It is obvious locuts has not read any of my posts. Until he does, disregard whay he says. He ignores the facts i have posted. It is sad. He is simply living up to the tereotype iof a jackal.
Stop doting on the fact that you seem to be joseph mcarthy and eva brauns secret love child and post facts, or shut up. You have posted no scientifically proven evidence, just anecdotes and insults, which you continue to regard as solid argument.
Locus, you simply are a jackal who just leaches off the surface. It is completley obvious you have read nothing I wrote. Untill you acknowledge my other posts you will simply be a low class, medicore, bum who ignores what everyone says.
Wow, there was not one fact in that post but plenty of mudslinging and unfounded opinion. Unless you chose to back your opinons and cease your attempt to discredit through insults, I have no reason to take your opinions seriously. I have seen nowhere on this site facts backing your belief that tobbacco is harmless, but I have seen countless medical studies suggesting the opposite. Ask any doctor in any country if smoking is bad for you and you will receive the same answer every time; yes.
"If you believe that tobbaco has not been linked to birth defects, cancer, emphyseme, and lung disease, please post your facts here." Locus, I guess you are completley disregarding my other posts. You are simply living up to the ignorance everyone with your arguement has. My opinion has been posted with the facts to back it up. If you are too lazy to go back on this site and find them, then that is your own fault. And, once again, you are living up to the stereotype that you are a jackal. You simply look at things surface deep. Comprehension skills teach us that if you look deeper into what I have said you will see un-educated and educated people are not the same.
Also marijuana is irrelevant to this site about tobacco. When marijuana is a legal thing and is a billion dollar a year industry, then you can argue it that it is the same as tobacco.
Aloner, what you said made no sense and was simply babble. If you are suggersting we have the best science in the world then I feel sorry for you. I was simple comparing our science, not our government system you jackal.
"If tobacco is so deadly and it is so obvious, than why are we on of the few countries in this world that put warning labels on their tobacco products? Are all the other countries just stupid? I think not. Most of them are years ahead of us."
Yes, lets be like those other countries, that are banning certain speech on the internet in their country, prohibiting guns left and right, and slowly legalizing controlled substances. Lets be like them, Marine. After all, they are years ahead of us! They're not stupid! We need gun prohibition, decriminalized controlled substances, and banned internet speech right now!
quote: Uneducated people would simply blow it off. And accuse the government of propoganda,
quote: educated people would take the time to research and look into the surgeon generals propoganda
So the uneducated and the educated are the same, and come to the same conclusion, which, in the case of your claims regarding tobbacco, is false. If you believe that tobbaco has not been linked to birth defects, cancer, emphyseme, and lung disease, please post your facts here.
quote:Also, please leave marijuana out of this arguement, it is irrelevant and refelects pre- adolsent foolishness.
Marijuana is a perfect element of this argument, as it causes no deaths and is labeled as deadly and illegalized whereas tobbaco causes millions of deaths and is legal soley because taxing nicotine addicts is very profitable.
I agreee that tobbaco should continue to remain legal, but all controlled substances should also be legalized as they pose less of a threat and because the government has no right to infringe on personal freedoms such as the pursuit of happiness.
You fools took my qoute of context. This site seems to be notorious for doing stuff like that. It is sad that I have to explain everything or jackals will jump all over me. Educated people research and look into things. Educated people refered to people who could research what the government said. Uneducated people would simply blow it off. And accuse the government of propoganda, like you locus, just because they like the idea that there is a conspiracy.
If you ignorants would have read my entire post you would see that the same educated people would take the time to research and look into the surgeon generals propoganda and see that is is bogus. Since there are educated people who smoke and can see the facts about tobacco they continue to do it because they can see past the propoganda.
Also, please leave marijuana out of this arguement, it is irrelevant and refelects pre-adolsent foolishness.
quote: Educated people would listen to the government and stop walking.
So I take it, that you believe 'educated' means brainwashed or stupid enough to listen to everything they are told ?
quote: Educated people smoke because they see past the surgeon generals propoganda.
LMFAO. So the doctors that are trained in medical sciences are wrong, whereas the DEA jackboots with no knowledge of medicine who claim that marijuana is dangerous are right ?
Propaganda is the government distributing since disproven medical studies suggesting that marijuana causes cancer, kills brain cells, causes ammotivational syndrome, and causes men to grow breasts, not warning people of very real dangers inherent in smoking chemiclaly altered plant material that has caused cancer and killed 400,000 anually,
"Educated people would listen to the government and stop walking."
Yes . . . politically re-educated . . . like in the old communist countries. Like in Oceania.
And, yes, what the surgeon general warnings are propaganda . . . . thats just why you see around 400,000 plus people dying per year, that were previously heavy smokers . . . total coincidence.
Kennynoise, I felt that your question was irrelevant to this board. I understand where you are coming from but it was not on the right track. Educated people would listen to the government and stop walking. In order for your question to work you would have to stipulate that only ignorants smoke. That is simply nbot true. Educated people smoke because they see past the surgeon generals propoganda.
A few questions and ideas for you bushsupporter and anyone else.
I feel the government has power to do something; they have the power to educate people and tell them something is deadly for their body. Now it is human nature (for some) to go and do something just because someone said not too. It is also human nature if someone wants to do something badly enough they will do it. If someone wants to injure himself or herself, the government can educate that person and tell them it is wrong and they can try to get them to think otherwise, but the government cannot force someone not to do something. If the government told you to stop walking because people have died from it, would you stop too?
Tobbacco is addictive, tobbaco kills approximately 400,000 anually according to the Center for Disease Control, yet it is marijuana and other similar drugs that are illegal, when only 30,000 deaths come of illegal drugs anually, zero from marijuana. That blows your 'govt protection' argument out of the water, ne ?
The solution that you're looking for is to legalize all substances and let people dow what they want with their own bodies, so long as they dont physically hurt others in the process through dwi, etc.
Dont reply with propaganda, posturing, or superior attitude, reply with your opinons backed by facts.
Kids are not responsible to drink responsibly. Doing drugs effect more people than just the person doing them. that is why the government has a right. they have to protect the people. That is their job as statd in the Constitution. Build more prisons if that is a problem. This is off topic, however and any further discussion on the governments place in peoples lives should take place on another board.
"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.
Here is a thought on this issue: I think that the government really has no right to be butting around in what people do with their own bodies.
If someone wants to smoke cigarettes or marijuana or even drink at an early age I say the government should just let them do it. It would save a lot more time and money to let people destroy themselves instead of destroying our economy, taking up the time with law enforcement, and filling up our jails to stop all these people from drinking and doing drugs.
Am I saying that drugs are right and healthy? Not at all, I just think that if people are as unintelligent to decide to destroy their bodies its not the government who is going to lose their life, its that person. Might be a harsh thing to say but if someone wants to kill themselves slowly by doing drugs, I just say let them die.
First I'd say hi to marine. I am glad that we are both back on fighting the ignorant masses.
The tobbacco industries make a product. It is addictive. The government taxes it heavily. No one cares because they are addicted. The government doesn't shut it down because they make money, and lots of it, at the expense of the addicted consumer. This hardly seems right. I haven't heard a solution to the "problem" of "big tobbacco" on here in nearly 201 posts. What do you all propose to do? Please respond to my post directly. WHAT IS THE "SOLUTION"????
"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.
If tobacco is so deadly and it is so obvious, than why are we on of the few countries in this world that put warning labels on their tobacco products? Are all the other countries just stupid? I think not. Most of them are years ahead of us.
I'm sorry marine16, but I couldn't disagree with your more. It is a proven fact that people who smoke have a better chance of getting cancer...or do you find it to be a coincidence that a good number of people who smoke, later in life get lung and throat cancer?? Hmmmmmmm....wow isn't that odd?!?! You have a right to your own opinion and I have a right to mine, I'm just saying I totally disagree!!!
by what criteria are you defining "scientific proof?" the scientific community is firmly behind the hypothesis that cigarette smoking causes cancer. are you (mistakenly) thinking that, because not everyone who smokes gets cancer that smoking doesn't cause cancer?
look at the statistics between lung cancer and cigarette users and you'll see that smokers are over-represented by such a large degree that the probability of such an overrepresentation occuring by chance is less than 0.05%. this percentage is recognized as "scientific proof" that a significant correlation between smoking and cancer exists. it does not mean that everyone who smokes gets cancer. please supply a "scientific" reason why smoking and cancer are not related to back up your post.
Topics 
