• Pack Of Cigarettes 'May Rise To $100' In NZ
    281 replies, posted
In my personal opinion, prostitution should be legal for the same reason you just gave, but I know that most people disagree. What about drug dealing? That makes a good business. Weapon dealing as well (yeah, any blood crazy maniac can buy a gun in US).
i'm not sure what you are even trying to argue any more.
Prostitution as in fucking for money or pimp owned whores?
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;35700645]In my personal opinion, prostitution should be legal for the same reason you just gave, but I know that most people disagree. What about drug dealing? That makes a good business. Weapon dealing as well (yeah, any blood crazy maniac can buy a gun in US).[/QUOTE] Legalized drug-dealing allows for regulation, quality-assurance, and massive revenue for the local, state and federal governments. We're talking billions of dollars, here. A small chunk of that revenue could afford a massive overhaul of our rehabilitation systems to ensure there is a legitimate "out" of the habit. The drugs could be dealt through government owned/regulated facilities (such as Virginia's ABC Liquor Stores, which are the only places in Virginia to purchase hard liquor as it is). As such, government regulation can dictate usage and purchase limits, keeping files on each customer and tracking their usage habits. Overdose would become much less of an issue, as the government dealers could refuse to sell over-dosable amounts. The quality of the drugs could be assured (i.e. nothing will be laced with something else,) and the data tracking on customers and clients could make the police's job that much easier when somebody attempts to abuse the system (e.g. if someone starts selling drugs they got at Gov.-Drug on the street, the government has all the evidence they need in the system to convict). This would also save a ridiculous amount of money by dismantling the "drug war," and in the U.S.'s case, curb the drug-smuggling businesses in Central American nations (Mexico/Columbia) by taking away their biggest clients (US), reducing the impact of gang violence below the border. As it stands, in nations where drugs are illegal, they're an outlaw trade. They can't be regulated, monitored or controlled. [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] Then again, if it [I]bothers[/I] you we might as well ban it!
Why are people arguing FOR smoking, would you walk up to someone and flip them off? Assuming you wouldn't, why would you light up a cigarette or smoke with people in the nearby proximity? Considering that you're giving them the effects of second hand smoke too I think it's a pretty fair comparison to giving them the finger, and not much of a stretch to say it's bloody disrespectful to smoke in public, and should be banned- if not only for the fact other people don't want the lung cancer a smoker is too addicted to do anything about.
[QUOTE=Ylsid;35701070]Why are people arguing FOR smoking, would you walk up to someone and flip them off? Assuming you wouldn't, why would you light up a cigarette or smoke with people in the nearby proximity? Considering that you're giving them the effects of second hand smoke too I think it's a pretty fair comparison to say it's bloody disrespectful to smoke in public, and should be banned, if not only for the fact other people don't want the lung cancer a smoker is too addicted to do anything about.[/QUOTE] To be honest I don't think flipping people off is illegal.
[QUOTE=Ylsid;35701070]Why are people arguing FOR smoking, would you walk up to someone and flip them off? Assuming you wouldn't, why would you light up a cigarette or smoke with people in the nearby proximity? Considering that you're giving them the effects of second hand smoke too I think it's a pretty fair comparison to giving them the finger, and not much of a stretch to say it's bloody disrespectful to smoke in public, and should be banned- if not only for the fact other people don't want the lung cancer a smoker is too addicted to do anything about.[/QUOTE] Giving people the finger isn't illegal and respect is not a mandate. Respect without choice is false respect. Respect only means something because you don't HAVE to respect someone else. To mandate it is to destroy its integrity. Do not attempt to stand on "respect." To legislate respect is asinine.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35701117]Giving people the finger isn't illegal and respect is not a mandate.[/QUOTE] i meant smoking should be banned because it's disrespectful and i don't want second hand smoke
[QUOTE=Ylsid;35701134]i meant smoking should be banned because it's disrespectful and i don't want second hand smoke[/QUOTE] Too fucking bad. I don't respect you and I don't have to. That's how a free society works. You can't go whining to the fucking government because people don't bow down to your whims. [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] And, FYI, telling me I'm a bad person is pretty fucking disrespectful in and of itself. But then again, respect is only important so long as it's about you, right?
[QUOTE=Ylsid;35701134]i meant smoking should be banned because it's disrespectful and i don't want second hand smoke[/QUOTE] then go somewhere that people can't smoke, like 90% of all areas in the US
[QUOTE=Ylsid;35701134]i meant smoking should be banned because it's disrespectful and i don't want second hand smoke[/QUOTE] i don't smoke (just for the record), but this is a pretty stupid comment. smoking is banned in all indoor areas for one; every time you step into a building (and msot buildings are extremely well ventilated now) you will have no contact with second hand smoke. i'd imagine you dont spend 80% of your day standing outside, so it probably doesnt effect you much in this regard. another thing, the outdoor world is very well ventilated in itself, if you havent noticed the smoke disperses upwards into all manner of directions, not just in your direction, and you're actually unlikely to be harmed by the smoke unless you sit about with a big group of people smoking for long periods of time. the forms of smoke you should be worried about are the kinds that come out of the back of cars and trucks, and the kinds that come out of your power plants and factories. this is the actual shit that contributes to lung cancer in those who have no direct contact with tobacco smoke
If people make the decision to get addicted they should live with the consequences. There's absolutely no sense in hammering the ill effects into people, they obviously don't care if they're going to pay for cigarettes anyway. Edit since I can't post again (and because I feel like an idiot): [QUOTE=wauterboi;35703886]Way to miss the point. Following that logic, I should make fast food cost $90 more just because it's everyone's fault for eating fast food, and I should do the exact same thing for alcohol, diet soda, and anything else that'll potentially harm you. Because, you know, it's their fault in the first place for liking it? Idiot. Just because someone's addicted to something doesn't mean it should be their fault for an increase in price. Is it their fault their health habits cause their poor health? Sure, but you're completely dense if you think that an addiction to smoking should result in an unfortunate increase in price. The government should stay the hell out of my body. Prohibition also irritates me because it doesn't work. People get around the system to get what they want with an even worse sacrifice made. This also sounds like a really bad ploy that someone wants money and they're trying to disguise it by saying, "lol i make u healthier." No, they're being a greedy ass that needs to stay away from office. This is all about money.[/QUOTE] I see now I should have added more to my post, since I disagree with raising the price (and since I now realize that I'm a bit off topic). I also feel it's just a way to make some more cash rather than to help people. All I was trying to say was that telling people about the ill effects of things that people are already addicted to is useless. Health warnings seem to be more of an inconvenience to smokers/alcoholics since they obviously don't give a shit. I know how bad addictions can be and I know that some people are actively trying to get rid of it, and I respect them for that. It's just those that are addicted and don't care about the health problems aren't suddenly going to get up and quit because they saw a warning label.
[QUOTE=Dirf;35701903]If people make the decision to get addicted they should live with the consequences. There's absolutely no sense in hammering the ill effects into people, they obviously don't care if they're going to pay for cigarettes anyway.[/QUOTE] Way to miss the point. Following that logic, I should make fast food cost $90 more just because it's everyone's fault for eating fast food, and I should do the exact same thing for alcohol, diet soda, and anything else that'll potentially harm you. Because, you know, it's their fault in the first place for liking it? Idiot. Just because someone's addicted to something doesn't mean it should be their fault for an increase in price. Is it their fault their health habits cause their poor health? Sure, but you're completely dense if you think that an addiction to smoking should result in an unfortunate increase in price. The government should stay the hell out of my body. Prohibition also irritates me because it doesn't work. People get around the system to get what they want with an even worse sacrifice made. This also sounds like a really bad ploy that someone wants money and they're trying to disguise it by saying, "lol i make u healthier." No, they're being a greedy ass that needs to stay away from office. This is all about money.
[QUOTE=valkery;35696696]No, because that was a momentary, reaction that, while unfortunate and possibly preventable, was not a long drawn out group of actions that led to his hospitalization. Also, a broken leg is much easier to fix than lung cancer, diseased liver, and failing kidneys.[/QUOTE] but tobbacco is an addiction and in some people it only takes one cigarette to get hooked. you are intentionally ignoring the point i was trying to make: non-public, charged healthcare, is dumb.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35690808]Thank god the world has governments to protect people from choice![/QUOTE] I smoke cigarettes and fully support this. Cigarettes are pointless, addictive, and dangerous. They serve absolutely no purpose in today's society. In fact, they're damaging as a whole to our society.
[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;35704609]I smoke cigarettes and fully support this. Cigarettes are pointless, addictive, and dangerous. They serve absolutely no purpose in today's society. In fact, they're damaging as a whole to our society.[/QUOTE] The only people more pretentious than folks who condescend to smokers are folks who (want to) quit. They're worse than motherfuckers in AA who think everyone who has a drink is an alcoholic like them.
[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;35704609]I smoke cigarettes and fully support this. Cigarettes are pointless, addictive, and dangerous. They serve absolutely no purpose in today's society. In fact, they're damaging as a whole to our society.[/QUOTE] In fact, if you smoke one cigarette you have a 70 % chance of spontaneously combustion.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35704692]The only people more pretentious than folks who condescend to smokers are folks who (want to) quit. They're worse than motherfuckers in AA who think everyone who has a drink is an alcoholic like them.[/QUOTE] I don't feel like arguing. We both know cigarettes are unbelievably harmful to not only the individual, but the entire human race. Harming DNA to further pass down genetic mutations? Spreading the carcinogens to completely innocent bystanders? For what? A 5 minute buzz that's only present during your first 5 cigarettes? I enjoy smoking, but I also enjoyed the time where I didn't smoke so much more. If the governments propose something that can prevent future non-smokers to stay non-smokers, then I support it all the way.
sorry didnt realize smoking made me a super villain [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] although my tobacco-themed volcano lair does seem to fit the bill now that you mention it [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] also i dont think you understand how dna works lung cancer damages the dna in your lungs (preventing apoptosis and thereby creating an uncontrolled growth of non-specialized cells) it does not damage the dna in your balls unless you're doing something with cigarettes i havent heard of idunno im getting old im not up on the hip new fashions [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] but hey keep crusading based upon shit you dont understand FiGhTiN tHe GoOd FiGhT
[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;35704609]I smoke cigarettes and fully support this. Cigarettes are pointless, addictive, and dangerous. They serve absolutely no purpose in today's society. In fact, they're damaging as a whole to our society.[/QUOTE] good thing you need the government to help you quit
[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;35704609]I smoke cigarettes and fully support this. Cigarettes are pointless, addictive, and dangerous. They serve absolutely no purpose in today's society. In fact, they're damaging as a whole to our society.[/QUOTE] Even though cigarretes may be harmful that doesn't mean that it's the governments part to make it illegal or harder to get. I believe that smoking outside and inside your own home affects no one but yourself and you should be able to do whatever you want to your own body. There is no definitive proof that second-hand smoke actually causes any long term damage, so there's no question about your health when someone else is smoking outside or even at a restaurant. As a matter of fact, when smoking in bars became banned a lot of bars lost customers and complained about it. Why should the government impose a restriction that hurts not only the people who enjoy smoking but the people who cater to smokers.
[QUOTE=Lukeo;35690965]Thank you for looking out for us NZ Now we need $100 McDonalds, all rooms to be padded and free hard hats for everybody[/QUOTE] I wouldn't mind the padded rooms and hard hats actually, it'd allow me to be safer whilst I'm drinking my 150 proof liquor and smoking my cigars.
This is so stupid.
There should be a $100 [del]fine[/del] tax on complaining about second hand smoke in legal-smoking areas.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35690808]Thank god the world has governments to protect people from choice![/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I don't want to get cancer just because some guy next to me wants to shove ash down his throat. [editline]25th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Tacosheller;35690841]I uh Don't care if people fuck up their lungs, that's their choice??[/QUOTE] Ever hear of second-hand smoke? My uncle died that way.
How exactly did he die that way if you don't mind me asking? Did they prove it was from that? I think people should be able to do what they want in their own homes and private businesses and street owners should be able to set their own rules for people using their property i.e. a pub
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;35709323]I think people should be able to do what they want in their own homes and private businesses and street owners should be able to set their own rules for people using their property i.e. a pub[/QUOTE] Agree but what about public property?
I'm not sure on that to be honest, I think maybe if someone doesn't like what someone is doing near them on public property they should ask them to stop or go somewhere else instead of expecting the state to step in to address their minor grievance by force of law. Or, how about the local community is given ownership of public land as opposed to the nation state and is allowed to decide in a way that the majority living close-by and using it agree to be necessary?
Most smokers refused to move from my dad's terrible asthma, but this isn't the way to go to try and get people to quit.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;35709711]I'm not sure on that to be honest, I think maybe if someone doesn't like what someone is doing near them on public property they should ask them to stop or go somewhere else instead of expecting the state to step in to address their minor grievance by force of law.[/QUOTE] I think that smoking on the streets should be fins, in that case, if you're having trouble with it you can just walk around the person, but not on places where lots of people gather, a bus stop for example.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.