• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vapng vs Smoking

JohnnyDollar said:
That's what they say. But just how true is it?

When I was an OTR driver, I hauled a lot of Flammable 3's and Corrosive 8's into food and drink places. Ice cream, soda plants, candy plants and a whole slew of other places. ALL of which went into their product. Just because the FDA says it's safe for the majority of people, doesn't mean it's safe for everyone. You could drink Pepsi every day your whole life and never get cancer. But because your bodies anatomy & chemistry is different than someone else's, doesn't mean someone else isn't going to get cancer from the same pepsi. So, they get cancer. And if they smoke, the doctors will claim it's from the smoking. Why? Because that's the easy way. And because there's no way to tell what actually gave that person cancer. It could've been the chemicals mixed with the Pepsi and cigarettes. It could've been the ice cream chemicals mixed with the Pepsi chemicals. And the smoking may not have had anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

The link between smoking and cancer is way past the debating stage.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Well you're right, but that was a separate matter--untaxed cigarettes v. taxed cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Coercion and threat of force is at the heart of every political conversation- taxes are political fodder- Eric Holder was killed for allegedly trying to by pass the "tax" in NYC- common denominator?
 
Helix said:
Every credible scientist who has studied it.
Click to expand...

That doesn't end a debate- the debate is ended only when people stop debating it- maybe scientist have stopped debating but obviously citizens haven't- what right do scientist, or you, have to tell me what not to debate? Think it through- not thinking through is what politicians do- are you running for political office?
 
Gdjjr said:
Coercion and threat of force is at the heart of every political conversation- taxes are political fodder- Eric Holder was killed for allegedly trying to by pass the "tax" in NYC- common denominator?
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with the first part of your post, but you lost me on the reference to Eric Holder. :confused:
 
Gdjjr said:
That doesn't end a debate- the debate is ended only when people stop debating it- maybe scientist have stopped debating but obviously citizens haven't- what right do scientist, or you, have to tell me what not to debate? Think it through- not thinking through is what politicians do- are you running for political office?
Click to expand...

There is no debate. Smoking causes cancer.
 
Helix said:
Every credible scientist who has studied it.
Click to expand...

Funny, I've been smoking since I was 18ish. And I don't have cancer. Most of my family have been smoking, and none of them have cancer. I know that's not absolute. Me thinks that if smoking really caused all the cancer that "scientist" say, it would've been banned a long LONG time ago.

My point is, there's a thousand things that supposedly give people cancer. Depending one who has the money, power and influence, will determine what gets reported as cancer causing. Tobacco companies obviously have enough lobbyist with enough money to keep cigarettes on the market.

I smoke pipe tobacco in my cigs. it doesn't have all those chemicals that normal cigs have. Flavoring chemicals, hydration chemicals, preservatives etc etc etc
 
JohnnyDollar said:
Funny, I've been smoking since I was 18ish. And I don't have cancer. Most of my family have been smoking, and none of them have cancer. I know that's not absolute. Me thinks that if smoking really caused all the cancer that "scientist" say, it would've been banned a long LONG time ago.

My point is, there's a thousand things that supposedly give people cancer. Depending one who has the money, power and influence, will determine what gets reported as cancer causing. Tobacco companies obviously have enough lobbyist with enough money to keep cigarettes on the market.

I smoke pipe tobacco in my cigs. it doesn't have all those chemicals that normal cigs have. Flavoring chemicals, hydration chemicals, preservatives etc etc etc
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence aside, there is no debate about the link between smoking and lung cancer.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I certainly agree with the first part of your post, but you lost me on the reference to Eric Holder. :confused:
Click to expand...

Why? He was killed for allegedly selling onesies bypassing the taxes-
 
Helix said:
Anecdotal evidence aside, there is no debate about the link between smoking and lung cancer.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence? LOL- you determining a debate is over is about as anecdotal as it gets.
 
Gdjjr said:
Why? He was killed for allegedly selling onesies bypassing the taxes-
Click to expand...

OK, I guess I didn't realize he had the same name as the former AG.
 
Gdjjr said:
Anecdotal evidence? LOL- you determining a debate is over is about as anecdotal as it gets.
Click to expand...

Arguing that smoking doesn't cause cancer is utterly ridiculous. I won't waste more time addressing it.
 
Helix said:
Arguing that smoking doesn't cause cancer is utterly ridiculous. I won't waste more time addressing it.
Click to expand...

Typically that's what a demagogue does- I'm 71 I've been smoking since I was 14- I even tried smoking grape vines when I was a kid- I've smoked pot, cigars and pipes- I'm still here, cancer free. Anecdotal? Of course- genetics has more to do with cancer than cigarette smoking- anecdotal? I think not.
 
Glitch said:
You have a very strange notion of fascism.

Fascism was created by Benito Mussolini, a devote socialist. His motto for his socialist fascist Italy was "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." That makes fascism entirely a creation of the left, and fully embraced by today's Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not buying your ridiculous, revisionist history.


"...Fascism is a form of far right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe..."

Fascism - Wikipedia​


So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 
JohnnyDollar said:
I remember when vaping came out, before any of the stupid vaping laws came out. I was sitting in the DMV with a buddy of mine trying to get my title straightened out so he could buy my semi. We were sitting there, waiting for my number to be called when it dawned on me, there's no law. So I pulled it out and started puffing away. HA HA HA HA.. It was priceless. All the dirty looks from the DMV people and an occasional cop that walked by. But there wasn't a dayum thing they could do about it. Well, except wish they pass another law so they could "order" me to stop doing something that wasn't really bothering anyone else. Next thing I know, people were pulling out their vapes, or going to their cars to get theirs. HA HA HA HA HA.. Within 10 minutes, there was like 5 of us in there vaping away.
Click to expand...

Attitudes have changed a great deal since the 1960s when I started smoking. There wasn't any place that was off limits. I think it was Minnesota that was the very first State to ban smoking in public buildings around 1980. There were also no "smoking" or "non-smoking" sections in restaurants. Even in the military you could smoke anywhere, and just about any time. I remember puffing away on a cigarette as I ran my 3-mile run for my PFT. Smoking was no big deal then. Today attitudes have completely changed.
 
Moot said:
Sorry, I'm not buying your ridiculous, revisionist history.


"...Fascism is a form of far right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe..."

Fascism - Wikipedia​


So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Click to expand...

Your Wikipedia is the revision. Look up Benito Mussolini and his Italian Fascist Party. This is indisputable historical fact, unlike your manufactured Wikipedia nonsense. Fascism is entirely left-wing, created by a devote Marxist socialist.
 
Glitch said:
Your Wikipedia is the revision. Look up Benito Mussolini and his Italian Fascist Party. This is indisputable historical fact, unlike your manufactured Wikipedia nonsense. Fascism is entirely left-wing, created by a devote Marxist socialist.
Click to expand...

There are literally hundreds of sources and references to support my position....but none to support yours.

Facism: sources and References


So who is your source for the revisionist crap that you post, Glitch? Do tell.
 
Moot said:
There are literally hundreds of sources and references to support my position....but none to support yours.

Facism: sources and References


So who is your source for the revisionist crap that you post, Glitch? Do tell.
Click to expand...

From a credible source: Benito Mussolini

During a period of freedom in 1909, he fell in love with 16-year-old Rachele Guidi, the younger of the two daughters of his father’s widowed mistress; she went to live with him in a damp, cramped apartment in Forlì and later married him. Soon after the marriage, Mussolini was imprisoned for the fifth time; but by then Comrade Mussolini had become recognized as one of the most gifted and dangerous of Italy’s younger socialists. After writing in a wide variety of socialist papers, he founded a newspaper of his own, La Lotta di Classe (“The Class Struggle”). So successful was this paper that in 1912 he was appointed editor of the official Socialist newspaper, Avanti! (“Forward!”), whose circulation he soon doubled; and as its antimilitarist, antinationalist, and anti-imperialist editor, he thunderously opposed Italy’s intervention in World War I.

Soon, however, he changed his mind about intervention. Swayed by Karl Marx’s aphorism that social revolution usually follows war and persuaded that “the defeat of France would be a deathblow to liberty in Europe,” he began writing articles and making speeches as violently in favour of war as those in which he previously had condemned it. He resigned from Avanti! and was expelled from the Socialist Party. Financed by the French government and Italian industrialists, both of whom favoured war against Austria, he assumed the editorship of Il Popolo d’Italia (“The People of Italy”), in which he unequivocally stated his new philosophy: “From today onward we are all Italians and nothing but Italians. Now that steel has met steel, one single cry comes from our hearts—Viva l’Italia! [Long live Italy!]” It was the birth cry of fascism. Mussolini went to fight in the war.
Click to expand...

You've been indoctrinated into believing a lie.
 
Bullseye said:
I was reading this piece this morning talking about how the state of Michigan is banning all flavored vaping materials, except tobacco flavor; several other cities have enacted similar measures but it got me thinking. There's been some talk on the hazards of vaping - there's even been a death attributed to vaping.

So, I'm wondering why, if these entities are so attuned to the health concerns of their constituents, why only go after vaping. Don't far more people get sick and die from smoking tobacco? Why not ban the sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The percentage of people who smoke has been declining for a long time- why not just cut it to zero and be done with it?

Other than for about two days in Navy boot camp I've never smoked or vaped so I plead ignorance as to the attraction addictiveness.


I hate to be cynical (no I don't) but is it possible that to our elected representatives tax revenues from the sale of cigarettes are more important than our health?


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Okay - is this a trick question... like which pile of crap is stinkier?
 
OlNate said:
This, exactly.

I vape because I can't quit smoking, but don't want to kill myself. This latest round of hysteria is utterly unscientific, with the only ones benefiting from it being tobacco companies, due to all the folks who might have been thinking about a healthier alternative, but have used this as a cause to give up.

I find it odd, given the American distrust of the media at the moment, that so many would be jumping on the bandwagon.

This is the most responsible piece I have found:

COMMENTARY: Panic over e-cigarettes not supported by the evidence - National | Globalnews.ca
Click to expand...

You have to realize, that most of the American distrust towards institutions is skin deep. As an example, nobody likes politicians or lawyers, until it's your politician or lawyer, and suddenly they're golden & can do no wrong. Better yet, we love our judges, despite the fact that they're effectively a lawyer moonlighting as a politician.

Even after going on half a decade of crying fake news, many of the conservatives will still gobble down any news story that doesn't directly malign them, and even after all the progress we've made on marijuana, many of the liberals will still blindly take the government at face value whenever it says new drug bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom