Vivian on 16/6/2016 at 10:39
Quote Posted by bjack
The inevitable ban on tobacco is a slippery slope in action. In the 1990s when this shit started in haste, all of the anti-tobacco people swore that the goal was not an outright ban, only controls to keep cigarettes out of the hands of children. Bye bye Joe the Camel. Over the last 20+ years the real agenda has been revealed. The real goal was complete obliteration of tobacco. As for cancer, yes it does cause it in susceptible people. George Burns smoked every day and did not die of lung cancer. Many smokers do not get lung cancer. BTW, I do not smoke and like that almost all establishments are smoke free now. However, I simply hate the lies and shit way it was accomplished.
Sorry man, missed this due to page swap. I dunno if you can trivialise the tobacco/cancer link to that degree - I mean, there are people who got shot in the head and didn't die either. I smoke tobacco sometimes without really meaning to (when drunk usually) and smoke weed on purpose, and I don't really see the point in tobacco. You run a real and very serious risk of lung cancer and it doesn't really do anything for you except give you something to do with your hands and an excuse to take nice deep, calming breaths. Plus it's a super dodgy industry in general, but you can say that about pretty well everything (and definitely say it about weed). I mean yeah, do what you will as long as you harm no-one else and all that, but if you're already banning shit like heroin, I think a tobacco ban has merits.
catbarf on 16/6/2016 at 11:20
Quote Posted by demagogue
What would really work is making gun manufacturers strictly liable for all non-justified gun-caused harms, all accidental, negligent, and criminal use.
That would restructure the whole landscape overnight.
Is there any precedent for that, though? To my knowledge we don't hold any other industries strictly liable for negligent or willful misuse of their products.
It just seems like special pleading to me when people suggest that a company that exclusively makes deer rifles should be held strictly liable when a guy decides to kill his wife with one of them, when nobody would want to hold the manufacturer liable if it were, say, rat poison in her drink or the butcher's knife from the kitchen. All three are being used for their intended purpose (shooting, poisoning, cutting) but not against their intended target (deer, rats, meat). What's the criteria for determining manufacturer liability in a case of deliberate criminal misuse?
faetal on 16/6/2016 at 11:36
Catbarf - one thing I'll say in response to what Dema suggested is that it rests on where the onus should lie. Should society be set up to allow ultimate freedom to allow some to succeed with detriment to society as a whole or set up to try to maximise the benefit to society as a whole, with the cost being that some don't succeed?
heywood on 16/6/2016 at 12:51
Quote Posted by Vivian
Sorry man, missed this due to page swap. I dunno if you can trivialise the tobacco/cancer link to that degree - I mean, there are people who got shot in the head and didn't die either. I smoke tobacco sometimes without really meaning to (when drunk usually) and smoke weed on purpose, and I don't really see the point in tobacco. You run a real and very serious risk of lung cancer and it doesn't really do anything for you except give you something to do with your hands and an excuse to take nice deep, calming breaths. Plus it's a super dodgy industry in general, but you can say that about pretty well everything (and definitely say it about weed). I mean yeah, do what you will as long as you harm no-one else and all that, but if you're already banning shit like heroin, I think a tobacco ban has merits.
I don't get your point about heroin. We have an epidemic of opioid abuse going on here and overdoses of heroin and other opioids are killing as many people as guns:
(
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-bad-is-the-opioid-epidemic/) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-bad-is-the-opioid-epidemic/
Are you suggesting that guns are a huge public health menace warranting a ban, but with heroin it should be do what you will? That certainly isn't supported by the numbers.
Regarding weed, I'm in favor of legalization. However, I have to note the huge double standard in this country among people are pushing to legalize marijuana on one hand while trying to put the tobacco industry out of business on the other hand. Do people think smoking unfiltered weed is better for your lungs than the filtered low tar cigarettes currently on the market, or do people just not think about it.
Quote Posted by catbarf
Is there any precedent for that, though? To my knowledge we don't hold any other industries strictly liable for negligent or willful misuse of their products.
It just seems like special pleading to me when people suggest that a company that exclusively makes deer rifles should be held strictly liable when a guy decides to kill his wife with one of them, when nobody would want to hold the manufacturer liable if it were, say, rat poison in her drink or the butcher's knife from the kitchen. All three are being used for their intended purpose (shooting, poisoning, cutting) but not against their intended target (deer, rats, meat). What's the criteria for determining manufacturer liability in a case of deliberate criminal misuse?
It's just a fantasy scenario for the crowd who wants a wide ranging gun ban.
Vivian on 16/6/2016 at 13:04
no, i was just talking about tobacco because bjack kept bringing it up. Peripheral issue. No heroin/guns conflagration, strictly drug talk.
Also:
Quote Posted by heywood
Are you suggesting that guns are a huge public health menace warranting a ban, but with heroin it should be do what you will? That certainly isn't supported by the numbers.
No, where on earth did you get that from? Are YOU suggesting that we should just give heroin to everyone who owns a gun?
AFAIK weed smoke actually (somehow) doesn't give you anything other than peridontal disease, hang on lemme find the study...
Yeah, there's not been a conclusive link between smoking weed and lung cancer proven yet. There plausibly is one, because it has a lot of tar and stuff in the smoke, I imagine, but several things might matter - unless you're mental, you don't smoke anything like as much weed as you do tobacco, you often use water pipes and stuff that drop a lot of the tar out, I think it burns at a lower temperature? So exposure in general is lower, and the smoke might have less of the shitty byproducts in it that tobacco smoke does. Anyway, jury is still out on it, whereas on fags (and heroin [and guns]) the evidence definitely says BAD FOR HEALTH.
faetal on 16/6/2016 at 13:10
Weed smoke is way less harmful than tobacco smoke.
PigLick on 16/6/2016 at 13:31
Unless of course you are in the percentage of people that cut their weed with tobacco, and then smoke it through a bong. Those people are deservedly on a one way trip to the 7th level of hell.
bassoferrol on 16/6/2016 at 15:17
Yeah, that's why I smoke weed while driving instead of cigarettes. Believe me, it's not harmful at all.
Wonder why nobody accepts my invitation for a ride.
Vivian on 16/6/2016 at 15:28
What? Whether it gets you too spazzed to drive a car isn't the same question as whether it gives you cancer. (or health problems other than being too daaaaaaamn son to cook anything more complicated than a sandwich)
