Page 4 of 4

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:31 am
by cladden
#32 wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:I think that taxing smokers is a good thing to do because it discourages the new smoking trend in Los Angeles that's risen up over the last couple of years. People are replacing anorexia with cigarettes to lose weight (since it makes you less hungry). This tax won't stop people who are already addicts, but it will help prevent new people from becoming addicted.

Yes, but what about the people that are already addicted?

They're being exploited by 86. We already have enough cash shoveled into various anti-smoking organizations. We don't need to take a bigger cut outta some 60-year old lady's wellfare check.

If moronic 17-year old girls start sucking cancer sticks to lose a few vanity pounds, than screw them. That's just plain ignorant. But I don't feel it necessary to tax a steel mill worker off a 12-hour shift that needs to relax.

The college students that become addicts? Idiotic. They've been told ALL their life not to smoke. I'm a college student who smokes cigars every could of weeks, but I'm far from addicted. Anybody out of my generation whose become addicted to ciggarettes is a flat out moron. No questions, no excuses, no BS. You're a moron. Your life is NOT that hard.


People have known about the dangers of smoking since the nineteenth century. Maybe not quite the extent of it but the fact that it wasn't healthy. I've read recommendations not to smoke for health reasons in Dostoyevsky. And he died in 1881.

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:41 am
by TMC
coltraning wrote:we'll just ahve to disagree, bro. I think the evidence is overwhelming that cigarettes cause lung cancer, and even philip morris agrees now...


Yeah, there's no denying that. What #32 is saying is that CASUAL second hand smoking doesn't have much effect, which is true, as long as it happens a couple of times... but it has serious effects if it happens long term. I think there's no possible discussion here.

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:27 pm
by 32
coltraning wrote:we'll just ahve to disagree, bro. I think the evidence is overwhelming that cigarettes cause lung cancer, and even philip morris agrees now...

I'm not questioning the danger of a cigarette; I'm merely remarking that I don't believe +90% of second hand smoke is dangerous.

But I've always known cigarettes are dangerous. I know cigars and dip are dangerous, too. But, from time to time, I like to enjoy a little of each. Doesn't hurt to be a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly member of their pleasures. At least, it hasn't hurt me yet.

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:19 pm
by migya
#32 wrote:Doesn't hurt to be a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly member of their pleasures. At least, it hasn't hurt me yet.



Certainly doesn't hurt, just look at the cheerleaders thread :mrgreen:

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:41 pm
by coltraning
migya wrote:Certainly doesn't hurt, just look at the cheerleaders thread :mrgreen:

O.K. -i will - several times a day...esp. la morena =D> :cheers: :drunken: :hello1: :headbang: :happy10: :drinking: :happy1: :forthosewhothinkyoung: ::lol: \:D/

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:05 pm
by migya
coltraning wrote:
migya wrote:Certainly doesn't hurt, just look at the cheerleaders thread :mrgreen:

O.K. -i will - several times a day...esp. la morena =D> :cheers: :drunken: :hello1: :headbang: :happy10: :drinking: :happy1: :forthosewhothinkyoung: ::lol: \:D/



I really find it hard to discriminate with what's on offer in the cheerleaders thread. I'll just have to like it all :mrgreen:

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:05 am
by TMC
migya wrote:I really find it hard to discriminate with what's on offer in the cheerleaders thread. I'll just have to like it all :mrgreen:


:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Only "politics" I can devote my life to...

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:54 am
by coltraning
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:I really find it hard to discriminate with what's on offer in the cheerleaders thread. I'll just have to like it all :mrgreen:


:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Only "politics" I can devote my life to...

the ***** party :wink:

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:38 pm
by TMC
coltraning wrote:the ***** party :wink:


Yeah, that one. No more options for me. :thumbup:

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:50 am
by migya
coltraning wrote:
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:I really find it hard to discriminate with what's on offer in the cheerleaders thread. I'll just have to like it all :mrgreen:


:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Only "politics" I can devote my life to...

the ***** party :wink:



The swingers party :mrgreen:

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:32 pm
by coltraning
I can't believe they are censoring a perfectly innocent term for cat 8)

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:12 pm
by migya
coltraning wrote:I can't believe they are censoring a perfectly innocent term for cat 8)



Yeah I know - Just put three s. Like this = pusssy

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:06 am
by TMC
migya wrote:
coltraning wrote:I can't believe they are censoring a perfectly innocent term for cat 8)



Yeah I know - Just put three s. Like this = pusssy


You're a truly wicked man, miggy... :mrgreen:

Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:15 pm
by coltraning
migya wrote:
coltraning wrote:I can't believe they are censoring a perfectly innocent term for cat 8)



Yeah I know - Just put three s. Like this = pusssy

perfectly good way to write pusssy