11 Nov 10
Originally posted by no1marauderHere's another line you need to stop relying on, it dosen't matter how much you tax people to pay for their health care all treatable diseases will not be cured.
Letting people die of causes that are treatable is not in our nature.
Politely, you're exagerating, more accurately, you're lying.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by TerrierJackLike some many control freaks you get the concept of 'rights' ass backwards.
Nothing in your post makes sense. Seriously? Have you ever been a smoker? The nicotine monkey can gaze at pictures all day and all night and still keep puffing. If you trust anyone to quit any addictive substance then you are delusional.
The pictures are obviously meant to discourage children from starting to smoke. If it works for one kid out of a mi ...[text shortened]... no one's rights and merely provides information to those who need it then WTF is wrong with it?
You are very welcome to provide 'information', but it is an entirely different situation when someone makes you provide information, and not your information, but prescribed information.
Do you see the difference?
This is a freedom of expression issue, a concept that was once held in high regard in the US.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by TerrierJackThe idea is mainly to minimize the likelihood that people who currently do not smoke (especially children) will never start. If it also persuades a few existing smokers to try harder to quit, so much the better.
Because you would understand that the pictures (even if they were twice as horrible as the ones they showed me in driver's ed) would have ZERO impact on a smoker. People that smoke for 20 years know that it is harming them! They get up every morning and light up a Chesterfield and cough their lungs out after that first draw. It is not a secret! Nicoti ...[text shortened]... o use a construction crane to extract people's heads from their "underground" hiding places.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by WajomaSmoke harms me. Especially when people use their right inside or near the entrance/window.
Like some many control freaks you get the concept of 'rights' ass backwards.
You are very welcome to provide 'information', but it is an entirely different situation when someone makes you provide information, and not your information, but prescribed information.
Do you see the difference?
This is a freedom of expression issue, a concept that was once held in high regard in the US.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by ThomasterNo problem, that is an entirely different matter, if someone is blowing smoke in a window and that window belongs to you, yes you have a right to defend, dosen't mean you have a right to deface their product.
Smoke harms me. Especially when people use their right inside or near the entrance/window.
Now there's an idea Thomaster, you can buy the cigarettes, put a warning on them, then sell them again.
You're onto it.
12 Nov 10
Originally posted by WajomaWelcome to Australia
No problem, that is an entirely different matter, if someone is blowing smoke in a window and that window belongs to you, yes you have a right to defend, dosen't mean you have a right to deface their product.
Now there's an idea Thomaster, you can buy the cigarettes, put a warning on them, then sell them again.
You're onto it.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28926
12 Nov 10
Originally posted by quackquackSo, you've never smoked.
It is inconceivable that pictures would have zero impact.
(1) The idea that everyone who is dumb enough to smoke has been sufficiently educated on the dangers is probably untrue. Furthermore, the idea that no one would change their opinion from a visual image instead of a text image is probably also untrue. Cigarette companies spend millions creatin ...[text shortened]... rous addictive habit. The government has an interest in discouraging new people from smoking.
12 Nov 10
Originally posted by EladarSo how do you explain that countries with relatively high taxes (e.g. Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden) also have relatively high employment rates? Do you have any empirical evidence that would support your assertion?
The higher the taxes the fewer the jobs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_employment_rate
14 Nov 10
Originally posted by Wajomathey allow blokes to call them pet and or luv. its a tone and confidence thing. pull up short and it gives them the creeps for sure.
Yeah cheers, I like the way the Aussie women call you 'doll' or 'hun' or 'luv' things like that, complete strangers, don't you try it though.
15 Nov 10
The tax revenue generated at the state and federal levels by smokers is necessary for the continued operation of the government. Look at the numbers. Also look and see that the majority of US smokers live below the poverty level. Smoking is highly addictive and adding warnings does little to change the behavior of most smokers. I have been a smoker for almost 43 years and keep trying to quit and will quit one day. I guess that growing my own tobacco is an option I might examine,lol.