Attention All Smokers

[BENESSE]

So, why ain't they suing the fast food companies?

Because people have a choice--they don't have to eat there. I don't.
I also chose not to smoke, do drugs, own a car, etc., etc.
There are consequences for every choice one makes in life--good and bad.

[rwc1969]

and the welfare folks chose to smoke, and the gov't chose to give them free medical and we all chose to reap the rewards of high taxes on cigarettes, and on and on.

So, if the smokes are now firesafe can we sue the gov't if they don't go out and burn our house down?

[COWBOYSURVIVAL]

I can honestly say PhillupMorrisUSA will see no more money from my home! I can't contact them to say so though......If anyone has a link that will allow me to voice my gripe directly to PhillupMorrisUSA please let me know~!

[canid]

i wouldn't bother. you'd be voicing your gripe to no more than a person paid to do nothing but read gripes, or worse, a mail bot to reply with a form letter.

[COWBOYSURVIVAL]

We did a test in a controlled environment.....Lit one FSC and one "rev. -".
I think the hypothesis is not normal....

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

[Rick]

Cough! Sputter! Now look. You've gotten nicotine on my monitor. Don't do that anymore!!

[BENESSE]

Maybe this is beside the point but...
how 'bout just QUITTING?
Wouldn't that solve multiple problems?

[canid]

if one where inclined to quit, yes.

not everybody actually wants to be a non-smoker.

[BENESSE]

if one where inclined to quit, yes.

not everybody actually wants to be a non-smoker.

OK, now substitute any number of words for "quit" and "non-smoker" and think about it...

If one were inclined to "spend less than they make"...
If one were inclined to "eliminate their debt"...
If one were inclined to "be charitable"...
If one were inclined to "make less money"...
etc., etc....

If one makes excuses for themselves surely they can understand others who do.

[canid]

think about what? substituting unrelated concepts or situations as if they bore on the viability of smoking tobacco as a personal choice? now there's a sound agrument.

if you don't choose to smoke tobacco, don't. nobody's asking you to.

[BENESSE]

think about what? substituting unrelated concepts or situations as if they bore on the viability of smoking tobacco as a personal choice? now there's a sound agrument.

if you don't choose to smoke tobacco, don't. nobody's asking you to.

All I was trying to do is dimensionalize your logic where one personal choice like smoking should not condemn another personal choice like buying stuff one can't afford.
And yet we all do it all the time--make excuses for our choices and blame others for theirs.

[canid]

It's not dimensionalizing, or changing perspective of my logical process to argue from one special case to another.

I absolutely share your view that one should consider the validity of their own decision making before judging those of others, but I make a point not to condemn anybody at all.

This is not to say i do not get angry or frustrated. As far as I'm concerned, taking receipt of goods or services you can't pay for is a form of theft.

You won't see at peace with the way I've gone about everything in my life either. I've made poor choices, some knowingly and some when i felt no better choice.

I expect, when I am able to fairly and honestly judge my position on a matter, that i keep improving the way i do things, and it seems fair to expect the same dedication in others; each as in individual. That's what it boils down to for me. i expect no more from each of us than a concerted effort to be good and true.

I reserve the same right many of the rest of you do, to jump up and down, pull my hair from time to time and throw a good old fashioned temper tantrum.

[edr730]

I've noticed that smokers get sick, are hospitalized and die. I noticed the same thing with non smokers....life is terminal. The difference between the two are that the smoker collects less social security and pays a large cigarette tax though out his life. So, there has always been considerable savings and profits from cigarettes and the profits and savings should increase with the new fire retardant slipped into the tobacco.

[canid]

When I want to be a smart-axe, I've been known to argue against the effect of motorcycle helmets on health care cost. It goes about like this:

a rider who dies on impact [4x as likely in an accident causing significant injury if not wearing a helmet] accrues less hospital/medical bills. Therefore 3/4 of the public health burden of motorcycles could be cut by 3/4 if helmets where outlawed.

This is clearly a poor argument, but it's fun to throw up from time to time. In truth, a support helmet wearing, if not helmet law.

[pocomoonskyeyes]

Mine actually. I don't care to pay taxes because some welfare goof contracted lung cancer from smoking. We can say it's their choice but when I have to pick up the tab through taxes I draw the line.

That was the whole basis for states suing the tobacco companies.

You are correct, sir!
I was just being facetious. Based on your reasoning (which I share, btw) let's take the whole idea a step further and start taxing obesity every laborious step of the way. I don't want to pay for that fallout either.

I think that your reasoning is slightly flawed, As smokers actually pay as much in taxes on Tobacco alone as you do on everything you pay taxes on. After the last tax increase, the price on tobacco rose more than 110% What I paid for tobacco (which was ALREADY being taxed, Tax included) was $10.26 For the same thing I now pay $24+ change. Now take into consideration that along economic lines that those with less income are the majority of smokers. You Pay something like say 6% tax. They pay the SAME 6% plus @ 125% tax on tobacco. I think you would quickly change your tune if they imposed a similar tax on Twinkies PLUS added yet another DEADLY chemical additive to them. Or Flour or Sugar or choose any product you normally ingest. THAT is what CS is getting at. "You Will pay more to insure we kill you faster!!"

Would you say this was fair if they added one part/trillion of arsenic to Flour? I seriously doubt it. ALL in name of your Supposed safety? Stop and think about just how many smokers there are and what small percentage actually cause these fires. 1% or probably less? Using this same logic with obesity,let's add arsenic or cyanide to flour or sugar since so many are dieing from obesity. That way we will kill more quicker with less impact on our health system. All I can say is BULL shirt! That kind of logic is illogical. It doesn't decrease health costs it increases it!! So you are actually CONDONING your costs to be increased!! Sure makes sense to me......

[Ole WV Coot]

I smoked, chewed and drank enough to make up for a dozen men that didn't. I finally quit about 20yrs ago. I didn't want to, but the Doc said my wife had to quit smoking and it would be really tough on her if I didn't. That was my motivation. Drinking, I was a semi drunk, not an alcoholic because I didn't go to meetings. That was a personal decision to quit. I know smoking isn't healthy or drinking. I know I help pay for health problems it causes. One thing I do know is this country is going down the chute when the government which sure ain't us anymore can tell a man how to live. I'm sure a lot of folks put their a$$ on the line not to come home and be told how to live. Reminds me of prohibition. My Grandpa said he and all the drinkers were too busy fighting WWI and the dummies pushed their morals on them. It's happening again, agree or not.

[2dumb2kwit]

When I want to be a smart-axe, I've been known to argue against the effect of motorcycle helmets on health care cost. It goes about like this:

a rider who dies on impact [4x as likely in an accident causing significant injury if not wearing a helmet] accrues less hospital/medical bills. Therefore 3/4 of the public health burden of motorcycles could be cut by 3/4 if helmets where outlawed.

This is clearly a poor argument, but it's fun to throw up from time to time. In truth, a support helmet wearing, if not helmet law.

LOL...I like it! I have argued that increased health care leads to additional global warming. Think about it.

[glockcop]

Ah yes. Makes me laugh that we must be so helpless that we need the Governement to keep us safe from ourselves. Same with helmets and seatbelts. So we get told what to buy and what we must use but the bank big wigs can spend millions without the Governement regulating them. HA HA HA ain't it great?

You you hit the nail on the head. Mr. "Change" and his "F"ing liberal cronies. Oh, I forgot "F" Congress women "Fancy Nancy" too! I don't wear a seat belt and I won't wear a helmet when riding my street rod. I'll take the ticket over the loss of my freedom. What's next...my rum burns too long? What the "F" is happening to our country. I thought Momma's job was to protect us, not Big Brother. I guess they need to keep the guys alive that pay the bills for this country. The "hand out takers" and "welfare sh*t bags" ain't gonna do it. If I start to grow my own tobacco the Fed's will call my property a "compound" and illegally raid my home with the probable death of everyone there shortly to follow at their hand. "F"ing Mexico is starting to look good at this point!!!! Sorry to the Mods for "almost" naming politicians but this is ridiculous. I don't even smoke any more and I'm po'd. God Bless/help us all.

[glockcop]

Using that same logic, dumb people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.
Nor should non-productive people.

OOOHHH BOY! I'm voting for this guy for Pres. Who's with me!!!!! I'm gonna buy you a big fat cigar and a beer for that one. Do you mind if I work the rose snippers ? Stay safe, Brother.

[glockcop]

Oh ya. Al "Groan" and his ignorant, unscientific nonsense too. What an absolute dumb a$$. I think his expulsion of co2 should be done away with asap for the preservation of our reality.