guys who smoke?

[Walk]

For me to question why someone started is at the forefront of my attempt to understand their individual reason. Yet you seem upset and claim that I don't understand. How do you know that I don't understand? My dad smoked three packs a day for several years. He saw a 60 Minutes program about oral cancers, laid down the pack, and quit cold-turkey. I started in high school - for about a month - then stopped.

 

Understand what? I started smoking way over a decade ago. What's it prove? Individual reason... how does that help you? Where are you going with that?

 

Someone who's never smoked, or been addicted, still does not understand. It'd be like claiming you completely understand how it feels to be someone dying of cancer, when you only watched from the sidelines. Or how it feels to break a bone. You can surmise what it might feel like, but you won't actually know. You smoked for a whole month! wow. Must've been rough. So you smoked a cig once every couple days?... a couple times a day? Not the same.

 

Ummm . . . the tax increase doesn't support your statement that the government "wants you to have that habit." The tax increase generates income for the state while being an incentive to stop.

 

The government just keeps bringing in the money from the tobacco companies just as it does from alcohol companies and companies that aren't good for the environment (such as oil).

 

Yes it does. The reason being, they can outlaw smoking. Ban it. But they don't. Cigarette buyers have an extremely inelastic deman curve. The government knows that cigarette buyers will pay exorbinant amounts in taxes to continue buying the product. Because we're addicted. Those few that stop smoking or lessen smoking, aren't denting the overal tax money generated by the increase. However, the government will stop increasing the taxes when they feel that cigarette purchasers are unwilling to pay any more. They don't go above the "limit" of where price equals demand for optimal tax revenue. That may still be another dollar higher then it is, but they won't tax it so high as to make it impossible for consumers to no longer afford it. They need the money generated by this "bad" habit of ours. You need this money. If the government was seriously attempting to wipe this dependency off the planet, then they could use more then the 10% of tax money toward quitting, or not starting programs.

 

Is the government curbing this habit? I think so. But only because of political groups that push for more anti-smoking laws. It's a piece of candy handed to the PAC's to keep them quiet. Nothing substantial. And the government gains more then it loses. Even though in my state it forced a large percentage of the smaller stop and shop stores to close because of the increase. Stores run by small business owners who were no longer getting the revenue they needed to survive from the sale of cigarettes. But, who cares... as long as every one is forced to stop smoking, then all is good, right?

 

 

Now get to a safe distance. AT LEAST a few hundred yards. If you can find a busy highway, stand in it (it may help with the experiment ). Now with your binoculars, look at the cigarette (I know, it hurts, but you can do it!). When in burns to the 2/3 mark. Stop the timer. What will you see?

You'll see how long it would take for someone to smoke a cigarette and not inhale 2/3 of the smoke.

How long is it? I dont know exactly, but it would take a long-ass time. Much longer than anyone with reasonable patience levels could/should spend smoking.

 

What the hell are you talking about? That made no sense. "a long-ass time". hmm... why don't you go test it and come back with your results. As for me, I'm going to inhale during that dash, carrying my cigarette between my teeth, while saving granny from underneath a ten ton truck. You make no sense.

[Art_Critic]

Alright, I've got an experiment for you.

 

Your nuts !!! I don't need to do an experiment.. I believe the statistics..

They were documented experiments

[Fun2BMe]

By the way, if I see a guy (or a girl) smoking a "Light" cigarette, I think they are an idiot. There is currently a class action lawsuit under way that the tobacco companies are trying to get congress to stop, because Light Cigarettes are EQUALLY as harmful as the regular ones, they're not the "healthier" "Lowfat" version so anyone who puts something in their lungs without demanding to know the deadly poisonous contents is an idiot, and if they don't care, then I don't like people who don't care about their health, how could they have room to care about me and my health if they don't give a sh** about theres.

 

That said, my last bf smoked and I loved him so love is blind. I did however start resenting him in my heart because the smoke bothered me, made my eyes water, made me cough and he lighted away like a chimney, so my above statement stands that smokers personalities are "who cares as long as I smoke" kind of, with less disregard towards others compared to non-smokers. Parents who smoke in a house with children comes to mind also. Selfish people. We all know people who get lung cancer who don't smoke get it from second hand smoke.

[Lil Honey]

Understand what? I started smoking way over a decade ago. What's it prove? Individual reason... how does that help you? Where are you going with that?

Well, an individual's reason would be one way that I could ATTEMPT to understand, but you seem pretty Hell-bent that I never could. And your smoking for ten years proves to me (and this is only MY opinion) that the habit became the addiction. And if you don't see it that way, that's okay.

 

Someone who's never smoked, or been addicted, still does not understand.

Several posts ago, I said I don't think it's an addiction until it is a habit first. Which leads to:

You smoked for a whole month! wow. Must've been rough. So you smoked a cig once every couple days?... a couple times a day? Not the same.

My POINT being that in my experience (see previous bolt print as well), one doesn't instantly get addicted. A person can try it and the natural response is to cough the smoke out of the lungs. Then, a person will try it over and over, until it becomes a habit, which then becomes an addiction. My experience tells me that although I could very well have some affliction for being addicted (from my dad), I stopped before it became a habit that became an addiction. That is my POV, if you don't agree with it, that's fine.

 

Yes it does. The reason being, they can outlaw smoking. Ban it. But they don't.

They have trouble even restricting it, because smokers complain that they can't do what they want. Furthermore, if it were banned, people would find a way to smoke, especially if it's so hard to quit. I really don't care if someone smokes or not, just don't get me involved. Period.

 

Even though in my state it forced a large percentage of the smaller stop and shop stores to close because of the increase. Stores run by small business owners who were no longer getting the revenue they needed to survive from the sale of cigarettes.

Okaaaaaay . . . .

[Outcast]

Why do people fight to the death to defend an addiction they know is harmful?

 

Having enough brains to be able to tell between 'facts' and stupid.

 

:lmao: :lmao:

 

Once again: "my mind is made up; don't bother me with fact"

 

:lmao:

 

Accepting only the facts you agree with is the antithesis of common sense, actually.

[Walk]

This is what I see of this thread/posts... Two sides. Those who are self-righteous because they do not smoke, and therefore are preserving the human body as a temple. (yeah, right!) And those who do smoke, and are hostile towards being called "wimps, pathetic, stupid, and idiots".

 

You're asking why we smoke, but you don't care, and you won't listen anyway. You've decided you're right, we're wrong, and you'd be happy if we all just smoked in hell where we belong, right?

 

Get over yourselves. I agree that people who smoke around children should be killed. People who smoke around other adults out doors though... do we really deserve to be hanged? I can't smoke 50 feet in front of any entrance of any building I enter. But you'd be happy if I fell in a cess pool of ****.

 

Thanks for you understanding. (not) and for attempting to view the world through others eyes. (never)

 

Closed minded, hypocritical $&*#@. This is why I stopped talking to people. it's the "their view is the right view". Screw everyone else. if they don't believe in drinking then no one should drink. but go buy your supersized big macs and make me pay for your god damn health care for obesity, weight loss programs, heart disease, diabetes, and **** me, even get money from the government for losing weight... Its the second leading cause of death in the US. but it's a disease. and covered under law, so it's socially accepted. Defended!! Drunk drivers killed two of my friends, and severally injured one of my family. But smoking is bad? Go find a real cause to waste your time on. Smokers aren't hurting you. We're banned from your favorite foo foo places. Hold your breath when you walk past us to your car. It's all of 2 seconds. We're not even allowed within 50 feet of most buildings.

 

Why don't you go donate time to a childrens ward at the hospital, or go speak at your elementary schools on the evil of smoking. If you wanted to cast smokers in the "evil", moronic, and "idiotic" light, then preach to the kids. It didn't help me. But maybe it'll help some little 14 year old who's offered her first cigarette.

 

But calling me an idiot, or pathetic, really only makes me want to blow my smoke straight in your face and watch as you hack and cough. You can't win this war, and the smokers can't win. And if you'd remember one very important fact... hostility begets hostility. That's not the way to change a persons opinion. I'd assumed LS'ers new better then this. I guess I was wrong.

[Butternut]

Why do people fight to the death to defend an addiction they know is harmful?

 

 

 

:lmao: :lmao:

 

Once again: "my mind is made up; don't bother me with fact"

 

:lmao:

 

Accepting only the facts you agree with is the antithesis of common sense, actually.

 

I dont think any of us has died 'defending' this. Only from smoking.

 

So basically you're saying: "My mind is made up, don't bother me with reason."

 

Common sense has nothing to do with "accepting facts". Would it make sense (common) to accept the facts you DONT agree with?

[Butternut]

What the hell are you talking about? That made no sense. "a long-ass time". hmm... why don't you go test it and come back with your results. As for me, I'm going to inhale during that dash, carrying my cigarette between my teeth, while saving granny from underneath a ten ton truck. You make no sense.

 

Dude understand the context of my post before you start ****.

Do you, as a smoker, really think 66% of the smoke goes into the air un-inhaled?

[Outcast]

reason

 

Don't see any. Facts are smoking will kill you. I've seen it happen and it's pretty awful. Really awful, in fact. Deny it until you're dead - which may well be long before most of us are. It's your right. It's everyone's right to destroy their health. It's just not too bright.

[Fun2BMe]

People who smoke around other adults out doors though... do we really deserve to be hanged? I can't smoke 50 feet in front of any entrance of any building I enter. But you'd be happy if I fell in a cess pool of ****.

Yes, I think people who smoke within my breathing space should be prohibited from doing so (not hanged). Were it not for laws, they'd still be disgustingly puffing away in restaurants as well (gross for nonsmokers). I don't think anybody should have the right to harm a 3rd party's health by exhaling poison in their breathing space. They should only do it under their roof with no children present. I would not want you to fall in a cess pool of **** however smokers don't seem to care about others health, primarily because they don't give a *** about their own health so we need lawmakers to force them to keep their smelly poisonous habits away from others and to protect them.

 

Thanks for you understanding. (not) and for attempting to view the world through others eyes. (never) Closed minded, hypocritical $&*#@. This is why I stopped talking to people. it's the "their view is the right view". Screw everyone else.

Who's the one being understanding? The smoker who doesn't give a **** about grossing out a bystander's airspace? Since they don't voluntarily not smoke in public, we have had to pass laws to force them to! So who's the caring one here?

 

if they don't believe in drinking then no one should drink.

I personally don't know anyone who thinks all drinking is bad. Many tolerate social drinking such as with dinner or at a party. But binge alcoholic drinking, I think almost everyone is against that. Let's make honest arguments here. Also, if I am sitting next to someone having a beer or a glass of wine, it does not directly effect my health one bit as would someone smoking next to me - both my health and my mood because I would be disgusted with the stinky air I would be forced to inhale, my eyes watering and caughing my guts out(I'm not talking about if the drinker would then stupidly go behind the wheels of a car to drive, again I think everyone would argue against that behavior, including the drunk person once they are sober). I would equate the behavior of a smoker smoking in public to a person drinking alcohol forcefully shoving it down my throat.

 

but go buy your supersized big macs and make me pay for your god damn health care for obesity, weight loss programs, heart disease, diabetes, and **** me, even get money from the government for losing weight... Its the second leading cause of death in the US. but it's a disease. and covered under law, so it's socially accepted. Defended!!

Someone overeating - again as with alcohol - will effect their health not mine. If I am having a salad at a restaurant and the person sitting in the next booth is chowing down fried greasy foods, yea their ass will get big and they'll have heart disease, but it won't effect my health. I'm not arguing about the cost of treating them which would come out of public pockets. The same happens treating lung cancer, even though it can be argued in both cases that in the long run it actually saves the taxpaer because unhealthy people (whether from smoking, alcohol or overeating) die earlier and end up not using up medicare, health insurance and other public services. They die just when they stop contributing tax dollars but I'm not going to get into that.

 

Drunk drivers killed two of my friends, and severally injured one of my family. But smoking is bad?

C'mon...can you seriously name a single person who is in favor of drunk drivers? List one and I will give you a hundred dollars.

 

Go find a real cause to waste your time on. Smokers aren't hurting you. We're banned from your favorite foo foo places. Hold your breath when you walk past us to your car. It's all of 2 seconds. We're not even allowed within 50 feet of most buildings.

Sadly, were it not for laws, you would't give a **** smoking in my favorite foo foo places as used to be the case. Hold my breath for 2 seconds? Let's say raping is ok or torture if it lasts for 2 seconds. In 2 seconds my hair and clothes reaks of that stinky poisonous smoke. Personally, if I smoked I would never have the rudeness to impose it on anybody else.

 

Why don't you go donate time to a childrens ward at the hospital, or go speak at your elementary schools on the evil of smoking. If you wanted to cast smokers in the "evil", moronic, and "idiotic" light, then preach to the kids. It didn't help me. But maybe it'll help some little 14 year old who's offered her first cigarette.

I personally don't have the time or interest to preach to others. If you smoke that's fine with me, as long as it is nowhere near where i breathe. Have some respect for others! Would you stuff french fries or wine down someone's throat? That's how I feel when I can smell someone smoking near me. I think it is among the rudest and most inconsiderate behavior.

 

But calling me an idiot, or pathetic, really only makes me want to blow my smoke straight in your face and watch as you hack and cough.

That is the selfish behavior of most smokers, they would just love to blow their smoke in your face and defend it and get bent out of shape if someone points out how wrong it is! That is a pathetic, idiotic, selfish and illegal thing to do.

 

You can't win this war, and the smokers can't win. And if you'd remember one very important fact... hostility begets hostility. That's not the way to change a persons opinion. I'd assumed LS'ers new better then this. I guess I was wrong.

Personally as long as smokers aren't puffing in public, the "war" has been won. The only hostility arises when they don't care about puffing in other's airspace. Puff where you will inhale that junk.

[Butternut]

You can't read can you ?? go read the stats that I posted earlier.. passive smoke contains more carcinigens and nicotine than inhaled smoke.. Are you not understanding ???????

will you invite us all to your funeral when you die of cancer later on in life ?

Can YOU not read? It doesnt matter what passive smoke contains. Much much more smoke gets into smoker.

 

IF PASSIVE SMOKING WERE WORSE THAN ACTIVE SMOKING, THEN IT WOULD BE HEALTHIER TO ACTUALLY SMOKE.

It isn't.

 

And since you want to talk stats:

 

From Outcast's post: http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=215

 

"The effects of even brief exposure (minutes to hours) to secondhand smoke are often nearly as large (averaging 80% to 90%) as chronic active smoking."

 

MEANING: Even your anti smoking sites don't try to say passive smoking is worse. It's NEARLY as bad. Passive smoking is bad. Smoking is worse. Now stfu about this.

 

 

And be sure to invite me to yours. I'll visit your funeral (from hell) when you get stifled by soggy underwear in your sleep. :)

[Art_Critic]

Butternut

 

What are you smoking ???? your not debating..

 

What good is your strange logic going to get you ?

Your not using facts and you don't seem to be able to comprehend what we post to you

[Outcast]

IF PASSIVE SMOKING WERE WORSE THAN ACTIVE SMOKING, THEN IT WOULD BE HEALTHIER TO ACTUALLY SMOKE.

It isn't.

 

That's as ludicrous as arguing that getting hit by a bus going 60mph is worse than getting hit by a car going 60 mph. You're dead in both cases - whatever's the scientifically 'worse' method doesn't matter one teeny tiny little bit to your corpse.

[Butternut]

Don't see any. Facts are smoking will kill you. I've seen it happen and it's pretty awful. Really awful, in fact. Deny it until you're dead - which may well be long before most of us are. It's your right. It's everyone's right to destroy their health. It's just not too bright.

 

Yes, smoking will greatly increase the odds of you dying a smoking related death. Driving will greatly increase the odds of you dying a driving related death.

Anything we do is inherently risky. People choose to take risks to get to a perceived benefit.

You choose to drive AND ACCEPT THE RISKS of doing so, so you can go to work, or your local pr0n shop, and do the things that drivers do.

Smokers choose to smoke and accept the risks of doing so, so than can enjoy the benefits of it (which i mentioned earlier).

 

You are doing things that could destroy your health too, so I guess you're not so bright either, huh?

[Butternut]

That's as ludicrous as arguing that getting hit by a bus going 60mph is worse than getting hit by a car going 60 mph. You're dead in both cases - whatever's the scientifically 'worse' method doesn't matter one teeny tiny little bit to your corpse.

 

i realize that it doesnt matter, art just keeps bringing it up.

I'm sure you're not stupid enough to think passive smoking is worse than actually smoking.

[Outcast]

Anything we do is inherently risky

 

And the percentages of proportional risk are VERY different. Do you understand that? So again with the fallacious statements purporting to be 'common sense'.

 

You are doing things that could destroy your health too

 

I am not actively doing anything harmful to me. I have changed my diet. I exercise. I avoid smokers and their pollution like the plague. So sorry but the 'you gotta die someday' argument doesn't cut it. You go to a hospital and watch a smoker die. I have. Then tell me how smart you are.

[Butternut]

I don't need to do an experiment.. I believe the statistics..

 

of course you do. who gives a **** about logic?

[Outcast]

logic?

 

Again, haven't seen any.

[Art_Critic]

of course you do. who gives a **** about logic?

:lmao: :lmao:

[Butternut]

I am not actively doing anything harmful to me. I have changed my diet. I exercise. I avoid smokers and their pollution like the plague. So sorry but the 'you gotta die someday' argument doesn't cut it. You go to a hospital and watch a smoker die. I have. Then tell me how smart you are.

 

If you drive, you are actively doing something harmful to yourself. You don't have to drive. You choose to, and it could kill you. What's different? You belive that the benefits of driving outweigh the risks. So you do it.

Smokers believe the benefits of smoking outweigh its risks.

 

And talk about fallacious arguments. See "Appeal to Emotion".

You go to a hospital and watch someone with peas in their nostrils die. Then tell me how smart your mother is.

[Butternut]

That's as ludicrous as arguing that getting hit by a bus going 60mph is worse than getting hit by a car going 60 mph. You're dead in both cases - whatever's the scientifically 'worse' method doesn't matter one teeny tiny little bit to your corpse.

 

i realize that it doesnt matter, art just keeps bringing it up.

I'm sure you're not stupid enough to think passive smoking is worse than actually smoking.

[Fun2BMe]

Anything we do is inherently risky. People choose to take risks to get to a perceived benefit.

You choose to drive AND ACCEPT THE RISKS of doing so, so you can go to work, or your local pr0n shop, and do the things that drivers do.

Smokers choose to smoke and accept the risks of doing so, so

1 in 20,000 people die from car related accidents. The number who die prematurely per 20,000 smokers is much higher.

 

Someone who voluntarily chooses to decrease the quality and quantity of their life by smoking cannot be compared to a car driver choosing to take a much smaller risk with greater rewards such as being able to go to work to earn a living so that comparison is lame. Likewise, I wouldn't compare the risk of eating big macs everyday to driving every day.

[Outcast]

I'm sure you're not stupid enough to think passive smoking is worse than actually smoking

 

What I'm not stupid enough to do is continue discussing with someone who thinks that's a valid point to make or a valid way to make a point. Have a nice short life. Enjoy the racking cough, the coughing up blood, and the early death!

[Fun2BMe]

I'm sure you're not stupid enough to think passive smoking is worse than actually smoking.

It took the lives of thousands of waitresses and busdrivers to die from second hand smoke before laws were passed against the fondness of tobacco companies and selfish smokers to ban that dangerous habit from public spaces. Take some responsibility already!

[Butternut]

Again, haven't seen any.

you could check my pants:rolleyes: