People Who SMOKE Inside Their House...

SRC said:
so .. if owners of restaurants allowed the recreational use of drugs while inside their establishments .. is that ok? Seeing as how you think owning a business somehow puts you above the law. The government put a ban on smoking in public places .. just like they have a ban on recreational drug use. It's no different.

You have the right to use drugs .. just not recreationally. You have the right to smoke, just not in public places.
Click to expand...

again, smoking is legal, drugs are not
 
SRC said:
Really .. so everyone beleives inJesus do they? Because last time I checked they don't. Hard to deny that cigarettes exist, no matter your religion.

camparison = null
Click to expand...

we're talking about the conclusion drawn by the epa studies...stay with me here
 
wonko80 said:
All studies linking cigarettes to cancer are flawed? Every singe one of them? Yet the studies done by the cigarette companies showing no link are flawless?

Also, I wasn't talking about studies relating to just secondhand smoke. If cigarettes can cause cancer in the people who smoke them, it isn't that far of a stretch to believe it can in those that breathe in the same basic smoke.
Click to expand...

True.
 
Smoking Ban is like requiring seat belts. It's the government trying to protect us from ourselves. Yes they were probably strongly influenced by lobbyist and pay offs. I may not agree with either thing but to me neither are that bad.
 
wonko80 said:
All studies linking cigarettes to cancer are flawed? Every singe one of them? Yet the studies done by the cigarette companies showing no link are flawless?

Also, I wasn't talking about studies relating to just secondhand smoke. If cigarettes can cause cancer in the people who smoke them, it isn't that far of a stretch to believe it can in those that breathe in the same basic smoke.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the second hand smoke studies...where did I lose you
 
bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch
 
b_sinning said:
Smoking Ban is like requiring seat belts. It's the government trying to protect us from ourselves. Yes they were probably strongly influenced by lobbyist and pay offs. I may not agree with either thing but to me neither are that bad.
Click to expand...

I agree, it is not like they are banning us from something truly silly. Such as having sexual relations with a porcupine.
 
w_a_w said:
I was talking about the second hand smoke studies...where did I lose you
Click to expand...
Did you miss the second part of my post?

Fine, you cling to your report that shows those studies are flawed. But please provide me a study showing zero linkage between second hand smoke and cancer.

It's much easier to find flaws in someone else's study that do your own that actually proves something.
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
Depending on state laws, that may or may not be LEGAL.

If it was in fact, legal, and the store owner allowed it - who cares? Again, it's not like they'd be in business long anyway.
Click to expand...
If that is your basis for argument, then cigarette companies should be bankrupt by now since their product kills their users. Yet people keep on buying it.

It's stupid to think the public will always regulate itself. In case you haven't noticed, people as a whole behave stupidly.
 
wonko80 said:
If that is your basis for argument, then cigarette companies should be bankrupt by now since their product kills their users. Yet people keep on buying it.

It's stupid to think the public will always regulate itself. In case you haven't noticed, people as a whole behave stupidly.
Click to expand...

Always? No, but in many cases the public does regulate itself.

Let people be stupid, I'm tired of being penalized by the laws created to "protect" the stupid from themselves.
 
w_a_w said:
again, smoking is legal, drugs are not
Click to expand...

Really? So xanex, morphine, lortabs, ect are not legal? These are used as recreational drugs (keep up, or read the post before replying).

You can have/buy them legally .. but when you exceed the dosage prescribed to receive a pleasure from it (like cigs) they are then illegal. Why are they illigal .. because they can cause you to affect people around you adversly (wrecks, voilnce, ect).

It is banned = illegal .. same as smoking in public places in some cities.

ChikkenNoodul said:
Always? No, but in many cases the public does regulate itself.

Let people be stupid, I'm tired of being penalized by the laws created to "protect" the stupid from themselves.
Click to expand...

so .. you can be stupid and affect me and it's alright tho?
 
wonko80 said:
If that is your basis for argument, then cigarette companies should be bankrupt by now since their product kills their users. Yet people keep on buying it.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, not like "the government" actually wants to get rid of smoking in any case. Far too much tax revenue at stake, not to mention the large number of people employed by those companies.
 
wonko80 said:
Did you miss the second part of my post?

Fine, you cling to your report that shows those studies are flawed. But please provide me a study showing zero linkage between second hand smoke and cancer.

It's much easier to find flaws in someone else's study that do your own that actually proves something.
Click to expand...

how in the f*** would I do a study? :lol: :p

anyway, as I already said, it's very likely second hand smoke does cause cancer but again, why would they need to embellish the truth?

also, there have been a number of studies to legitimately find no link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back