PDA

View Full Version : big ciggarrette cover up


kerry
05-13-2010, 10:44 AM
all of a suden tyhe gov of connecticut deems smoking is bad and decides to raise the price of buying smokes every tiimee somone dies from smoking.. people die from drinking to.. like liver malfunction due to drinking.. like they care.. when what they realy think is that smokers can be used as a nother way to get tax dollars. ciggarrettes are now 10 dollars a pack.. and more in some places. if half the usa smokes. the tobaco company pays tax. after we pay the tobaco company by buying smokes. aand every time somone dies. the price and tax goes up. f---ing blood suckers are geting tax money gained by somone dieing. and using smokers habit of smoking which is hard to brake.

superted
05-13-2010, 10:50 AM
If you can't afford to pay tobacco products kerry then maybe that's a good thing. Not only will it save your life/improve your health, it will also save the government/tax payers money through healthcare.

kerry
05-15-2010, 07:51 PM
but thats forceable servatude
why dont they do that with boos it would cut drunking driving in half and save as much lives
they value there boos at night when there home thats why

iHIMself™
05-15-2010, 10:22 PM
If you can't afford to pay tobacco products kerry then maybe that's a good thing. Not only will it save your life/improve your health, it will also save the government/tax payers money through healthcare.

OMG. It is nothing more than a deliberate money grab from those who can least afford it.
Cigarettes will kill you, in how long? 50 years? You eat too many tomatoes, excessively in a lifetime, and I guarantee it will kill you. Anything in excess is not healthy. But who the f* am I to stop you, or tax you, for eating too many tomatoes?

Let's put it like this. You are NOT allowed to buy or grow your own fresh tomatoes, you MUST buy CANNED tomatoes, with all the deadly preservatives and chemicals instilled in it.

The history of smoking tobacco goes back 5000 years. All of a sudden its bad. No, anything in excess is bad. And instead of forbidding tobacco companies to include over 1000000 additives (current), they give them reason to instill MORE of these chemicals to ensure people find it even harder to quit. That is a conspiracy. Government involved.

They are planning to produce packets without advertising. This is to save the tobacco companies MILLIONS of dollars in printing costs. What a joke.

I like what the late Bill Hicks said....

'If I can't smoke and relieve my stress, it'll be more than second hand smoke you'll have to worry about,
It'll be second hand bullets'.

The price increase will ultimately increase crime rates, as people having a ciggarette, shop owners, etc, will face others, with no money, desperate enough to rob them. Violently if need be. And it is already happening.

Tobacco DOES relieve stress, awakens the mind to free thinking, and is ultimately the latest natural, god given right, to fall under the fascist ideologies of the modern dictatored world.

ANYONE who applauds the dissolvement of freedoms of another, deserves no freedoms of their own.

.

superted
05-16-2010, 02:00 AM
Hmmm....I've got a feeling your trying to annoy me ihimself...

First, I'll address kerry. Alcohol in moderation has no health risks, and in fact in the over 40s 2 units a day can actually have health benefits. Whereas tobacco has absolutely none, and it doesn't take many to do serious damage to your body. Of course people abuse alcohol and it kills thousands a year but that shouldn't take away from the majoirty that use it responsibly.

"But who the f* am I to stop you, or tax you, for eating too many tomatoes?"
Well ihimself, your analogy doesn't hold up as tomatoes in moderate are fine, whereas tobacco in moderation is still a health risk. That's the difference! Here in the UK I don't give a rat's ass if you wanna smoke yourself into an early grave, be my guest! BUT I do not think it's fair that my hard earned tax money should be spent on you while your dying slowly in hospital. You choose to smoke, peer pressure or whatever pressure, it was still your final decision. I was pressured into smoking in my teenage years but I didn't.

So while your wasting my tax money on expensive surgery, drugs, etc there are other really unfortunate people out there, like little kids with congenital disease that didn't choose to die, that don't get the best drugs or enough of the doctor's time just because, "I want to smoke to relieve my stress and awaken the mind.....blah...blah....blah"

"The price increase will ultimately increase crime rates, as people having a ciggarette, shop owners, etc, will face others, with no money, desperate enough to rob them. Violently if need be. And it is already happening."

That's just hilarious!

iHIMself™
05-17-2010, 03:10 AM
Hmmm....I've got a feeling your trying to annoy me ihimself...


Your tax dollars is not spent on smokers dying slowly. What a lame media driven excuse to support the new tax hike that isn't affecting anyone but those who can least afford it.

The healthiest of people, who never smoked, have dropped on the floor dead from a heart attack. Or rushed to hospital wasting your tax dollars. If they were smokers, it would have been attributed to their heart failure. The statistics are an absolute farce.

Again, anything in excess will kill you. But I don't care what people do in excess, it is their choice.

The analogy of the tomato was to point out that you are forbidden, by law, to buy or grow fresh tobacco, you MUST, by LAW, buy packaged tobacco, DRAINED in over 1000000 chemicals specifically designed to destroy any ambition to quit or any reduction in use. The government does NOT care for your health. Claiming to care, without banning or prohibiting these companies from using these chemicals, is ridiculous, if not down right insulting.

It's money money money....and, if anything, the government has given these companies more reason, more license, to add more chemicals, or increase the dosages, to ensure they do not lose out on consumers. THAT is a conspiracy.

Everywhere you go...don't smoke...no smoking...smoking prohibited. It's all subliminal advertising. And damn it works well.

And as for the increase in crime....don't be a tool. Of course thy're gonna rob more people more stores for it. You must live a cushy life. If they can't have ciggy's, let them smoke cake!

superted
05-17-2010, 06:57 AM
"But I don't care what people do in excess, it is their choice."

Don't you have any morals? I believe you can do whatever you want, legal or otherwise, so long as it doesn't impinge on other peoples lives but doing something to excess that has an impact on others is just plain selfish!

Like I said before, treating sick and dying people from smoking takes valuable resources from others that did not choose to kill themselves. Although off topic, I want to ask you a non tobacco question, but related to your above quoted statement. What do you think of an alcoholic drinking themselves to the point of liver cirrhosis, and now need a liver transplant to survive, they get the same priority as some poor kid that contracted Hep C from a blood transfusion through no fault of their own - do you think that is fair ihimself? Or is it selfish? There's only one liver - who gets it?

BlueAngel
05-17-2010, 08:59 PM
"But I don't care what people do in excess, it is their choice."

Don't you have any morals? I believe you can do whatever you want, legal or otherwise, so long as it doesn't impinge on other peoples lives but doing something to excess that has an impact on others is just plain selfish!

Like I said before, treating sick and dying people from smoking takes valuable resources from others that did not choose to kill themselves. Although off topic, I want to ask you a non tobacco question, but related to your above quoted statement. What do you think of an alcoholic drinking themselves to the point of liver cirrhosis, and now need a liver transplant to survive, they get the same priority as some poor kid that contracted Hep C from a blood transfusion through no fault of their own - do you think that is fair ihimself? Or is it selfish? There's only one liver - who gets it?

Health care is health care.

Doesn't depend on fairness.

It is about caring for the health of others.

Thus, the term heath care.

Receiving a transplant does not depend upon the circumstances, ted.

IT depends upon the severity.

superted
05-18-2010, 02:01 AM
Answer my question blue angel, this happened at my hospital just 4 months ago so its a real situation.

Are you so unbelievably selfish like ihimself, that you would happily stuff your face, drink yourself into a stupor, and smoke like a train. When it comes to your medical costs and medical time, because your lungs are shot, your liver is shot, you have cancer and as your morbidly obese it takes 3 times the amount of staff and 3 more surgeons (paid handsomely) to operate on your fat ass to save your worthless life and that would cost 100,000s

While at the same time there's a ward full of children with leukaemia that need treatment that costs too much, they will die early because the government doesn't have the money to pay for the best meds around.

If you think that's ok, you need your head examined!

iHIMself™
05-18-2010, 09:25 AM
Are you so unbelievably selfish like ihimself

ahem....why am I so selfish? I haven't even answered your question yet. And not just selfish...unbelievably selfish. jeez.

I WAS going to say it was a GOOD question, but now I will say....

There is no good or bad....there just is.

Anyway...........
To be honest? I think it falls in the same category as those who get away with murder by pleading insanity.

No, I don't think kids with leukemia should be on a waiting list, to save a poor old drunkard from dying a death he so blatantly brought upon himself. But I doubt it is that simple. Who decides he has drunk himself to that point? I'm sure there are cases way beyond reasonable doubt, but most cases would cast a lot of doubt. Who decides? And I'm sure, as with pleas of insanity, and a whole range of just causes, that lawyers here have run rampant within our so called justice system, lie the questions....what lead them to drink so excessively? Was it a choice? Compulsion? Uncontrollable? Again, I doubt it's that simple.

And giving a child with leukemia a new kidney, does not guarantee anything for that child.

It is the same as asking a mother to let go, destroy her unborn child that is to develop polio, or cerebral palsy, to save our ailing health system, or someone who deserves it more. Don't you think that is quite selfish? I'm sure Hitler had such plans. Others deciding who was worth saving and who wasn't.

But let's not forget we are talking about smoking a dried plant for christs sake. With medical benefits. Prolonged for 50 years. And as I said earlier, the statistics are a farce. Cancer is a prime example of how far this tobacco rubbish has gone. NOTHING causes cancer, because we are ALL BORN with it.
There are so many KNOWN attributions to its growth within the body. You standing in front of the computer right now, surrounding yourself with high volumes of radiation, for example.
And instead of pegging back our reliance on electricity, we increase our necessity, developing third world countries to produce more, destroying the very fabric of existence and life on this planet.

Yet you choose to fight the tobacco smokers. Passionately. It's just craziness.

Hell, eating too much chocolate will undoubtedly kill you much sooner. Or Mcdonalds?? Let's tax the crap out of Mcdonalds, and prevent any healthcare to these people who are KNOWINGLY destroying themselves.

Again, it's just craziness, and I'm dissappointed in you superted. I'm not here to annoy you, don't flatter yourself. I'm just here to speak my mind. That is all. Whether I'm always right and never wrong does not matter.

What DOES matter is my freedom to speak it. I feel as things are going, even speaking my mind is going to be illegal. It has been before.


What I think, is not always what I do.......

If it was......

I'd be left with no imagination.

starwarp2000
05-18-2010, 12:07 PM
all of a suden tyhe gov of connecticut deems smoking is bad and decides to raise the price of buying smokes every tiimee somone dies from smoking.. people die from drinking to.. like liver malfunction due to drinking.. like they care.. when what they realy think is that smokers can be used as a nother way to get tax dollars. ciggarrettes are now 10 dollars a pack.. and more in some places. if half the usa smokes. the tobaco company pays tax. after we pay the tobaco company by buying smokes. aand every time somone dies. the price and tax goes up. f---ing blood suckers are geting tax money gained by somone dieing. and using smokers habit of smoking which is hard to brake.

Hi kerry,

Here in Australia, the government has already recently increased the tax on cigarettes by 18%, which will profit them 4 billion dollars over four years.
They have said that this money will go into health care, but i don't believe them! Last time they increased it, by 3%, none of that money even came near the health industry, they used it to supplement their superannuation funds!
The reason, they say, for the increase, is to pay for future ill-health problems of smokers. The problem is that smokers, in our system, can be denied health care by doctors, because they smoke. On any list of operations, they can be put to the bottom of the list indefinitely and never get the health care required!

As to the health effects of smoking, well let's see: All the "paid" doctors that support the ill effects of smoking scenario are on the governments payroll. Add that to the fact that there are other "independent" studies on smoking that show it isn't bad. (Not from cigarette company doctors).

What makes smoking bad?
The chemicals that are placed in the cigarettes!

So, the government forces the placement of these chemicals in the tobacco, and then runs advertising campaigns on the ill effects of those chemicals in tobacco, and increases the taxes to pay for some non-existent health care for smokers!

I think the government should be bought up on charges of "Chemical Negligence"! Any company or organization which knowingly adds into a product or knowingly induces a poisonous chemical into the system, is guilty of "Biological Terrorism".

So, be thankful you don't live here!

superted
05-18-2010, 12:16 PM
"No, I don't think kids with leukemia should be on a waiting list, to save a poor old drunkard from dying a death he so blatantly brought upon himself." - Good. And yes your right it is never as simple as that but it still happens.

"With medical benefits" Those would be? And even if there are medical benefits, the risks way out strip them.

"the statistics are a farce" - really? Have you done a lifetime of comprehensive study into the effects of tobacco smoke? Because I'm pretty sure if you could prove that then you'd be one of the richest men in the world!

" NOTHING causes cancer, because we are ALL BORN with it." Since you were polite to me in your last post, I will be too. I'm not trying to piss out off when I say this, but your talking nonsense. How do you explain the FACT that 85% of lung cancer patients smoke? You just can't argue figures that are as big as that! Why is it that >90% of women that get cervical cancer have contracted HPV at some point in their lives?

"Hell, eating too much chocolate will undoubtedly kill you much sooner." Drinking more than 18 litres of water in a single day will most likely kill you. If you know this fact (as smokers know tobacco can cause COPD/cancer,etc,etc) but decide against the health risks and drink over 18litres of water then why should the government, and therefore tax payers, pay for your self-induced sickness?

"Let's tax the crap out of Mcdonalds" Why is that madness? I personally think all high calorific foods should have a hefty tax added. And I personally eat way too crap as it's cheap and convenient. My BMI is 26, slightly overweight and if they lowered the price of fresh fruit and such and increased crap foods then I would lose weight. That would be good for me now, but over a lifetime it could save my life from weight related issues such as cardiovascular disease. Not only would the government save money from less deaths related to CVD (number one killer in all the West) but they make money from the tax. So people could still eat as much as they like and the government would have plenty of money to treat both them and the real sick people out there! I think that's fair!

superted
05-18-2010, 12:19 PM
"Add that to the fact that there are other "independent" studies on smoking that show it isn't bad."

Could you provide a link please? As I just stated to ihimself, 85% of lung cancer suffers smoke.....and you think that somehow tobacco is ok for you? Get real!

starwarp2000
05-18-2010, 12:59 PM
"Add that to the fact that there are other "independent" studies on smoking that show it isn't bad."

Could you provide a link please? As I just stated to ihimself, 85% of lung cancer suffers smoke.....and you think that somehow tobacco is ok for you? Get real!

Must i do your research for you?

Go to this site FORCES - THE EVIDENCE - Therapeutic effects of smoking (http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm) and you will see lots of docs and refs.

Just some of the titles:

Smoking lowers Parkinson's disease risk

Impact of Smoking on Clinical and Angiographic Restenosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Shocker: 'Villain' nicotine slays TB

As you know, all these studies have been kept out of the mainstream media as then it will be found out that "Smoking doesn't Kill", it is the "Chemicals Added to Tobacco" that kill!
When this is really investigated, then governments will have a lot to answer for.

Put two and two together and ask yourself: Why would a Government want to poison, make scary etc. a product that immunized against TB?
What would occur if the drug companies were found to be negligent in their vaccine programs?

Your reasoning semantics can be applied to the following: Driving Kills

A person holding a steering wheel is in danger of having a serious accident, therefore Driving is a Health Risk!

LET US INCREASE THE TAX ON DRIVERS TO COMPENSATE!

BlueAngel
05-18-2010, 04:44 PM
Answer my question blue angel, this happened at my hospital just 4 months ago so its a real situation.

Are you so unbelievably selfish like ihimself, that you would happily stuff your face, drink yourself into a stupor, and smoke like a train. When it comes to your medical costs and medical time, because your lungs are shot, your liver is shot, you have cancer and as your morbidly obese it takes 3 times the amount of staff and 3 more surgeons (paid handsomely) to operate on your fat ass to save your worthless life and that would cost 100,000s

While at the same time there's a ward full of children with leukaemia that need treatment that costs too much, they will die early because the government doesn't have the money to pay for the best meds around.

If you think that's ok, you need your head examined!

Sorry, ted, but, although, it isn't fair, it is what is it and it has nothing to do with me being selfish.

I don't decide who receives a transplant and who doesn't.

iHIMself™
05-20-2010, 02:44 AM
Superted?

superted
05-20-2010, 05:45 AM
As per usual blue you've gotten yourself lost in tangled mess of nonsense, please do not reply to my posts anymore, you add nothing. And yes you are boring me, and no I won't leave this forum, as it is YOU that bores me, not the forum. Perhaps if you leave then I'll have a better time? Yea I think I would!

superted
05-20-2010, 05:46 AM
Not going to reply to my last post ihimself?

superted
05-20-2010, 06:10 AM
"Your reasoning semantics can be applied to the following: Driving Kills

A person holding a steering wheel is in danger of having a serious accident, therefore Driving is a Health Risk!

LET US INCREASE THE TAX ON DRIVERS TO COMPENSATE!"

What do you think car insurance is for? lol

Right lets stop cherry picking words and quote mining, and more importantly misrepresenting scientific data. You talk about how smoking is therapeutic? Right well I went to the links and here's what I found.

1. You say smoking "a product that immunized against TB?" How about reading the articles you post, here's the link.
Nicotine (http://www.data-yard.net/10c/nicotine.htm)
I think you'll find that nicotine is found in cigarettes, but it's not what does the physical harm to the lungs....duh! Here's a direct quote from the paper you referenced,

"If it proves itself in further study, people might swallow capsules of nicotine or get intravenous doses to stave off their TB in the future." Not cigarettes!!!

2. Smokeless tobacco, we're talking about smoking!
"The observation that smokeless tobacco users also have a lower risk of Parkinson's disease suggests that the most likely candidates are not compounds generated by combustion, but rather constituents of the tobacco leaves."

And from the same study that you support is states the following interesting line which I'm sure you'll ignore.

"Obviously smoking has a multitude of negative consequences."

3. "These findings have important implications for the follow-up of smokers after PCI and suggest that cross-study comparisons of rates of clinical restenosis must account for the potential confounding effect of smoking."
This study you referenced has only a link between less frequent repeated revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention. As the above quote states, there needs to be follow up cross-study comparisons to see if the benefits outweigh the negatives...which they probably don't, as seen with your TB study.


And yea you do need to do my research for me, because it's you trying prove something and as I've just slaughtered any point you had proves that there is no research backing the therapeutic effects for me to find in the first place!

iHIMself™
05-20-2010, 10:05 AM
"If it proves itself in further study, people might swallow capsules of nicotine or get intravenous doses to stave off their TB in the future." Not cigarettes!!!

2. Smokeless tobacco, we're talking about smoking!

Don't you think you are being a bit ridiculous? Oh no, smoking doesn't have benefits, its nicotine, and the constituents found in tobacco leaves! :rolleyes: Yeah, don't smoke it, shoot it up. OMG

"Obviously smoking has a multitude of negative consequences."!

Yeah well, sorry mum, but so does farting. Don't tell me you support a fart tax?

"And yea you do need to do my research for me, because it's you trying prove something and as I've just slaughtered any point you had proves that there is no research backing the therapeutic effects for me to find in the first place! ."

slaughtered. lol. Man, you're out for the count. You are totally in denial. There's plenty of research backing therapeutic effects. You are just too biased and wilfully ignorant about it.

I get worse doses of toxins while pumpin gas in my car than I do from cigarettes. You have taken that health risk crap hook, line and sinker.

Why are you in the conspiracy forums? Because you think the govt is wonderful, and cares about your health? If they did, there wouldn't be ANY child waiting for a transplant.

If people want to smoke, let them smoke! But do whatever it takes to prevent these tobacco empires from drowning these plants in countless poisons. Let them smoke REAL tobacco, and I bet there wouldn't be a cigarette problem at all.

superted
05-20-2010, 10:18 AM
"You are just too biased and wilfully ignorant about it."

Hahahaha!!!

Yea as a trainee doctor I'll be sure to tell all my patients to start smoking, 85% of lung cancers are caused directly by smoking but sure its all lies, out of the 10,000s of lung cancer patients it was just pure coincidence that they smoked.

BlueAngel
05-20-2010, 10:21 AM
As per usual blue you've gotten yourself lost in tangled mess of nonsense, please do not reply to my posts anymore, you add nothing. And yes you are boring me, and no I won't leave this forum, as it is YOU that bores me, not the forum. Perhaps if you leave then I'll have a better time? Yea I think I would!

Sorry, but you are the one who has tangled himself up and is in quite a mess.

The reason you resort to name-calling instead of sensical rebuttal.

If you don't want me to reply to your posts, you'll have to leave the forum and/or stop replying to my posts.

Yeah.

That's the ticket.

starwarp2000
05-20-2010, 02:56 PM
"You are just too biased and wilfully ignorant about it."

Hahahaha!!!

Yea as a trainee doctor I'll be sure to tell all my patients to start smoking, 85% of lung cancers are caused directly by smoking but sure its all lies, out of the 10,000s of lung cancer patients it was just pure coincidence that they smoked.

Aha!, Now I see, you are a "Trainee" Doctor!

Isn't it you that lobbied for the addition of the chemicals in tobacco in the first place?

Isn't it you that using your misguided logic system have decided to attack the people that you made the victims?

Oh, the irony of coming into a Conspiracy Forum and attacking something that you caused!

Time to silence myself, before i say what i really want to:mad:

superted
05-20-2010, 03:18 PM
Say what you really want, I won't make a compliant, the truth is always the way forward.

iHIMself™
05-20-2010, 10:16 PM
Aha!, Now I see, you are a "Trainee" Doctor!

Isn't it you that lobbied for the addition of the chemicals in tobacco in the first place?

Isn't it you that using your misguided logic system have decided to attack the people that you made the victims?

Oh, the irony of coming into a Conspiracy Forum and attacking something that you caused!

Time to silence myself, before i say what i really want to:mad:


Imagine that, superted. You make a living totally dependent on the sickness of others.

Besides, you MUST, by LAW, abide by the rules and regulations doctrinated to you by the industry heirarchy. Who, themselves, are controlled by multi billion dollar conglomerate enterprises. You are in training to prescribe endless doses of generation destroying toxins to the human race.
Start thinking for yourself, and I guarantee your career won't last long. Hence, you are destined to destroy, not heal.

superted
05-21-2010, 09:46 AM
"multi billion dollar conglomerate enterprises" isn't that what tobacco companies are?

Let us all smell the coffee and realise a few things,

1. I'm a future doctor trained to help, look after and cure people

2. You guys all smoke

3. 99% of the science without a doubt proves that smoking is acutely bad for you

It's pretty obvious you guys that call yourselves 'open minded' (and me closed minded PAH!) are obviously addicted and you can't bear to face the fact that your death is more than likely to be caused by smoking. Rather than grow a set and get some will power you'd rather ignore the MOUNTAINS of science and pretend it's all a 'conspiracy'. When you lying in your early death bed in severe pain, it'll be the doctor you'll want then!

BlueAngel
05-21-2010, 04:14 PM
"multi billion dollar conglomerate enterprises" isn't that what tobacco companies are?

Let us all smell the coffee and realise a few things,

1. I'm a future doctor trained to help, look after and cure people

2. You guys all smoke

3. 99% of the science without a doubt proves that smoking is acutely bad for you

It's pretty obvious you guys that call yourselves 'open minded' (and me closed minded PAH!) are obviously addicted and you can't bear to face the fact that your death is more than likely to be caused by smoking. Rather than grow a set and get some will power you'd rather ignore the MOUNTAINS of science and pretend it's all a 'conspiracy'. When you lying in your early death bed in severe pain, it'll be the doctor you'll want then!

You would never be the DOCTOR I want for any reason and I suppose 99% of the rest of us would agree.

superted
05-21-2010, 04:25 PM
"You would never be the DOCTOR I want for any reason and I suppose 99% of the rest of us would agree."

Why would that be?

BlueAngel
05-21-2010, 04:29 PM
"You would never be the DOCTOR I want for any reason and I suppose 99% of the rest of us would agree."

Why would that be?

Because I banned you from this forum and you've been verbally abusive ever since; therefore, I believe you would abuse me if I were your patient in order to seek revenge instead of caring for me.

Other reasons, as well, that are obvious to the rest of us, but, not you, of course.

What was that you said about another poster's mother when you were commonsense?

superted
05-22-2010, 08:50 AM
Again blueangel you are bullying me, for the third time please stop.

iHIMself™
05-22-2010, 11:52 AM
"multi billion dollar conglomerate enterprises" isn't that what tobacco companies are?

Let us all smell the coffee and realise a few things,

1. I'm a future doctor trained to help, look after and cure people!

Yeah righteo...NOW who's blowin smoke...
You are nothing but a future dooshbag in a cloak prescribing pills. Any monkey can do what you are about to set your life in doing. You're not going to help anyone. You are FORBIDDEN by LAW to help anyone. You MUST, by LAW, abide by doctrinated remedies and treatments. You may NOT come to your OWN conclusions. You will lose your license and even face jail.

The best doctor I ever had, prescribed me pills when I was sick, but urged...no...stressed that I don't touch them. Then why did he prescribe them?? Because he has to, by LAW. He MUST make these so called "cures" available to me, otherwise I could even sue his ass. Bit ridiculous isn't it? But that's how it is. Good luck with that. Good luck with unwillfully having to prescribe poisons to children that will not only sicken them, but sicken their preceding generations.


"3. 99% of the science without a doubt proves that smoking is acutely bad for you!

Did you mean to write..actually....or is smoking acutely bad for you? Define acutely bad.

Which science is this? Oh, that's right, the only science that counts to the Medical Board. 99% of this science, is fabricated. People die of diseases all the time..but if they were smokers..oh!! Smoking caused it! See...it's bad for you. We better subliminally advertise it, increase the poisons, tax the crap out of it, and make some serious money.

Didn't we all come to the conclusion that crossing the road is also bad for you?

And didn't you, yourself, come to the realisation, without any information actually coming from those who are so-called educating you to...ahem...heal and cure others, that tobacco itself is also known to be beneficial? Why haven't you been taught ALL the facts? Isn't your education, you think, a little biased?

"It's pretty obvious you guys that call yourselves 'open minded' (and me closed minded PAH!) are obviously addicted and you can't bear to face the fact that your death is more than likely to be caused by smoking. Rather than grow a set and get some will power you'd rather ignore the MOUNTAINS of science and pretend it's all a 'conspiracy'. When you lying in your early death bed in severe pain, it'll be the doctor you'll want then!

No, it'll be more drugs that I'll want.

Do you have any idea what kind of "set" and will power you got to have just to keep on smoking? lol. I'm not addicted to anything besides slapping fascists to the floor in forums like this. I CHOOSE to smoke, because I LOVE IT gotammit!!

Dying is a guarantee. But can you guarantee ANYONE who DOESN'T smoke, that they will live healthy and die painlessly? Of course you can't, so go have a coke and a smile and you know the rest...


"What was that you said about another poster's mother when you were commonsense?!"

Hahahaha....well that explains everything!

superted
05-22-2010, 12:53 PM
Die an early death if you want to.

I can only hope it's before your inferior DNA dilutes our 'already pissed in' gene pool.

BlueAngel
05-22-2010, 01:11 PM
Again blueangel you are bullying me, for the third time please stop.

You ask a question; I answer and I'm bullying you.

Your logic is illogical.

Please, keep playing the victim role as it truly becomes you.

superted
05-22-2010, 01:23 PM
Please don't talk or bully me, I would reply to you in a way I see fit but unfortunately if I talk about you in anyway I'll be banned as I'm on my final warning. Like pulling the wings of a fly.

iHIMself™
05-23-2010, 01:37 AM
Die an early death if you want to.

I can only hope it's before your inferior DNA dilutes our 'already pissed in' gene pool.

Please elaborate WHY it's been pissed in.

I'm sure you'll come to the conclusion that its doctors, the ones that approved the works in which you study, that have pissed in it the most.

superted
05-23-2010, 02:45 AM
Yea doctors, those evil b*****ds! Next time you have cancer, don't go see your expert oncologist as he's actually a 'mutant nazi reptile from the other side of the moon that's sponsored by the pharma companies to poison our children' ("Oh won't someone save the children?!?").

Instead go see your local quack for; acupuncture, diluted medicine and of course, plant extracts. They'll surely cure you as they come unpolluted and unchanged straight from god's green earth! "PRAISE THE LORD!!"

BlueAngel
05-23-2010, 10:27 PM
Please don't talk or bully me, I would reply to you in a way I see fit but unfortunately if I talk about you in anyway I'll be banned as I'm on my final warning. Like pulling the wings of a fly.

Sorry, but I'm a member of this forum and I will post a comment to whomever I desire, just as you post a comment to whomever you desire because you are a member of the forum.

I have no clue why you must bite your lip so as not to say something that might cause you to be banned.

That, my friend, is not what I have warned you about.

As if I have stated three zillion times.

The warning is about making derrogatory comments about the MODERATOR of this forum and posting them in every other thread you desire.

I am not bullying you.

You know that.

I know that and so, too, does everyone else.

You know the rules.

Be courteous and abide by them.

Thank you.

starwarp2000
05-23-2010, 10:50 PM
Please elaborate WHY it's been pissed in.

I'm sure you'll come to the conclusion that its doctors, the ones that approved the works in which you study, that have pissed in it the most.

Genetic engineering, mutation of viruses for Military and Crop Production purposes, the leeching of these into the Eco-System resulting in mass extinctions........Need I go on?

All under the guise of science, a science that believes it can operate in isolation, and not as a 'symbiotic' member of this planet's life systems.

Does that answer your question?

BlueAngel
05-23-2010, 11:11 PM
Genetic engineering, mutation of viruses for Military and Crop Production purposes, the leeching of these into the Eco-System resulting in mass extinctions........Need I go on?

All under the guise of science, a science that believes it can operate in isolation, and not as a 'symbiotic' member of this planet's life systems.

Does that answer your question?

Excuse me for butting in here, iHIMself, but didn't you say the following:

I'm sure you'll come to the conclusion that its doctors, the ones that approved the works in which you study, that have pissed in it the most.

I dunno.

I've never noticed any other member with the words "free member" under their username.

What's up with that?

BlueAngel
05-25-2010, 01:33 AM
Hey, iHIMself, what's up with the FREE MEMBER status under your username?

I have never seen that before under any username on this forum.

Could be I'm blind or just missed something.

If so, please let me know.

What's the deal?

Are you copyrighted or something?

iHIMself™
05-25-2010, 03:54 AM
Yea doctors, those evil b*****ds! Next time you have cancer, don't go see your expert oncologist as he's actually a 'mutant nazi reptile from the other side of the moon that's sponsored by the pharma companies to poison our children' ("Oh won't someone save the children?!?").

Instead go see your local quack for; acupuncture, diluted medicine and of course, plant extracts. They'll surely cure you as they come unpolluted and unchanged straight from god's green earth! "PRAISE THE LORD!!"


Bahahahahaha. Funny. For one, the only reason I go to the quack's office is to get a medical certificate for work. Again, by LAW, I must. Throwing up all over my desk just doesn't cut it.

And there's no such thing as an expert oncologist. They're all trained monkies who are forbidden to think for themselves. Your definition of an expert is the equivalent of a priest being able to recite the bible by heart. WOW! expert! Bah!

I'd never trust a doctor, to actually go out and put myself on the line of scientific trial and error. Because that's all it is. If you actually understood what you were learning, then you'd know this.

If I die, I die. At least I wasn't afraid to live.

iHIMself™
05-25-2010, 04:02 AM
Hey, iHIMself, what's up with the FREE MEMBER status under your username?

I have never seen that before under any username on this forum.

Could be I'm blind or just missed something.

If so, please let me know.

What's the deal?

Are you copyrighted or something?


Copyrighted. Lol. Yes, dear Angel, indeed I am.

Note the ™



Seriously though, I go way back with mr. clubconspiracy. He does things for me, I do things for him. lol.

Really, though, I have no idea.

Wait, I'll look at my profile...BRB!!

superted
05-25-2010, 04:41 AM
Whenever ihimself feels a lump in his testicles (assuming he has any) he just gets on the phone to 'the big guy'. Sorts it all out for him, no nasty lifesaving doctors or medicine for him. Good old fashioned praying, sorts anything out!!

It's all planned you know! If you get hit by a drunk driver and have your lower body crushed. Should you call an ambulance.....HECK NO!!! You call 'the big guy', he'll sort out that excruciating pain. So your legs are shattered into 100s of pieces, sure it's 'His plan'. You were meant to get horribly injured, disabled and in pain the rest of your life as god has a special plan for us, for all of us. PRAISE THE LORD - HALLELUJAH!!!

iHIMself™
05-25-2010, 04:51 AM
OK, there's an option for custom User Title.

I prolly did it when I was high as a kite. lol.

Aaaaah the days. 89 to be precise.

It was dam hard, but I did it.

Yes, to me, each reefer looks like it was grown by god.......rolled by jesus......

and moistenshot with gisele bundchen's px$%#! lmao. sorry. I couldn't help it.

iHIMself™
05-25-2010, 05:11 AM
Whenever ihimself feels a lump in his testicles (assuming he has any) he just gets on the phone to 'the big guy'. Sorts it all out for him, no nasty lifesaving doctors or medicine for him. Good old fashioned praying, sorts anything out!!

It's all planned you know! If you get hit by a drunk driver and have your lower body crushed. Should you call an ambulance.....HECK NO!!! You call 'the big guy', he'll sort out that excruciating pain. So your legs are shattered into 100s of pieces, sure it's 'His plan'. You were meant to get horribly injured, disabled and in pain the rest of your life as god has a special plan for us, for all of us. PRAISE THE LORD - HALLELUJAH!!!


Hahahaha. What's up with you? You are being hilarious. I'll hallelujah that for sure!!

Hey, I gots testicles....just ask your boyfriend. lol.

I'm no muslim, or fundamentalist, so god's only plan for me is.....ahem....freedom to choose my own plan. I have no doubt, though, if such a disaster should happen, I would thank the ambulance staff for the shots of morphine. But I could have thanked a severe drug addiction too, with a handy shot or two already in my pocket. lol. DAM laws. In fact, I could have been so high, that a drive anywhere would have been not worth it. hence, the relegation of such circumstances actually occuring. lmao. Prevent accidents. Legalise Drugs. lol.
Sigh.

superted
05-25-2010, 05:15 AM
You believe in a man in the clouds and have not one shred of proof....and you say your not a fundamentalist? You certainly fooled me, I thought you might have been mentally disturbed for awhile there.

kerry
05-25-2010, 08:23 PM
OMG. It is nothing more than a deliberate money grab from those who can least afford it.
Cigarettes will kill you, in how long? 50 years? You eat too many tomatoes, excessively in a lifetime, and I guarantee it will kill you. Anything in excess is not healthy. But who the f* am I to stop you, or tax you, for eating too many tomatoes?

Let's put it like this. You are NOT allowed to buy or grow your own fresh tomatoes, you MUST buy CANNED tomatoes, with all the deadly preservatives and chemicals instilled in it.

The history of smoking tobacco goes back 5000 years. All of a sudden its bad. No, anything in excess is bad. And instead of forbidding tobacco companies to include over 1000000 additives (current), they give them reason to instill MORE of these chemicals to ensure people find it even harder to quit. That is a conspiracy. Government involved.

They are planning to produce packets without advertising. This is to save the tobacco companies MILLIONS of dollars in printing costs. What a joke.

I like what the late Bill Hicks said....

'If I can't smoke and relieve my stress, it'll be more than second hand smoke you'll have to worry about,
It'll be second hand bullets'.

The price increase will ultimately increase crime rates, as people having a ciggarette, shop owners, etc, will face others, with no money, desperate enough to rob them. Violently if need be. And it is already happening.

Tobacco DOES relieve stress, awakens the mind to free thinking, and is ultimately the latest natural, god given right, to fall under the fascist ideologies of the modern dictatored world.

ANYONE who applauds the dissolvement of freedoms of another, deserves no freedoms of their own.

.

i never heard that one before
how does smokeing awaken the mind to free thinking

superted
05-25-2010, 11:24 PM
Kerry, are you not supposed to be on ihimself's side? LOL

iHIMself™
05-26-2010, 08:50 AM
You believe in a man in the clouds and have not one shred of proof....and you say your not a fundamentalist? You certainly fooled me, I thought you might have been mentally disturbed for awhile there.

Huh? me? lol. You haven't been paying too much attention have you? I do believe in god, yes, but hardly a man in the clouds. In fact, I've always been the first to state that the bible is a collection of works written by over 40 known authors, edited and published by the government itself. That is fact. God's word cannot be written. His word, is living. Despite this, the bible, includes texts over 2000 years old. Well worth the read. It's easy to see the motives behind some passages, and the divinely inspired texts in others.

You have no idea what I believe. I'll put it like this.

i is alive...i is life...god is life...i is god.

Aren't we supposed to be talking about the big ciggarette cover up? What's the matter? You ran out of falsified factitions to reference? Factitions....hahaha...sigh.

Here's some ancient texts from great philosophers you can take note of....



Attention to health is the greatest hinderance to life.




'Tis healthy to be sick sometimes.




Physician, heal thyself.




Natural forces within us, are the true healers of disease.




Doctors are just the same as lawyers; the only difference is that lawyers merely rob you, whereas doctors rob you and kill you, too.




Strive to preserve your health; and in this you will the better succeed in proportion as you keep clear of the physicians.




I often say a great doctor kills more people than a great general.




Nearly all men die of their medicines, not of their diseases.



I can go on and on you know.

Good luck with your...ahem...noble profession. pfft.

iHIMself™
05-26-2010, 08:55 AM
i never heard that one before
how does smokeing awaken the mind to free thinking

ask the american indians.

kerry
05-26-2010, 09:27 AM
somone answer me this if you can
the gov of connecticut started this and other states steped in
that every time somone dies as a result of smoking the price of ciggarettes goes up. who gets the tail end of that. when the whole idea is to slow down the companys that make ciggarettes, by raiseing the price.. it cost more to make ciggarettes. but the smoker pays the price when it goes up. so if this is to fight the ciggarettet companys how are they paying more to make them when the buyer is the one that hands over the cash when the price goes up.

BlueAngel
05-27-2010, 09:40 PM
Copyrighted. Lol. Yes, dear Angel, indeed I am.

Note the ™



Seriously though, I go way back with mr. clubconspiracy. He does things for me, I do things for him. lol.

Really, though, I have no idea.

Wait, I'll look at my profile...BRB!!

Ask a simple question, get a simpleton answer.

superted
05-28-2010, 05:05 AM
Are you some kind of simpleton ihimself??

"Huh? me? lol. You haven't been paying too much attention have you? I do believe in god"

I don't remember ever saying anything about the bible in that quote....you believe 100% that magic exists!!!!!! ARE ARE MAD, INSANE, CRAZY, A NUT JOB!!!!!!!

Oh yea back up your nonsense with quotes from the....bible LOL!! Yea I'll use that next time I need health advice. Oh and as for all those men that lived how long ago? Yea I think their medical advise is a little out of date....and anyway most of them are quote mined and so serve no purpose but to show how useless you are at arguing any kind of intelligent point yourself!

"Nearly all men die of their medicines, not of their diseases."

And....so what? Answer this smart guy, how many die without medicine and how much earlier?

Please ihimself, tell us all the noble profession you are educated and practice in? Which of the Great Universities did you attend?

iHIMself™
05-28-2010, 08:21 AM
I don't remember ever saying anything about the bible in that quote....you believe 100% that magic exists!!!!!! ARE ARE MAD, INSANE, CRAZY, A NUT JOB!!!!!!!
OMG man. Did you or did you not say that I believed in a man in the clouds?

You believe in a man in the clouds and have not one shred of proof

Is that not referring directly to the bible? Or is it Jack in the beanstalk?

Oh yea back up your nonsense with quotes from the....bible LOL!!

I.....quoted the bible once. So? For someone who hasn't read shite, you seem quite ignorantly biased. Or is it blissed?

Yea I'll use that next time I need health advice. Oh and as for all those men that lived how long ago? Yea I think their medical advise is a little out of date....

Advice, not advise. No, it just goes to show how backward we have become. What do you need medicine for? Chemical imbalance perhaps?

Answer this smart guy, how many die without medicine and how much earlier?

Are you suggesting that people die without medicine? And much earlier? Please provide the basis of your absurd assumptions.

and anyway most of them are quote mined and so serve no purpose but to show how useless you are at arguing any kind of intelligent point yourself!

Yes, please let me know when YOUR intelligence kicks in. I think it is you, who is useless at arguing any point. Keep bringing on the insults, Dr rhetoric trainee, coz that's all you can do.

superted
05-28-2010, 08:38 AM
.....ah.....sorry I don't know the bible that well....does it say that god resides in a cloud? I just thought that was a given, where else does a supernatural deity hang out these days? Considering you never actually see or hear him I assumed it was somewhere humans couldn't live - you know what I mean?? lol

Ah correcting spelling and/or grammar, the past resort of a beaten man!

You really are crazy, at first I thought you were simply bashing medicine cause I proved you wrong but you actually don't believe medicine does anything good......what planet are you on?

"Are you suggesting that people die without medicine? And much earlier? Please provide the basis of your absurd assumptions."

You are quite mad, aren't you? Just google smallpox, I haven't got time to explain the obvious.

"Dr rhetoric trainee" LOL you mean the kicker to all my arguments that proves me right every time? Yea I just if you ignore that then you win every time!

iHIMself™
05-28-2010, 08:47 AM
somone answer me this if you can
the gov of connecticut started this and other states steped in
that every time somone dies as a result of smoking the price of ciggarettes goes up. who gets the tail end of that. when the whole idea is to slow down the companys that make ciggarettes, by raiseing the price.. it cost more to make ciggarettes. but the smoker pays the price when it goes up. so if this is to fight the ciggarettet companys how are they paying more to make them when the buyer is the one that hands over the cash when the price goes up.

It goes like this. Most who smoke are middle to low income earners. The wealthy smoke too, but who cares about them anyway. For the sake of this experiment, let's just stick to REAL population. The tobacco companies, as well as the government, including doctors, used to encourage the population to smoke, while at the same time, introducing seriously harmful chemicals in their production of ciggarettes.
After being exposed and facing huge litigations that would have indefinately destroyed the industry, they needed to figure out how they could get away with murder, and sustain it.
Now, on the pretence of caring for the health of their people, the government increased the prices, whilst providing huge advertising campaigns for these tobacco giants at tax payers expense. Remember when the prohibition of tobacco advertising kicked in? This was followed by mass campaigning of DON'T SMOKE, NO SMOKING, signage and advertising everywhere you went. This is text book 'subliminal advertising'. Reminding the smoker CONTINUOUSLY, everywhere they went. And reminding NONsmokers, about ciggarettes, everywhere they went. All this, under the pretence of caring for the health of the people, while turning a blind eye, giving tobacco companies free reign to introduce whatever toxins they desired into their products. And still do.

If the government cared to minimise the gross amounts of profits these companies make, they would impose taxes on those profits. But they don't.
It is a disgusting scam they know will not fail. Why? Because people want to smoke, are reminded to smoke, and even if they don't smoke, are always reminded anyway. Subliminal advertising at its best.
If they really wanted to destroy these companies, or at least hurt their profits, why not legalise the cultivation of tobacco? They never will. Because it is a scam. A blatant scam on an ever content population.

Who gets the end of it? They all do. And taxpayers foot the bill. Smokers or not. But they care for out health....BULLSH*T!!

Legalise the cultivation of tobacco. Chemical free, and if the public were to do so, would smoke nowhere near as much. Imagine that. Exactly. Imagine, coz it will never happen in reality. It is a multi trillion dollar industry. We are talking absolute global empires.

iHIMself™
05-28-2010, 09:06 AM
.....ah.....sorry I don't know the bible that well....does it say that god resides in a cloud? I just thought that was a given, where else does a supernatural deity hang out these days? Considering you never actually see or hear him I assumed it was somewhere humans couldn't live - you know what I mean?? lol

Ah correcting spelling and/or grammar, the past resort of a beaten man!

You really are crazy, at first I thought you were simply bashing medicine cause I proved you wrong

Hahahaha.....please show me where on earth you beat me?


For one you keep saying that I believe in a deity.

I am alive ....I am life...God is Life...I am God.

Am I that deity??? lmao



Second..i knew you were going to reference disease as a reason for medicine, but the truth is, disease is a cause of medicine.


And thirdly, a doctor should at least know how to spell, especially one who is demanding I state which'great university' I attended.


Let's make a fourthly.....you have NO argument. You are a kicker of the flaming turd pile left at your front door every morning.


And for that, I'm lighting a cancer stick. Because I want to goddammit.......and I can still afford it. Just not so many. lol

BlueAngel
05-31-2010, 12:06 AM
It goes like this. Most who smoke are middle to low income earners. The wealthy smoke too, but who cares about them anyway. For the sake of this experiment, let's just stick to REAL population. The tobacco companies, as well as the government, including doctors, used to encourage the population to smoke, while at the same time, introducing seriously harmful chemicals in their production of ciggarettes.
After being exposed and facing huge litigations that would have indefinately destroyed the industry, they needed to figure out how they could get away with murder, and sustain it.
Now, on the pretence of caring for the health of their people, the government increased the prices, whilst providing huge advertising campaigns for these tobacco giants at tax payers expense. Remember when the prohibition of tobacco advertising kicked in? This was followed by mass campaigning of DON'T SMOKE, NO SMOKING, signage and advertising everywhere you went. This is text book 'subliminal advertising'. Reminding the smoker CONTINUOUSLY, everywhere they went. And reminding NONsmokers, about ciggarettes, everywhere they went. All this, under the pretence of caring for the health of the people, while turning a blind eye, giving tobacco companies free reign to introduce whatever toxins they desired into their products. And still do.

If the government cared to minimise the gross amounts of profits these companies make, they would impose taxes on those profits. But they don't.
It is a disgusting scam they know will not fail. Why? Because people want to smoke, are reminded to smoke, and even if they don't smoke, are always reminded anyway. Subliminal advertising at its best.
If they really wanted to destroy these companies, or at least hurt their profits, why not legalise the cultivation of tobacco? They never will. Because it is a scam. A blatant scam on an ever content population.

Who gets the end of it? They all do. And taxpayers foot the bill. Smokers or not. But they care for out health....BULLSH*T!!

Legalise the cultivation of tobacco. Chemical free, and if the public were to do so, would smoke nowhere near as much. Imagine that. Exactly. Imagine, coz it will never happen in reality. It is a multi trillion dollar industry. We are talking absolute global empires.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

The tobacco companies do not and have never faced HUGE litigation's.

The dangers of smoking are advertised.

This leaves the tobacco companies held harmless.

Smoke at your own risk.

Ever hear of liquor companies and or beer companies who faced HUGE litigation's from people who suffer from cirrhosis of the liver?

iHIMself™
05-31-2010, 02:22 AM
Sorry, but you're wrong.

The tobacco companies do not and have never faced HUGE litigation's.

The dangers of smoking are advertised.

This leaves the tobacco companies held harmless.

Smoke at your own risk.


Sorry, Angel, you are wrong. Heh...fancy that. but I actually meant there was the very real possibility. ie facing...anyway..

I'll get some info regarding..


And if beverage companies were adding toxins specifically designed to addict you, I'm sure they would be facing their own. But the alcohol industry is quite an open market. Plenty of competition, unlike tobacco.



OK, there's an option for custom User Title.

iHIMself™
05-31-2010, 02:34 AM
Tobacco litigation can be divided into three distinct time frames based on the types of claims pursued and the legal theories on which those claims were based. The first wave of tobacco litigation (1954–1973) involved cases based mainly on the theories of deceit, breach of express and implied warranties, and NEGLIGENCE (http://law.jrank.org/pages/8788/Negligence.html). Cases filed during the second wave of tobacco litigation (1983–1992) were based on the legal theories of failure to warn and strict liability. Neither of the first two waves of litigation proved to be successful for the plaintiffs.
The first wave of litigation was characterized by the tobacco industry's adamant claims that smoking and chewing tobacco products were not harmful to consumers. Plaintiffs during that time did not have the extensive medical studies demonstrating serious health consequences that are available today to support their claims. Thus, plaintiffs had a difficult time establishing the essential element of proximate cause (causal connection to the injury) in their tort cases. By the time of the second wave of tobacco litigation, the connection between smoking and illness had been firmly established, but the tobacco industry was still able to argue with great success that smokers assumed the risks of smoking by freely deciding to smoke. The FCLAA's requirement that a warning label be placed on all cigarette packaging and advertising supported the tobacco companies' defenses of contributory negligence and ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK.
During the first two waves of litigation, the tobacco companies were also successful in using their size and financial strength to make litigation as difficult as possible for the plaintiffs. The tobacco industry filed and argued every conceivable motion, took countless depositions, and sent out extensive interrogatories. As a result, it was extremely burdensome and expensive for plaintiffs and their attorneys to pursue their cases.


Read more: Tobacco - Tobacco Litigation (http://law.jrank.org/pages/10805/Tobacco-Tobacco-Litigation.html#ixzz0pUhKqz89) Tobacco - Tobacco Litigation (http://law.jrank.org/pages/10805/Tobacco-Tobacco-Litigation.html#ixzz0pUhKqz89)


So.......where were we......oh yes..

tobacco companies held harmless? no. Just untouchable.

kerry
05-31-2010, 05:32 PM
well i do believe in the bible which is gods own words
sorry you people dont but it is fact he will come back on a cloud and raise the dead and reunite them with there bodys. that is judgment day.
you can believe this or not which is probably not that right now as you read this he is right there with you now. saint michael the arch angel is right now sending the evil one back to hell where he wont cause more disbelief. and you can help him by keeping a open mind till you figure things out. maybe another sighting is needed for the unbelievers. but proof has no faith.

superted
05-31-2010, 06:54 PM
"and you can help him by keeping a open mind till you figure things out."

Huh? An open mind? The bible isn't the word of god....it wasn't even written by eye witnesses, none of the bible authors actually ever met jesus. And your asking us to be 'open minded'? WISE UP KERRY!!!

kerry
06-01-2010, 08:58 AM
not asking anyone to do anything

superted
06-01-2010, 09:00 AM
What a retort kerry, you surely beat me this time!

kerry
06-01-2010, 10:55 AM
wasent ment as a retort
uhh whats a retort

superted
06-01-2010, 11:16 AM
Very apt (http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-ecofriendly-cigarettes-kill-destructive-human,17529/)

FallaciesAbound
06-01-2010, 09:03 PM
wasent ment as a retort
uhh whats a retort
Im betting its not this type that he meant.

http://www.thesciencefair.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/Retort%203938_M.jpg

BlueAngel
06-01-2010, 10:07 PM
Sorry, Angel, you are wrong. Heh...fancy that. but I actually meant there was the very real possibility. ie facing...anyway..

I'll get some info regarding..


And if beverage companies were adding toxins specifically designed to addict you, I'm sure they would be facing their own. But the alcohol industry is quite an open market. Plenty of competition, unlike tobacco.

You can say I'm wrong, but that doesn't make me wrong.

If you want to prove me wrong, you must provide a rebuttal and not merely a comment saying that I'm wrong.

How many people have sued tobacco companies and how many received compensation/settlement?

BlueAngel
06-01-2010, 10:36 PM
THERE is a reason why a warning label as to the risks and dangers of smoking cigarettes is placed on every pack that is sold around the globe and it it isn't because the tobacco companies are looking out for our health.

It is so the cigarette manufacturers can be held harmless from any litigation brought forward due to health issues caused by smoking cigarettes.

In this respect, if litigation does arise, it is very difficult to prove that the medical condition the Plaintiff suffered or is suffering was the direct result of smoking cigarettes.

iHIMself™
06-02-2010, 02:46 AM
You can say I'm wrong, but that doesn't make me wrong.

If you want to prove me wrong, you must provide a rebuttal and not merely a comment saying that I'm wrong.

How many people have sued tobacco companies and how many received compensation/settlement?

Why are you skipping my comments? I have provided the info. Read it. It states that the tobacco companies faced litigation in three seperate timeframes.

But no, none of those were successful, but I didn't state that ciggarette companies were liable under litigation, I merely stated they FACED it.

iHIMself™
06-02-2010, 03:06 AM
THERE is a reason why a warning label as to the risks and dangers of smoking cigarettes is placed on every pack that is sold around the globe and it it isn't because the tobacco companies are looking out for our health.

It is so the cigarette manufacturers can be held harmless from any litigation brought forward due to health issues caused by smoking cigarettes.

In this respect, if litigation does arise, it is very difficult to prove that the medical condition the Plaintiff suffered or is suffering was the direct result of smoking cigarettes.

Of course. But the health warnings do not state harm of smoking ciggarettes....it is harm of smoking tobacco...which in itself, is a lie. Tobacco does have its negatives, but also its positives. Ciggarettes, on the other hand, is tobacco drowned in over a million known chemicals.
But it is the government that is responsible for these warnings, not tobacco companies. So litigation, for allowing these tobacco companies to legally include these chemicals, and continuing to increase doses, may fall directly on the govt. itself.



WARNING: Tobacco may not kill you, but the 1.2 million chemicals added to this tobacco WILL.

Surgeon General's Warning

BlueAngel
06-03-2010, 09:08 PM
Why are you skipping my comments? I have provided the info. Read it. It states that the tobacco companies faced litigation in three seperate timeframes.

But no, none of those were successful, but I didn't state that ciggarette companies were liable under litigation, I merely stated they FACED it.

None of the litigations were successful.

Thanks for proving my point.

outfrom
08-04-2010, 03:02 AM
Prior to the fairly recent movement of down with smoking, smoking was an
accepted practise publicly.

The health affects have always been alluded too in our time. The health
affects are still stated in the same way. Mainly may cause...

There's all kinds of stuff going on seemingly since the early 1990's.

You see it happening, your eyes are open to it. You don't see it happening,
you are none the wiser.

Harping about to different minded falls on deaf ears. Either way.

alicee
04-06-2011, 05:00 AM
Hello,
yes i also heard about it and in many places this rule is applicable but i think this will not gonna effect that much and the people who want to buy they can buy.

thanks!!

________________
Cheap cigarettes online (http://www.1001cigarettes.com/)
Discount cigarettes Online (http://www.tobaccoteds.com/)

Chaser Tiponi
04-24-2011, 07:53 PM
"Add that to the fact that there are other "independent" studies on smoking that show it isn't bad."

Could you provide a link please? As I just stated to ihimself, 85% of lung cancer suffers smoke.....and you think that somehow tobacco is ok for you? Get real!

I would have to get behind the concept of chemical pollution in cigarettes. It's a widely known fact that they put a bunch of crap in cigs to make them more addictive.

For this reason there is absolutely no proof on earth that tobacco alone causes cancer? In other words there is no proof that the chemicals added are not the cancer causing agents?

In order to prove that you would have to research thousands of people who grew organic tobacco and used it solely through out their lives. Show me where this has been done to continue any kind of debate?

What has been proven is two very important facts that are relevant to this issue. #1: Most chemicals used today are by and large created from fossil fuels. Everything from that flouride that's so damn good for you to the round up product that when sprayed kills all vegetation for like a year.Just so there's no argument here I do acknowledge that other substances are also used in chemicals but the fact that we are exposed to so much of this crap is hardly debatable. #2: It's a proven fact that being exposed to said fossil based products over extended periods causes cancer. In fact there is normally a warning to this effect posted on most gas pumps that almost everyone should have noticed at some point or another?

Having said that who has proven that tobacco causes cancer? It seems reasonably clear to me that no one has?

I don't want to get off topic here but just wanna throw in this little tidbit. It seems like the FDA and other Gov. areas as well condone the poisoning of the masses with all this chemical crap. MSG, aspartame, flouride and the list goes on and on.

Would people be motivated to use tobacco in the excesses that they do without all this chemical crap in it? Is it possible that if the government quit molesting the industry it would by nature solve this health crisis with out further intervention?

I admit that while I can not prove my theory is true I find it doubtful then any objective person can prove that it is not?

BlueAngel
04-24-2011, 11:30 PM
Chaser said:

"For this reason there is absolutely no proof on earth that tobacco alone causes cancer? In other words there is no proof that the chemicals added are not the cancer causing agents?"

Your comment doesn't make any sense.

Chaser Tiponi
04-25-2011, 02:17 PM
Chaser said:

"For this reason there is absolutely no proof on earth that tobacco alone causes cancer? In other words there is no proof that the chemicals added are not the cancer causing agents?"

Your comment doesn't make any sense.

Hmmmm. It makes perfect sense to me but let me re word it.

The point I'm trying to make is "yes" it has been proven that tobacco PRODUCTS cause cancer. Let me be clear. I mean products that have all kinds of additives and chemicals added.

Is it these chemicals they add that cause the cancer or the tobacco itself???

It's been proven that smoking a pack of camels each day can and just might give you cancer. It has not however been proven that the cancer you might catch is caused by the tobacco in these cigarettes.

My point is chemicals like these are what give people cancer from smoking. Benzene
(petrol additive), Formaldehyde
(embalming fluid), Ammonia
(toilet cleaner), Acetone
(nail polish remover), Nicotine
(insecticide/addictive drug), Arsenic (rat poison). And almost 4000 other chemicals. Here is a link to a site that shows some of the chemicals added to cigarettes by tobacco companies. :The List of Additives in Cigarettes - Additives in Cigarettes (http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm)

These chemicals are (in my opinion) what causes cancer and other sickness. Not tobacco itself. I hope that is clear enough for you to understand now?

Chaser Tiponi
04-25-2011, 02:55 PM
It's also interesting to note that the reason cig companies get away with adding these chemicals to their products is because the FDA has approved them for use in food. I feel so much better knowing that after the very small amount of research I did to reply to this post I learned that Formaldehyde, Ammonia, Acetone, Arsenic and more are approved by the FDA for use in food. What's for supper?

BlueAngel
04-26-2011, 01:43 PM
I don't think you are certain of that which you write, therefore, the reason you end some of your statements with question marks.

Here, let me help you to clarify the point you are trying to make.

You believe that tobacco alone does not cause cancer.

You believe that the added chemicals increase the risk.

The same can be said about the food we ingest.

Chaser Tiponi
04-26-2011, 03:26 PM
I don't think you are certain of that which you write, therefore, the reason you end some of your statements with question marks.

Here, let me help you to clarify the point you are trying to make.

You believe that tobacco alone does not cause cancer.

You believe that the added chemicals increase the risk.

The same can be said about the food we ingest.

Yes, that is what I believe. I make statements w/ question marks only when said statement can not be verified as fact.

It would be difficult for a 41 year old construction worker like me to prove that smoking these chemicals causes cancer or sickness. And that tobacco does not. But from where I sit that is how it looks to me based on what Information has been made available to me in my life time.

BlueAngel
04-26-2011, 03:33 PM
Yes, that is what I believe. I make statements w/ question marks only when said statement can not be verified as fact.

It would be difficult for a 41 year old construction worker like me to prove that smoking these chemicals causes cancer or sickness. And that tobacco does not. But from where I sit that is how it looks to me based on what Information has been made available to me in my life time.

It doesn't matter whether you are a construction worker or a BANKER, these facts are difficult to prove no matter what your occupation.

Just the same as a deficiency in B12 can be the cause of migraine headaches.

The pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want doctors or anyone to know this, because the sale of their expensive drugs would be rendered useless.

Chaser Tiponi
04-26-2011, 09:25 PM
@BA, Yeah the pharmaceutical industry is another great example. I would suggest that most of the crap they are overcharging us for could be remedied with less invasive and less expensive treatments, vitamins etc. My personal experience is that none of the pharmaceuticals I have used ever worked for me except pain killers. I mean they didn't serve the purpose they were intended to. I never needed pain killers for long periods but we all have heard how addictive they can be. The pharmaceutical thing is a gimmick just like all the other corporate gimmicks as far as Im concerned.

But any one of us could write a 500 page book on corporate greed and consumer abuse, but the elites who run those outfits seem to have an excuse around everything. And things they can't explain away they refuse to comment on or pay off higher ups to let them off the hook.

You have to question everything any more.

breakfast
05-17-2011, 02:44 AM
I won't make a compliant, the truth is always the way forward.

Chaser Tiponi
11-02-2011, 06:29 PM
all of a suden tyhe gov of connecticut deems smoking is bad and decides to raise the price of buying smokes every tiimee somone dies from smoking.. people die from drinking to.. like liver malfunction due to drinking.. like they care.. when what they realy think is that smokers can be used as a nother way to get tax dollars. ciggarrettes are now 10 dollars a pack.. and more in some places. if half the usa smokes. the tobaco company pays tax. after we pay the tobaco company by buying smokes. aand every time somone dies. the price and tax goes up. f---ing blood suckers are geting tax money gained by somone dieing. and using smokers habit of smoking which is hard to brake.

I couldn't agree more! They are simply taking advantage for profits!

prabap61
11-08-2011, 09:06 PM
i have seen leaving the habit is much difficult task than any other.