Cigarette Smoking In Public: Why You're Opinion Is Wrong

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 07 Sep 2006 06:09

Now THERE'S a statement I can agree with

I didn't mean to hate on you or anything, just that statement was sooo wrong

*peace and lurrrve*

Everyone should smoke less cigarettes and drink more beer! in responsible amounts! Beer will save the world!

Spontaneous Spaz · Post by **Spontaneous Spaz** » 08 Sep 2006 20:24

my grandpa died when my mom was 17 because he smoked

he died from hodgekin's disease... some kind of lung cancerous death trap thingy... look it up

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 10 Sep 2006 20:29

Slowsis wrote:Why don't you stop eating packaged or processed foods, stop driving, stop buying anything plastic or metal, stop using air conditioners during the summer, and stop being a dick AND THEN you can come and tell me that my smoking is going to effect the environment. I'm sure you're not some super-hippie, living on an organic farm in the mountains. Maybe if you were, I'd take you're critism as not being hypocritical. As it is you are a kid with a computer and a bunch of values that you don't even live up to.

So why don't you actually do something about it? Why don't you do what I did and go treeplanting? I planted 90,000 trees this summer, each of which is sucking up harmful greehouse emissions, and you've bitched about the problem on the internet. Congratulations, you've made such a huge difference in the world.

Plastics and metals can be recycled.

Air conditioners do not cause pollution, they just require larger ammounts of energy. More energy can be obtained through wind power, and solar panels. Cheap, easy, reliable, "never-ending" supply of energy.

Driving. Yes, people do need to cut back on driving. However, Honda already has out many test vehicles that they give to very well credited families to test out. The last one I heard about was given to a family in California. The car runs on hydrogen, and released as heilium. These vehicles are worth 2 million at the moment, and are actually available to be driven in the US. They are no different from normal cars (Performance wise.). We are very close to having a world wide change over. Maybe not in our day, but in the Earth's life span, we are on the brink.

As for purchasing packaged food... just... what the fuck? You worried the garbage will be a problem? Most packages for food can be recycled. And there is nothing wrong with processed foods either.. you're just fucking stupid, that's all I can say now.

Oh, and being a dick isn't a hazard to the envirornment. That's bad cake.

Oh, and unless you can show me teh site to the organization of which you planted 90,000 trees with this summer, then piss off. Because you can't afford that, and the organization would have a website, with details about this years tree planting season. And trees don't absorb carbon monoxide, which is just as abundandt as CO2 in car emisions(sp?).

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 10 Sep 2006 21:34

You're response shows an absolute ignorance of modern society and the environmental impact of our production practices. Not only that, I was stating that these practices will have a greater environmental damage than smoking, so unless you are debating that, you are just making it wonderfully easy for me to make an ass of you.

The recycling and original manufacturing of plastics and metals releases harmful greenhouse gasses, as does the production of packaging for foods. The manufacturing of cars also creates greenhouse gasses, whether they will burn fossil fuel or not once they are on the road. And I'm sorry if you live in some fantasy world, but North America does not run on renewable energy sources. We still burn coal and run nuclear power plants, which pollute the world in more awful ways than anything else dealt with in this post.

And about the trees........
www.brinkmanforest.com

Its called tree planting......they don't really do it much in the US, but Canadian logging companies are required to re-forest every hectare of land they cut. Thats where I and thousands of other planters come in. I'm not even the best at it. A friend of mine planted 150,000 over three months, but he's been doing it for a few years.

Cool quote from the company......"Brinkman is Canada's oldest and foremost reforestation company. During 2005, its 35th operating year, the privately-owned company will celebrate its 800 millionth tree planted."

Oh and why not throw in an insult to keep with the maturity level thats been demonstrated.....

...bitch!

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 11 Sep 2006 01:08

You're response shows an absolute ignorance of modern society and the environmental impact of our production practices.

The first line was really all that needed said.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 11 Sep 2006 01:20

I almost responded, then realised someone else would do it so much better. Thankyou slowsis.

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 11 Sep 2006 07:32

Switch Kicker, you're pulling a dan feary. aka getting all pissed off and hyper defensive and in the process revealing how brutally uninformed and dellusional you are.

mc · Post by mc » 11 Sep 2006 12:57

ooooooooooo! new footbagger verb!!!

edit: if I wasn't a mod, that definition would be going in my sig

anyone else want to take it?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 11 Sep 2006 13:28

gangsta wrote: Just because cig smoke does not make up a large percentage of the greenhouse gasses emitted, doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that they do.

Where do you think the Carbon in tobacco comes from ?

So, if I raise 2,000,000 tons of tobacco, what is the net result on the C02 content in the atmosphere ? it lowers it.

And if I burn that 2,000,000 tons of tobacco, what does that do for the C02 content in the air ? the C02 content is return to the level it was before the tabacco was grown

So, what was your point again ?, something seems to have been lost inbetween la la land and reality.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 11 Sep 2006 17:30

Thanks for the support, Tom. I'm still grateful towards you for letting me stay at your house.

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 11 Sep 2006 18:55

Tsiangkun wrote:
Where do you think the Carbon in tobacco comes from ?

So, if I raise 2,000,000 tons of tobacco, what is the net result on the C02 content in the atmosphere ? it lowers it.

And if I burn that 2,000,000 tons of tobacco, what does that do for the C02 content in the air ? the C02 content is return to the level it was before the tabacco was grown

So, what was your point again ?, something seems to have been lost inbetween la la land and reality.

Although growing the tobacco plants reduces the c02 in the atmosphere, the burning of the dried leaves, and paper, put that c02 right back where it came from, and produces other greenhouse gasses/toxic smoke. Also, the manufacture of cigs produces tons of greenhouse gasses, and other solid/liquid wastes. Plus, it wastes farmland, and If I remember correctly, makes the soil unsuitable for Beneficial crops.

Not only that, but the butts are Toxic litter, and we've already established that inhaling smoke is bad for everyone's health (even plants)!!!

So what was your point again? We've already established that the environmental impact is somewhat negligible compared to the human aspect.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 11 Sep 2006 21:31

Oh I see, we don't need to make sense anymore.
BRING IT ON !!!!!!!!!!

gangsta wrote: it wastes farmland, and If I remember correctly, makes the soil unsuitable for Beneficial crops.

Fat people waste farmland. They cause upteen billions of tons of
methane gas to be released into the atmospere, just grazing their cattle
for meat. They grow hundreds of thousands of acres of crops just to
feed their live stock. People are dying all over the world because fat
people are wasting our resources on feeding their food, instead of
feeding each other.

Not only that, but the butts are Toxic litter, and we've already established that inhaling smoke is bad for everyone's health (even plants)!!!

You know what is bad for everyones health?, beathing in fumes from
automobiles. It's an undeniable fact that sucking on the tailpipe of a 67
chevy is toxic, with potentially deadly consequences. FAT PEOPLE
ignore this risk, and attack their own health. Almost as many Americans
die from obesity as from smoking every year. Millions of people
have to get into automobiles and sit in traffic attending their funerals,
forced to breath in toxic fumes. The government could change this, but
they won't act. Instead they choose to burn billions of tons of fossil fuels
every year, just because someone selfishly chose to be obese and now
people are forced to attend their funerals.

So what was your point again? We've already established that the environmental impact is somewhat negligible compared to the human aspect.

Since you think the government is so good, and so protective, why not
make obesity a crime. Cigarettes cost $8 a day. Lets start monthly
billings of fat people, say $5 per pound they are over the government
mandated weight for their race and sex. It's only fair that the government
protect us and our fragile environment from the obese and their
devestaing effects on global warming !!!!!!

I for one am sick and tired of seeing poor, drug addicted citizens of the
united states of america taken advantage of by the healthy segment of
the population. Smoking is not a crime, and neither is obesity, but you
have no problem with fat women walking around in public flaunting the
distruction of our planet. It's only the smokers you discriminate against.

And don't even get me started on how much coals is burned every year
just to keep the lights on in office buildings because we continue to hire
idiots who take longer to do the job.

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 12 Sep 2006 05:12

Well, I can't argue with that Tsiangkun.

You didn't prove or disprove anything however, just ranted on about how there are other things that hurt the environment. You implied that my post didn't make sense, but I think what you really meant was "the environmental impact is somewhat negligible compared to the human aspect.", which we've already established.

You could've at least countered my points. I expected more from you.

We're talking about the Government having the right to ban smoking in private and public places, not fat people, or industrial pollution! Start a different topic if you feel the need.

Although your last post pretty much had nothing to do with the topic, I'll have to agree with the few points you did make.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 12 Sep 2006 06:18

Okay, so we agree that the environment factor is nil.

I knew if I phrased my argument in the form of a rant I could get through to people.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 12 Sep 2006 10:41

Gangsta, the point is you're centralized power logic just falls into the flames when you're actually presented with the fact that every decision we make in the modern world effects our ecosystem, and other humans on this planet. From smoking a cigarette to opening a bag of cheeto's, the government has no authority to regulate on the individual, especially as they let business's run willy nilly.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 12 Sep 2006 11:34

Well, they regulate on people first because we can afford high-power lawyers to defend all of our polluting and negative behaviour.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 12 Sep 2006 11:35

OOps....damn no edit button......

* we CAN'T afford....."

footymatt · Post by **footymatt** » 12 Sep 2006 17:00

First off. I think smoking should be allowed ANYWHERE except explosive areas.

Second. 99.9 percent of OTHER* humans don't give a shit about me, so in turn I don't give a shit about them. I'd rather kill off the turds that are sucking up my air than look at another stupid fuck hole stare at me like I'm covered in blue paint when I say "Good Afternoon". It makes me absolutly have to restrain myself from attempting to rid the planet of the people to eager to make a buck than say hello to a passing stranger. I think that someone who can let me die in a car wreck's aftermath, because a pallet of cash fell from an airplane and landed near me, can slowly die from my cigs. btw just so yall know I hate smoking cause it's not good for ME!! But addiction to "garbage" runs in the human race.
Thank you Dallas!!

note: If this post is ever read by a prospective employer, I don't mean the killing people part.

second note: To all non-prospective employers...start reading at the top of this post...repeat both sides...

* Other humans being little bitches (ie. not footbaggers, non-smoking or smoking)

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 12 Sep 2006 18:52

Agreed Tsiang. I think we established that lonnnng ago though.
Can we agree also that cigarette smoke is the #1 source of Indoor air pollution, and that creates a health hazard for fellow building occupyers?

Tell me something beneficial about Cigarettes.

Tell me something non-beneficial about the smoking bans.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 12 Sep 2006 20:01

So you propose the government bans all activity that has no benefit from taking place in public ?

Who gets to define what is beneficial ?