No, I'm asking you for a source as all my experiences - and I don't think what I said is remotely unique - demonstrate that drinkers do not act like smokers.
You said alcohol is "just as addictive" as tobacco. I find that to be bullshit, please provide any evidence at all that it is.
Do you smoke? Or drink?
My mom is the one with the excess pets, and we haven't combined households yet. I posted a picture of the street flooding, into our yard and driveway, but I don't think I've ever talked about mold or mildew issuesOriginally Posted by GGT
Not that I'm trying to defend smoking around babies, but her asthma could just as easily be caused by the number of pets you or her grandmother had/have. Didn't you say you've got like 6 cats, and took in your mom's dogs for a while? And didn't you say there were problems with mold and mildew in the drywall of her home after flooding? I remember a picture you posted of your yard looking like a soggy petri dish ripe for allergens. Asthma has more than one environmental cause, y'know, and it's not always second-hand smoke.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Well, if you're going to be like that, where did you get
from?
edit:
from: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...04644/abstract
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Why would a parent leave their kid with a grandparent who smokes? Seems like that is a big issue right there...Not where it matters the most. In the home.
Ocean has officially been declared an asthma suffer, thanks to the constant smoking her grandmother did around her. 6 years old, with asthma
I wouldn't mind traditional cigs being taxed and restricted a little harder, with education and social support to match. Something along the lines of how we handle public drinking. Remove smoking sections and smoking breaks. But banning them outright would cause more problems than solve.
to work three jobs because someone dismantled the welfare system
Dunno if that applies to OG's case of course
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Hahahahaha, hate the welfare system. It still laughed
I smoke, drink, and occasionally smoke weed (that's legal here though). I don't mind going days without either, frequently do, and am not cranky if I do not have a cigarette or anything.
For what it's worth, i'm not opposed to legalising pretty much all drugs... if education about it is good (and honest). I mean, everybody pretty much knows cigarettes are dangerous, so if you still use it, that's your own choice. I am cool with it being taxed to offset the costs to society.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
You're obviously not a parent, because relatives, especially grandparents play a vital role in freeing up schedule times for parents to do whatever they need to do. I don't think it's always a choice. Either A.) you leave them with that grandparent, or B.) you can't do whatever it is you both need/want to do.Why would a parent leave their kid with a grandparent who smokes? Seems like that is a big issue right there...
I also would say that I don't see why the grandparent who smokes, has to smoke infront of the children.
It is a choice, but you have a large amount of influence, or biological urge to keep using. You have to overcome that first. Sometime certain condition literally parts of the brain can shut down disabling once ability reason out, or come to the conclusion of not doing it, during that time.I mean, everybody pretty much knows cigarettes are dangerous, so if you still use it, that's your own choice.
I have heard about this when it comes to people straving at some point cannabilism is inevitable, the higher functions of the brain can just shut down.
How about the costs to eg. the poor suffering children?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I want everyone to understand this. Societies are not simple. It's not like the perfect society has laws X, Y, Z. Just like not all forums online have the same community rules. Different rules fit different communities. We may argue there is a core set that must be shared and is objective betwee them all. However, the specifics need not be. It may be preferable, to some societies, to accepts risks associated with smoking, in all it's entirity, to whatever benefit that is agreed upon by the populace as being worthwhile. To some socieites perhaps having the speed limit capped everywhere at 40 mph is ideal; however, in others maybe they are larger, and prefer 70 mph to be the cap on their fastest road. However, at 70 you are statistically inclined to have more deaths, injuries, and property damage. Yet, it is a trade off the society agrees, an agreeable risk, for that society, given benefits of the higher speed.
Well, how about you provide actual scientific data on the actual physiological dangers of second hand smoke, and we can examine the level of harm/risk. It's rather miniscule, in reality. (A "50% higher chance of developing lung cancer," for example, translates to a rate about 0.05%, for example, as the "normal" chance of getting lung cancer is on the order of 1 in 1000, IIRC.)
Regarding behaviors that are more harmful to children than second hand smoke, others have covered that - if we're going to ban this behavior, by all rights, we ought to criminalize parents having fat/obese kids, poor attitudes on education, personality disorders, "bad" parenting in general, soda/pop and sugar-heavy foods, junk foods for kids, and half the things any "normal" parents do to/allow their children to participate in.... and therefore parenting in general.
By your rationale here, best to create a new massive bureaucracy and have the government raise everyone's children, to protect them from every danger/risk factor and sub-optimal parenting behavior we can put on the 750 tonnes of paper it would take to contain such a list.
The "War on Drugs" is hypocritical, unreasonable and grossly inconsistent, yeah. Most of us on here have that view, and don't exactly hide it. The solution isn't to therefore, ban all drugs... or like you're ostensibly proposing: ban all recreational drugs, except when stamped by a pharmaceutical company, priced obscenely higher than the recreational drugs in common usage today and accompanied by a government-approved permission slip from a medical professional.
No, the solution is to stop the War on [some] Drugs.
This hypocritical bullshit mess of a situation with the "War on Drugs" is a situation completely created by government regulation and oversight, and what you seem to want is to solve it with more government regulation and oversight [adding smokes to the War on Drugs], "for the children," or whatever. Yeah, great. May as well try to cure a patient with 120 GSWs with one more carefully targeted gunshot wound.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Big Government Liberal. So sad to see this.
Okay but how about starting with banning smoking during pregnancy at least and then take it from there
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Is alcohol legally banned during pregnancy? Because AFS isn't pretty.
That too!
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Doubt it, though all alcohol bottles here in the UK come with a symbol and text saying pregnant women shouldn't drink it. Similar to tobacco, I don't see how you could ban it without banning alcohol itself. Which I don't think society would accept.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote.svg/380px-Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg.png)
