like this in private businesses, but I don't pretend to understand much. I only smoke outside (unless I'm at a bar that allows smoking) and if someone gripes, I put it out.

[Wile E]

I'm a smoker still trying to kick it. It's funny seeing JC talking about Texas and smoking because last night I watched the "Smoking Bandit" episode of King of the HIll and I'm imagining JC's posts in Hank Hill's voice. LOL.

Personally, I don't see how the government can regulate something like this in private businesses, but I don't pretend to understand much. I only smoke outside (unless I'm at a bar that allows smoking) and if someone gripes, I put it out.

I also smoke outside, for the most part, even at home. I do smoke in bars (not that I frequent them anymore) and restaurants that allow it tho. Every restaurant I've ever been in has a separate smoking section, and I feel that's good enough. It's good enough for my girlfriend as well, who is adamantly anti-smoking.

Now granted, if a place has filled up with smoke, then yeah, I understand a non-smoker not liking it, but JC did all that needs to be done in that situation, go somewhere else.

[DaMulta]

If there was a true non smoking section, sealed by a door, I wouldn't have a problem, but when there is an imaginary line in the room that separates the smoking from non, then there is a problem.

My family gets bad headaches from cigarette smoke and I personally don't want to smell a cigarette when I am trying to enjoy my food. Smokers think that because the smoke doesn't both them, then it shouldn't bother anyone else. Plus the majority lack courtesy. Take my farting in public analogy, I don't rip off a nice juicy fart in a restaurant because of common courtesy, to me someone that lights up in a restaurant is equal to me aiming my ass at them and letting the gas fly.

I am quite sure that you wouldn't like it if I did that and you would probably lose your appetite.

Did you pay 2-3 dollars that day to let your fart fly?

[JC316]

Did you pay 2-3 dollars that day to let your fart fly?

Ah, but you don't HAVE to pay that $3 to smoke, you could always quit.

[A Cheese Danish]

Pretty soon people will be smoking these (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-04/everyone-will-smoke-these-future). Who knows if they will actually come into existence.

[DaMulta]

Ah, but you don't HAVE to pay that $3 to smoke, you could always quit.

I don't want to quit, and YOU DO USE THAT TAX MONEY like it or not;)



LOL it's a vapor pipe for tobacco lol


http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0c6Xak76jndyS/610x.jpg
Gee I wonder where they came up with that idea lol:rolleyes:

[btarunr]

Gee I wonder where they came up with that idea lol:rolleyes:

From India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah

[DaMulta]

That's just a bong works a little different. A vapor pipe just heats up the THC off the pot and the rest you just throw away.

[ckydmk]

The city I live in just passed a bylaw that makes it illegal to smoke in public PERIOD!!!!!! Volcano vaporizer FTW

[LittleLizard]

here is illegal smoke on closed places aka your own house.

[Chris]

You know what? I really don't care. I would be a very happy person if cigarettes were illegal. They kill, plain and simple. On top of that, the majority of smokers are inconsiderate assholes. Thinking they have the right to smoke where they want to. In that case, I should have to right to shoot them because they are endangering my health. Secondhand smoke is just as toxic to use non smokers as it is to the ones that smoke.

I hear all the whining, OH I will get fat, OH NOES I get stressed and I have to smoke. You know what? Get some willpower man!
I concur!

[T3hPwn3r3r]

I don't believe in smoking or alcohol consumption, but I do like the smell of cig. smoke, and the latest campaign by Dos Equis makes me want to get a beer or two :P It's effective advertising at its finest!

[FordGT90Concept]

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/warning.gif

'Nuff said.

[DrPepper]

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/warning.gif

'Nuff said.

There are more dangerous things than smoking though. Majority of things will kill you alot faster than smoking.

[FordGT90Concept]

Those things aren't a) readily accessible, b) habit forming, and c) profitable. Cigarettes are a dangerous breed. It's time to move them to Schedule II controlled substances (high potential for abuse, limited medical use, severe physical dependence) and stop businesses from capitalizing on damaging people's health. A few years after that, slap the NARC label on it.

[DrPepper]

Those things aren't a) readily accessible, b) habit forming, and c) profitable. Cigarettes are a dangerous breed. It's time to move them to Schedule II controlled substances (high potential for abuse, limited medical use, severe physical dependence) and stop businesses from capitalizing on damaging people's health. A few years after that, slap the NARC label on it.

Alcohol is readily available and much more dangerous in the short and long term. Also caffeine is almost as addictive as nicotine and we all drink it. Also you can't really abuse smoking I mean it has no short term repocussions and the long term one's aren't as prevalent as they sound. There are alot of things that are more dangerous than cigarettes. Try drugs like cocaine and heroin, In these cases the wrong people profit from others misery.

[FordGT90Concept]

Alcohol should be Schedule III. Alcohol has medical use (sterilizer and also works to numb pain if nothing else is available), high potential for abuse, and moderate physical/psychological dependence.

Caffeine isn't even close to nicotine in terms of addiction. The worse caffeine withdrawal gets is minor headaches. With nicotine, we're talking about tingling sensations, sweating, intestinal problems, cold symptoms, severe headaches, insomnia, dependency, temper issues, near paralysis, confusion, vagueness, irritability, anxiety, and depression. Trying to get off nicotine, to the brain, is the same as trying to break the habit of eating.

Bad coughing is a short term repercussion. Some with certain lung conditions could die from lighting up the first time. Generally speaking, nicotine is like a parasite--it doesn't kill you instantly, it prolongs your death. Ever seen a heavy smoker in the last 5-10 years of their life? They're miserable like none other. I've seen several people that had esophagus cancer and now have to use a vibrator to speak. I've seen others the die from cancer caused by the 43 known carcinogens in cigarettes. To believe they are not dangerous is pure ignorance and/or denial.

Cigarettes took Jim Varney's life at only 50 years of age (lung cancer).

[Wile E]

I just quit smoking. I haven't lit up for 2 weeks now.

I still feel that it shouldn't be banned in all places. My views on it are the same.

And so what if it is bad for us? As mentioned above, there are plenty of things that are bad for us. I should be the one that decides what I do to my body, not the government. If I want to kill myself with cancer, what is it to anyone else?

[Chris]

I just quit smoking. I haven't lit up for 2 weeks now.

I still feel that it shouldn't be banned in all places. My views on it are the same.

And so what if it is bad for us? As mentioned above, there are plenty of things that are bad for us. I should be the one that decides what I do to my body, not the government. If I want to kill myself with cancer, what is it to anyone else?
Really? Have you ever thought about second hand smoke? The government sets the restrictions so you don't harm people who decide not to smoke.

[FordGT90Concept]

Yup, the laws are in place to protect others from their bad habits. For instance, the main reason why speed limits and subsequent ticketing is in place is because the faster you go, the less time you have to react, and the more likely you are to hurt people and/or damage property. You could be a professional race car driver but that still doesn't exclude your car from being a potential weapon either.

[Wile E]

Really? Have you ever thought about second hand smoke? The government sets the restrictions so you don't harm people who decide not to smoke.

Yup, the laws are in place to protect others from their bad habits. For instance, the main reason why speed limits and subsequent ticketing is in place is because the faster you go, the less time you have to react, and the more likely you are to hurt people and/or damage property. You could be a professional race car driver but that still doesn't exclude your car from being a potential weapon either.

Did you even read my views?

And besides that, people that bitch about second hand smoke are full of shit. If you live anywhere even remotely close to a city, you are already sucking in enough carcinogens, that a little second hand smoke isn't going to make a bit of difference. I'd rather see people complain about the level of pollution coming out of some factories, despite all the new scrubing technologies supposedly in use, or our own cars, or a multitude of other places that are far worse than second hand smoke.

[FordGT90Concept]

Depends on the carcinogen. For instance, most exposure to benzene is from cigarettes. It also depends on the city and you're location relative to the sources. If you live upwind from a city, a smoker in the house is far more dangerous than the cars outside.


You might find this (https://www.ersnetsecure.org/public/prg_congres.abstract?ww_i_presentation=10766) interesting. It looks at one person's exposure to particulate matter throughout a day.


None of the most polluted cities are in the USA (all USA cities are under 100 microgram/meter cubed).

Note that his chart hit over 600 microgram/meter cubed twice. The first time was at a bar and the second time is when he was at home cooking. Note that cooking usually doesn't involve carcinogens--just carbon.

"Indoor PM pollution exceeded oudoors' due to [environmental tobacco smoke] and cooking."


You'll find this interesting too:
http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/us-chemical-detail.tcl?category=cancer&modifier=air

Note that carbon dioxide is not a carcinogen. It is what you exhale, after all. Carbon monoxide isn't either.


People really haven't died enmasse from airpollution since 1952 in London. Cigarettes, on the other hand, are little bundles of cancer just waiting to be inhaled (sarcasm, but is it really?).

[DaMulta]

1. Increases concentration.
2. People often go with the general sentiment on things like these, most of what you hear is hogwash. Cases of cancer are linked with smoking, but it's not proof. Only 1 in 3 of us will get lung cancer. (By "us" I also include non smokers).
3. Smokers are a persecuted lot, since this habit has been banned from workplaces, restaurants, buses, subways and planes. You don't think they'd outlaw breathing for christ's sake.
4. Smokers have the only real community that's left in the workplace today.
5. Smokers suffer from less stress, since they actually take a few breaks per day.
6. That bruhaha about second hand smoking is a load of crap. it's just a phrase made up to get normal people who earlier didn't care about it, to go and further persecute the smokers.
7. It's cool to smoke. Ever seen a hacker or a real artist with a health shake?
8. Smokers support the economy by paying all those taxes, which *AHEM* some of us don't.
9. Warning:
The Surgeon General fails to warn you that non-smokers die every day
10. Studies have shown that prolonged contact (as in several years) with second hand smoking can cause mild lung problems. Second hand smoke has no immediate harmful effects.
11. Actually, why not just ban non-smokers? :D
12. Too much is made of the 4000 chemicals that make up a cigarette. Several carcinogens found in cigarettes are found in peppers, carrots, strawberries, tomatoes, onions and grapefruit.
13. Believe it or not, nicotine is actually "a surprisingly potent drug for a variety of diseases that afflict the brain, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Tourette’s syndrome." (An image makeover for nicotine: It shows promise against brain diseases, HealthCentral.com - Feb. 21, 2000) Smokers have a 60% lower risk of Parkinson's disease
14. Nicotine has a positive effect on ulcerative colitis, which is an inflammation of the stomach lining, and this disorder affects nonsmokers more than smokers.
15. Smokers actually recovered better from a heart attack than nonsmokers
16. Smoking was found to reduce the risk of estrogen-dependent endometrial cancer (dunno what that means, it just sounds really cool)
17. Schizophrenics (4 million Americans) who smoke can get enough nicotine stimulation to switch on a brain receptor that helps filter information.
18. Stanford researchers have discovered that low doses of nicotine - a major component of cigarette smoke - appear to promote new blood vessel growth (in mice). (“Nicotine to be used to treat heart disease,” Reuters Health, HealthCentral.com - Sept. 2000)
19. Alcohol is even more harmful than smoking. Yet not much is said against it as compared to smoking. Half a bottle of wine can supply you with 32-40 times the amount of lead a whole pack of smokes can give you.
20. "Sick smokers may burden a country's health care system but dead smokers save governments money"


A single drive to work puts out more deadly fumes and toxins in the air, than a smoker could possibly do in one year. If you drive a car, your car puts out more deadly poisons and toxins in one drive to work than my smoking does in a year. When you go home again, that's another year. So in a couple months, you've created more deadly toxins in the environment than my smoking will in a lifetime. But it's always easier to point fingers at other people, isn't it?

If you're really concerned about your health then put your money where your mouth is. Stop buying products that are painted (all kinds of toxins put into the environment) or made of plastic (here's some stuff that's good for your health, right?) and stop driving a car. You can survive that way - a lot of people do it. But I'll bet you don't want to give up the conveniences these things offer.

I'm really tired of hearing people complain about the health risks that smokers present to them when they aren't willing to make changes to their own lifestyle that WOULD AFFECT THEM MORE than having any number of smokers quit.

I'm a smoker and to be honest, I really hate seeing butts all over the ground. But I'm also tired of seeing McDonalds wrappers all over the place. When a non-smoker sees a butt on the ground, they always say something like, "ALL smokers should have to clean these up." or something along the lines of punishment for ALL smokers. But they never say "every person who eats at McDonalds should have to clean these up."

When was the last time you heard this one:
"He went to the bar after work, had one smoke too many and went home and beat the crap out of his wife and kids?"
Or
"That auto accident was caused by someone who smoked one too many? (we're talking about tobacco here)."

[FordGT90Concept]

A single drive to work puts out more deadly fumes and toxins in the air, than a smoker could possibly do in one year.
Here's a list of likely emissions from cars:
http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm

Only two of those are considered carcinogens: benzene and formaldehyde. I'm trying to find micro grams per meter cubed to compare car exhaust of those carcinogens to vehicle exhaust but I am coming up empty. All I know is that the two major sources of benzene is tobacco smoke and vehicle emissions.


Alcohol is considered a carcinogen too. It has the same classification as benzene according to the WHO.


I might take those on line by line as a lot of them are fallacies but, it's bedtime for me. XD

[FordGT90Concept]

1. Increases concentration.
I find no evidence of that.


2. People often go with the general sentiment on things like these, most of what you hear is hogwash. Cases of cancer are linked with smoking, but it's not proof. Only 1 in 3 of us will get lung cancer. (By "us" I also include non smokers).
1 in 3 (33%) is pretty close to accurate; however, 90% of those are current or former smokers (http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com/lung-cancer.html). Radon exposure, working in coal mines, and other things of the sort make up the last 10%.


3. Smokers are a persecuted lot, since this habit has been banned from workplaces, restaurants, buses, subways and planes. You don't think they'd outlaw breathing for christ's sake.
Smokers pollute the environment with a stench most deem foul. Of course people are going to protest.


4. Smokers have the only real community that's left in the workplace today.
Drug smuggling communities are pretty tight too. That doesn't mean it is a good thing.


5. Smokers suffer from less stress, since they actually take a few breaks per day.
Yeah, breaks are good but, taking a break to feed an addiction is not.


6. That bruhaha about second hand smoking is a load of crap. it's just a phrase made up to get normal people who earlier didn't care about it, to go and further persecute the smokers.
You need only look at children who live with a smoking parent to prove it isn't crap.


7. It's cool to smoke. Ever seen a hacker or a real artist with a health shake?
Philip Morris invented the Marlboro Man to make consumers think that...then three of them were taken by lung cancer and one of them even testified against Philip Morris which resulted in the ad campaign ending. Emphysema is not cool. Nor is coughing up tar.


8. Smokers support the economy by paying all those taxes, which *AHEM* some of us don't.
Society taxes goods it wants to restrict but not make contraband. No, you aren't supporting the economy--you're paying for some stupid project a congressman is pushing at the time.


9. Warning:
The Surgeon General fails to warn you that non-smokers die every day
Heart disease and breast cancer aren't caused by a single commercialized product like lung cancer is, by majority, caused by smoking cigarettes.


10. Studies have shown that prolonged contact (as in several years) with second hand smoking can cause mild lung problems. Second hand smoke has no immediate harmful effects.
As stated already, smoking hooks you and kills you off slowly. They are designed to make you a life-long customer of the cigarette companies.


11. Actually, why not just ban non-smokers? :D
They aren't engaging in a bad habit that is endangering those around them.


12. Too much is made of the 4000 chemicals that make up a cigarette. Several carcinogens found in cigarettes are found in peppers, carrots, strawberries, tomatoes, onions and grapefruit.
Not in the same quantity that is concentrated in cigarettes.


13. Believe it or not, nicotine is actually "a surprisingly potent drug for a variety of diseases that afflict the brain, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Tourette’s syndrome." (An image makeover for nicotine: It shows promise against brain diseases, HealthCentral.com - Feb. 21, 2000) Smokers have a 60% lower risk of Parkinson's disease
...and 90% great risk of contracting lung cancer.


14. Nicotine has a positive effect on ulcerative colitis, which is an inflammation of the stomach lining, and this disorder affects nonsmokers more than smokers.
Ulcerative colitis effects 0.1% of the population. Lung cancer effects >30% (again, 90% caused by cigarette smoke). When you stop smoking, the ulcerative colitis is likely to return.


15. Smokers actually recovered better from a heart attack than nonsmokers
Only because they don't panic making the heart race and extending damage. If you didn't smoke, you might have not even had that heart attack. About 20% (http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/quit-smoking-heart) of heart-related deaths are directly related to smoking.


16. Smoking was found to reduce the risk of estrogen-dependent endometrial cancer (dunno what that means, it just sounds really cool)
It occurs in women after menopause. As in, you're better off getting a hysterectomy than smoking.

17. Schizophrenics (4 million Americans) who smoke can get enough nicotine stimulation to switch on a brain receptor that helps filter information.
Leading to a premature (http://www.schizophrenia.com/smoke/schizophrenia.smoking.res.htm) death.


18. Stanford researchers have discovered that low doses of nicotine - a major component of cigarette smoke - appear to promote new blood vessel growth (in mice). (“Nicotine to be used to treat heart disease,” Reuters Health, HealthCentral.com - Sept. 2000)
It can't grow them faster than it stiffens them causing heart attacks/death. See the URL under #15.

19. Alcohol is even more harmful than smoking. Yet not much is said against it as compared to smoking. Half a bottle of wine can supply you with 32-40 times the amount of lead a whole pack of smokes can give you.
They're both bad. Comparing the two is like asking whether you want to be killed by hanging or decapitation: you're going to see the grim reaper sooner rather than later either way.


20. "Sick smokers may burden a country's health care system but dead smokers save governments money"
No argument there. Treating cancers are a huge burden on the health industry.


Paint is needed to protect surfaces from the environment, plastics are very safe these days, and as nasty as cars are, they are required for our society to function.

[DaMulta]

I'd say I'm helping small companies get healthcare for it's employees/helping out the economy.

SMOKERS IN MY STATE PAY 120 MILLION MORE DOLLARS IN TAXES THAN NON SMOKES

You say we don't help ROFL

Governor of Oklahoma announces small business insurance help
Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City) , Oct 25, 2005 by Janice Francis-Smith

* Share
o Email
o Digg
o Facebook
o Twitter
o Google
o Delicious
o StumbleUpon
o Newsvine
o LinkedIn
o My Yahoo
o Technorati
o Reddit
* Print
* Recommend0

Next week, small businesses will be able to apply for assistance in providing health care insurance for their employees, Gov. Brad Henry announced Monday. The Insure Oklahoma program uses state tobacco tax revenue to supplement contributions from Oklahoma employers, employees and the federal government to pay employee health insurance premiums.

Many companies want to provide health coverage to their employees, but because costs are so high, they just don't have the financial resources to pay the premiums, said Henry. Health costs are a major drag on business and the economy, but if we can increase the number of insured Oklahomans, we can start bringing those costs under control. That will help everyone's bottom line.

On Nov. 1, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority will begin accepting applications from businesses that want to participate in the program. To be eligible, an Oklahoma business must have 25 or fewer employees, and the employer must contribute 25 percent of the premium costs. Eligible employees must reside in Oklahoma, verify that their household income is no greater than 185 percent of the federal poverty level, and contribute 15 percent of their family's premium.

The state and the federal government pick up the other 60 percent of the premium by means of the Medicaid system. Oklahoma was granted a waiver from the federal government to extend to working Oklahomans Medicaid coverage previously extended only to the elderly, the disabled and children, said Mike Fogarty, CEO of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority.

The public dollars will help pay premiums for private insurance plans, said Fogarty, noting that more than 100 private insurers have already been approved to participate in the program.

This is just a market-maker for them, said Fogarty.

The plan will initially provide coverage for between 50,000 and 70,000 Oklahomans, said Henry, though the program will be expanded as funding allows to provide coverage for a greater percentage of the 650,000 Oklahomans that have no health insurance coverage at all. Next spring, the program will also be extended to unemployed Oklahomans who are actively seeking employment, said Fogarty.

Though some lawmakers have cautioned that the program may not be able to accomplish as much as voters had hoped when they approved the new tobacco tax nearly one year ago, state Treasurer Scott Meacham said collections are on the rise.

Year to date we have generated from the tobacco tax an extra $65 million, said Meacham. For this particular program, we have $22 million already in reserve. That's a full half year of the state's commitment, so we have plenty of money on hand.

After stockpiling cigarettes in anticipation of the tax hike, many smokers likely tried to find new ways of getting their cigarettes - perhaps through the Internet or out-of-state purchases - but most smokers likely will soon go back to buying their cigarettes at local outlets, and tax collections will increase, said Henry.

There's just one area of the state where we're really having difficulties, the northeast part of the state, said Henry, referring to reports that some of the Indian smoke shops in the Tulsa area were selling cigarettes for less than their compacts with the state permitted. Once we get the issues worked out with the tribes in the northeast part of the state, we think we will easily meet or exceed projections for the tobacco tax.

BTW they added ANOTHER dollar to it this year....

[yogurt_21]

psh whine all you want, us non smokers found a way to pay for stuff and because you're addicted you'll still buy the packs. I say make it a10$ a pack tax increaisng your no nams to 12$ and brands to 15$

and put a 5$ tax on all units of alcohol. being I drink petron and 1800, an extra 5$ on an 80$ bottle won't really effect me much. but the poor sap buying a 40, man that'll suck.

and then we won't force our children to pay for the trillions we're spending now.

unfair? of course, but being that smoking an drinking are looked down on you'll be outnumbered and we'll increase those taxes every time we vote.

I love it.

[FordGT90Concept]

I'd say I'm helping small companies get healthcare for it's employees/helping out the economy.

SMOKERS IN MY STATE PAY 120 MILLION MORE DOLLARS IN TAXES THAN NON SMOKES

You say we don't help ROFL



BTW they added ANOTHER dollar to it this year....
I'm glad you are feeling the pain on the wallet. Maybe the price will encourage you to quit. ;)

It matters not how it is spent once government takes it--that's not why the tax is there.

[DrPepper]

Everyone is too embroiled with this healthy living crap. Why not just live instead of worrying about if your getting too many carcinogens. Anything can cause cancer these days why try prolong death while living in fear than just be happy. I mean we will all die eventually why not try make the best of what we have now instead of worrying about if we will live long enough to become senile and forget about everything.

[yogurt_21]

Everyone is too embroiled with this healthy living crap. Why not just live instead of worrying about if your getting too many carcinogens. Anything can cause cancer these days why try prolong death while living in fear than just be happy. I mean we will all die eventually why not try make the best of what we have now instead of worrying about if we will live long enough to become senile and forget about everything.

who's caring about health?

it's about money, cigarettes are addictive so you'll buy them no matter what. smoking is looked down upon in america so we can vote exhorbtant taxes on them and win with record percentages.

we then use this money to pay for things we don't want to be taxed for.

bottom line, smokers pay. non smokers benefit. so go ahead smoke a carton a day, all I hear is kaching!

[DrPepper]

who's caring about health?

it's about money, cigarettes are addictive so you'll buy them no matter what. smoking is looked down upon in america so we can vote exhorbtant taxes on them and win with record percentages.

we then use this money to pay for things we don't want to be taxed for.

bottom line, smokers pay. non smokers benefit. so go ahead smoke a carton a day, all I hear is kaching!

I personally don't smoke and I'm talking about the people who are obsessed with their health to a point that they don't enjoy what life has to offer because it might be considered unhealthy. I mean some people buy bottled water because they think it is better than regular tap water when they are really pumped from the same source. Of course that is dependant on where you live some water can't be drank from the tap.

[Chris]

Addictions cause stress; especially when you want to quit. Sorry for just randomly sticking this out but getting cancer from smoking is pretty stupid.

[DrPepper]

Because addictions cause stress; especially when you want to quit.

What if you dont want to quit though ?

[Chris]

What if you don't want to quit though ?
What's the difference between smoking and committing suicide?

[DrPepper]

What's the difference between smoking and committing suicide?

Quite alot. You can't compare throwing yourself from a building to smoking.

[Chris]

True, but you do know that you'll die at a faster rate than non-smokers. If you worked hard to get to the point you are now, why waste it by dying early.

[DaMulta]

The people that have lived the longest on Earth were smokers
Smoking is better for you than not smoking!
RXTZmYssFwU

[DrPepper]

True, but you do know that you'll die at a faster rate than non-smokers. If you worked hard to get to the point you are now, why waste it by dying early.

Why live to 90. Do people who are 90 enjoy themselves ? nope they are dying and senile and if there not in hospital they are sleeping or doing nothing. I know people who haven't smoked at all and lived to 90 and people who smoke drink and lived in smog ridden cities and live to the same age. Thing is there are much more dangerous things out there. Drunk drivers, Bad drivers, being shot, being murdered, poisoned, in an accident. Also simply breathing brings us closer to dying so we will eventually die.

[DaMulta]

Z9O1Cv7wudU

[Wile E]

lol. I love Bill Hicks.

[mlee49]

Smoke'm if you got'm

[Chris]

Why live to 90. Do people who are 90 enjoy themselves ? nope they are dying and senile and if there not in hospital they are sleeping or doing nothing. I know people who haven't smoked at all and lived to 90 and people who smoke drink and lived in smog ridden cities and live to the same age. Thing is there are much more dangerous things out there. Drunk drivers, Bad drivers, being shot, being murdered, poisoned, in an accident. Also simply breathing brings us closer to dying so we will eventually die.
You do have a point. I guess you win this argument :).

[DrPepper]

You do have a point. I guess you win this argument :).

Actually the true point of my argument was do what makes you happy (as long as its at no one elses expense) Would I smoke ... no I think its pointless, its not my kind of thing either.

[yogurt_21]

so like I said, if you want to, smoke a carton a day, all I hear is kaching.

[DrPepper]

so like I said, if you want to, smoke a carton a day, all I hear is kaching.

and coughing :p

[hat]

Funny how all the smokers are arguing for smoking. Come on, realize that there is absolutely no positive that comes from smoking. You pay out the ass and every other oriface to slowly and painfully kill yourself. That and it's a filthy habbit as well. Cigarette smoke makes you and everything in your house stink, yellows your walls, clogs up any fans you have, like the floor fan, air conditioner, computer, etc, then you have burnt out cigarettes all over the place, all over various ashtrays in your house and in your car... it's just nasty.

[hat]

1. Increases concentration.
2. People often go with the general sentiment on things like these, most of what you hear is hogwash. Cases of cancer are linked with smoking, but it's not proof. Only 1 in 3 of us will get lung cancer. (By "us" I also include non smokers).
3. Smokers are a persecuted lot, since this habit has been banned from workplaces, restaurants, buses, subways and planes. You don't think they'd outlaw breathing for christ's sake.
4. Smokers have the only real community that's left in the workplace today.
5. Smokers suffer from less stress, since they actually take a few breaks per day.
6. That bruhaha about second hand smoking is a load of crap. it's just a phrase made up to get normal people who earlier didn't care about it, to go and further persecute the smokers.
7. It's cool to smoke. Ever seen a hacker or a real artist with a health shake?
8. Smokers support the economy by paying all those taxes, which *AHEM* some of us don't.
9. Warning:
The Surgeon General fails to warn you that non-smokers die every day
10. Studies have shown that prolonged contact (as in several years) with second hand smoking can cause mild lung problems. Second hand smoke has no immediate harmful effects.
11. Actually, why not just ban non-smokers? :D
12. Too much is made of the 4000 chemicals that make up a cigarette. Several carcinogens found in cigarettes are found in peppers, carrots, strawberries, tomatoes, onions and grapefruit.
13. Believe it or not, nicotine is actually "a surprisingly potent drug for a variety of diseases that afflict the brain, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Tourette’s syndrome." (An image makeover for nicotine: It shows promise against brain diseases, HealthCentral.com - Feb. 21, 2000) Smokers have a 60% lower risk of Parkinson's disease
14. Nicotine has a positive effect on ulcerative colitis, which is an inflammation of the stomach lining, and this disorder affects nonsmokers more than smokers.
15. Smokers actually recovered better from a heart attack than nonsmokers
16. Smoking was found to reduce the risk of estrogen-dependent endometrial cancer (dunno what that means, it just sounds really cool)
17. Schizophrenics (4 million Americans) who smoke can get enough nicotine stimulation to switch on a brain receptor that helps filter information.
18. Stanford researchers have discovered that low doses of nicotine - a major component of cigarette smoke - appear to promote new blood vessel growth (in mice). (“Nicotine to be used to treat heart disease,” Reuters Health, HealthCentral.com - Sept. 2000)
19. Alcohol is even more harmful than smoking. Yet not much is said against it as compared to smoking. Half a bottle of wine can supply you with 32-40 times the amount of lead a whole pack of smokes can give you.
20. "Sick smokers may burden a country's health care system but dead smokers save governments money"

Half of this doesn't even make sense, and the other half is bullshit. Second hand smoke is MORE dangerous than first hand smoke because when you smoke, you get to be the one behind the filter on your cigarette, but when you smoke, I get to be the one who sucks down all your cigarette smoke... without a filter. Yay!

You know what is more dangerous than smoking? Getting shot. Maybe if you smoke you'll magically have a better chance of never getting shot and thus prolong your life.

[Chris]

Maybe if you smoke you'll magically have a better chance of never getting shot and thus prolong your life.
I know a magician...want his number?

[DrPepper]

Funny how all the smokers are arguing for smoking. Come on, realize that there is absolutely no positive that comes from smoking. You pay out the ass and every other oriface to slowly and painfully kill yourself. That and it's a filthy habbit as well. Cigarette smoke makes you and everything in your house stink, yellows your walls, clogs up any fans you have, like the floor fan, air conditioner, computer, etc, then you have burnt out cigarettes all over the place, all over various ashtrays in your house and in your car... it's just nasty.

Its funny how all the non smokers are arguing that its pointless. Its thier choice if they want to do something pointless.

[DaMulta]

Today obesity out weights tobacco heathcare cost, and 2ed in highest cause of dead. BS it's obesity! 50% of Japan SMOKES vs America that 25% smoke. YET in Japan they live 4 times longer. Yep, obesity isn't a problem in Japan. I say obese non-Smokers have a huge unfair tax rate compared to healthy non-smokers. So I vote to install a 3dollar tax per can on Soda POP to make fair for all those healthy non-smokers.....

[FordGT90Concept]

YET in Japan they live 4 times longer.
Japan = 82.07 years
USA = 78.06 years

Four years isn't four times longer.

[DaMulta]

http://img.techpowerup.org/090522/fat.jpg
See, fat people should be double taxed.

Why should smokers pay all these high tax rates for heathcare when fat people cause higher cost in heathcare problems? Hell even less people smoke......But when these smokers quit then they become fat in America a lot of the time, and ending up costing the heathcare system anyways.

http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/interactivities_04-5.php
My bad 4 yrs...STILL ALL THOSE SMOKERS VS ALL THE NON SMOKERS HERE and they live longer while smoking!


So looking at this
http://www.rjrt.com/legal/graphics/National2005.jpg
Which is even higher in Goverment profits now.

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/schip.jpg
See

Soda Pop should be the one that covers this one.....That way smokers/more fat people/ and healthy people pay up instead of one group.

[FordGT90Concept]

See, fat people should be double taxed.
That shows overweight as good and obese/underweight as bad. The obese already pay for it with insurance. They're practically uninsurable because obesity is considered a disease/preexisting condition.

You can't tax obesity because people's weight can change quite rapidly depending on the circumstances. More over, it would cost millions to enforce (all taxes collected on it would have to be spent to cover the costs of implementing it). It would make sense to tax things that generally lead to obesity but, most of those goods (like trans fats) are already restricted in commercial use. Everybody's body is different and reacts to certain goods differently. There's a lot of people, for instance, that drink vast quantities of carbonated beverages that have a high metabolism and/or are active that are not obese. By comparison, smoking cigarettes guarantees lung problems (e.g. coughing up mucus after you stop).

In a lot of places, soda is taxed twice: once for the container (recycling deposit programs) and once for being a non-essential food product. Most "healthy" foods that haven't been heavily processed aren't taxed at all.


The Japanese tend to live four years longer because of their diet. If you want more info on the specifics, read this:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/diets-of-world-japanese-diet

[Steevo]

Smoke, but when you get long cancer don't use tax dollars of mine to pay for your cancer. Die free, just like you lived.

[Wile E]

Half of this doesn't even make sense, and the other half is bullshit. Second hand smoke is MORE dangerous than first hand smoke because when you smoke, you get to be the one behind the filter on your cigarette, but when you smoke, I get to be the one who sucks down all your cigarette smoke... without a filter. Yay!

You know what is more dangerous than smoking? Getting shot. Maybe if you smoke you'll magically have a better chance of never getting shot and thus prolong your life.
It may be unfiltered, but it is in much lower quantities than what the person behind the filter is taking in.

That is the biggest bullshit non-smoker argument there is. It is not worse for you than it is the smoker.

http://img.techpowerup.org/090522/fat.jpg
See, fat people should be double taxed.

Why should smokers pay all these high tax rates for heathcare when fat people cause higher cost in heathcare problems? Hell even less people smoke......But when these smokers quit then they become fat in America a lot of the time, and ending up costing the heathcare system anyways.

http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/interactivities_04-5.php
My bad 4 yrs...STILL ALL THOSE SMOKERS VS ALL THE NON SMOKERS HERE and they live longer while smoking!


So looking at this
http://www.rjrt.com/legal/graphics/National2005.jpg
Which is even higher in Goverment profits now.

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/schip.jpg
See

Soda Pop should be the one that covers this one.....That way smokers/more fat people/ and healthy people pay up instead of one group.

Hey, screw you. I'm fat and I don't drink pop at all. lol.


That shows overweight as good and obese/underweight as bad. The obese already pay for it with insurance. They're practically uninsurable because obesity is considered a disease/preexisiting condition.

You can't tax obesity because people's weight can change quite rapidly depending on the circumstances. More over, it would cost millions to enforce (all taxes collected on it would have to be spent to cover the costs of implementing it). It would make sense to tax things that generally lead to obesity but, most of those goods (like trans fats) are already restricted in commercial use. Everybody's body is different and reacts to certain goods differently. There's a lot of people, for instance, that drink vast quantities of carbonated beverages that have a high metabolism and/or are active that are not obese. By comparison, smoking cigarettes for a lengthy period of time guarantees lung problems.

In a lot of places, soda is taxed twice: once for the container (recycling deposit programs) and once for being a non-essential food product. Most "healthy" foods that haven't been heavily processed aren't taxed at all.


The Japanese tend to live four years longer because of their diet. If you want more info on the specifics, read this:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/diets-of-world-japanese-diet
Not everyone that smokes gets lung problems either. The majority do, but saying everyone does is a pretty big blanket statement.

Having said that, I don't think there's really anything good about smoking. The bullshit DaMulta is posting is as much propaganda as the shit some non-smokers post. But it isn't nearly as bad and evil as some anti-smoking people make it out to be either. Both sides constantly spew bullshit on the topic.

[FordGT90Concept]

A lot cough the first time they light up (or have some other form of discomfort). It doesn't take long to see reduced lung function:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/09.26/CigarettesStunt.html

I agree on the account of propaganda. I also agree that, like most issues, you have extremes and on both extremes, they'll stretch every fact to satisfy their lust to see the other side fold.


This is a compilation of experiments/presentations given buy a guy named Joel Spitzer. It is pretty interesting and specifically covers the damage to the lungs by smoking (and others, such as city air pollution for reference):
http://whyquit.com/joel/Joel_02_17_smoke_in_lung.html

[DaMulta]

I'm not posting propaganda..It's a fact that more money is spent on obese people than smoking causes...More people that use the system causes the system to eat up more money. Fat people in America are causing that rate the highest amount! They have way more patents than they do with smokers. PLUS I think that more often or not you end up sick with cancer if your unhealthy while you smoke on top of it making smoking even more deadly. It adds to the other problem. You can't say that a smoking person that works out all the time and eats right, is just as healthy as a person that smokes eats junk food 24/7 never works out blablabalba. To add when thin smokers quit smoking a lot of the time they become obese and then have diabetes issues to hart attacks all sorts of problems.





It's fucking bullshit that Smokers have to pay all these God Damn fucking taxes! First there is the 220BILLION dollar fine they hit big tobacco for that is being paid slowly THAT THEY ARE NOT EVEN REALLY USING FOR WHAT IT WAS TAKEN TO COURT TO EVEN GET FROM THEM.

So US smokers get a HIGHER bill for them to pay their fucking fine. THAT EVERYONE IN BENIFITS FROM BECASUE IT GOES TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS! Like your state budget funds.

Then on top of that they keep uping the fucking tax as more and more smokers quit to keep the tax rate income high. That they still do not pump into smoking realted causes, and now they increase it 1 dollar for childerens health care that NON FUCKING SMOKERS kids will get also.

All because there are more non-smoker voters.....so they always pass they fucking buck to us. If you want to tax something that you fucking use like soda pop it's a big fat fuck you. Just like what would happen if more smokers voted on these issues. The minority is getting fucked! Tobacco is what made our country what it is today, and people that want to use it should not be punished!

[FordGT90Concept]

19.8% of adult Americans smoke as of 2007:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a2.htm

30.2% smoked at least least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5747a5.htm


Averaging all 50 states + Washington D.C., the average is 25.6% (2007 data):
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/


If you average those that currently smoke with those that did smoke, they come out about even; moreover, the rate of obesity has recently slowed so it may be on a downward trend in 2008 on.


If you don't like paying the taxes then quit smoking. The taxes aren't going to go away until tobacco is considered contraband.

[DaMulta]

I'm 100% sure that Mr. Ford would have no problem with a 1 dollar tax put on gasoline that I know that he uses daily. On top of the very high tax that it already has on it to pay for another government program.

O wait I know you would have a problem with it because you are a republican and don't believe in such programs"To each their own". I do but think paying for them should be done FARLY!


So makes me wonder why you would support Cigarette taxes..... seeing that they really don't even pay for smoking related causes on the majority of the funds made.

[Wile E]

I don't support the outlawing of any mind altering substances to adults, personally. None of it should be contraband.

[FordGT90Concept]

Because it makes people quit. We're seeing about a 1% decline of smokers per year because of it.

[DaMulta]

So lets put it on gas because burning gasoline hurts us all with pollination......tax is already super high on it cigarettes.

So you support government programs more or less if the system does not affect you. By saying that? Because it helps smokers quit(they increase it more when more quit) by/so paying for more Federal/state programs that you don't support in the first place?



ALSO if they outlawed smoking/are you ready to open you bank accont and pay the bills that we have been paying? Because they would not want that money taken away out of the system.

[FordGT90Concept]

Fuel is already heavily taxed. Here's gasoline (http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/Gasoline_Map_4_2009.pdf) and diesel (http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/Diesel_Map_4_2009.pdf). This article (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=662) lists taxes in Europe (on average, it is at least five times higher than USA).

If you over tax on fuel, you effectively kill the economy. I won't list all the drawbacks because the list is never-ending (from food delievery to mass-transit to power production).

If you looked at the link in the previous posts, it directly compares the lungs of smoker to the lungs of someone who lived in the city. The city dweller had many, tiny black spots while the smoker's entire lungs were black. Fuel, and their engines, are engineered to burn clean (the more thorough the burn the better the fuel economy). Cigarettes, on the other hand, aren't.


If it were up to me, cigarettes would be a Schedule II controlled substance, alchol would be Schedule III and so would marijuana. That is, you could only obtain alcohol and marijuana if you got a medical reason for having it. Cigarettes would be treated like cocaine.


Also if it were up to me, the government's annual budget would be less than $1 trillion annually (down from $2-3.5 trillion today). You'd be paying more to your state and less to the federal government (directly, maybe not at all because the federal government should be able to fund itself through taxation on imports and exports alone).

[DaMulta]

lol dame I was moddy last night lol

[DaMulta]

If you over tax fuel they use other things(Like last year ethereal)that could be cheaper in the long run like solar panels and better for mother earth.

So you wouldnt want to take up our bills that we pay? Would you?

You bitch about how bad smoking is, but over half the shit in america is horable for the world and a ton of shit we buy from china gets dumped into the world with their lack of EPA. How many bags of trash do you throw away each week? There are far worse things that you and I that are doing to this day that will affect people down the road.

[FordGT90Concept]

Fuel is the foundation for this economy, if you substitute, the result is devastating. For instance, the mild shift to ethanol resulted in a significant jump in prices for milk (because dairy cows are usually fed corn) and about 20% of the other products at grocery stores that rely on corn to some extent or another. There was also a huge drop in donations of excess corn to third world countries that really needed it. We also can't forget that corn for fuel only nets about a 13% gain over just burning the oil in the first place.

Solar power plants are extremely expensive, only work during the day (or very well when it is cloudy), and are usually not where the people are (big loss over long transmission lines).

Ultimately, the "oil problem" will solve itself when the oil reserves dry up. It has to because if it doesn't, modern society is done for.


Producing garbage isn't a psychological addiction and yes, we need to put huge tariffs on Chinese goods.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

You talk about economic preservation yet want to place tariffs on Chinese goods.

The Chinese are one of our largest importers, that'd make a TON of things we use every day more expensive.

We can lower taxes and STILL have government programs.

All we need is accountability over our tax dollars. As we all know, more of it goes to waste than we ever see good from.

Limit salaries. Less spending. Open up more goods to the public, marijuana and the likes, tax them, but tax them lightly. Require a government purchased license to grow it.
We could afford at least semi-socialized healthcare and education already if we did not waste taxpayer money on 1000$ hotdog luncheons. Our politicians deserve no extra luxury over regular citizens, perhaps if they lived a middle class life like the average American, they would work to better the life of the common man. Repeal the No Child Left Behind Act, create a national benchmark beyond that of the best educational systems in the world and aim for it. Legalize gambling in all 50 states and tax earnings the public gain from casinos. Less regulation=more profit in many cases.

Also, for my sake, a huge pusher of modern diesel technology, produce more diesel and tax it to unleaded gas prices. It costs less time and money to produce, so why do we have to pay a premium for a (now) cleaner, more efficient fuel? On the emissions/fuel consumption reduction topic - provide incentives for automakers to sell clean diesel technology in the US.

[DaMulta]

LOL I just need to start ordering them.....

I can get 10 cantons of Kool 100 for 73 dollars
http://www.tobaccoonline.co.uk/product.asp?subcat=KOOL&sm=M

LOL I'm going to start looking around! Screw the non-smokers!

Illegal tobacco out of control, cigarette companies warn

Study estimates 13 billion contraband cigarettes were bought in 2008
Tobacco companies lose out on about $900 million a year due to smuggled
an estimated $2.4 billion is lost in tax revenue lost in 2008

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Illegal+tobacco+control+cigarette+companies+warn/1412323/story.html

2.4 billion I wonder what the total revenue is....also isn't it F-ed up that the Government makes more money off it than the company that owns it lol. Like that would happen with any other company that produces harmful material lol.....

[FordGT90Concept]

The Chinese are one of our largest importers, that'd make a TON of things we use every day more expensive.
Indeed, but at least we would paying Americans to make those products and not be syphoning off money to a country that doesn't necessarily like us.

Education is already semi-socialized--look where 90% of the public schools funding comes from.

Healthcare is also already semi-socialized--see Medicare and Medicaid.


Politicians should be paid a volunteers wage ($10-30k a year)--not a career wage (> $100k a year). The only exception to that rule would be the Supreme Court Justices which, being a justice is a life-long career.


Gambling is a state issue, not federal.


Most of the diesel is already being consumed by the long distance transportation (trucks and trains) and mass-transit systems (busses). Gasoline is being consumed by shorter range vehicles. I think the balance is fine; what we need is great batteries (long discharge, short charge, long battery life) to get away from oil burnt for transportation altogether. If you could plug your car in for five minutes to get it full charged and it will get you 400+ miles on that charge, oil for vehicles would virtually go away in a matter of years.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

No we wouldn't.

We've placed tarriffs on importers before, it just caused price inflation.

Also, that hurts the economy of the other nation too, not good for relations between the two.

I'd rather be on China's good side. They seem like one of those countries you just don't fuck with, y'know?



Education is already semi-socialized--look where 90% of the public schools funding comes from.

Healthcare is also already semi-socialized--see Medicare and Medicaid.


Education - to what standard? We're rapidly slipping down the ranks. We need more emphasis on not only the arts, but mathematics and sciences as well.

Healthcare - Yes, but that's not universal. I'm talking universal.

[FordGT90Concept]

No we wouldn't.

We've placed tarriffs on importers before, it just caused price inflation.
Which keeps foreign products off USA soil when we could make them just as well, if not better, here.


Also, that hurts the economy of the other nation too, not good for relations between the two.
It's not like they're trying to be friendly with us, are they?




Education - to what standard? We're rapidly slipping down the ranks. We need more emphasis on not only the arts, but mathematics and sciences as well.

Healthcare - Yes, but that's not universal. I'm talking universal.
We need a board that gets all the raw information from all the schools in the USA (preschool through universities) including student grades, stafing information, balance sheets, sources of funding, etc. Once we see which schools are doing great compared to which aren't, we can study both and figure out what works and doesn't. Transition out the stuff that doesn't work with stuff that does, eliminate bad teachers, and if there is specific areas of funding that are either wasteful or running short, do something about it. In short, we need to study the education system to learn what's wrong with it. Until we do that, we can't fix it.

The same thing needs to happen for the healthcare industry. The prices have been rapidly inflating for the past 10 or so years. We need to find out why and fix it. The healthcare system definitely has a bug like the housing industry just went through--something very bad is present dragging the whole thing down. Until it is gone, it will continue to get worse. I could only guess what "it" is (lawsuits, drug companies, medical equipment companies, staff, etc.) but we have to know to fix it.


Universal = huge drag on funding we don't have anyway. Not to mention, no incentive to provide services other places don't.

At least with Medicaid/Medicare, you have to be elgible to receive aide. There's still a lot of people mooching off the system but at least the capitalist backbone of the healthcare industry is still in place. Quality hospitals do a lot for local economies.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

Which keeps foreign products off USA soil when we could make them just as well, if not better, here.

Yeah, it costs Wal-Mart a few cents to make a toy.
Imagine when they have to pay a union factory worker 50$ an hour after benefits. Prices will raise beyond the price of just importing a product of equal or greater quality.


It's not like they're trying to be friendly with us, are they?

Let's improve trade between us and drop our "if you're not like us, you're wrong!" attitude and take advantage of what they have to offer.




We need a board that gets all the raw information from all the schools in the USA (preschool through universities) including student grades, stafing information, balance sheets, sources of funding, etc. Once we see which schools are doing great compared to which aren't, we can study both and figure out what works and doesn't. Transition out the stuff that doesn't work with stuff that does, eliminate bad teachers, and if there is specific areas of funding that are either wasteful or running short, do something about it. In short, we need to study the education system to learn what's wrong with it. Until we do that, we can't fix it.

The same thing needs to happen for the healthcare industry. The prices have been rapidly inflating for the past 10 or so years. We need to find out why and fix it. The healthcare system definitely has a bug like the housing industry just went through--something very bad is present dragging the whole thing down. Until it is gone, it will continue to get worse. I could only guess what "it" is (lawsuits, drug companies, medical equipment companies, staff, etc.) but we have to know to fix it.


Universal = huge drag on funding we don't have anyway. Not to mention, no incentive to provide services other places don't.

At least with Medicaid/Medicare, you have to be elgible to receive aide. There's still a lot of people mooching off the system but at least the capitalist backbone of the healthcare industry is still in place. Quality hospitals do a lot for local economies.

Believe me, we have the funding, it's all just being spent on extended vacations, 1000$ suits, private jets and the likes.

One thing about Joe Biden that I do like - he uses public transportation and is proud!

[FordGT90Concept]

Yeah, it costs Wal-Mart a few cents to make a toy.
Imagine when they have to pay a union factory worker 50$ an hour after benefits. Prices will raise beyond the price of just importing a product of equal or greater quality.
How is that a bad thing? Instead of making someone in China rich, you're making someone in USA rich. That person in USA is more likely to put money back in to the USA than someone in China is likely to do the same.





Believe me, we have the funding, it's all just being spent on extended vacations, 1000$ suits, private jets and the likes.

One thing about Joe Biden that I do like - he uses public transportation and is proud!
Uncle Sam went $1 trillion in debt fiscal year 2008 alone. We're not expected to see green for at least another 8 years (probably not even possible for 10 years). We have no money; none at all. Any money we do have that isn't spent wisely now is just making our currency weaker.


Yeah, Biden > majority of the Democratic Party politicians. No argument from me there.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

What you fail to realize, the consumer, AKA 300 million Americans, are losing more money if we have tarriffs on Chinese goods.

Also, yes, we're poor, but we can cut spending NOW. Americans need their accountability, I will say it time and time again.

[FordGT90Concept]

It goes both ways. When you pay someone in the USA to make something, they also have extra funding to buy something from you. People make more and spend more. Right now, people in the USA are making less and the people in China are making more. Yes products are cheaper but the quality of life in the USA is also falling at China's profit.

The same goes for profits crossing USA borders.

Trade is good only when it is mutually beneficial. Selling out, on the other hand, isn't. If you're losing jobs because they get deported, the tariffs clearly aren't high enough. That is, after all, why tariffs exist: level the playing field.


Some are predicting the deficit will hit > $23 trillion in ten years.

[yogurt_21]

I don't support the outlawing of any mind altering substances to adults, personally. None of it should be contraband.

But I do support the taxing of them.

think about it, 52% govt profit on apack of cigarettes. imagine 52% of cocaine or heroine. and all of the weed.

it would be glorious.

that defecit would turn into a surplus faster than you could snort a line.

then increase the tax on alcohol and reduce restrictions on gun sales and put more taxes instead. I mean imagie a 52% tax on assault rifles. glorious.

the answer to our problems is right in front of us and yet the govt refuses to take it.

[Wile E]

But I do support the taxing of them.

think about it, 52% govt profit on apack of cigarettes. imagine 52% of cocaine or heroine. and all of the weed.

it would be glorious.

that defecit would turn into a surplus faster than you could snort a line.

then increase the tax on alcohol and reduce restrictions on gun sales and put more taxes instead. I mean imagie a 52% tax on assault rifles. glorious.

the answer to our problems is right in front of us and yet the govt refuses to take it.

I support taxing them, but not to that extent. The cigarette taxes are total bullshit. Way too high.

[Papahyooie]

Smoke, but when you get long cancer don't use tax dollars of mine to pay for your cancer. Die free, just like you lived.

I'm not attacking personally, as others have shared this same sentiment, this just stuck out at me. Also my post is directed in general, not necessarily at the subscribers to this thread.

Im a smoker. Not a heavy smoker, most people cant even tell that I smoke (smelly car, yellow teeth, etc) unless they see me on a daily basis. Everything should be taken in moderation.
That being said, I live in Arkansas, where a tax was just hiked in order to pay for a trauma center (NOT for lung cancer, rather for people getting their arms ripped off in farming accidents and that sort of freak occurance.) Plenty of people tell me that lung cancer from smoking puts a burden on taxpayers. Bullshit. I pay 300+percent taxes here in arkansas, and I know we're not the worst. They say the taxes are to punish us for smoking ("sin tax") but if we didnt smoke, there would be no trauma center. So instead of bitching at me, you should be thanking me for supporting your trauma center.
And while we're on taxes, im allright with them really, i dont smoke enough that it hurts my wallet, so go ahead, i really dont care. But if it is indeed a "sin tax" then Ive paid my debt to society, ive served my sentence for my smoking, and the rest of you have a right to say jack shit about it. If you want to bitch, give me my money back.
On the lung cancer / living point: Everyone is different. Well over half my extended family smokes, and I have not one instance of cancer in my family, so Im not really worried about it. My great grandmother smoked a cigarette a couple of hours before she died of natural causes at 94 years old. At 93 she helped put shingles on her own house because she refused to let my dad and uncles to it all for her. She also was convinced she had to drink a beer every day to keep her heart healthy. However, my girlfriend is 20 years old and has already had bouts of lung, brain, liver, breast, and skin cancer. She does NOT smoke, and has never touched a cigarette. (figuratively of course) This is because her mother has the same problem. Shes genetically inclined to it. So whoever said earlier that 90% of those who get lung cancer are smokers and the other 10 percent worked in mines and such, thats a load. She had her first round of lung cancer at 6 years old. Understand what youre dealing with: a genetic disease or abnormality. Sure, smoking can cause this, but its far from the overwhelming cause. I do not smoke around her, and because she understands what the disease is, she is also inclined to believe that it wont hurt me as bad as it does some, because of moderation and genetic inclination, so shes not worried about it.

And of course gotta throw in the obligatory "if you dont like it, dont go where it is" statement. In arkansas smoking is banned in any public building exept for bars. I agree that restaurants should be able to choose for themselves but that unfortunately isnt the case. As far as secondhand smoke, i dont smoke in my house, and if I ever do it will be in a designated study with ventalation, where my kids will not be allowed, because there will be all kinds of cool things like books and antiques and globes and such, lol.

Edits:

On filters and secondhand smoke: second smoke = worse than firsthand is crock. The air/smoke mixture is so much weaker its not even worth comparing. And filters are bullshit in the first place. A placebo. They do so little to filter the smoke anyway.

On general lung performance: I was 3 time all-state choir in high school and was a choral major in college for two years (as a double major cause they gave me scholorships to sing). After having smoked for two years, I still have way better lung capacity than a normal person, because of constant training, comparable to a cross country runner. At rest I breathe as little as 4 times a minute, and my heartrate has been as low as 56bpm (I have physicals to prove it, but im not gonna dig em out and scan em, lol, so belive me or dont. I could care less) So lung capacity in relation to smoking is just like weight in relation to eating. If you eat a lot and are not active, you'll get fat (i know for a fact, my deskjob has netted me 20 lbs since i started it in the last year :( lol ) If you smoke and dont keep your lungs fit, they will become atrophied, just like a muscle, or your heart. Once again, its all about balance.

/nicotine rage end.

[FordGT90Concept]

They say the taxes are to punish us for smoking ("sin tax") but if we didnt smoke, there would be no trauma center. So instead of bitching at me, you should be thanking me for supporting your trauma center.
If everyone quit smoking and there was no more revenue through cigarette tax, they'd find another way to pay for it. All it does is offset the cost.

I would never thank anyone for smoking.


Cancer is a generic term for rogue cells. There are numerous causes for every organ originally effected. There's also environmental conditions that significantly increase the likelihood a cell will go rogue. Those environmentals are dubbed carcinogens. Cigarette smoke contains 43.


Your girlfriend/family are the exception, not the norm.


Cigarette smoke pollutes the air inside structures. Yes, the establishments should be allowed to decide if they allow smoking or not but, ever since the Surgeon General ordered the warning labels, choice disappeared.


The only muscle for making the lungs function is the diaphragm. Exercising the lungs doesn't exist. They are just a network of airways after all. All exercises target the diaphragm. Have you ever been tested for lung function? O2 absorption, for example? Smokers, on average, probably have a stronger diaphragm because they have to inhale/exhale a greater volume of air to get the same amount of O2 absorbed into the blood. Function is not the same as volume.

[Papahyooie]

No, they wouldnt find a new way to pay for it. They came up with the new tax in order to pay for it. Its being paid for almost exclusively by the cigarette tax. And of course you wouldnt thank me personally, unless you happened to live in arkansas as well. But someone from here, especially someone who ends up using the center, should be thankful that I smoke, because otherwise A: They wouldnt have a trauma center and might die before getting all the way to memphis, or B: they might have to pay for it themselves through taxes on food, gas, or whatever it might be.

Anything, including water and oxygen, can be a carcinogen in large enough quantities. Remember "sweet and low" and all the stink about saccharine causing cancer? Guess how they determined it caused cancer: They injected rats with 400 times (yes thats a correct figure, not an hyperboly) the serving amount adjusted for the body weight of the rat, in pure saccharine. Of course its gonna fuck em up. Eat sweet and low every day for the rest of your life, and it will NEVER cause cancer. Not saying cigarettes wont, im just saying, to say that cigarettes contain over 40 carcinogens is just more propaganda. Natural tobacco smoke, without all the other chemicals, is just as carcinogenic and addictive as what you buy off the shelf.

True you cant "exercise" your lungs in the same way as a muscle (such as your diaphragm) but using them does make them stronger, and they do repair themselves (the airsacs themselves, alveoli I believe) better when used often. And when speaking of my own lung function, yes Im talking about function, not just capacity. If my oxygen absorption wasnt up to par, then for one thing, my heartrate would not be nearly so low. And smoking does not only affect oxygen absorption, it directly affects lung capacity. Then again so does inactivity and obesity. A fat person has to have a stronger diaphram because of restriced and increased blood flow needs. But does that mean their lungs can take running a marathon? Granted, Im no marathon runner, but when I do run, my legs shrink back in horror long before I'm even breathing hard. After moving to college my roommate actually thought I was dead because I was in bed asleep and appeared to be not breathing.

[FordGT90Concept]

No, they wouldnt find a new way to pay for it. They came up with the new tax in order to pay for it. Its being paid for almost exclusively by the cigarette tax. And of course you wouldnt thank me personally, unless you happened to live in arkansas as well. But someone from here, especially someone who ends up using the center, should be thankful that I smoke, because otherwise A: They wouldnt have a trauma center and might die before getting all the way to memphis, or B: they might have to pay for it themselves through taxes on food, gas, or whatever it might be.
Most hospitals have a trama center. Most hospitals don't fund it though taxes. Most hospital debt comes from trama centers (someone has a heart attack, gets fixed up, and can't pay). What that tax does is prevent the healthcare costs from going up due to those that use the services but can't pay. If the tax went away, your hospital visits would go up. There wouldn't necessarily be another tax to pay for that one.


Anything, including water and oxygen, can be a carcinogen in large enough quantities. Remember "sweet and low" and all the stink about saccharine causing cancer? Guess how they determined it caused cancer: They injected rats with 400 times (yes thats a correct figure, not an hyperboly) the serving amount adjusted for the body weight of the rat, in pure saccharine. Of course its gonna fuck em up. Eat sweet and low every day for the rest of your life, and it will NEVER cause cancer. Not saying cigarettes wont, im just saying, to say that cigarettes contain over 40 carcinogens is just more propaganda. Natural tobacco smoke, without all the other chemicals, is just as carcinogenic and addictive as what you buy off the shelf.
No, they can't. Carcinogens means they are cancer causing substances. Prolonged exposure to even small dosages may cause cancer. If you overdose on water/air, that leads to toxicity where the body gets more of a substance than it can handle.

Actually, the number of carcinogens went up to over 60. I suggest you read this. No, it isn't propaganda. Cigarettes kill, pure and simple:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/tobacco/cancer


If my oxygen absorption wasnt up to par, then for one thing, my heartrate would not be nearly so low. And smoking does not only affect oxygen absorption, it directly affects lung capacity. Then again so does inactivity and obesity. A fat person has to have a stronger diaphram because of restriced and increased blood flow needs. But does that mean their lungs can take running a marathon? Granted, Im no marathon runner, but when I do run, my legs shrink back in horror long before I'm even breathing hard. After moving to college my roommate actually thought I was dead because I was in bed asleep and appeared to be not breathing.
Heart rate and O2 absorbtion aren't strongly tied unless you're heart is on the verge of failure.

The tar from cigarette smoke fills the air sacs which prevents them from absorbing. About 60% of smokers contract emphasema which does reduce lung capacity. The other 40% don't which could have more or less average lung capacity. That doesn't mean their air sacs are as efficient (again, tested with O2 absorbtion) as a healthy lung, however.

Obese people's diaphram is usually weaker because all the fat pushes against their organs and their organs push against the diaphram thus, making it harder to breathe.

Most people look dead when asleep unless they have some airway issues like sleep apnea.

[yogurt_21]

No, they wouldnt find a new way to pay for it. They came up with the new tax in order to pay for it. Its being paid for almost exclusively by the cigarette tax. And of course you wouldnt thank me personally, unless you happened to live in arkansas as well. But someone from here, especially someone who ends up using the center, should be thankful that I smoke, because otherwise A: They wouldnt have a trauma center and might die before getting all the way to memphis, or B: they might have to pay for it themselves through taxes on food, gas, or whatever it might be.

Anything, including water and oxygen, can be a carcinogen in large enough quantities. Remember "sweet and low" and all the stink about saccharine causing cancer? Guess how they determined it caused cancer: They injected rats with 400 times (yes thats a correct figure, not an hyperboly) the serving amount adjusted for the body weight of the rat, in pure saccharine. Of course its gonna fuck em up. Eat sweet and low every day for the rest of your life, and it will NEVER cause cancer. Not saying cigarettes wont, im just saying, to say that cigarettes contain over 40 carcinogens is just more propaganda. Natural tobacco smoke, without all the other chemicals, is just as carcinogenic and addictive as what you buy off the shelf.

True you cant "exercise" your lungs in the same way as a muscle (such as your diaphragm) but using them does make them stronger, and they do repair themselves (the airsacs themselves, alveoli I believe) better when used often. And when speaking of my own lung function, yes Im talking about function, not just capacity. If my oxygen absorption wasnt up to par, then for one thing, my heartrate would not be nearly so low. And smoking does not only affect oxygen absorption, it directly affects lung capacity. Then again so does inactivity and obesity. A fat person has to have a stronger diaphram because of restriced and increased blood flow needs. But does that mean their lungs can take running a marathon? Granted, Im no marathon runner, but when I do run, my legs shrink back in horror long before I'm even breathing hard. After moving to college my roommate actually thought I was dead because I was in bed asleep and appeared to be not breathing.

I'm not complaining that you smoke, I complaining that you don't smoke enough. if you and all other smokers upper their habit to 2 cartons a day we'd be out of this mess in 2 years flat. which conicdentally is how long you would live on that much.

but cmon, think of the children, they need your sacrfifice.

[DaMulta]

I went to MO last week. I paid 3.21 for a pack of Kools vs 5.05 here in OK. OMFG that's a major difference in taxes. I know that my state uses tobacco taxes on other things, and I'm guessing that MO does not as much.

I should start driving up there and buying 6 point beer, with cheap cheap smokes then selling them down here for profit! lol

[DreamSeller]

ah i smoke like at least a cigarette per day :)
i hope my parents don't read this
here a "brand" name package is like no more then 30lei ~ $2.5 :D

[Fitseries3]

I went to MO last week. I paid 3.21 for a pack of Kools vs 5.05 here in OK. OMFG that's a major difference in taxes. I know that my state uses tobacco taxes on other things, and I'm guessing that MO does not as much.

I should start driving up there and buying 6 point beer, with cheap cheap smokes then selling them down here for profit! lol

MO as in missouri?

[FordGT90Concept]

Yeah. He said he was going to smuggle cigarettes a while back from Missouri. XD

[Fitseries3]

thats where im at right now...

[JC316]

I'm not attacking personally, as others have shared this same sentiment, this just stuck out at me. Also my post is directed in general, not necessarily at the subscribers to this thread.

Im a smoker. Not a heavy smoker, most people cant even tell that I smoke (smelly car, yellow teeth, etc) unless they see me on a daily basis. Everything should be taken in moderation.
That being said, I live in Arkansas, where a tax was just hiked in order to pay for a trauma center (NOT for lung cancer, rather for people getting their arms ripped off in farming accidents and that sort of freak occurance.) Plenty of people tell me that lung cancer from smoking puts a burden on taxpayers. Bullshit. I pay 300+percent taxes here in arkansas, and I know we're not the worst. They say the taxes are to punish us for smoking ("sin tax") but if we didnt smoke, there would be no trauma center. So instead of bitching at me, you should be thanking me for supporting your trauma center.
And while we're on taxes, im allright with them really, i dont smoke enough that it hurts my wallet, so go ahead, i really dont care. But if it is indeed a "sin tax" then Ive paid my debt to society, ive served my sentence for my smoking, and the rest of you have a right to say jack shit about it. If you want to bitch, give me my money back.
On the lung cancer / living point: Everyone is different. Well over half my extended family smokes, and I have not one instance of cancer in my family, so Im not really worried about it. My great grandmother smoked a cigarette a couple of hours before she died of natural causes at 94 years old. At 93 she helped put shingles on her own house because she refused to let my dad and uncles to it all for her. She also was convinced she had to drink a beer every day to keep her heart healthy. However, my girlfriend is 20 years old and has already had bouts of lung, brain, liver, breast, and skin cancer. She does NOT smoke, and has never touched a cigarette. (figuratively of course) This is because her mother has the same problem. Shes genetically inclined to it. So whoever said earlier that 90% of those who get lung cancer are smokers and the other 10 percent worked in mines and such, thats a load. She had her first round of lung cancer at 6 years old. Understand what youre dealing with: a genetic disease or abnormality. Sure, smoking can cause this, but its far from the overwhelming cause. I do not smoke around her, and because she understands what the disease is, she is also inclined to believe that it wont hurt me as bad as it does some, because of moderation and genetic inclination, so shes not worried about it.

And of course gotta throw in the obligatory "if you dont like it, dont go where it is" statement. In arkansas smoking is banned in any public building exept for bars. I agree that restaurants should be able to choose for themselves but that unfortunately isnt the case. As far as secondhand smoke, i dont smoke in my house, and if I ever do it will be in a designated study with ventalation, where my kids will not be allowed, because there will be all kinds of cool things like books and antiques and globes and such, lol.

Edits:

On filters and secondhand smoke: second smoke = worse than firsthand is crock. The air/smoke mixture is so much weaker its not even worth comparing. And filters are bullshit in the first place. A placebo. They do so little to filter the smoke anyway.

On general lung performance: I was 3 time all-state choir in high school and was a choral major in college for two years (as a double major cause they gave me scholorships to sing). After having smoked for two years, I still have way better lung capacity than a normal person, because of constant training, comparable to a cross country runner. At rest I breathe as little as 4 times a minute, and my heartrate has been as low as 56bpm (I have physicals to prove it, but im not gonna dig em out and scan em, lol, so belive me or dont. I could care less) So lung capacity in relation to smoking is just like weight in relation to eating. If you eat a lot and are not active, you'll get fat (i know for a fact, my deskjob has netted me 20 lbs since i started it in the last year :( lol ) If you smoke and dont keep your lungs fit, they will become atrophied, just like a muscle, or your heart. Once again, its all about balance.

/nicotine rage end.

You are a fairly considerate smoker, people like you, I don't really mind. Now, when you get next to a chain smoker at a bowling alley, and they are blowing smoke in your direction, those are the assholes. The restaurant topic I am pretty firm on because it's sickening to some people. You come a restaurant to eat, not have the acrid smell of cigarettes. As for your grandmother, some people are just genetically tough as nails. Makes me wonder how long she would have lived if she hadn't smoked.

Sorry to hear about your girlfriend, sucks to get a disease and not even have a choice. Unfortunately, I am in the same boat as her, just not having to bail water as fast. I got saddled with Crohn's disease without doing a damn thing to get it, same goes for my Dad and his Lymphoma. Makes me wonder why anyone would increase their risk of getting a terrible disease.

Three reasons that I am so anti smoking.

1. Because of my grand dad. Smoked all his life and it's very sad to see him now. He can barely walk 15 feet before getting out of breath. No cancer, but emphysema. His oxygen intake hovers around 40%.

2. Because I can't for the life of me see why someone would add an unnecessary risk to their health. I am stuck with a god damned disease that will have me seeing hospital rooms for the rest of my life. I will probably have 3 more surgeries that hack away at my intestines before I die. I am on a medication that runs risks of getting cancer, TB, infections, and liver failure. My dad has been taking Chemo since 1993. He is almost down to his last option, which is a bone marrow transplant. Me and him, we didn't ask for it, people that smoke are, just don't understand why someone would take their health for granted.

3. One thing that can trigger a crohn's attack is cigarette smoke. Both first and second hand. It has happened to me once and I have one of the mildest forms of it. Considering that a crohn's attack is like being tortured, one time is too many.

[DaMulta]

What I want to know is who will all the non-smokers blame for getting Cancer when they ban smoking..........

http://newcenturyphotography.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/pollution_by_lukegoesdeviantart.jpg

[Steevo]

If you honestly believe that smoking is not harmful then you are silly.



Why does a insurance company want more for a smoker if it doesn't hurt you?
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourHealth/HighCostOfSmoking.aspx

Why does the CDC list specifics about cancer rates for smokers? http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/djn389v1



The reality is it does, and to believe otherwise is about as much nonsense as to believe the earth is flat.

[DaMulta]

I'm not saying that it isn't bad for you. I do think that other things cause cancer just as much as smoking does. Also as said on other pages, oldest people on earth were smokers, and people being over weight causing the effect to happen faster or at all. You could be 35years old 500 pounds be a smoker, and then get cancer and what do they blame....the smoking....

It's a fact that being obese makes your chances of getting it a lot higher.

Look at Japan Look at the USA. Look at France Look at USA.

Fat kills!

+++
Food tons of chemicals
Cleaning the house chemicals
Chemicals from wrappers of food
to much to name.......

Face it we are poisoning the whole world. As long as their is someone to point the major blame to I guess it gives people some closer......

[FordGT90Concept]

Sure, holding a stick of spent uranium causes all kinds of cancer; however, well under 0.0001% of Americans even have access to spent uranium unlike the 80%+ of Americans that have access to cigarettes. Despite spent uranium being far more lethal, it doesn't kill in droves (reactor meltdowns and nuclear arms aside).


You don't get lung cancer from food. You get it from cigarettes. If that 35 year old, 500 pound individual died of lung cancer, of course cigarettes did him in. If he died of kidney failure, the obesity did him in.

Fat is good, obesity is not. Obese = BMI of 30+. Overweight = BMI of 25-29.9. I showed charts earlier that showed that there are fewer fatalities among the overweight than other demographics (including normal).


Food doesn't contain any carcinogens or else they couldn't sell it. All plastics and other containers have to pass tests before they can be approved for use by the food industry. If they fail any portion of the test (like exposure to heat) they must have labels on them that say as such. Most of those types of plastic that have failed tests are rarely used to package food products.

People clean their house at most once a week. There is no comparison to your average smoker that lights up several times a day.

[DaMulta]

I guess you missed that national geographic issue of normal chemicals that your around everyday that total mess you up. That you would test positive to sooo many of them. Then there is the normal decaying Radon that can be found EVERYWHERE


After smoking, "radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer."


Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates.
http://www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html


Then on one thing about food containers. Why can teflon can be found from a new born human baby to a new born whale in the ocean? (stuff they USE for containers for throw away food) Could that really be good for you? Has man kind had natural selection for chemical use yet? As far as I can see we have only been flying around and making this crap for 100 years or so. I bet not all of us can be around all these chemicals 24/7 without getting deathly sick.

There is also the kind of plastic that is banned in the EU because it is toxic to humans. So when they catch a batch of toys made out of it coming from China, they just turn and ship it to the good old of usa of today.

Why do they tell you to wash off your vegetables.....Why do we have these Natural and Organic stores that people go crazy for that are health nuts?


They count death of how you died not how you ended up there. Our heathcare system in America sucks, and we do not have real preventive care treating you for all the things that could of prevented your death. Not as much as other countries do......For a lot of Americans you don't go to a Dr. unless you are on your death bed.

[FordGT90Concept]

Radon and lead are the most common. There is legislation against the commerical use of lead. Radon is sold to consumers in the form of tobacco (http://www.radonseal.com/radon-facts.htm#tobacco).


No one knew teflon was absorbed into the body and could be passed on to children. Ever since that discovery was made, Dupont discontinued the production/use of teflon. Non-stick cooking surfaces now use a different compound.


There is also the kind of plastic that is banned in the EU because it is toxic to humans. So when they catch a batch of toys made out of it coming from China, they just turn and ship it to the good old of usa of today.
I want to see a source on that.


Vegetables are often sprayed with a preservative to prevent them from rotting in transit. Moreover, you wouldn't want to eat a product that had a rat piss on it in a freight train. It's just a good idea to rince it off before you consume it.


You said it, people that get all excited over spending four times as much for the same thing are crazy.


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htm
Cancer is the only stat they don't normally break down (although I'm sure CDC has papers on specifics) as cancer is complex and still largely not understood.

Full paper if you want the nitty gritty:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf

[Steevo]

Nope still teflon, same stuff, and still non toxic.

[DaMulta]

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/7-foods-banned-europe-available-us.php

in plasticsthere are different phthalates

http://dld123.com/q&a/index.php?cid=10832
In the State of California, it is illegal - as of January 1, 2009 - to sell a crib mattress containing phthalates. Local retailers in California may not sell them. Phthalates are a group of chemicals known to affect a child's developing endocrine (hormonal) system, and may cause cancer. Phthalates are so toxic that they have already been banned in many countries of the world.

But America is not safe from phthalates in crib mattresses, yet. For all states besides California, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) allows mattresses with phthalates to be manufactured through February 9, 2009, and to continue to be sold indefinitely until stocks are depleted. This could take months, or even years.



You also was them to make sure the pesticides are all the way off of them too.

Just read about what we use.....
http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/information/carbofuran.html
In its 2005 ecological risk assessment on carbofuran, EPA stated that all legal uses of the pesticide were likely to kill wild birds. If a flock of mallards were to feed in a carbofuran treated alfalfa field, EPA predicted that 92% of the birds in the flock would quickly die. EPA analysis has also confirmed that carbofuran is a threat to human health through contaminated food, drinking water, and occupational exposure.



Trust the FDA the EPA in whole LOL......Chemical use and harmful to humans is real.

Like you said
No one knew teflon was absorbed into the body

They are still using it.....

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/watchdog/2009/05/20/wilbur-earl-tennant-1942-2009/

You can buy it from them
http://www2.dupont.com/Teflon_Industrial/en_US/store/index.html

Also if you look at their news section they are making a new plant in China LOL to their EPA guide lines they can start pumping it back into the environment as before....

[FordGT90Concept]

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/7-foods-banned-europe-available-us.php
Environmentalists. If they could have their way, only "organic products would be grown/consumed. Just because the EU banned something doesn't mean USA should too. Remember, the EU isn't exactly popular among Europeans. In order for something to be banned in USA, it has to go through a long debate over reasons to, and not to, make it a controlled substance. For instance, genetically modified foods which aren't banned in USA may have a longer shelf life without using any chemicals. We've even made some vegetables that produce Omega-3 fatty acids (usually obtained through consuming fish) which are important in a vegetarian's diet.


in plasticsthere are different phthalates

http://dld123.com/q&a/index.php?cid=10832
That source isn't credible at all. Whoever wrote it is clearly an environmentalist and not a scientist conducting a proper study as demonstrated by this statement:
After much research, with my skills and knowledge as an environmental engineer, I have come to the conclusion that the only appropriate materials to use for a waterproof crib mattress are organic cotton and non-toxic food-grade polyethylene waterproofing. Polyethylene is favored by The Green Guide and solves the problems associated with a damp mattress without any of the health risks. So both baby and parents can sleep soundly.
1) Honking your own horn and mention "I" means this person is an amateur with no professional experience.
2) Organic, in terms of science, is a very gray area. The term is rarely used in scientific contexts.
3) "The Green Guide." Don't make me laugh.
4) Run-on.



You also was them to make sure the pesticides are all the way off of them too.

Just read about what we use.....
http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/information/carbofuran.html
Over the last century, the exposure of humans to pesticides has greatly diminished. The main reason: genetically modified seeds. The other reason is smarter application of chemicals to fields (only in areas that need it and in amounts only enough to get take care of the problem).


They are still using it.....

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/watchdog/2009/05/20/wilbur-earl-tennant-1942-2009/
Industrial waste dumps like that are illegal (there's designated places and methods to disposing of chemicals set by the EPA). Dupont most likely had to pay an arm and a leg to clean it up.


You can buy it from them
http://www2.dupont.com/Teflon_Industrial/en_US/store/index.html

Also if you look at their news section they are making a new plant in China LOL to their EPA guide lines they can start pumping it back into the environment as before....
Sure, you can buy it but you can't use it for pots and pans and other cooking utensils--at least not in the USA.

[DaMulta]

http://www.google.com/products?q=teflon%20pans&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wf

No Teflon pans Hmmmm

Are they still not using it for packaging stuff like chips, candy bars(only in cail that I know of are they banning it's use in 2010.


The source may not be the best but it's all over the net. Last I seen it was on TV which isn't the greatest of being able to pull it back up. It's on Wiki also.
----
pesticides are still wildly used. Hell I spray around the house every year myself. You don't think they don't spray your vegs and fruits for bugs? What about all the import food do you think they are not spraying their crap down?

To add have you ever looked into the environmental mess in China? It's insane, all these companies moved over there to get away from the EPA($$$$) and started just dumping. Look how they are affect by acid rain, hell look at what they had to do to clean up just for the Olympic games. There rivers at points boil with acid they are sooooo dirty. In National Geo I read about a man that burned his hands by washing them off in a river.....insane.

To think that could not affect us lol

Are There Really 'Continents' of Floating Garbage?
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/images/2007/12/30/trashpattern_2.gif

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/12/are-there-reall.html

[FordGT90Concept]

http://www.google.com/products?q=teflon%20pans&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wf

No Teflon pans Hmmmm

Are they still not using it for packaging stuff like chips, candy bars(only in cail that I know of are they banning it's use in 2010.
I worded that wrong. Dupont discovered the health issues with it, they still produce it but for industrial applications (not cookware). Obviously, these companies that still make the teflon pots and pans can still buy it and use it as such because the substance isn't regulated. Dupont simply doesn't recommend that application for it anymore. For instance, a teflon pan is completely safe up to temperatures of 200C which is hotter than most food is prepared at. It gets unstable at 260C.

The reason why California is moving to get rid of it is because in 2005, teflon was announced to be a "likely carcinogen." The EPA (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/newsletters/civil/enfalert/8e-tsca-0807.pdf) has not made it illegal because "no information that routine use of household or other products using fluoropolymers, such as non-stick cookware or all weather clothing, poses a concern."[/QUOTE]



pesticides are still wildly used. Hell I spray around the house every year myself. You don't think they don't spray your vegs and fruits for bugs? What about all the import food do you think they are not spraying their crap down?

To add have you ever looked into the environmental mess in China? It's insane, all these companies moved over there to get away from the EPA($$$$) and started just dumping. Look how they are affect by acid rain, hell look at what they had to do to clean up just for the Olympic games. There rivers at points boil with acid they are sooooo dirty. In National Geo I read about a man that burned his hands by washing them off in a river.....insane.

To think that could not affect us lol

Are There Really 'Continents' of Floating Garbage?
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/images/2007/12/30/trashpattern_2.gif

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/12/are-there-reall.html
I live in Iowa with a field 400' away in all directions. I know they use pesticides but it is now widely understood that they are not the best for humans, animals, water supply, and the environment in general. Pesticides are used on crops sparingly and only when necessary.

USA imports very little food and all food that is imported must be held to FDA regulations.


This isn't like the 1970s where people practically bathed in DDT.


We have no control over China so I don't know where you're going with that. What they are doing isn't good but we have done the same in the past. They'll have to learn from their mistakes just as we did.


I know about the two pools of garbage in the Pacific. Most of it is non-biodegradable plastics (will take thousands of years for the sun to break them down). Until someone is willing to fund a massive clean up project, nothing can be done about it.




Need I remind you, this thread is about cigarettes. Just because there's other pollutants/carcinogens doesn't mean your cigarette isn't going to kill you before all those distractions combined. Justifying your smoking isn't going to make your addiction go away.

[DaMulta]

I like smoking! I pay my taxes so I can smoke! You have to deal with it :) Just keep living life thinking that smokers are going to kill you with 2ed hand smoke. All three thousand of you a year......While the 1300 get killed by drinkers, and over 20 thousand die because of Radon in their homes. We also can link higher cancer rate with smokers that are exposed to Radon. Where are the studies that say here are the smokers that died, here are the smokers with radon that died, the non smokers with radon that died......





I'm just pointing out that smoking isn't the only cause to all the health problems non-smokers always point too. I'm not all 100% yet that just smoking kills you. I'm not saying that it is good for you at all(well in part because some things about smoking is good for you).




LOL to the USA imports very little food.

We import quite a bit of food from places like China(where chemical use is LOL) and Mexico......

We import so much food we can't even test it all. Quite a bit of it(a lot of it) goes totally untested.



Ummmmm yes it is like the 70s with DDT in other countries like mexico. We ban the pesticide here, but then we can turn around and export it to Mexico. Have our crops dusted with it, and then ship it back to the USA to be sold. Which a lot of it will go totally untested because the FDA can not keep up.

[FordGT90Concept]

I like smoking! I pay my taxes so I can smoke! You have to deal with it :) Just keep living life thinking that smokers are going to kill you with 2ed hand smoke. All three thousand of you a year......While the 1300 get killed by drinkers, and over 20 thousand die because of Radon in their homes. We also can link higher cancer rate with smokers that are exposed to Radon. Where are the studies that say here are the smokers that died, here are the smokers with radon that died, the non smokers with radon that died......
Radon exposure from cigarettes is far worse than residential radon. 90% of those 20,000 are former/current smokers or people that live in a house with a smoker.

As to the study, if you read that link I gave before, it was in the last paragraph:
"Cigarette smoking accounts for 30% of all cancer deaths. Only poor diet rivals tobacco smoke as a cause of cancer in the U.S., causing a comparable number of fatalities each year. However, the National Cancer Institute, with an annual budget of $500 million, has no active funding for research of radiation from smoking or residential radon as a cause of lung cancer, presumably, to protect the public from 'undue fears of radiation.'"

Sources:
http://www.ccnr.org/lung_cancer_1.html
http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat/index.html

This article is more to the point:
Radon second only to cigarette smoking in causing lung cancer (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/e51aa292bac25b0b85257359003d925f/503243c79c5bcf35852573c50065ae42!OpenDocument)

The National Academy of Sciences and the EPA estimate that in the U.S., radon in homes causes 21,100 lung cancer deaths each year and 2,900 of these deaths occur among people who never smoked.
See the ratio there? 7.28:1 radon induced lung cancer deaths a year caused by smoking over non-smoking. Even those that never smoked, a good lot of them may have been exposed to second hand smoke.



I'm just pointing out that smoking isn't the only cause to all the health problems non-smokers always point too. I'm not all 100% yet that just smoking kills you. I'm not saying that it is good for you at all(well in part because some things about smoking is good for you).
Go talk to a smoker of thirty years and see how ill they are from their habit. Just like overeating with a sedatary life style leads to obesity, smoking leads to cancers and emphasema.

Just because it relaxes you doesn't mean there are better ways to achieve the same effect (like get a massage).



We import quite a bit of food from places like China(where chemical use is LOL) and Mexico......
Linkage?

Still, the only reason why we would import any food is because it is cheaper to do so. The moment oil prices go up again, food imports will disappear in a very brief time frame.

[Wile E]

Go talk to a smoker of thirty years and see how ill they are from their habit.Although I believe that smokers are treated completely unfairly, and that most of the anti-smoking and cancer numbers are fudged in favor of not smoking to make it appear worse than it really is, especially in regards to second hand smoke (although I do agree it is bad for you), I still have to agree with this statement.

I started smoking occasionally when I was just 10 years old. Not all the time, but maybe once a week or so. I lived in a neighborhood where most of the other kids were in the 15-16 year old range. As a 10 year old, you have to appear pretty "cool" to them for them to let you hang around. Well, they dared me to smoke, and I did, just so they would let me stick around.

By the time I was 12, I was addicted, and was smoking multiple cigs on a daily basis. I'm 32 now. That's 20 years of full time smoking. It got to the point that I hated it. I quit a month and a half ago, and I already have more energy, can breath better, and just feel better in general.

In my experience, "I like to smoke" actually means, "I don't know a better way to relieve stress, and am afraid of battling the addiction." At least that's the case with everyone that I know who has quit smoking, myself included.

But still, far be it from me to make smokers suffer with exorbitant taxes, or not allowing them to smoke in open air environments, or in places where the smoke can be separated (like properly designed restaurants), or in bars. I just see no problem with it.

[DaMulta]

After the little FDA issue on smoking I started looking around. I'm going to quit smoking the norm, and switch over to The E-Cigarette. You can get 36mg(as strong as a normal smoke) Nicotine that comes in any flavor I want. BEST PART!!! The smoke is water vapor and can be smoked around all non-smokers!!!!Oh+no @!%ing outrages taxes too lol.
http://totallywicked-eliquid.com/product.asp?id=76

http://totallywicked-eliquid.com/upload/products/large/2/76.jpg
The front lights up as a BLUE flame LOL. Also looking around the web this is considered the best one.


Different 36Mg flavors

Apple
banana
Black Tea
Camel
cherry
coconut
coffee
cola
french pipe
Green Tea
Hilton
M/boro
menthol
Mint Choc Chip
strawberry
tobacco
vanilla
virginia
Watermelon


Also because these are liquids that you use to fill up your Refillable Cartridges. You can mix up different flavors to just making your own creative ones.



So by quitting Tobacco, and using this. I will get the same taste(with more if I want), same smoke exhale, smoke anywhere I want, get my dose of Nicotine, no stupid Sin Taxes, leave the bads of smoking chemicals.

Also this should help the old E-PENIS seeing that the damn thing is called E-cigarette while being electric lol.

I hope it arrives soon!:toast:

[DaMulta]

nCckM7i5aVw
(Over the one that I'm getting/but this one does not have a blue led)

[From_Nowhere]

^ Well that's probably a better stop smoking alternative than the useless patch, disgusting gum, or even worse lozenge.

[jordybb]

Smoking is not a fashionable act ....
you are doing some serious harm to your body by getting addicted to it....

[DaMulta]

KsinioAhYuA

My newest smoking creation!!!!