Do You Smoke Tobacco Products? (Topic)

wth is starcraft

Quote from

Lanthanide

What if you chew tobacco? More attractive, or less?

I dated a guy that chewed tobacco. It was pretty damn gross.

Back* from the grave

Quote from

Oh_Man

Quote from

Aristocrat

Quote from

Oh_Man

People who started smoking ages ago, or people way older then me, I don't immediately make the stupidity correlation because they started when the facts about smoking were not clear.

You are voluntarily inhaling smoke. From burning something.

I'm fairly sure you need a single-digit IQ to make that decision.

What is this I don't even

Organic complexes* produce several hundreds of compounds from seemingly impossibrury low numbers. Tobacco combustion produces upwards of 5,000 compunds, which are mostly inhaled or dispersed into the atmosphere. What Aristocrat doesn't say is what anyone without a "single-digit IQ" would easily be able to see how smoke is bad. There's a reason that even wood smoke, when inhaled, makes any normal human being begin to cough, produce excess tears (watery eyes), and in general not have a pleasant time in the smoke.

EDIT:
*Organic complexes = once-living organisms, in this case the tobacco leaves.

Still Napping

Because nicotine is an addictive and leads to detrimental behavior. It's not fair that babies should be exposed to it, or that young children and even older ones are constantly around their smoking parents. This more often than not leads to an individual that smokes.

If we want to be consistent with any notion of freedom this country has; shouldn't smoking be left up to the individual, not up addictive chemicals?

None.

Back* from the grave

It would be more logical then to have both nicotine containing and nicotine-free cigarettes (more choice, amirite?). But since the latter would never sell, there's no point. Besides, nicotine, IIRC, is a chemical part of tobacco, and would take lots of processing for no profit.

I occasionally smoke cigars.

None.

Quote from

Sacrieur

Because nicotine is an addictive and leads to detrimental behavior. It's not fair that babies should be exposed to it, or that young children and even older ones are constantly around their smoking parents. This more often than not leads to an individual that smokes.

If we want to be consistent with any notion of freedom this country has; shouldn't smoking be left up to the individual, not up addictive chemicals?

Exactly my point, by immunizing children at birth you're making the decision for them, not leaving them freedom.

None.

Still Napping

Quote from

Vrael

Quote from

Sacrieur

Because nicotine is an addictive and leads to detrimental behavior. It's not fair that babies should be exposed to it, or that young children and even older ones are constantly around their smoking parents. This more often than not leads to an individual that smokes.

If we want to be consistent with any notion of freedom this country has; shouldn't smoking be left up to the individual, not up addictive chemicals?

Exactly my point, by immunizing children at birth you're making the decision for them, not leaving them freedom.

Can't tell if just trolling or serious ;_;

None.

I order you to forgive yourself!

Quote from

Sacrieur

Quote from

Vrael

Quote from

Sacrieur

Because nicotine is an addictive and leads to detrimental behavior. It's not fair that babies should be exposed to it, or that young children and even older ones are constantly around their smoking parents. This more often than not leads to an individual that smokes.

If we want to be consistent with any notion of freedom this country has; shouldn't smoking be left up to the individual, not up addictive chemicals?

Exactly my point, by immunizing children at birth you're making the decision for them, not leaving them freedom.

Can't tell if just trolling or serious ;_;

Doesn't look like trolling to me, it's taking away their free will.

In France, everyone smokes, it would be impossible to try to hold my breath.

Still Napping

Quote from

Quote from

Quote from

Quote from

Because nicotine is an addictive and leads to detrimental behavior. It's not fair that babies should be exposed to it, or that young children and even older ones are constantly around their smoking parents. This more often than not leads to an individual that smokes.

If we want to be consistent with any notion of freedom this country has; shouldn't smoking be left up to the individual, not up addictive chemicals?

Exactly my point, by immunizing children at birth you're making the decision for them, not leaving them freedom.

Can't tell if just trolling or serious ;_;

Doesn't look like trolling to me, it's taking away their free will.

In France, everyone smokes, it would be impossible to try to hold my breath.

Doesn't addictive substances take away "free will"?

None.

Quote from

Vrael

Quote from

Sacrieur

Because nicotine is an addictive and leads to detrimental behavior. It's not fair that babies should be exposed to it, or that young children and even older ones are constantly around their smoking parents. This more often than not leads to an individual that smokes.

If we want to be consistent with any notion of freedom this country has; shouldn't smoking be left up to the individual, not up addictive chemicals?

Exactly my point, by immunizing children at birth you're making the decision for them, not leaving them freedom.

Dispersing toxic chemicals into the atmosphere for other people to breathe in is not something that falls under "freedom of choice". It is 100% ethical to take away people's ability to smoke in this fashion.

None.

she/her

Sac can't see what's right under his nose.

EDIT:

Quote from

Sacrieur

I am going to take the hard position on this and say we should immunize all children to nicotine from birth.

Quote from

Quote from

Quote from

Quote from

Quote from

Because nicotine is an addictive and leads to detrimental behavior. It's not fair that babies should be exposed to it, or that young children and even older ones are constantly around their smoking parents. This more often than not leads to an individual that smokes.

If we want to be consistent with any notion of freedom this country has; shouldn't smoking be left up to the individual, not up addictive chemicals?

Exactly my point, by immunizing children at birth you're making the decision for them, not leaving them freedom.

Can't tell if just trolling or serious ;_;

Doesn't look like trolling to me, it's taking away their free will.

In France, everyone smokes, it would be impossible to try to hold my breath.

Doesn't addictive substances take away "free will"?

It's okay, we're only human.

Back* from the grave

You're being too abstract still.

Quote from

Sacrieur

I am going to take the hard position on this and say we should immunize all children to nicotine from birth.

Quote from

Sacrieur

Don't addictive substances take away "free will"?

Also, fix't.

Still Napping

I'm being to abstract?

None.

Oh, boo-hoo. Toxic chemicals are in the air. What a surprise. Because after all, all the tobacco in the world wouldn't produce even close to the amount of toxic waste as, say, a single volcano eruption. Let people do whatever they damn well please, as long as it doesn't directly hurt anyone else. And it doesn't hurt others, because the amount of toxins released is negligible compared to other things. Even cars. That's like saying people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because it releases CO2.

None.

Still Napping

Quote from

BiOAtK

Oh, boo-hoo. Toxic chemicals are in the air. What a surprise. Because after all, all the tobacco in the world wouldn't produce even close to the amount of toxic waste as, say, a single volcano eruption. Let people do whatever they damn well please, as long as it doesn't directly hurt anyone else. And it doesn't hurt others, because the amount of toxins released is negligible compared to other things. Even cars. That's like saying people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because it releases CO2.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

Yay let's all commit logical fallacies!

None.

Quote from

Aristocrat

Quote from

Vrael

Quote from

Sacrieur

Because nicotine is an addictive and leads to detrimental behavior. It's not fair that babies should be exposed to it, or that young children and even older ones are constantly around their smoking parents. This more often than not leads to an individual that smokes.

If we want to be consistent with any notion of freedom this country has; shouldn't smoking be left up to the individual, not up addictive chemicals?

Exactly my point, by immunizing children at birth you're making the decision for them, not leaving them freedom.

Dispersing toxic chemicals into the atmosphere for other people to breathe in is not something that falls under "freedom of choice". It is 100% ethical to take away people's ability to smoke in this fashion.

Only insofar as the smoke is deemed to be an infringement. For example, smoking in my own home doesn't reasonably pollute your air, but smoking in a public place might. I say reasonably, because if we really start to be ridiculous about this, then it would eventually lead us down the road that we can't produce any garbage or pollution whatsoever because it takes up other people's space. This issue is completely separate from immunizing children to nicotine at birth, and does not serve as a reasonable justification to deny people the right to smoke.

Back to sacrieur, a law requiring children to be immunized against any substance, nicotine or otherwise, is an infringement of the rights of the people and would require an amendment to the constitution. Simply because you believe smoking is bad is not sufficient justification to take away a right of the people. Furthermore, the government does not have the power to require this of us, as its power is limited to only those provisions provided to it by the constitution.

None.

Quote from

Sacrieur

Quote from

BiOAtK

Oh, boo-hoo. Toxic chemicals are in the air. What a surprise. Because after all, all the tobacco in the world wouldn't produce even close to the amount of toxic waste as, say, a single volcano eruption. Let people do whatever they damn well please, as long as it doesn't directly hurt anyone else. And it doesn't hurt others, because the amount of toxins released is negligible compared to other things. Even cars. That's like saying people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because it releases CO2.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

Yay let's all commit logical fallacies!

Quote from

Vrael

Back to sacrieur, a law requiring children to be immunized against any substance, nicotine or otherwise, is an infringement of the rights of the people and would require an amendment to the constitution. Simply because you believe smoking is bad is not sufficient justification to take away a right of the people. Furthermore, the government does not have the power to require this of us, as its power is limited to only those provisions provided to it by the constitution.

Also, actually attack my argument. Going "LOL!!!!11oneo!1e YOU HAVE LOGICAL FALLACY XYZ" instead of actually debating what I mean is just fucking stupid.

None.

Still Napping

Quote

Back to sacrieur, a law requiring children to be immunized against any substance, nicotine or otherwise, is an infringement of the rights of the people and would require an amendment to the constitution. Simply because you believe smoking is bad is not sufficient justification to take away a right of the people. Furthermore, the government does not have the power to require this of us, as its power is limited to only those provisions provided to it by the constitution.

Their civil rights, which isn't to be confused with person rights.

My position has never been to stop the sale of cigarettes or get people to stop smoking; it has been to improve the human immunity to dangerous toxins. Under the assumption that free will is a person right, immunization would be the ethical thing to do. It removes any sort of external drug influence on an individual's decision to smoke or not.

None.

she/her

Quote from

BiOAtK

Oh, boo-hoo. Toxic chemicals are in the air. What a surprise. Because after all, all the tobacco in the world wouldn't produce even close to the amount of toxic waste as, say, a single volcano eruption. Let people do whatever they damn well please, as long as it doesn't directly hurt anyone else. And it doesn't hurt others, because the amount of toxins released is negligible compared to other things. Even cars. That's like saying people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because it releases CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
http://www.lung.ca/protect-protegez/tobacco-tabagisme/second-secondaire/index_e.php
Didn't even know about third-hand smoke
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke

http://www.google.ca/search?q=second+hand+smoke&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.ca/search?q=second+hand+smoke&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.ca/search?q=second+hand+smoke&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.ca/search?q=second+hand+smoke&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.ca/search?q=second+hand+smoke&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Quote from

Sacrieur

Quote

Back to sacrieur, a law requiring children to be immunized against any substance, nicotine or otherwise, is an infringement of the rights of the people and would require an amendment to the constitution. Simply because you believe smoking is bad is not sufficient justification to take away a right of the people. Furthermore, the government does not have the power to require this of us, as its power is limited to only those provisions provided to it by the constitution.

Their civil rights, which isn't to be confused with person rights.

My position has never been to stop the sale of cigarettes or get people to stop smoking; it has been to improve the human immunity to dangerous toxins. Under the assumption that free will is a person right, immunization would be the ethical thing to do. It removes any sort of external drug influence on an individual's decision to smoke or not.

You're ignoring the problem of making people immune without their consent.

Still Napping

Quote

You're ignoring the problem of making people immune without their consent.

Personal liberty is being assumed the highest virtue. Immunization is in violation of this virtue. Non-immunization is also in violation of this virtue.

Therefore personal liberty cannot be a person right within the context of free will. The only inescapable conclusion is that free will does not exist because it cannot exist; determinism holds true.

---

Seems this issue kinda went a smidgen deeper than I was expecting. I'll have to go ahead an abandon my position that we should ethically immunize everyone. Instead I will take the position that we should immunize everyone as a matter of practicality.

None.

Answer	Votes	Percentage	%	Voters
Yes	3		7%	BiOAtK, TomWaits, LoveLess
No	42		94%	Fire_Kame, Lanthanide, Sacrieur, Wing Zero, Riney, poison_us, RIVE, Veta, Oh_Man, Zycorax, Apos, Excalibur, Tempz, Dem0n, lil-Inferno, xAngelSpiritx, TiKels, Sand Wraith, ubermctastic, Aristocrat, Roy, Voyager7456, FoxWolf1, BlueWolf, O)FaRTy1billion[MM], OlimarandLouie, The_UrChai, IskatuMesk, l)ark_ssj9kevin, JaFF, shmeeps, Centreri, UnholyUrine, Jack, FatalException, Mp)HellFire, EzDay281, Moose, DevliN, Kaias, MillenniumArmy, Ahli