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.
all the better to quit I suppose, somehow though I don't think anything will happen, on an upside though I'm helping my friend try to quit using E-Cigs
Did you read the article? It was an interesting look from both sides for and against the idea with the idea of helping people quit smoking. It is good to have science working on anything that is scientific, even smoking.
I think you might be finding too much outrage in this that doesn't look like it was meant for that.
And the sad thing is the sheeple don't care as long as the government feeds, houses and provides them with entertainment....
It is an article about an Australian scientist and a professor from Scotland, this is not something that is actually being discussed in this country other than this article being posted here.
Did you read the article? It was an interesting look from both sides for and against the idea with the idea of helping people quit smoking. It is good to have science working on anything that is scientific, even smoking.
I think you might be finding too much outrage in this that doesn't look like it was meant for that.
Except this has nothing to do with science. This is about control. So do not fool yourself.
I HATE smoking and being exposed to it, but a license would be a horrible idea. It is the whole slippery slope argument, am I going to eventually need a licence to buy a beer, or go skiing because I or someone else could get hurt?
Did you read the article? It was an interesting look from both sides for and against the idea with the idea of helping people quit smoking. It is good to have science working on anything that is scientific, even smoking.
I think you might be finding too much outrage in this that doesn't look like it was meant for that.
Yes, I read the article.
Science tells us that smoking is bad for you. Everyone, with the exception of a few people who are truly delusional, already knows that smoking has many potential consequences for your health. Now that that's been established decisively, science should be working on cures/treatment for cancers caused by smoking and other things, COPD, etc.
We don't need science to tell us that restricting the number of cigarettes someone can have or restricting who can smoke will reduce smoking.
This is about freedom. Weighing 300 pounds is probably worse for you than smoking. Should we have licenses to buy sodas, fast food, sweets, snack items like chips, etc.?
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.
