Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Smokers soon to be pariahs?
- Thread starter Virgil-TB2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why are cigarettes locked behind the counter, because people try to steal them. How is that different from any other addict who will do anything to get his fix if he can't afford it.
While the extremes may not be the same the basic premise is.
I've said what I wanted to say in this thread. For now, I'm done with it. I hate smoke just as much as anybody, but you people are ridiculous. Smoking crack and cigarettes are not the same thing, and any person who has seen one single crack addict wouldn't be saying such drivel.
EDIT: If people *cough* davidjearly *cough* would go read my original post in this thread (end of previous page) they'd see that I never denied that they (smokers) are addicted to cigarettes. That wasn't my point.
EDIT: If people *cough* davidjearly *cough* would go read my original post in this thread (end of previous page) they'd see that I never denied that they (smokers) are addicted to cigarettes. That wasn't my point.
No, they are not the exact same thing, but the principle of addiction is the exact same thing. This should not be too difficult to comprehend.
Cigarettes are more likely locked behind a counter so that kids and minors don't steal them, not smokers looking for a fix.
Caffeine is addictive. Sugar might well be addictive. Coffee drinkers can be addicts. The principle of addiction runs a very wide gamut.
That may be true in the land of the brave, and the home of no health care.
But up here, me, and others like me, are paying dearly to treat smokers who get sick with cancer, emphysema, bronchitis, etc.
So I remind them, one way or another.
And see thats where it starts toeing the douchebag line. You the hell are you to have the right to SHAME me for things I choose to do. I am a smoker, and I wholeheartedly agree with banning smoking in public places. Seriously, its great, secondhand smoke smells like crap. First-hand, well, its a whole lot better. The fact that you want to take agressive steps to try and make me feel bad for smoking because some family members died from tobacco-related health complications (something that killed off nearly half of my family). When you start criticising smokers like they're dog fodder is when smokers start to get mad. If you're reasonable and polite about it, so will most smokers. When you drop the holier-than-thou attitude and stop insulting people, usually people won't be jerks to you.
And if you're so concerned about health problems, why should I have to go outside to smoke, I could catch pneumonia you know.
This is because thieves try to steal cigarettes to sell cheaper, without tax, to make a lot of profit. Never seen one of those COPS shows?
I am a smoker who stops occasionally for health and doesn't tend to smoke more than ten a day if I'm smoking a lot at the time. This thread makes me worry for my rights, and the motives behind my loss of them. I smoke because I enjoy it. I'm sick of people constantly telling you "smoking is bad", "you know you should stop that". Thanks, but every cigarette packet is informing me. Isn't it the same as walking down the street berating all the stinky fatasses for eating in public? Kind of rude.
There's no common sense in these blanket bans at all. What about all the shisha bars put out of business by the ban? Who went there to be a non-smoker? Why do we need "it is illegal to smoke in these premises" signs in every phone booth? Why are we legally obliged to have these ugly stickers on the front door of my publishing company that for 25 years no-one has smoked in out of respect alone?
Sure- me. I have maybe 2-3 a day, sometimes none. It just depends on what I want. I mentioned that before in this thread. My roommate is similar, except it's even less for him. Once again, if you don't see the difference between someone who smokes and a crack addict, there is no conversation to be had. When you're ready to discuss this rationally, let us know.
Are you kidding me? Working at a grocery store throughout high school I can tell you what the most stolen item in the store before they locked them up. Cigarettes. And they weren't stolen by minors. They were stolen by 25-40 year olds for the most part. I made plenty of money busting those shoplifters @ $25 a piece.
The only item stolen at a higher rate was alcohol when the carnies were in town, then we would just post up in the liquor store (which also had cigarettes).
And as far as smoking in public. Fine if you're outdoors. Don't crowd the door. If you need your fix indoors, chew some tobacco. I don't want/need to breathe in all those crappy chemicals. Go ahead and kill yourself. My mom used to smoke and almost died from an asthma attack (and no, she didn't have asthma symptoms before that point.).
For the brilliant people who stated that second hand smoke doesn't affect others....tell that to a family friend of mine who owned a tavern for 15 years and had to sell it because of medical bills resulting from lung cancer. Oh yeah, she didn't smoke. That must be pure magic, huh?
That's a slightly tenuous link there, never-smokers catch lung cancer too, and precisely what it is in cigarettes that causes lung cancer is an unknown. It's easy to blame smokers for all cases of lung cancer in non-smokers because everyone has at some point come across a smoker. It makes a good scapegoat.
Does the fact that her doctor said she had lungs of someone who had smoked 2-3 packs for 10 years have any weight in your mind? She DID NOT smoke. How is that possible then? Oh yeah, some 'scapegoat' caused it all. If I catch thatgoat, I'm going to kick it's butt.
Most people who haven't been affected by sickness blame these "scapegoats". They're probably the same people who are 'good drunk drivers' because they have never been busted or gotten into an accident while under the influence.
again that doesn't prove anything, it could be genetics at work (considering how some who smoke occasionally catch lung cancer while others who smoke two or three packs a day remain unaffected). Cancer in never-smoking women occurs in one in 5 cases and is increasing.
[source: http://cancer.about.com/od/lungcancer/a/nonsmokers.htm]
note the paragraph about second hand smoke begins 'researchers believe'
Except he used the word junkies too. Hilarious because it just makes him sound like a 10 year old playing the "I'm better than you" game.
Wow, you like to leave out some other stuff...
"Researchers believe that second hand smoke plays a prominent role in lung cancer development in non-smokers. Limiting first hand and second hand exposure is essential for both men and women to reducing the risk factor for lung cancer. "
"Cancer in never-smoking women occurs in one in 5 cases and is increasing." Could it be from all the second hand smoke over the years? Prove that wrong. I know a lot of people who only smoked socially at the bars, but they were at the bars 4-5 days a week. In their minds, they weren't smokers. Add up their smoking, plus all the other smokers in the bar, that equals a lot of toxins. They didn't smoke much, but they were exposed to the carcinogens non the less. I believe that if my genetics are capable of giving me cancer through second hand smoke, I don't want someone's addiction to be the catalyst of me going through chemo, pain, and possibly premature death.
People in Vietnam didn't bathe in napalm, but they still got cancer from it.
Would that not depend on the definition of "junkie"?
The way I see it is an addict is someone who has to take something or else suffer physical or psychological withdrawal symptoms. A junkie is an addict who has let their addiction affect their quality of life.
I'd class my uncle as a tobacco "junkie", he's 45 now and smoked at least 20 a day since 16. Physically he's in a right state and can barely walk too long before he feels breathless, and going off how many he's smoked I'd say he's a lucky one.
Just as I'd call somebody who performs dangerous skateboard or bike tricks adrenaline junkies.
The way I see it is an addict is someone who has to take something or else suffer physical or psychological withdrawal symptoms. A junkie is an addict who has let their addiction affect their quality of life.
I'd class my uncle as a tobacco "junkie", he's 45 now and smoked at least 20 a day since 16. Physically he's in a right state and can barely walk too long before he feels breathless, and going off how many he's smoked I'd say he's a lucky one.
Just as I'd call somebody who performs dangerous skateboard or bike tricks adrenaline junkies.
Hasnt smoking decreased almost linearly since the 80's? Yet cancer is increasing? I think there's more to cancer than cigarettes, not that i'm defending cigarettes; just the people who fell into a trap they can't get out of.