OFF: smoking etc.

[Ted Jackson jr.]

On 18 Feb 00, at 15:37, flossbac wrote:

> > So why are smokers not dying at 3-4 times the rate they are, since
> > they
> get
> > second hand
> > smoke from EVERY cigarette they smoke, plus the smoke they inhale
> > directly (which while filtered, is still several times as dense as
> > second-hand smoke- even after exhalation-) PLUS the second hand
> > smoke from the bevy of smokers many of these people tend
> to
> > run with?
> >
> > The war on tobacco is like the war on drugs.  A tactic to serve the
> > few, while drawing attention away from the real issues facing the
> > world.
> >
> > Why haven't they banned sugar, cholesterol, fat, etc?
>
>
> Well, for a start, smokers ARE dying at a much higher rate than the
> non-smoking population, usually due to the diseases directly caused by
> smoking:  cancer of the lung, pharynx, stomach, esophagus, and mouth;
> hypertension; stroke; heart attack; congestive heart failure, chronic
> obstructive pulmonary disease.

[lots of health issues discussed, snip]

But the point that all you debaters are missing is this:  A significant
number of citizens--tax-paying--citizens, want to smoke cigs, weed,
cigars etc, and some want to drink alcohol, and some want to take
other drugs.  Whatever happened to the right of the individual to
determine what s/he wants?  If you want to outlaw everything that's
potentially life-threatening, where do you start?  And, where do you
end up?  Hell, it's probably bad for my health to breath the stale, re-
circulated air in this very building.  Why should it be legal for my
employer to mismanage the health of a hundred employees, yet
illegal for me to grow a little weed in my backyard?

theo