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.
What about the laws that require doggie owners to clean up after little FuFu? What's a little poop on the ground here and there ... It's not going to kill anybody?
IF they all go over to his front yard for their doggies to relieve themselves and leave the droppings, he won't mind a bit.
If he does mind it, I'm sure he won't mind relocating to avoid it.
After all, everyone should be allowed to let their pooches poop wherever they please.
I really think this is a thread that should just die already.
It's obvious that smokers have no viable argument for their nasty, obnoxious addiction, and their desperate rationalizaions and denials are not only predictable, but boring.
Let's face it fellow non-smokers, if there's anything to be learned from this thread, it's that smokers will fiercely defend their addiction, and there's no amount of logic and common sense that will sway them.
I really think this is a thread that should just die already.
It's obvious that smokers have no viable argument for their nasty, obnoxious addiction, and their desperate rationalizaions and denials are not only predictable, but boring.
Let's face it fellow non-smokers, if there's anything to be learned from this thread, it's that smokers will fiercely defend their addiction, and there's no amount of logic and common sense that will sway them.
I agree, let it die.... the non smoking radicals will never agree that there can be compromise. It's their way or nothing!
By the way, gotta light????
I really think this is a thread that should just die already.
It's obvious that smokers have no viable argument for their nasty, obnoxious addiction, and their desperate rationalizaions and denials are not only predictable, but boring.
Let's face it fellow non-smokers, if there's anything to be learned from this thread, it's that smokers will fiercely defend their addiction, and there's no amount of logic and common sense that will sway them.
Boy that is might intolerant of you. SMOKING IS LEGAL. Your carbon monoxide belching car is doing far more damage to the enviorment and to peoples health than cigarettes ever could.
I really think this is a thread that should just die already.
Well then shouldn't you stop posting in it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerCaliforniaGirl
It's obvious that smokers have no viable argument for their nasty, obnoxious addiction, and their desperate rationalizaions and denials are not only predictable, but boring.
It's interesting that you think that something that's perfectly legal needs defending.
How about you defend your desire to strip personal freedoms from people? In over 700 posts in this thread, and thousands of posts in other, similar threads, not a single shred of scientific evidence has been posted which proves that SHS is actually the threat that the politically correct claim it to be.
If I wanted to ban red clothing because I found it offensive, I'd have to come up with a pretty damn good reason, wouldn't I? I could find all kinds of "common sense" arguments, but wouldn't you require some sort of verifiable scientific evidence that red clothing was somehow harmful before you would support that new legislation? Would you settle for faux science that used questionable - at best - methodology?
The bottom line is that despite all the billions of dollars that have been poured into the anti-smoking industry (yes, it's an industry, and people are getting very wealthy from the anti-smoking movement), there is still no conclusive evidence supporting the position of the anti-smokers. If there were, they wouldn't need to fudge the numbers in every single study to achieve their desired result.
You can claim that smokers have "no viable argument", but you know that it's the opposite that's true. You don't care about the reality of it, though, because it's your opinion that smoking is "nasty" and "obnoxious", and public opinion (not science) is on your side.
Boy that is might intolerant of you. SMOKING IS LEGAL. Your carbon monoxide belching car is doing far more damage to the enviorment and to peoples health than cigarettes ever could.
I really think this is a thread that should just die already.
It's obvious that smokers have no viable argument for their nasty, obnoxious addiction, and their desperate rationalizaions and denials are not only predictable, but boring.
Let's face it fellow non-smokers, if there's anything to be learned from this thread, it's that smokers will fiercely defend their addiction, and there's no amount of logic and common sense that will sway them.
The only difference between a smoker and a crackhead is the Drug Of Choice.
Location: Somewhere gray and damp, close to the West Coast
20,955 posts, read 5,545,098 times
Reputation: 8559
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
The only difference between a smoker and a crackhead is the Drug Of Choice.
The addiction is always the master of the addict.
Beg to differ. My drug is legal, and I don't have to steal or prostitute myself to get it. Comparing me to a crackhead is likely to get you into more trouble than you want to be in.
When I worked for the US Attorney's office, proofreading Grand Jury transcripts, I read the heartbreaking, highly detailed and very gory findings at the scene where a man and his three children were murdered over a crack deal. When you compare me to the scum that took the lives of those precious children, you had better be prepared for what's going to come out of my mouth.
And I'm not defending my addiction. I'm defending my rights.
You have the right to quality health care, right? If you were lying in a hospital bed in intensive care, having a heart attack, and someone asked you to choose between two technicians to attend to you, one highly qualified and the other a non-smoker, which one would you choose? If you choose the non-smoker, then you can go ahead and have your heart attack.
I was edged out of that job because I smoked. I know the tech they hired was waaaaaaaaaaay less qualified because my sister-in-law worked in the cardiology department. And the Americal Civil Liberties Union heartily agreed with my assessment that I was descriminated against by that hospital.
And, if you said you chose the non-smoker, you're lying.
GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!! The world gets ugly sometimes and smoker-bashing is easy because so few of us will defend ourselves. In my opinion, that makes you a coward, picking on the easiest target. Go and pick on some real addicts sometime, without the bodyguard of the internet between you and the junkie. Then tell us how f'ing superior you feel.
Beg to differ. My drug is legal, and I don't have to steal or prostitute myself to get it. Comparing me to a crackhead is likely to get you into more trouble than you want to be in.
When I worked for the US Attorney's office, proofreading Grand Jury transcripts, I read the heartbreaking, highly detailed and very gory findings at the scene where a man and his three children were murdered over a crack deal. When you compare me to the scum that took the lives of those precious children, you had better be prepared for what's going to come out of my mouth.
And I'm not defending my addiction. I'm defending my rights.
You have the right to quality health care, right? If you were lying in a hospital bed in intensive care, having a heart attack, and someone asked you to choose between two technicians to attend to you, one highly qualified and the other a non-smoker, which one would you choose? If you choose the non-smoker, then you can go ahead and have your heart attack.
I was edged out of that job because I smoked. I know the tech they hired was waaaaaaaaaaay less qualified because my sister-in-law worked in the cardiology department. And the Americal Civil Liberties Union heartily agreed with my assessment that I was descriminated against by that hospital.
And, if you said you chose the non-smoker, you're lying.
GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!! The world gets ugly sometimes and smoker-bashing is easy because so few of us will defend ourselves. In my opinion, that makes you a coward, picking on the easiest target. Go and pick on some real addicts sometime, without the bodyguard of the internet between you and the junkie. Then tell us how f'ing superior you feel.
Socially, politically, arguably morally you may be different.
As an addict, you are just as addicted.
I AM a real addict, with 23 years under my belt being clean and sober from a cross-addiction to alcohol and drugs. I have posted that here in this thread earlier and on other threads and other message boards. I was also a smoker who smoked primarily unfiltered Camels for 20 years. and if I live until August, I will have been quit for 20. I am still an addict and always will be. The difference is, I am not currently a practicing addict.
not a matter of being superior. It's a matter of knowing what I'm talking about, and the education was expensive.
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.
