Truth? (781 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.21 on 58 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Sarah (View user info) at 2007-02-15 10:47:17 EST
There is a little infection being spread through the media. An annoying little virus that you can't escape.
"Truth".
The anti-smoking campaign that tells you to "infect truth". It is aimed solely at what the average American believes to be the worst epidemic in our times. It has gone so far that the government itself has decided to step in and tax citizens for their own safety, and sue tobacco makers for their capitalism.
Okay, the "we'll protect you whether you want us to or not" mentality is more or less aimed at children, but I'm just pissed they picked one evil over any others.
Smoking is dangerous, I know, but smokers do so out of their own free will. Then they have all be corralled out into the cold like so many zoo displays simply because somebody told you it is a dangerous, filthy, disgusting habit.
Then after a hard day of shunning the smoker, you head to the bar to "relax". That's what alcohol is for, right? Relaxation. Winding down. Working off the stress of everyday life. Having fun. Good times.
How can something called Happy Hour be bad?
You want to infect some "truth" about hazardous substances that teens are subject to the evils of advertising of? How about booze?
An average of 274 people die everyday from alcohol in one way or another (100,000 per year)
Alcohol has many side effects including altering your perceptions, dulling your senses, hindering coordination, and blocking memory functions. If you continue to use alcohol heavily, you could experience stomach ailments, sexual impotence, heart and central nervous system damage, loss of appetite, and blackouts.
Sure, cigarettes damage your health, but there has yet to be one link between cigarettes and, oh say, date rape and driving fatalities.
Drinking, even at moderate levels, can put you at risk for serious health and social problems. Alcohol interacts negatively with more than 150 medications, so check with your doctor or pharmacist prior to drinking any amount of alcohol, if you are taking any over the counter or prescription medication. The more heavily you drink, the greater the strain will be on your relationships with family, friends, and coworkers. It could even lead to the loss of your job or committing or being the victim of an act of violence.
I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but I don't think smoking has ever led to loss of jobs, families, or violent crimes.
If you have to ask yourself if you have a problem with alcohol, the chances are that you do. Many people use alcohol to escape from their problems, or to change their personalities. They have an inability to control their drinking, a high tolerance level for alcohol, and may suffer problems at work or in school as a result. If your family and friends are concerned about your problem, you should be too. It is a sad fact that an estimated 6.6 million children under the age of 18 live in households with at least one alcoholic parent.
Again, I can't say how many people have problems at school or work because of tobacco, but I'd guess it's near zero.
You should also remember that alcoholism is just one of the diseases caused by alcohol. This disease can lead to others, such as cirrhosis and cancer of the liver. According to the NIAAA, "alcohol is typically found in the offender, victim or both in about half of all homicides and serious assaults, as well as in a high percentage of sex-related crimes, robberies, and incidents of domestic violence, and alcohol-related problems are disproportionately found among both juvenile and adult criminal offenders".
Sure, some of these offenders might smoke, but that wasn't the cause or an element of the crimes.
This just obviously shows American thinking. If you get enough people to worry about the lesser of the evils, the greater evils will earn more money to pay off more politicians.
I don't smoke ad this irritates the hell out of me. You want to rally behind something you think is targeted to teens? Open your eyes, jackasses.
User Reviews
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2007-02-19 23:10:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
plagiarism, anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen
"Aflatoxin B1, which is produced by the fungus Aspergillus flavus growing on stored grains, nuts and peanut butter, is an example of a potent, naturally-occurring microbial carcinogen."
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-02-19 22:31:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
This lecture is utterly arbitrary, not unlike an essay which defends murder but condemns child-rape.
If you're going to get on a soapbox about something, make it something interesting, like unicycles vs pogo sticks, or cupcakes vs candy corns.
Submitted by hot_pocket (user info) at 2007-02-16 14:22:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
you just cant win here, can you
Submitted by Susie_Derkins (user info) at 2007-02-16 10:15:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Sarah, first off, you have to stop accusing everyone that disagrees with you of being a drunken wife beater: "So, sure you smell good. Especially while drunkenly beating your children." (One example I saw).
Second, as Rob Berg pointed out, there are a lot of convenience stores robbed with a gun/knife/blowtorch/bat for a few cartons of smokes. Or people on the street beaten when they don't want to give in to some random guy asking for "an extra smoke".
Third, as a few people pointed out, alcohol is an excuse. A good portion of the population can go out for a few drinks and say to themselves "Hmmmmm, I COULD drive home, but I better not." And a lot of the population can restrain themselves from beating their wives/children/anyone else. It's a complete imbecile who gets drunk and kills or beats someone, and they likely have the propensity to do it sober. "I was drunk" is NOT a viable excuse for behaving like an asshole.
Yes, there are a lot of things the government can attack other than cigarettes: poverty, alcohol, drugs, crime, people using doorways as their own personal urinal or the Guatemalan tree frog. But this is something that they believe they can win. Cigarettes have been linked to numerous diseases on top of cancer, and the healthcare system (in Canada) being as it is, they need to prevent as many bodies taking up valuable hospital beds as possible.
Now I was always one for "smokers rights". I didn't think it was all that fair to shove them out in the cold with no covering when they needed to have a smoke. They used to let them smoke on the patio, but they recently said it can't be covered, and even went so far as to say that patio umbrellas count as a covering. You can't smoke within 9 metres of a doorway, so basically by law, they have to smoke in the middle of the street in an urban environment. Even when I smoked, I WAS happy to see restaurants go smoke free, even though it inconvenienced me. However, when they outlawed the glass-enclosed, seperately ventilated smoking rooms, I wanted to cry foul. When they even outlawed them in the Legions (clubs for war vets), I was upset to hear about that too.
I'm rambling. Anyhow, my point was that the government thinks by hiking taxes, spending millions on anti-smoking campaigns and eliminating smoking anywhere but your own home, they may discourage people from taking up the habit or continuing the habit by making it such a pain in the ass. If they can, it will help millions, so more power to them. There are more causes for them to rally for, but they can take it one cause at a time.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-02-15 20:14:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Not to mention littering... or this, that was posted today, in the news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/ap_on_re_us/kentucky_house_fire
Submitted by Wisher (user info) at 2007-02-15 19:45:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Alcohol has many side effects including altering your perceptions, dulling your senses, hindering coordination, and blocking memory functions.
***
So that's why i always have to check and see if I've rated a post before I rate it. Looks like a green light here.
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2007-02-15 19:01:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Damn, you're so edgy.
Anyway, here's a FACT for you. I've never committed a crime while under the influence of alcohol, so you have no right to take my alcohol away.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-15 18:55:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Relax. Have a smoke. Have a beer, too. I'm buying. I always buy the first round.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-15 18:46:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
FACT: There are NO violent crimes linked to cigarettes.
FACT: There are NO domestic violence claims caused by cigarettes.
---
Um, stores get robbed all the time at gun point for just for cigarettes. People get shot, beaten and killed. That seems fairly violent, don'tcha think?
You also have no idea what the cause of any specific 'domestic violence' is - it could very well be "cuz the bitch wouldn't get me another pack of smokes."
This was a pretty stupid post, all n' all. Moments of insight blinded by intense flashes of bullshit.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-15 16:39:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by littlegirllost (user info) at 2007-02-15 15:48:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Carcinogens may cause cancer by altering cellular metabolism or damaging DNA directly in cells, which interferes with normal biological processes. Aflatoxin B1, which is produced by the fungus Aspergillus flavus growing on stored grains, nuts and peanut butter, is an example of a potent, naturally-occurring microbial carcinogen.
Cooking protein-rich food at high temperatures, for example broiling or barbecuing meats, can lead to the formation of many potent carcinogens that are comparable to those found in cigarette smoke (i.e., benzo[a]pyrene). Pre-cooking meats in a microwave oven for 2-3 minutes before broiling can help minimize the formation of these carcinogens.
Cancer is not always caused by smoking.
FACT: There are NO violent crimes linked to cigarettes.
FACT: There are NO domestic violence claims caused by cigarettes.
FACT: Alcohol causes cancer (Cirrhosis) of the liver.
____________________
The fact that you called cirrhosis a cancer proves to me that everything above it was cut and pasted.
Cirrhosis is exactly opposite of a cancer. Cirrhosis is caused by cell DEATH within the liver tissue causing scar tissue to form, not unchecked cell GROWTH caused by a deletion mutation of specific proto-oncogenes that is typical of most cancers.
Submitted by mitchmarron (user info) at 2007-02-15 16:17:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by littlegirllost (user info) at 2007-02-15 15:48:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
FACT: There are NO violent crimes linked to cigarettes.
FACT: There are NO domestic violence claims caused by cigarettes.
FACT: Alcohol causes cancer (Cirrhosis) of the liver.
FACT: The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that there is convincing evidence that "low to moderate alcohol intake" results in a decreased risk of coronary heart disease. However, the WHO cautions that "other cardiovascular and health risks associated with alcohol do not favour a general recommendation for its use." (Not "beneficial" as stated before, it's not even recommended.)
Let's get off your "health" high horses. I aknowledge the health risks of tobacco. I said that already. And no, like I said, I don't smoke.
Alcohol is far from safe.
What I am saying is that there is PLENTY of evidence to start running ads for the dangers of alcohol. Not that tiny "Drink Responsibly" crap. Full blown ads.
We will never see it. Politicians don't want to hurt their own wallets.
------------------------------------
You show continuous ignorance in your rebuttals.
FACT: There are NO violent crimes linked to alcohol. Once again, alcohol might be a catalyst, but not the CAUSE.
FACT: There are NO domestic violence claims caused by alcohol. Look it up, encyclopedia brittanica guy. The cause would be a jackass who likes to beat up his wife/kids.
FACT: Tobacco causes lung cancer, throat cancer, brain cancer, negatively affects PEOPLE AROUND YOU and is (arguably) 100x more addictive than alcohol.
Now, you still think alcohol is more of a danger than cigarettes? The PROVEN addictive properties of cigarettes alone is why the government is forcing such stringent regulation of it.
And these comments are even funnier:
"What I am saying is that there is PLENTY of evidence to start running ads for the dangers of alcohol. Not that tiny "Drink Responsibly" crap. Full blown ads.
We will never see it. Politicians don't want to hurt their own wallets."
What are politicians supposed to do, start an ad campaign that reads "hey don't drink too much or you'll beat the crap out of your loved ones."
Alcohol is the excuse for the domestic violence, not the reason.
And yea, politicians don't wanna hurt their wallet, cause the tobacco industry has NEVER ever paid off judges, congressmen, and senators.
Keep your little google factoids coming kid, they're pure gold.
Google trumps reality any day in your world, doesn't it.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-02-15 16:11:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i agree, those truth fuckers are annoying as hell - they used to be a lot worse, if you can believe that.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-02-15 16:02:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Truth is, you have to be an adult to legally enjoy either of these activities, and by the time you're an adult you should know the risks of what you're doing. If you smoke, you are going to know it kills you. If you drink your ass off, you know you're going to die sooner rather than later. So what the fuck? Quit trying to act like you know something that everyone else around you doesn't. If you try to claim that you didnt know you'd get lung cancer, you're an asshole and a moron. If you claim that you didn't know too much drinking will kill you, then you deserve to die with the kids who swallow too many marbles.
Im going to have a drink and a smoke. I hope they don't kill me.
Submitted by littlegirllost (user info) at 2007-02-15 15:48:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Carcinogens may cause cancer by altering cellular metabolism or damaging DNA directly in cells, which interferes with normal biological processes. Aflatoxin B1, which is produced by the fungus Aspergillus flavus growing on stored grains, nuts and peanut butter, is an example of a potent, naturally-occurring microbial carcinogen.
Cooking protein-rich food at high temperatures, for example broiling or barbecuing meats, can lead to the formation of many potent carcinogens that are comparable to those found in cigarette smoke (i.e., benzo[a]pyrene). Pre-cooking meats in a microwave oven for 2-3 minutes before broiling can help minimize the formation of these carcinogens.
Cancer is not always caused by smoking.
FACT: There are NO violent crimes linked to cigarettes.
FACT: There are NO domestic violence claims caused by cigarettes.
FACT: Alcohol causes cancer (Cirrhosis) of the liver.
FACT: The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that there is convincing evidence that "low to moderate alcohol intake" results in a decreased risk of coronary heart disease. However, the WHO cautions that "other cardiovascular and health risks associated with alcohol do not favour a general recommendation for its use." (Not "beneficial" as stated before, it's not even recommended.)
Let's get off your "health" high horses. I aknowledge the health risks of tobacco. I said that already. And no, like I said, I don't smoke.
Alcohol is far from safe.
What I am saying is that there is PLENTY of evidence to start running ads for the dangers of alcohol. Not that tiny "Drink Responsibly" crap. Full blown ads.
We will never see it. Politicians don't want to hurt their own wallets.
Submitted by mitchmarron (user info) at 2007-02-15 15:34:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by littlegirllost (user info) at 2007-02-15 14:51:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanx mitch, but you are overlooking my main point.
Alcohol = the cause of a whole lot of crime, death, and violence.
Cigarettes = not so much.
So, sure you smell good. Especially while drunkenly beating your children.
----------------------------------------------------------
Gross oversimplification... at best.
Alcohol is NOT the cause of a whole lot of crime, death, and violence.
The ABUSE of alcohol is, at best, a catalyst to the above.
If you're an ass, alcohol might make you into more of an ass, and even then... not always.
Smoking is THE direct cause of a whole lot of death, AND higher taxes, AND raises my insurance premiums.
But hey, reality's not for everyone.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-15 15:22:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
True, but the inability to stop after a reasonable amount of alcohol is indicative of a predisposed behavior.
Most people who drink and drive dont just do it once.
Submitted by littlegirllost (user info) at 2007-02-15 15:03:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not all are due to it's addiction, bob.
Moreso, to the abuse of it. You don't need to be an alcoholic to drunk drive and kill somebody.
You just need to drunk drive once.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-15 14:58:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by littlegirllost (user info) at 2007-02-15 14:51:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanx mitch, but you are overlooking my main point.
Alcohol = the cause of a whole lot of crime, death, and violence.
Cigarettes = not so much.
__________________
Alcohol = not even twice as addictive as food. All crime, violence and death associated with it are due to this addiction.
Cigarettes = one of the most addictive drugs. Also the cause of much death.
Submitted by littlegirllost (user info) at 2007-02-15 14:51:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanx mitch, but you are overlooking my main point.
Alcohol = the cause of a whole lot of crime, death, and violence.
Cigarettes = not so much.
So, sure you smell good. Especially while drunkenly beating your children.
Submitted by mitchmarron (user info) at 2007-02-15 14:45:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yawn.
Drinking (in moderation) has been PROVEN (with study after study) to be GOOD for you.
Also, as was stated many times, drinking does not directly effect people around you.
Smoking (even in moderation) has been PROVEN to not have any positive effects for you, while it cand and DOES have noxious effects on all those around you.
Both can be addictive, but Beer/Liquor manufacturers have never tried to 'hide' or increase whatever chemical was addictive, AS WELL AS increase that chemical to make their product even more addictive. RJ Reynolds anyone?
Anyway, not sure what the point of you post was, but there are glaring differences between drinking and smoking, which you've conveniently overlooked to somehow villify (the government? "liberals"- whatever that means? drinkers?... etc)
They've just (couple months ago) instituted a ban on smoking in EVERY public place in Washington DC.
I for one have found myself going out to bars more... I come home without a headache or clothes that reek of someone's gheyass Virginia Slims.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-15 14:30:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Acarnis hit the nail on the head with what I was trying to talk about.
Submitted by Coleslaw_Murphy (user info) at 2007-02-15 14:14:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It was just easy for the "gov't knows better than you" crowd to attack smoking in general, and get it banned through local ballot initiatives, because after long last the cigarette companies stopped lying about the addictive and negative health aspects of their product. Oh, and that they were marketing to kids. But they paid for that with money (and a little bit of their souls).
But the over-reaction is what causes the contradictions that you're talking about. That and normal, everyday people bought into it because they don't like it when "their clothes smell like smoke". Use a dryer sheet for 10 minutes, for god's sake.
Submitted by zxcvvcxz (user info) at 2007-02-15 13:55:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Everyone's getting cancer anyway. If you want to localize yours (to the lungs) and give the doctors a head's up, I say you're actually ahead of the game. If you don't smoke, you'll get cancer elsewhere and there will be messy and time consuming tests to be done. Besides, it's not like smoking takes away years when you're young and vital. Smoking may cause cancer, but cancer cures smoking... as well as senility and all kinds of other awful things that happen when you get old.
Those "truth" commercials are the "reefer madness" of our day. You *might* be inhaling an assload of arsenic or turpentine or hemlock or whatever they're saying, but you're also inhaling pure happiness and joy. They play those silly commercials amidst ads for beer and Girls Gone Wild and "male enhancement" and artery-clogging fast food, all of which are probably bigger banes to our society today. Jonny is piss drunk beating his kids after one two many Budweisers. Jenny is flopping her junk all over the place on TV. Meanwhile Jimmy is 800 pounds from stuffing his face with burgers and pills to make his cock bigger so that maybe he'd have a chance with Jenny. Seems to me if Lil' Timmy wants to smoke a pack or two a day, he's not doing nearly as much harm.
Submitted by odin (user info) at 2007-02-15 13:39:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2007-02-15 12:59:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by simple_catalyst (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:11:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll give it a shot. Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. So I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never had a problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Send in the marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number was called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some guy from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile my buddy from Southie realizes the only reason he was over there was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish to scare up oil prices so they could turn a quick buck. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And naturally they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the job interviews, which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what do I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. Why not just shoot my buddy, take his job and give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president. "
__________________________
What is 'Good Will Hunting?'
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-02-15 12:45:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
MONGO?
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2007-02-15 12:43:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
The problem with this is that smoking is no longer socially acceptable the way it used to be. If governments tried to ban alcohol (particularly alcohol) there would be an upcry (cf. prohibition). Drinking is too socially acceptable and it keeps the populace happy.
Yes, it has negative side effects, but no, it doesn't have a negative reputation (well, not like smoking, anyway), and that's why governments won't stand up to it.
Or something like that.
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-02-15 12:39:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-02-15 12:08:06 (#)
Ranking: -2
Horses kill people.
_______________
I once killed a man by punching his horse in the face.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-02-15 12:08:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Retarded..Simply Retarded.
I never see so much smoke as when I am working at the bar. People smoke 10x the amount of cigarettes they normally do when they are drunk. Drinking and smoking go together so well. Why do you think there are cigarette machines in 90% of bars (except new york or california...at least) because drinking and smoking go together so well.
While you're at it, why don't you attack people who drive cars. Lots of fatalities happen every year to sober drivers who are just bad at driving.
What about the fast food industry.... killing us slowly with their saturated fat and calories.
Electircity can kill people. Glass can kill people. Horses kill people. A newspaper, stuffed down the throat of somebody can kill someone.
Fuck you.
Submitted by Fungah (user info) at 2007-02-15 12:06:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-02-15 12:05:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
This was Grade-A reasoning until these bad assumptions:
1. "Smoking is dangerous, I know, but smokers do so out of their own free will. Then they have all be corralled out into the cold like so many zoo displays simply because somebody told you it is a dangerous, filthy, disgusting habit."
2. "How can something called Happy Hour be bad?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. First of all, the REAL reason smoking is so hazardous is BECAUSE smokers LOSE their free will to it. Nicotine is MUCH more addictive than alcohol. If you, me, or the average individual just smoked one cigarete once a week in privacy; no one would develop any long-term effects. I can do that with alcohol, but could we with cigarettes? But that doesn't happen; people get addicted to cigarettes and start smoking a pack each day. This constant threat to the lungs is what leads to the future problems. The number of addicts/users for smoking far greater than the addicts/users for alcohol.
You don't see people taking alcohol breaks during work, much less in the cold. The fact that people are so addicted to their nicotine cravings that they would walk out in the cold for it, is TESTAMENT of its addictive nature.
The effects of this addiction alone means higher profit for the tobacco companies. Hear you me-- I am FOR capitalism and FOR personal responsbility--but when corporations start marketing products that MAKE YOU KEEP BUYING against your own will--- then we have a problem. I could get into the philosophy, neuroscience, and economic free markets of the matter--but I'll leave that to bob down there.
It leads, however, to your 3rd INCORRECT assumption. There may be 274 alcohol-related deaths per day in the country, but you're incorrect to assign causality to alcohol for all of them. For a large percentage of the deaths, alcohol just happens to be the confounding variable or the last drug said screwup was using before they died.
2. As for your other assumption... "Happy Hour" is not any sort of marketing to teens. If you think the average teen is going to fall for Happy Hour, you need to stop posting.
Submitted by TechnoRatty (user info) at 2007-02-15 12:03:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 'cos Bob is sanctimonious.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-15 12:00:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Happy hours are against the law here in Nazichusetts
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:57:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If it wasn't for booze, a hell of a lot of people would have problems as a result of me.
I consider alcohol consumption a nice alternative.
Submitted by TechnoRatty (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:49:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
in Scotland, if you are caught smoking in a public place you are beaten severely around the head with a haggis, and forced to eat deep fried pizza and mars bars.
God, I love Scotland!!
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:44:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
and with that im done...too damn tired to keep going.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:43:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:36:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:13:13 (#)
Ranking: 1
All things in moderation, including moderation.
--------------------------------------
Precisely. It's a matter of degrees. It's PROVEN both have negative effects on the body (cigarettes moreso) - and alcohol can be linked to numerous occurances of both violence and death.
Alcohol happens to be more socially acceptable is all.
It's like comparing smoking cigarettes to smoking marijuana. It's a redundant debate.
________
See, the problem with that is that it is easy for MOST to use alcohol moderately. But only a small minority of cigarette users are "moderate" with cigarettes because everyone who continues to use them are addicted.
Marijuana has a 12% addiction rate...Cigarettes have been as high as the mid 70s%. Although one joint is roughly equivalent to 10-16 cigarettes in carcinogen levels, if youre not addicted to it, that wont happen frequently. Although I'm sure its happened, I havent heard of someone getting lung cancer from the occasional joint in life.
I agree in principle, but in reality its not that easy.
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:37:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Besides - there's greater "truths" to seek than those discussed herein.
Submitted by marginwalker (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:36:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:13:13 (#)
Ranking: 1
All things in moderation, including moderation.
--------------------------------------
Precisely. It's a matter of degrees. It's PROVEN both have negative effects on the body (cigarettes moreso) - and alcohol can be linked to numerous occurances of both violence and death.
Alcohol happens to be more socially acceptable is all.
It's like comparing smoking cigarettes to smoking marijuana. It's a redundant debate.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:36:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DirtyHarry (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:27:44 (#)
Ranking: 1
I can't believe there are people out there that think catching a wiff of second hand smoke is so harmful that smoking in public places should be outlawed. "My smoke was breathed in by the lungs of an innocent bystander!" What a load of crap.
____________
Whatever you think. Breathing in a single puff of cigarette smoke constricts the alveoli and the effect in the amount of O2 able to circulate in the bloodstream is immediate. Although this is only temporary if it happens infrequently, the effects add up if youre a waitress in a restaurant or work somewhere else that smoking is common. It is up to the responsibility of the smoker to make sure their smoke doesn't harm others, not visa versa.
The innocent bystanders shouldnt have to change their life to allow for that one smoker to be able to smoke in the office/at the restaurant/etc.
Submitted by orph (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:29:40 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
This is rather asinine, and makes me want both a smoke and a drink.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:28:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by littlegirllost (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:10:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
Okay, bob, but what about the crime?
Drunk driving is dangerous and illegal. Yet, when you try to lower the legal BAC, the lobbyist fight it. Can't make money if it's lower, right?
Alcohol is okay because it's an addiction? So are cigarettes. But cigarettes don't help you beat your wife an dkids, run from the cops, and lose your job.
If America wants to attack evils, like I stated, let's get fucking serious about it.
________________
I'd be all for it!
Of course the lobbyists fight it...just like the cigarette lobbyists fight the tax on cigarettes and the firearm lobbyists fight gun registration.
The lobbying system is horrible, but with the way politics are now...its something the politicians need. its quite sad.
Right, cigarettes are an addiction. The difference is in the biochemical makeup in the two. Alcohol will effect those who are predisposed to addiction. The same person has a high chance of getting addicted to alcohol, gambling, sex, etc. An addictive personality causes the person to be addicted to MANY THINGS. However, nicotine is addictive. Period. No matter who were are, the nicotine molecules will surround the GABA receptors in or Vental Tegmental Area and make us addicted to cigarettes. There is a HUGE difference between these two statements.
Submitted by DirtyHarry (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:27:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I can't believe there are people out there that think catching a wiff of second hand smoke is so harmful that smoking in public places should be outlawed. "My smoke was breathed in by the lungs of an innocent bystander!" What a load of crap.
Submitted by TechnoRatty (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:27:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I smoke....my bad
Submitted by Alcoholocaust (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:26:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
pretty essayish... but +2 for blackouts
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:24:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:10:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
" Okay, the "we'll protect you whether you want us to or not" mentality is more or less aimed at children, but I'm just pissed they picked one evil over any others. "
Liberal mentality at its best. Stupid fuck liberals would have you believe it's conservatives that want to force impose their morals on you. Not so. Conservatives may be a bunch of stupid god freaks but at least the don't do shit like this.
____________________________
"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship."
-Gary North
"The Christian community has a golden opportunity to train an army of dedicated teachers who can invade the public school classrooms and use them to influence the nation for Christ."
-James Kennedy
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."
-Jerry Falwell
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
-Randall Terry
Oh yea, the religious conservative is much better.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:23:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Been done already....many.....many.....many...................many times and better.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:17:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I've often thought the same thing
Submitted by littlegirllost (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:14:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Rhetorical question, catalyst, just to get my point across.
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:13:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by littlegirllost (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:10:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
Okay, bob, but what about the crime?
Drunk driving is dangerous and illegal. Yet, when you try to lower the legal BAC, the lobbyist fight it. Can't make money if it's lower, right?
Alcohol is okay because it's an addiction? So are cigarettes. But cigarettes don't help you beat your wife an dkids, run from the cops, and lose your job.
If America wants to attack evils, like I stated, let's get fucking serious about it.
---------
I'll take that as a "yes".
Submitted by littlegirllost (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:13:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by simple_catalyst (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:11:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Finally, can you honestly say the smoke from your cigarettes have never reached the lungs of innocent bystanders? If not, well then you have directly harmed others within this society and therefore, that action cannot be tolerated.
----------
Can you say that your drinking has never, not once, negatively affected another? If not, well then you have directly harmed others within this society and therefore, that action cannot be tolerated.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:13:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
All things in moderation, including moderation.
Laziness, lack of maturity, and failure to accept personal responsibility are the forces behind a lot of the symptoms you describe. Alcohol may be dew on the grassy slope, but the criminal took the step over the edge by choice.
As an aside: why do alcoholic beverege makers all promote 'responsible use' of their products while tobacco product makes do not?
Submitted by simple_catalyst (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:11:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Finally, can you honestly say the smoke from your cigarettes have never reached the lungs of innocent bystanders? If not, well then you have directly harmed others within this society and therefore, that action cannot be tolerated.
"Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll give it a shot. Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. So I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never had a problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Send in the marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number was called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some guy from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile my buddy from Southie realizes the only reason he was over there was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish to scare up oil prices so they could turn a quick buck. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And naturally they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the job interviews, which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what do I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. Why not just shoot my buddy, take his job and give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president. "
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:10:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
" Okay, the "we'll protect you whether you want us to or not" mentality is more or less aimed at children, but I'm just pissed they picked one evil over any others. "
Liberal mentality at its best. Stupid fuck liberals would have you believe it's conservatives that want to force impose their morals on you. Not so. Conservatives may be a bunch of stupid god freaks but at least the don't do shit like this.
Submitted by littlegirllost (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:10:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Okay, bob, but what about the crime?
Drunk driving is dangerous and illegal. Yet, when you try to lower the legal BAC, the lobbyist fight it. Can't make money if it's lower, right?
Alcohol is okay because it's an addiction? So are cigarettes. But cigarettes don't help you beat your wife an dkids, run from the cops, and lose your job.
If America wants to attack evils, like I stated, let's get fucking serious about it.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:07:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck spelling and grammar, ive been up for 30 hours straight.
i still rule.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-15 11:06:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
so lets see, where to begin
a. Smoking violates the Harm Principle that defines the extent at which law should cover in a democracy. Smoking physically harms the individual, yes, but it also harms anyone afilliated with that person (wife/husband, children, other family) of that person when the effects of smoking kicks on. When you are emphysema, who do you think will be spending countless hours tending for you? Most likely, unless youre rich, youre family members. Think of the burden you'll be to them, not to mention all the emotional damage you'll cause to everyone you know when you die. Finally, can you honestly say the smoke from your cigarettes have never reached the lungs of innocent bystanders? If not, well then you have directly harmed others within this society and therefore, that action cannot be tolerated.
b. I agree that alcohol is also a drug. The problems you mention with alochol, for the most part, are associated with ADDICTION! WHICH IS A DISEASE! You cannot ban something just because you can get addicted to it. If so, then gambling, fatty foods and sex should also be banned from the possible negative side effects associated with an addiction to those things too. I agree with curbing drinking and driving, who doesn't? It is one of the worse things that you can do. That is why it is illegal.
c. Your argument that alcohol interacts with other drugs is retarded. ALL DRUGS interact with some other drug in a negative manner. When you go to the hospital, ask the physician there for a drug that doesnt interact with other drugs and I guarantee that they will just turn you around and kick you out of the ER from being so retarded.
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2007-02-15 10:57:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Got your comebacks ready?