I'd hardly call slowly and painfully killing yourself a "life choice."

and killing yourself doesn't count towards a LIFE choice at all.

you know, because of all the dying.
and the not living.

just in case it hasn't gotten through your thick skull yet.

I guarantee you, there are things you voluntarily do in your life that are reducing your life expectancy. Yet smoking is the one that everyone targets, even when the smokers are conscientious about not smoking around other people. Self-righteousness only works when you have nothing in your closet yourself.

There are minor things in life that everyone does that reduces their lifespan, no way to avoid it. you're right about that. But that doesn't mean you should feel ok about taking up smoking.
And it's not like smoking is particularly minor, either. It reduces your lifespan by a lot more than whatever else you think I do in life.
And for the most part, smokers AREN'T conscientious about smoking around people.

Don't try to make smoking look good. Denial may be the natural instinct, but it'd be better for you just to quit.

Do u know what else reduces your life expectancy?
A bullet in your head.

I didn't say 'smoking is okay'. But it's a personal life choice. People need to mind their own business. I'd readily support legislation that discourages smoking by disallowing certain benefits, such as higher insurance premiums for those that smoke, automatically having to wait behind a non-smoker for a lung transplant, etcetera. For someone that's never smoked, you seem to have all the pros/cons all worked out. I've been a smoker & a non-smoker, and I prefer being a non-smoker. But I have seen both sides of the issue. You haven't.
And stop assuming that smokers only find 'enjoyment in life' via smoking. That's simply an attempt to minimalize and dehumanize the person you're debating with. And that's reprehensible.

by saying I'm assuming smokers can't find other enjoyment, I'm assuming you read my other post. If you look, it was a direct response to "I don't want to live forever, I just want to enjoy it while I can..."

I'm not assuming anything. He said he enjoyed smoking, and I said there are more enjoyable things in life.

and you can't just tell me to mind my own business on a subject life. I couldn't care less if someone I don't know wants to smoke. what pisses me off is people who smoke in your face. I have as much of a right to fight against that as you do to smoke. I'll mind my own business when other people's choice to smoke stops negatively affecting m life.

He never said that smoking was his only enjoyment in life. You made that assumption. And if you've never smoked, then how can you be 100% there's 'nothing more enjoyable'? And since enjoyment is subjective to the individual, how can you know what is most enjoyable to him specifically?

Finally, has anyone here on FJ ever 'smoked in your face'? How many smokers actually 'smoke in your face' instead of smoking in the designated areas?

people have smoked out of the designated areas. they also smoke on the streets. It' not like smokers are angelical law-abiding people. They're humans, and humans are assholes.

and if we're going to play THIS game, I never specifically said that it is his only enjoyment. I said "If you can't find other ways to enjoy life..."

It is an implication, not an accusation.

You're right, humans (smoker & non-smoker alike) can be assholes. But grouping people together by a single trait is lazy & bigoted. Not all smoker smoke outside of designated areas, or in people's faces. And no one here has done either of those things in your presence. So, launching into your diatribe at anonymous people on the Internet is ridiculous. You should save it for the people you meet IRL that actually do these things.

As far as your semantics between 'accusation' & 'implication', that's such a cop out. Just using the word 'if' doesn't make that significant of a change. But, hey, *if* you still like to be a self-righteous, ignorant bigot that only finds self-worth in running down others, by all means, suit yourself.

*Notice how I'm not accusing you of being a 'self-righteous, ignorant bigot', I'm just implying it.* Because that makes a world of difference, you know.

hey, you were the one that started with the technicalities.

Adding to that, you were the one that began by saying I do damaging things in life, even if they're not smoking. Do you know me? do you know how my life works? Telling me I unconsciously harm myself is just as bad as me telling you that you smoke around others.

Everyone does things in their life that are harmful to them, unless you're a sequestered monk that only eats organic foods and exercises just the right amount each day. You pretty much agreed with that in #285.

You also said that MOST smokers aren't conscientious. What you mean was that mos smokers that you've MET aren't conscientious.

Your personal experiences do not represent the whole. Assuming that it does is egotistical. Most smokers I've known are careful to not be rude about it. But I know that's not always the case.

How about judging people on them as individuals, instead of grouping them? And for those that make the personal choice to smoke, but DON'T expose others to it, why not leave them alone altogether?

Yes, and I also said that those things aren't nearly as harmful as smoking. But that's beside the point. I'm just saying you can't tell me not judge without knowing someone while you yourself are doing that exact thing.

And I've met enough of both smokers and people who also think most smokers aren't conscientious to safely say MOST smokers don't give a damn where they smoke.

I'm not judging you specifically. I simply said that EVERYONE voluntarily does harmful things. And you say they aren't nearly as harmful as smoking? I beg to differ. For example, improper diet, especially high cholesterol, high sodium, etc. can do just as much harm, if not more, than smoking. Driving while texting/talking on the phone can be much more immediately dangerous than smoking. Not wearing proper sunblock and going out in the sun a lot can have long-term health effects just like smoking. A sedentary lifestyle without proper exercise will definitely shorten your lifespan. Having unprotected sex. The list goes on.

And you have NOT met enough smokers to safely say that most act a certain way. That's simple math.

I've met and seen quite literally hundreds of smokers of smokers that don't give damn about those around them. Do you want to tell me that I just stumbled upon all the bad ones by chance?

None of those things you said are any worse than smoking(Albeit they are all part of destructive lifestyles and shouldn't be happening anyways).
sunburns cause less long-term skin cancer in people than smoking causes lung cancer in smokers. staying in the sun also does not kill brain cells or make you addicted to getting burnt.
Improper diet, in its furthest extents, is about at par with smoking.
You're more likely to die from smoking your whole life than from accidents caused by cell phones.
the list goes on and on.

1. There are about 45 million smokers in the U.S alone. Even if you met hundreds, that's a sampling of about 0.02%, far too small of a sampling to make a global judgment. And are you claiming that ALL of the one's you've met were 'bad ones'? NONE of the smokers you ever met only smoked in designated smoking areas? NONE of the smokers you met made sure not o smoke around kids? I find that very difficult to believe.

2. I never said any were 'worse', just that they are similarly harmful effects. As far as 'killing brain cells', that's technically true, but in an indirect manner. Alcohol is far more destructive to brain cells. Do you have a problem with drinking as well?

3. Heart disease is the #1 Killer in the U.S. (contd.)

I've met hundreds that don't care, and a very small handful that do.

you'll kill more brain cells by alcohol if you drink and smoke in equal intervals. now, I drink very rarely, and never to get drunk. if I smoked regularly, smoking would be killing more brain cells than alcohol. even for people who smoke and drink, unless they're drinking every day, smoking would be killing more brain cells..

heart disease is the #1 killer because of natural reasons. In a healthy liestyle, the heart is the organ that deteriorates the fastest (the brain being second). If someone ever lives a perfectly healthy lifestyle, they'll nearly certainly die of heart failure.

Heart failure (wearing out over time) is different from heart disease. And I was specifically referring to 'early deaths', not 'dying of old age & deterioration.

heart disease will occur naturally as well, from the same cause: heart deterioration. And while you were specifically talking about non-natural deaths, I'm pretty sure the statistic points to ALL deaths.

Also, at #4, smoking is one of the big ones, and the health risks can't be justified by the fact that other things are bad for you. smoking is VERY bad for you, you can't deny me that.

I'm not changing my opinion of smokers because you tell me they're respectful when smoking, when my experience has pointed otherwise. through the same logic, you can't say that most smokers care about where they smoke, because you have not met a large enough number of them either.

I never made that claim. I simply said that judging an entire group of people on a small sample was short-sighted. I know there are 'polite' and 'rude' smokers alike, but I'd never prejudge them all based on the actions of a small sampling. You chose to do so.

And of course smoking isn't healthy. When did I dispute that? People have the right to live their lives as they see fit, even if it involves self-destructive behavior.

My entire point has been, if someone is not impugning on your rights, why do you feel the need to condemn them, to vilify them, before even meeting them.

Judge based on the individual, not the presumptions.

(reply to #380, can't reply to it directly fro some reason)

I was emphasizing on the detrimental nature of smoking because you seemed to be trying to describe it as not being altogether unhealthy.

I'm going to judge smokers based on my own experiences, supported by the opinions of many others that I've met that also have noticed a high amount of smokers being dicks.

I was never condemning any of you specifically or accusing specific people here. I was referring to smokers in general, out of my personal experiences.

btw, my initial comment and your initial response all revolved around the health damage involved in smoking, not around judgement of others.

I never described it as unhealthy. Go back and read my posts again, and show me where I did so.

What I said was that smoking is one of many unhealthy activities that many people do, but it is the target of far more criticism & propaganda than any other. It's 'cool' to trash-talk & insult smokers, in a way that it's not acceptable to trash-talk or insult people that eat junk food, for example.

Look at the very first picture. It's insulting and accusatory. I've never seen a propaganda poster so extreme targeted at any other 'bad habit', except for perhaps drunk driving, and that's an actual felony.

Smoking isn't a healthy life-choice. But it's not illegal or immoral, in and of itself.

However much you may call me a self-righteous bigot for saying this, it just seems to me like you're trying to make yourself feel less guilty about smoking.

I'm a non-smoker. What do I have to feel guilty about? I've never smoked around those that didn't, always used the designated smoking areas, and never lit up around kids.

Where exactly are you getting this information about the inaccuracy of the researches again?

also, if you pull one more "technically I never said this" on me, I might just have to cyber-slap you. You're not driving a productive discussion doing that.

I have never once seen a smoking campaign aiming towards the ban of smoking altogether. They are all there to scare smokers or convince them to stop.

I see just as much focus on smoking as I do for alcoholism and drinking and driving. Sure, people make money off of it. It's not like the tobacco companies don't profit from people who smoke, either.

There is no infringement of freedom happening here. These companies have as much of a right to put up these ads as smokers have the right to smoke. Noe one is infringing everything.

I still see no sources. You tell me the truth is distorted, but you don't know it for sure. You have no factual credibility in saying smoking isn't as bad as everyone thinks.

How much money do you think the pharmaceutical industry makes, per year, from tobacco cessation product sales? Do you think they have an interest in maximizing the public's negative perception of smoking? How much money do you think these pharmaceutical companies fund to the anti-smoking campaigns?

In the end, it's about personal freedom. If you support the infringement of a personal freedom of another person, just because you find it offensive, then how long will it be before someone else wants to infringe on one of your freedoms, simply because they don't like it?

The anti-smoking campaign has the wrong focus. It should be promoting responsible actions by smokers, not supporting out-right bans. Personal freedom AND responsibility.

Them stop accusing me of saying things I didn't say. If my point is "There are many harmful activities that we as humans do, but smoking is targeted far more than any other 'vice'", then of course I have to compare smoking to other activities. I wasn't debating the harmful effects of smoking; I was debating the inordinate amount of attention that is paid upon it, and the questionable facts used to attack it. Everyone knows smoking is harmful: It's beating a dead horse at this point.

And as far as the research is concerned, while there is virtually no debate on whether smoking is harmful, there is a LOT of debate over the level of harm, especially from ETS. The anti-smoking campaign is a big, profitable business.

running out of places to reply.

Indirect minimization is minimization nonetheless(again, screw the technicalities- what you said can be largely interpreted as a means to make smoking seem less harmful in comparison).

There's a difference between propaganda and facts. While it may be true that I personally haven't studied every smoker out there, it is more than safe to assume smoking is bad for you.

you're just trying to be technical again. People are capable of making intelligent decisions. It's not "do it yourself or it's not true." You have to know on what sources to rely , and to what extent. you seem smart, and you should know that. I have no idea what you're getting at trying to play that card.

P.S. have you never seen AA ads?

Semantics again. Your choice to infer minimilization does not mean it was actually there or even intended. I have never stated that smoking was not harmful. But to demonstrate my point of over-propagandization , I have to compare it to other activities.

You said you base your opinions on your own ideas. I simply pointed out that you don't do so exclusively, because you rely upon the research of others. And while smoking has harmful effects, if you take the time to look at how the research & science was conducted, you might be surprised, and a little disappointed. That is, if you want to know the whole story.

And the AA ads talk about EXCESSIVE drinking in SOME individuals. They don't propose the idea of Alcohol Prohibition.

to #389 and 388:
you compared smoking to other harmful activities, emphasizing on how smoking is not the only evil. That's a minimization if I ever saw one, screw the technical loopholes.

The only two others comparable to smoking are alcoholism and improper diet, and there's just as many ads against booze("where's the anti-booze campaign"- are you crazy?) and improper diet(high cholesterol, heart disease, obesity, etc.) as there are for smoking.

as for thetruth.org, when did I ever say they were the almighty authority over smoking issues? I'm following my own ideas here, not those pushed on the world by organizations.

When I mentioned the truth.org, I was speaking about the anti-smoking ads in general, not your opinion in specific. And thetruth.org is the leader in anti-smoking propaganda, even knowingly using false information and disproven studies to stir up controversy.

One of my main points has been the propaganda of the anti-smoking campaign, which is why I brought them up specifically. And as far as you following your own ideas? Let's analyze that for a second.

Why do you believe smoking is harmful? Did you run your own laboratory tests? Sure, you can say from your own experience that cigarette smoke smells bad, or that it's annoying... but on what are you basing your belief that it is harmful, or that second-hand smoke is harmful, etc?

Then you don't know what the word minimization means, then. I never played down smoking whatsoever. Bringing other issues upwards is not minimalizing the original issue.

There's an anti-drunk driving campaign and an anti-underage drinking campaign. But there is NO anti-alcohol campaign, like there is for cigarettes. In fact, those first two campaigns emphasize 'drink responsibly'. Have you ever seen an ad campaign that emphasized 'smoke responsibly'? That's the difference between the two issues. You can 'drink responsibly & in moderation', but the anti-smoking ads never suggest the same thing about smoking. So, no I'm not crazy when I compared the two issues.

As far as thetruth.org, I'll elaborate in the followup.

I'm assuming you blocked me, because I can't reply to anything of yours earlier than #380.

in any case, you were trying minimalize smoking by comparison, even though smoking is among the most unhealthy things you can do to yourself. it's not like the posters are banning free will, or promoting fascism. they're trying to get people to stop killing themselves through smoking. sure they could start on other unhealthy things, but smoking is one of the worst, so that's what they target.

how can you be so mad at someone who's simply trying to help their fellow man?

And as far as the anti-smoking advertising overall, thetruth.org has LIED or twisted he facts on multiple occasions.

And while smoking may be a greater physical health problem, alcoholism is by far a greater social problem. Thetruth.org claims that tobacco companies arget kids. How? Cigarette commercials aren't allowed on TV, the #1 ad medium for kids. But alcohol is, constantly.

Smokers don't crash cars or engage in risky behaviors because of a nicotine rush. Cigarettes don't cause broken homes or domestic violence. Smokers don' end up on the street because they spent all heir money to get a rush. Alcohol is easily more dangerous than cigarettes. Where's the anti-booze campaign?

No, I didn't block you. The reason you can't reply to certain posts is that FJ only allows so many nested replies.

Where did I try to minimalize smoking? I never implied that smoking was less harmful than you; I simply pointed out that many other activities were also harmful, and that an inordinate amount of attention is focused on smoking.

The posters are simply propaganda, and the first one in particular is inflammatory. It's like calling Planned Parenthood 'baby-killers'. Even if it's true from a certain, limited perspective, it's highly inflammatory & offensive. It's not done simply to 'help their fellow man'. It's done from a self-righteous and holier-than-thou perspective.

Personal life-choices are just that: personal.

i dont wanna live forever
just wanna enjoy it while i can.
i like smoking. it melows me out and straigtens my head out when i need it
its the smokers decision to smoke so what can you do about it apart from bitch.
find someone else to annoy

if you can't find other ways to enjoy life other than smoking, suit yourself. just don't do it around others.

why do you think you can give orders over the internet.
get a grip you self righteous prick. ive had enough of you now just shut the fuck up

fuck you, make me.

lmao nice comeback m8.

I should've figured you'd take this as a pride fight.

you ordered me to not order people on the internet. my reaction: fuck you.

This is trying to educate the following generations so they dont make the same mistakes as theyre parents did.

If a smoker cant control there smoking, then how can they possibly bring up a child, if they are being watched by their kids poisoning themselves.

im not botherd about your opinion
i smoke. i want to
so at the end of the day m8 you can go take a warm bath n slowly kill yourself with a razor
:)