>> ^quantumushroom:

When you break it down, the letter sounds like it was written by a nanny-state liberal. Smokers are already exiled, now it's a war on obesity.


troll-bait much?

When you break it down, the letter sounds like it was written by a nanny-state liberal. Smokers are already exiled, now it's a war on obesity.

And ick...a smoker.

The burden of tobacco smokers on the health care economy is a myth. Not sure of a citation, but I did a cost benefit analysis myself in a class I once took. As I understand it, far more revenue is gained to the government from tobacco taxes than any payouts for health care.

Just noticed your postes wern't private, thought I'd post my reply.

LOL I concede I am an ape!

This is long but addresses many of your questions I think. Also your assumption on my thinking was correct...can't remember what it was but I agree.

now on to the LONG post.

A) Willpower while it has limitations, it is not Limited to a finite value. Just ask any smoker who has quit. Or, a recovering alcoholic.

B) Repeat criminals do not appear to have willpower issues, they make conscious decisions to defy the law, and ether justify it to themselves or simply have contempt for the law. Some may feel the law is wrong or simply does not apply to them.

C) If all it took for a human being to lose their humanity, self respect, morality and honor was to be at the losing end of life why have we not seen a violent uprising of the homeless and downtrodden. The addicts who HAVE lost everything and wander the streets trying to survive would therefore be the most justified to go on a rampage would they not?

D) As for American laws relating to firearms, I am a Canadian and therefore will not argue those laws, as I have little knowledge in that area.
As for Canada, the process of licensing requires a full background check, questioning of witnesses towards your character and ultimately is up to the discression of the license issuer, as I mentioned before.

Are there flaws? Yes. But that is a result of the system. Ideally the system would prevent or remove firearms from any individual before violence occurs. However in order for that system to function flawlessly one must live in a system similar to Communist Russia during Stalins reign. Where every action or spoken word is monitored and reported to the government, by agents, or even by family.

Canadian restrictions to licensing are as stringent as the LAW curently allows them to be without infringing ( too much) on an individual's rights.

E) A piece of plastic does not guarantee the holder to be law abiding. However, the process involved to acquire said item does involve scrutiny. And the desire to legally go through that process as opposed to acquiring firearms illegally and with much less effort does say something towards the individuals intentions.

F) Firearms training and safety cources do indeed instill responsibility, confidence in the use, and the safe possession of firearms. Personally I believe everyone eligible should be trained in the safe responsible use of firearms. Whether they choose to own or not. ( we have sex Ed in school, why not gun Ed )

G) As for F*** heads, they will always be F**** heads. One purpose of licensing is to prevent them from acquiring firearms legaly. Thankfully most of humanity does not fit into this category. ( however they do seem to be breeding at an alarming rate)

H) As for the Katana, not only was it a weapon, it was a symbol of honor for samurai and was passed down through generations with a reverence bordering on a relic. Spend time and look up the 7 virtues of the Bushido code.

Regarding Nukes, while their application is abhorrent to any rational human, think about how many were actually used for their intended purpose. TWO!, out of how many thousands. And both were released by human hands. Possession does not equate to application.

I) Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

So if you read all that I thank you! I'm prepared to say we agree to dissagree and leave it at that but I'm open to more dialog if you wish.

I wish you lived in my area so I could take you to the range to see first hand what it's all about.

Big Ape signing off

Clearly he's trolling.

Here's a WebMD article somewhat supporting his claims. Yes, it's possible that religious beliefs lead to lifestyle choices that tend to keep people healthier: lower alcohol usage, less chance of being a smoker. In that regard it seems like this is a causation vs. correlation situation. Being "spiritual" isn't the reason for longer life or better health, but it's a reason for "clean living" which then has its own rewards.

How about instead of taxing atheists, we tax alcohol and tobacco? Oh wait, we already do that.>> ^EMPIRE:

lol... how are people like this allowed to roam the streets freely, as if they had a functioning brain? seriously...

Or is it that people who listen to loud music also tend to be exposed to smokers which influences them to smoke as a social interaction. (bars and concerts come to mind)

>> ^Boise_Lib:

This brings up an interesting point of science--correlation does not equal causation. Does smoking tobacco cause hearing loss--or, do more people who smoke listen to more loud music than those who do not smoke.

I'm a social smoker, and I find if smoke while drinking, my hangover the next day is 5x worse than when I don't. YMMV

(I'm just 6 minutes too late to submit this one!)

Found this on Dangerous Minds:

Why is someone as blinkered as Michelle Leonhart serving as a top DEA administrator? Her opinion about marijuana being as dangerous as other illegal drugs like heroin, crack, or meth hardly rises to the level of superstition let alone any kind of objective science.

This dumbass obviously has no idea what she is talking about. This is an infuriating display of complete idiocy and willful ignorance. Or else she’s just lying and stonewalling with the DEA party line, of course, but the “deer in the headlights” uncomprehending look on her face as she’s being grilled probably indicates that she’s being sincere. And stupid. Via The Raw Story:

During a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele Leonhart repeatedly refused to admit that anything was more addictive or harmful than marijuana.

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado pressed Leonhart on whether illegal drugs like methamphetamine and crack, as well as legal prescription drugs, caused greater harm to public health compared to marijuana. But within a three minute time-span, Leonhart dodged his questions eleven times.

“Is crack worse for a person than marijuana?” Polis, who has called for an end to marijuana prohibition, asked.

“I believe all illegal drugs are bad,” Leonhart responded.

“Is methamphetamine worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?” Polis continued. “Is heroin worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?”

“Again, all drugs,” Leonhart began to say, only to be cut off by Polis.

“Yes, no, or I don’t know?” Polis said. “If you don’t know this, you can look this up. As the chief administrator for the Drug Enforcement Agency, I’m asking a very straightforward question.”


If Leonhart REALLY doesn’t know the difference between pot and crack and their respective effects on the human body, as her answers would seem to indicate, may I suggest she actually TRY the drugs that she has no idea about and form a sensible opinion? Or maybe check in with some longtime pot smokers and some longtime crack heads or toothless meth addicts so she can see the difference? Or would that just be too easy? (31 years of daily pot smoking for me, I’ll meet with Leonhart happily and even subject myself to medical testing. I am a definitive study of one, trust me.)

Public opinion should force people like Leonhart out of their jobs where they have too much control over the lives of others. She was appointed by Bush and re-appointed by Obama in 2010. She’s an embarrassment to both administrations. A buffoon. An ignoramous. There wasn’t a person in the room—even the Republicans—who was impressed by this woman’s astonishing lack of expertise (and therefore NOTABLE lack of qualifications for her position). How could anyone be impressed by her performance on Capital Hill? She should be fired immediately.

“Is heroin worse for someone’s health than marijuana?” It’s not a trick question! The answer is YES, for fuck’s sake. The average senior citizen has a more enlightened approach than this DEA clownjob. WHAT are this woman’s qualifications for her job, anyway? A pulse?

Bring the goddamn drug laws into the 21st century, PLEASE. This is just getting to be so fucking stupid.

Kudos to Rep Jared Polis of Colorado for so doggedly exposing this nonsense. We need more like him in Congress.

One thing I've been wondering about for a while:

Cigarettes, while entirely loaded with chemicals, have about twenty grams of material per pack (of twenty cigarettes) that actually burns and is released to the atmosphere. Now picture a gallon of gas (sorry rest of the world, I'm American). That gallon of gas weighs about six pounds, or about two-thousand seven-hundred cigarettes. That's material that completely burns into the atmosphere or is filtered somehow by the car but still exists as waste. And don't forget, there are trace elements of everything in there, either burned as gas or taken out (still pollution) during the refining process.

I'd really like to see a comparison of the total harmful products of cigarettes versus gasoline that are produced every day, worldwide. I'm willing to bet that the difference is astronomical.

Now, I'm a smoker. I have no problem smoking outdoors and even then, if someone simply asks me to put out my cigarette, I'll do it. I understand that the burning of fuel, on some level, is a necessity but it seems to me that if the above assumption (and it's a big assumption, I know) is correct at all, that the only real reason anyone could have to avoid second hand smoke is that it stinks. I just can't picture it being as threatening as the world would have me believe, in comparison to all that other shit that's floating around everywhere, all the time that really isn't given much attention because it doesn't smell bad.

EDIT: Sorry, I just realized this has almost nothing to do with the video at all.

You just quoted my god. >> ^PlayhousePals:

>> ^criticalthud:
Pot smokers are 75% more likely to eat a bag of doritos.

Interesting. Donuts was the first thing that came to MY mind
(_8(I) "Donuts. Is there anything they can't do?"

>> ^criticalthud:

Pot smokers are 75% more likely to eat a bag of doritos.


Interesting. Donuts was the first thing that came to MY mind

(_8(I) "Donuts. Is there anything they can't do?"

Pot smokers are 75% more likely to eat a bag of doritos.

>> ^swedishfriend:

also pot smokers are 60% less likely to get lung cancer compared to non-smokers.


This definitely needs a source.

also pot smokers are 60% less likely to get lung cancer compared to non-smokers.