IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags banned , cigarettes

Reply
Old 7th December 2003, 03:34 PM   #81
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,410
Quote:
Originally posted by BTox


Chocolate is a food, it has nutritional value. And it is not killing anyone.
Eating chocolate and similar fatty foods leads to obesity, which causes serious health problems, why donít you want to ban such things? What nutritional value does chocolate offer that canít be obtained through a lower fat source?

Why is it unamerican to ban a dangerous drug that kills 400,000 of our citizens per year?

Because you are taking away a person's right to decide how to live his or her life. That goes against the very principal America is built upon, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Your appeal to emotion is transparent. The amount of people that cigarettes "kill" is irrelevant, those people made the choice to smoke.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 03:51 PM   #82
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,704
Then let's make ALL dangerous drugs and products freely available to everyone, Tony; make them freely available from drug stores. Then people can choose whether to injure and kill themselves and their unsuspecting children, etc, etc.

Ahem.

Why do you think these things were controlled in the first place? Simply because some "leftie" wanted to be "unAmerican" and foist their Commie influences on the rest of the God-fearing US population? C'mon, wake up! They were banned because they were DANGEROUS! And people were hurting themselves.

Honestly...some people need a brain-implant.
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 03:56 PM   #83
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,410
Quote:
Originally posted by Zep

Why do you think these things were controlled in the first place?
Those things were controlled because some self-righteous authoritarian decided it was ok to force other people how to live.

Im sorry you have such a hateful and negative view of personal freedom, but that doesnt give you the right to force your morality on me. People like you are no different than the christians who want to make abortion and gayness illegal.

Quote:
They were banned because they were DANGEROUS! And people were hurting themselves.
Its not the American government's job to protect us from ourselves. America is a society of free citizens, not a paternalistic society of enslaved subjects like Australia.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 04:00 PM   #84
BTox
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,586
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony


Eating chocolate and similar fatty foods leads to obesity, which causes serious health problems, why donít you want to ban such things? What nutritional value does chocolate offer that canít be obtained through a lower fat source?
You and others don't seem to be grasping a simple concept here. Everything else you try to compare to cigarettes as something else to be banned have positive attributes. Chocolate provides calories, and causes no health problems in moderation. In fact, chocolate is rich in antioxidants, which are beneficial. There are no such benefits to cigarettes, and are in fact harmful at any usage level. I can think of no other product like it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tony

Because you are taking away a person's right to decide how to live his or her life. That goes against the very principal America is built upon, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Ridiculous. We have laws banning illegal drugs. Do you think that is also unAmerican? Do you advocate decriminalization of all currently illegal drugs?

Quote:
Originally posted by Tony

Your appeal to emotion is transparent. The amount of people that cigarettes "kill" is irrelevant, those people made the choice to smoke.
No, it's an appeal to science, and sanity.
__________________
"Your ignorance makes me ill... "
BTox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 04:12 PM   #85
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,410
Quote:
Originally posted by BTox


You and others don't seem to be grasping a simple concept here. Everything else you try to compare to cigarettes as something else to be banned have positive attributes. Chocolate provides calories, and causes no health problems in moderation. In fact, chocolate is rich in antioxidants, which are beneficial. There are no such benefits to cigarettes, and are in fact harmful at any usage level. I can think of no other product like it.
You didnít answer my question: Does chocolate offer any benefits that canít be obtained through a less-fatty source? If not, then chocolate should be banned because any benefit one might get from eating chocolate can be obtained from a less "dangerous" and fatty food.

And you're ignoring the fact that smoking offers benefits to everyone who finds enjoyment in it.

Quote:
We have laws banning illegal drugs. Do you think that is also unAmerican? Do you advocate decriminalization of all currently illegal drugs?
Yes and yes.

Quote:
No, it's an appeal to science, and sanity.
And so the demagoguery begins. I guess anyone who smokes is now considered "insane"?
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 07:23 PM   #86
EdipisReks
Custom Title
 
EdipisReks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The 'Nati
Posts: 1,966
Btox, why don't you move to another country? you obviously don't agree with the principles one you live in.
__________________
"Candy to rot your teeth. Bible to rot your brain."
--EvilDave (7-24-2003)

"I read the Book Of Mormon once. Wasn't it about Uma Thurman, um, thrumming a Theremin?"
--epepke (9-22-2004)
EdipisReks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 07:28 PM   #87
EdipisReks
Custom Title
 
EdipisReks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The 'Nati
Posts: 1,966
Quote:
Originally posted by BTox


You and others don't seem to be grasping a simple concept here. Everything else you try to compare to cigarettes as something else to be banned have positive attributes. Chocolate provides calories, and causes no health problems in moderation. In fact, chocolate is rich in antioxidants, which are beneficial. There are no such benefits to cigarettes, and are in fact harmful at any usage level. I can think of no other product like it.


just food for thought, fascist, nicotine has been shown to increase memory in humans. there goes your "no health physical benefits". even though cigarettes are very deadly in the long term, they are also enjoyable to people who enjoy them. enjoyment of something is a large benefit.

Ridiculous. We have laws banning illegal drugs. Do you think that is also unAmerican? Do you advocate decriminalization of all currently illegal drugs?

of course banning drugs is unAmerican. all drugs should be decriminalized, with the caveat that penalties for committing crimes while under influence should be stiff. take LSD if you want, but if you drive while under the influence of it (for instance), you should go to prison for a long time if you kill someone.


No, it's an appeal to science, and sanity.
i think your insanse. and a fascist. and a moral criminal.
__________________
"Candy to rot your teeth. Bible to rot your brain."
--EvilDave (7-24-2003)

"I read the Book Of Mormon once. Wasn't it about Uma Thurman, um, thrumming a Theremin?"
--epepke (9-22-2004)
EdipisReks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 07:39 PM   #88
Mona
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally posted by BTox


Try reading my previous responses in this thread. The answer should be obvious.
Assume I am dim-witted (have fun with that, if you like) and please answer my inquiry, to wit: "What principle is it that allows you to endorse that your neighbors may not put nicotine cigarettes into their bodies, but which would not also be a principle that would encompass banning alcohol, extra-marital sex, and fattening food?" A Big Mac is not necessary for anyone, and neither is a one night stand. Both can lead to disease and bad health.

You remind me of a debate I had with a fundie who set forth why adultery and fornication should be illegal: he said he had to pay for the dieases and babies that result when people engage in such activities, ergo, they should be illegal. Your reasoning is closely aligned with his.

[Edited for stupid typos]
__________________
--Mona--
Mona is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 07:52 PM   #89
Mona
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally posted by BTox


Chocolate is a food, it has nutritional value. And it is not killing anyone.

Did Jesus tell you that as long as there is a **remote** possibility that a pleasurable activity also has a practical function, then it is redeemed? (Uh-huh, chocolate is so very nutritional, doncha know.) Yeah, I was raised by Catholics like you: sex is only ok because it might lead to babies. But sex just for pleasure? No way. Burn 'em at the stake if they think that...same with all those smokers who deemthat they, rather than me or the state, should be able to make their own decisions for pleasure.

You and the Vatican need to get off my body.
__________________
--Mona--
Mona is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 07:58 PM   #90
Mona
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally posted by Zep

Why do you think these things were controlled in the first place?
I am able to answer that, if you will specify which "things" you mean. The answer will not support your notion that 51% are morally positioned to tell 49% what they may and may not do with their own bodies, for their own good, of course. Thanks Daddy.
__________________
--Mona--
Mona is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 08:27 PM   #91
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,704
Quote:
Originally posted by Mona
I am able to answer that, if you will specify which "things" you mean. The answer will not support your notion that 51% are morally positioned to tell 49% what they may and may not do with their own bodies, for their own good, of course. Thanks Daddy.
Some simple examples: Heroin, cocaine, marijuana, absynthe, trichlorethane. All these were quite legally used in uncontrolled circumstances for many years but they are now not legally available, or they are highly controlled substances. And they were made illegal/controlled by a lot fewer than 51% of the population.

Do you propose that they should now be made readily available in corner stores simply on the basis that they weren't given the universal thumbs-down?
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 08:51 PM   #92
BTox
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,586
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony


You didnít answer my question: Does chocolate offer any benefits that canít be obtained through a less-fatty source? If not, then chocolate should be banned because any benefit one might get from eating chocolate can be obtained from a less "dangerous" and fatty food.
Silly and nonsensical argument. By this logic, all foods should be banned because any can cause obesity. Maybe you don't realize this, but one can eat nothing but "healthy" food, but simply eat too much, and be obese.


Quote:
Originally posted by Tony

Yes and yes.
All drugs should be legal? OK. But not in my country. I have kids.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tony

And so the demagoguery begins. I guess anyone who smokes is now considered "insane"?
No, just incredibly stupid.
__________________
"Your ignorance makes me ill... "
BTox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 08:52 PM   #93
BTox
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,586
Quote:
Originally posted by EdipisReks
i think your insanse. and a fascist. and a moral criminal.
See what smoking does to the brain? Or is it the absinthe...
__________________
"Your ignorance makes me ill... "
BTox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 08:57 PM   #94
BTox
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,586
Quote:
Originally posted by Mona


to wit: "What principle is it that allows you to endorse that your neighbors may not put nicotine cigarettes into their bodies, but which would not also be a principle that would encompass banning alcohol, extra-marital sex, and fattening food?" A Big Mac is not necessary for anyone, and neither is a one night stand. Both can lead to disease and bad health.
There are no benefits to cigarettes, only harm, to both the smoker and those around them. Similar to other illegal drugs (which is what cigarettes should be classified as, a dangerous drug). Nothing else on your list is remotely similar.
__________________
"Your ignorance makes me ill... "
BTox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 08:58 PM   #95
BTox
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,586
Quote:
Originally posted by Mona


Did Jesus tell you that as long as there is a **remote** possibility that a pleasurable activity also has a practical function, then it is redeemed? (Uh-huh, chocolate is so very nutritional, doncha know.) Yeah, I was raised by Catholics like you: sex is only ok because it might lead to babies. But sex just for pleasure? No way. Burn 'em at the stake if they think that...same with all those smokers who deemthat they, rather than me or the state, should be able to make their own decisions for pleasure.

You and the Vatican need to get off my body.
I am not Catholic and religion has nothing to do with this, only science.
__________________
"Your ignorance makes me ill... "
BTox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 10:10 PM   #96
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,410
Quote:
Originally posted by BTox


Silly and nonsensical argument.
*Applauses with wreckless abandon*

Iím glad you realize the folly and illogic of your own arguments.

Quote:
...but one can eat nothing but "healthy" food, but simply eat too much, and be obese.
But you have the solution to that too, ban over-eating. There is no benefit in over-eating and it has unhealthy repercussions.

Quote:
All drugs should be legal? OK. But not in my country. I have kids.
And they are your kids. Don't punish me because you cant adequately raise your children.

Quote:
No, just incredibly stupid.
So your line about 400,00 dead was an appeal to emotion? Im glad we've cleared that up.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2003, 10:59 PM   #97
Schizobunny
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 126
I think smoking should be banned in places like resaurants, movie theaters, et cetera, but sigerette smoking should not be banned all together. If people want to do something so vial and descusting it is their body and no one should have any control over it.
__________________
"To announce there must be no criticism of the president or we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but morally treasonable to the American republic."--Teddy Roosevelt
Schizobunny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2003, 09:46 PM   #98
BTox
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,586
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony


*Applauses with wreckless abandon*

Iím glad you realize the folly and illogic of your own arguments.
Nice comeback.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tony

But you have the solution to that too, ban over-eating. There is no benefit in over-eating and it has unhealthy repercussions.
Let me try this one more time, maybe it will sink in. Over-eating is a behavior. Cigarettes are a product, aactually a lethal and addicting drug with no health benefits whatsoever. Oddly enough, cigarettes are the anti-homeopathy: both are grandfathered in the U.S., one is classified as a drug with no efficacy whatsoever, the other is a true drug (FDA regulates all other nicotine delivering products as drugs), yet so dangerous it would have no chance of ever gaining approval for human use. Some day, FDA will set both mistakes straight.


Quote:
Originally posted by Tony

And they are your kids. Don't punish me because you cant adequately raise your children.
So you're being punished because the illicit drugs you want and deadly cigarettes you're addicted to are unavailable? Some punishement!
__________________
"Your ignorance makes me ill... "
BTox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2003, 11:42 PM   #99
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
 
peptoabysmal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,466
Quote:
Originally posted by BTox

There are no such benefits to cigarettes, and are in fact harmful at any usage level. I can think of no other product like it.
Marijuana? Not legal yet; but some want to legalize it. If marijuana is legalized, will it also be banned in public places?

I think cigarettes have great psychological benefits, just listen to some of the non-smokers for proof.
peptoabysmal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.