Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why not put pictures of dead and mangled bodies on automobiles?
How about bleeding finger pictures on knives?
How about pictures of drowned kids on swimming pools?
Once again our bloated, powerful federal government tells us how to live our lives and gains more power. Will the people ever wake up to this continual power grab?
How is this telling you how to live? Its a warning. Is warning people of risk somehow telling you how to live?
How is warning people about the risk of smoking a bad thing?
Because they are no longer warning people about the risks involved with smoking. Now they are flat-out lying by claiming it is a certainty that smoking causes a fatal lung disease. Naturally, I expect nothing less from the morally bankrupt Democrats.
When my brother and I were in high school back in the 50s, they showed the boys a film of a lung being removed from a cadaver who had been a smoker when alive. Then they showed it side-by-side of a healthy lung. They didn't show this to the girls because teenage girls rarely smoked back then. To this day my brother credits that film for him quitting smoking and never starting up again. And right around prom and graduation time, they always had a mangled up car wreck sitting on the front lawn to remind kids what happens when you drink and drive. I have no problem with graphic labels on cigarettes. Smoking costs all of us more money in terms of health care costs whether through private insurance or Medicare.
Because they are no longer warning people about the risks involved with smoking. Now they are flat-out lying by claiming it is a certainty that smoking causes a fatal lung disease. Naturally, I expect nothing less from the morally bankrupt Democrats.
Because they are no longer warning people about the risks involved with smoking. Now they are flat-out lying by claiming it is a certainty that smoking causes lung disease. Naturally, I expect nothing less from the morally bankrupt Democrats.
you can play semantics with health risks if you want, but smoking definitely increases a person's development of lung disease, lung cancer or emphysema
Because they are no longer warning people about the risks involved with smoking. Now they are flat-out lying by claiming it is a certainty that smoking causes a fatal lung disease. Naturally, I expect nothing less from the morally bankrupt Democrats.
you can play semantics with health risks if you want, but smoking definitely increases a person's development of lung disease, lung cancer or emphysema
No it does not. It may increase the risks, but that is not the same thing as saying with absolute certainty that lung disease will result. It is an intentional lie to state that tobacco causes anything with certainty.
Perhaps you forgot who appointed the current Surgeon General. I will give you a hint, it was NOT President Bush.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
