1  2  |   Order by index

Jan 9, 2004, 4:56pm

"tart sugar" <tartsugar at comcast.net> wrote in
news:3ffe0df6$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> Ummmmm .... how did Orb's wish turn into a debate?

That's what this group is for. Posting wishes, that then will get
discussed. It's not like AWI actually reads this, if you want to suggest
something, contact them directly.

KAH

Jan 9, 2004, 5:02pm

"jenniloveskevin" <me at privacy.net> wrote in
news:3FFEF12D.2E3BE9CA at privacy.net:

> Smoking and drinking does not just impact the individual who chooses
> to take these substances. It effects all of society. All taxpayers
> are footing the bill for paying for the astronomical costs of medical
> care for all the medical problems caused by use of these things. Your
> money is going towards liver transplants once they drink themselves
> out of a funcitioning liver, you're paying for the hospital visits for
> heart attacks, lung cancer when poeple voluntarily subject their vital
> organs to harmful substances. You're paying for the costs of court
> appointed counsel to defend the drunk drivers who cause accidents that
> kill our children, our family members. It does not just effect the
> indivual, it effects us all.

The point is that in the case of alcohol, you'll only get health problems
if you abuse it. There's no good way to stop alcohol abuse either, besides
trying to help those who are abusing it. If you illegalise it, you're
effectively founding a new branch of organised criminality. People won't
just stop drinking overnight, so they'll have to resort to contraband. Just
look at what happened in the US in the period they forbade it. Trying to
restrict it without banning it doesn't work very well either, people will
just become poorer or go buy their alcohol where's it's cheaper. Will also
boost contraband to some extent. I can tell you this because I live in a
country where only state-ran shops (for anything other than beer) and
approved restaurants/bars/etc are allowed to sell/serve alcohol. Alcohol is
also severely taxated, and it doesn't really change anything.

Smoking is different, it is much more addictive and leads to far serious
problems far quicker. It should still be the induvidual's right to decide
wether he or she wants to kill himself/herself by smoking. I'm against
smoking, but I'm not for illegalising it in general. However I think it
should be made illegal in all public places because of passive smoking and
the general annoyance it creates.

KAH

Jan 9, 2004, 5:16pm

i find it kind off odd how advertising is forbidden for tabacco products ,
and those huge "smoking is bad for your health" stickers on the packages ,
while its ok to sell it .....

Jan 9, 2004, 8:33pm

On 9 Jan 2004 13:39:16 -0500, "jenniloveskevin" <me at privacy.net>
[View Quote] >Smoking and drinking does not just impact the individual who chooses to
>take these substances. It effects all of society. All taxpayers are
>footing the bill for paying for the astronomical costs of medical care
>for all the medical problems caused by use of these things. Your money
>is going towards liver transplants once they drink themselves out of a
>funcitioning liver, you're paying for the hospital visits for heart
>attacks, lung cancer when poeple voluntarily subject their vital organs
>to harmful substances. You're paying for the costs of court appointed
>counsel to defend the drunk drivers who cause accidents that kill our
>children, our family members. It does not just effect the indivual, it
>effects us all.
>

The argument about taxpayers is flawed. We are all taxpayers, at
least in the western world. We pay for wars, invasions, executions,
prisons... we pay a lot for the richest to remain rich or to become
richer. We pay much less as taxpayers for medicines afordable for all,
relief to our own people and to other folks, we pay that directly to
the medicine-makers at very high prices, or are left to starve.

I'm a heavy smoker. When I started smoking, I was 18 or so. Smoking
was fashionable, socially convenient, addictive... I'm now 54. If I
see kids starting to smoke, I warn them not to. I am carefull not to
smoke in places where that would be unwanted. I am glad when people
manage to stop smoking. I stopped twice, for a few years at a time,
but that created many health complications, but doing so is not only
a question of willing it, there are many health aspects involved. It
is completely hypocritical to deny this, and banning smokers, who have
done so all their lives, is unrealistic. I think that in future
years, smoking should gradually disappear in new generations, and I
welcome methods that propitiate the transition. But also, respect for
all, smokers and non smokers, should be the norm. If I take flight of
a few hours, I buy nicotine chewing-gums. But I expect airports,
where I have to spend a lot of time, to have smoking areas. It is a
matter of respect.

Life is a matter of balancing equations. My mom died last February at
84, she was a regular smoker. Would I say that she made you pay for
this long life because she smoked? Oh yes, she died of a lung
disease. She could have died of cancer or old age.

Taxpaying arguments are radically flawed. Health, welfare and respect
arguments are not. If we loved our fellow humans and environment a
bit more, we would be able to balance our equations a bit better.

Alex

Jan 10, 2004, 2:25pm

XelaG and other smokers,

Quitting is NOT easy to do in most cases since nicotine is as addictive as
heroin. It took several attempts for me to give it up for good which makes
me feel so much better since my lungs use to hurt so much hampering my
energy level. Speaking for myself it isn't my goal to put smokers down at
all that would be hypocritical on my part since I was one. I see both sides
of the issue and I know that not smoking is the healthy way to go. It's not
only a health risk to smoke but it's expensive. People I know have died at
younger ages (of lung cancer and other related illnesses) than they wouldn't
have otherwise. It doesn't prolong life it shortens it. It infects your
lungs, smells bad, and costs too much just to name a few downsides. So I
advocate for quitting. Just a reminder to those who are trying to quit or
want to quit but haven't tried yet. Never stop trying.

Sharon/ORB

Jan 10, 2004, 3:24pm

Trying is the first phase of failure :)

-SWE

[View Quote]

Jan 10, 2004, 3:55pm

To NOT try is being a coward.

Jan 10, 2004, 6:09pm

*in Yoda voice*
Do or do not. There is no "try".

Tart Sugar
I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.

[View Quote]

Jan 10, 2004, 6:12pm

[View Quote] > *in Yoda voice*
> Do or do not. There is no "try".

Tell that to all the teachers that gave you partial credit.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Jan 10, 2004, 6:17pm

[View Quote] I would, but they are probably all dead. O_o
It's been awhile since I was in school.
LoL!!!

Tart Sugar
The older I get, the better I used to be.

1  2  |   Order by index