Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-8081-

should tobacco be banned

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-24 14:12

i say yes

benefits:
less healthcare costs
higher productivity (no smoke breaks)
more farm land will be used to produce useful products (food, bio-fuels)
cleaner environment
less house and forest fires
less car accidents

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-24 14:18

Well yeah, it SHOULD be banned. But look what that has done when we banned drugs such as cocaine or marijuana. Yes, it IS illegal. But people still try to use it. Too many people have already succumb their selves to cigarettes and the like. Plus the tobacco companies already make a ton of money to begin with and right now  I don't think they are going to be happy to lose their $1,000,000 income per week.

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-24 16:16

It should be legal, but unrolled, in a pouch. When they roll it for you, evil chemicals get added en masse

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-24 16:26

Your organic tobacco has no place in this world of megacapitalism

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-24 18:10

Should Anonymous be banned?

Name: AMERIKAH FUCK YEAH 2008-05-24 18:16

ANYONE WHO WANTS IT BANNED IS NOT A PATRIOT

TOBACCO INDUSTRY EMPLOYS GOOD AMERICANS, IT PROVIDES AMERICA MOENY

ALSO, MUSLIMS WANT TO BAN TOBACCO, DID YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

DO WHAT IS AMERICAN. SUPPORT US.

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-24 18:50

We should ban tobacco and legalise marijuana.

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-25 3:28

>>1
If tobacco (arguably the most important and influential crop in American history) were criminalized, you'd only see INCREASED usage and increased negative health/social/financial effects. Just as with previous prohibition attempts and the "War on Drugs", you will see results directly opposite of your intentions.

>less healthcare costs
First off, you obviously don't have a clue how our (retarded) health care system works. But anyway, we'd actually see INCREASED costs. Why? Because there would no longer be direct funding to the health care providers from the tobacco companies to offset the increased insurance risks. What you'd see is an increase in costs across the board to make up for the lost income.

>higher productivity (no smoke breaks)
What do you think people did BEFORE smoke breaks became almost standard? They snuck out. All that would happen would be that people start sneaking out en masse to hide in the bathroom or behind a dumpster and take a drag. Just like people do today with other drugs like pot.

>more farm land will be used to produce useful products (food, bio-fuels)
There are now less than 50,000 farms in the US that produce tobacco, averaging 7% of their harvest by land area. That isn't a lot. (There are a little more than 2,000,000 farms in the US, meaning at a rough guestimate we're using ~0.14% of our farmland on tobacco.) About 98% of our tobacco now is IMPORTED due to the high price of growing it domestically. So while this may actually be a valid point, it is very very weak.

>cleaner environment
There WAS a study done that showed cigarette smoke to be "ten times worse" than diesel exhaust, not to mention the couple hundred poisons and carcinogens in cigarettes. But suggesting that banning tobacco would stop people from smoking is retarded, so it's a moot point.

>less house and forest fires
Again, prohibition has the opposite intended effect. If anything, more people would be smoking in the privacy of their homes and such, so there would be an INCREASE in fires.

>less car accidents
What? Cigarettes don't noticeably affect the number of vehicle deaths at all. No more than other minor distractions, anyway (radio, talking to other passengers, etc). Instead you should be make a point about how 10 times more people are killed DIRECTLY from cigarettes via lung cancer, etc (~440,000/year in the US) than in ALL kinds of automobile accidents combined (~44,000/year in the US).

Then there's the fact that the US federal and state gov'ts earned over $30 billion in taxes last year on cigarettes alone.

I have never smoked a cigarette in my entire life and probably never will. I have also never done any drug other than alcohol at social events (and then only a glass or two of wine/champagne). Not saying I will never do drugs or indulge in alcohol, just that I personally don't see the point in poisoning my body for shitty products. I don't eat fast food, I won't smoke the shitty cigarettes people smoke nowadays, and I won't drink the piss that people chug down constantly.

I'm not sympathetic to smokers. On the contrary, I think those retards should be beaten to death with their own blackened lungs. I'm just saying outlawing tobacco is retarded. Along the same lines, other drugs should be legalized (with limitations, of course). By legalizing the drugs, we'll be able to tax them and regulate their production, leading to less dangerous products and stimulating the legit economy instead of the black market. Further along the same lines, I also think that performance enhancers should be similarly legalized, even if we need to segregate the sports leagues. People should be free to do what they please with their bodies so long as no harm comes to anyone else. "Harm" including second hand smoke, which is why I favor smoke-free zones where they make sense (schools and family restaurants, but not bars). If there was a way to do it without infringing on privacy, I'd make it illegal to smoke in a building with children under 18 living in it (children's rights trump adult privledges), but since there isn't, that one has to slide.

Oops. I'm ranting. /post

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-25 8:18

>>8
There already was >>6 for shitty apologetics, but thanks anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-25 9:47

>>8
wow, that's a lot of text...

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 11:33

I hate people who smoke and have tattoos.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 12:42

>>11
go back to watching wheel of fortune, grampa

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 15:24

Tobacco should be banned only if hemp is legalized.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 17:42

>>12

Actually youngin' I'm only 19 years old. I hate people who do drugs, have tattoos, and have piercings. That's right, I judge them just like they judge me.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 18:29

>>8
tl;dr, looks like you wasted your time, try cutting down on the verbal diarrhea next time

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 18:41

I say no. Tobacco is a plant.

You fucking idiot, why do you want to ban something that grows naturally? You want to ban roses? Potatos?

Why not ban fucking cake. It'd make people less fat, it'd mean less cake breaks, it'd mean everybody was healthier.

Yeah, that's how stupid you sound.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 19:00

>>1
I understand what you mean, but i perfer some people to smoke over going compleatly over the deep end with stress that they kill some one.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 0:36

>>16
Don't give them ideas.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 6:38

>>16
Apply the same reasoning to opium and hashish

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 8:50

>>1
i agree
tobacco should be banned

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 11:00

Tobacco is unhealthy, expensive, and pollutes the atmosphere.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 11:30

>>21

You are unhealthy, offensive to look at, and you pollute the atmosphere with your body odor.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 13:57

Legalise everything and let market forces sort it out.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 16:37

>>23
Sorry, we are dealing with scientifically valid arguments here. Clearly you can see why people with actual responsibility can't leave things to sort themselves out praying to the supernatural.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 23:35

Ban tabacco = Less tax

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 5:12

>>24
You mean the arguments that outlawing such things has made them cheaper and more widepread in usage, especially in children, who drop out of school at record rates to make obscene tax-free profits selling drugs?

Or the arguments that outlawing them has made them more dangerous, due to a lack of production regulation?

Or the arguments that outlawing them has made society at large more dangerous, due to clogging the prisons (more than 50% are in for non-violent drug charges, many for longer terms than violent rapists), supporting violent drug cartels, street dealers, and gangs?

Or the arguments that outlawing them has drained the economy to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars a YEAR, due to the combined costs of the War On Drugs, supporting the prisoners who shouldn't be there, paying for law enforcement, the lost tax revenue, etc?

Fuck it, I'm not gonna rant anymore, but while I'm thinking about it, these same points apply to prostitution, as well.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 9:49

>>26
It's nice of your retarded mind to connect legalizing something to DURR HURR FREE MARKUTZ. I'm all for legalizing medically sensible drugs, a la netherlands, however connecting this to LIBERTARYANIZM DERP DERP DERP only exposes your retardation once again. The legalized version works because it is regulated not because MARKAT FORSAZ MAGICALLY MADE EVERYTHING ALRIGHT!!!!!

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 10:25

>>27
Under a libertarianism regulations which serve to preserve justice are permitted.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 11:01

>>28
How? MAGICK MARKAT FORSAZ!!!! DEY SOLV EVRYTHUNG!!! MAGIC WILL STOP PROFITEERING!!!!

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 11:28

>>29
The state still exists under a libertarianism. It's purpose is merely restricted to preserving liberty and justice.

The bulk of your trolls overwhelmingly consists of telling people they are crying which suggests reaction formation. Furthermore you exclusively troll people you believe are stormfags or secretly racist, which can only mean you actually care about the issue at hand. If you were a true troll who didn't care about the issue he is trolling you would troll multiple issues, considerring the volume of text you put in to trolling it appears to me you are severely "butthurt" by these stormfags.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 11:47

Ban tobacco so all the faggots addicted to it whine. Also there are warning labels on all tobacco products for a reason.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 12:28

>>30
How will it preserve when it can't now? Oh, right DA MAGICK comes in.

Keep up with your denial, and crying BAAWWW TROLL every time your retarded delusions are disproven, my retarded copy-pasting buddy.

Name: Libertaryan 2008-06-04 12:36

>>32
STAYT IZ KROOONI AND SOSHALIST NOW! WEN STAYT IS POWERLESS, PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS WILL TAKE PITY AND WON'T EXPLOIT!!! WHY? BEKUZ IF THEY DO THE HOLY MARKUT FORSAZ WILL STRIKE DEM DOWN WIT A LIGHTNING BOLT FRUM HEAVENZ! WIT MAGICK LIBERTARYANIZM PREZERVS JUSTIS AND LIBERTY!!!!

CLEARLY YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE GREAT WISDOM BEHIND LIBERTARYANIZM, YOU'RE STILL USING LOGIC AND REASON - DAT'S NOT THE LIBERTARYAN WAY! LIBERTARYANIZM IS A MASHINE OF IGNORANCE AND HERDING RETARDED LOSERS, LUBRICATED BY ANAL LUBE!!! FACTS ARE NOT FOR US!!

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 12:41

>>33
Can someone translate this to English?

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 19:00

>>34
It's libertarianese, sorry.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 19:25

i think it should be banned, and pot should be legalized.  beer can go too.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 23:19

>>27
>>29
>>32
>>35
Why don't you try making an actual argument, instead of strawmen and red herrings?

Screaming like a retard about your political misconceptions when they have no real relationship to the argument at hand serves no purpose but to derail the thread and convinve us that you are indeed retarded. If you really think you know what you're talking about, make a decent arument or don't waste your and our time.

Thanks.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 1:42

>>32
Obviously the state cannot eliminate all crime, but it can reduce it to reasonable levels as determined via a representative system of government.

The bulk of your trolls overwhelmingly consists of telling people they are crying which suggests reaction formation. Furthermore you exclusively troll people you believe are stormfags or secretly racist, which can only mean you actually care about the issue at hand. If you were a true troll who didn't care about the issue you are trolling you would troll multiple issues, considerring the volume of text you put into trolling it appears to me you are severely "butthurt" by these stormfags.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 3:56

Smokers are scum. Marginally better than homosexuals.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 9:16

>>37
It's funny because you have described yourself, and the posts you cited ridicule how retarded your "thought" is. Come back when you can argue with facts, my retarded friend, rather than MARKAT FORSAZ MAGICALLY FIX TINGS!! LIBERTARYANIZM FTW!!!

>>38
More shit with no substance, try again.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 14:02

>>38
Prove it has no substance by stripping it apart and pointing out the contradictions.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 18:28

>>41
Again we see the retard-grade logic of an average libertarian. If i]you[/i] are making preposterous claims, you have to prove it. But, yet again we see the classical 2+2=5 PROOV ME RONG!!!! crying of the pathetically retarded organism known for crying BUSH IZ SOOSHALIST!!!!. So, come back when you can "prove" your claims with something other than MARKAT FORSAZ MAEK TINGS ALRIGHT WIT MAGIC!. What you said has no substance precisely because of it - it doesn't rely to any fact, other than your delusional mind, which was proven to be retarded again and again.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 18:28

>>42
in b4 ownage by bbcode

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 19:59

>>42
"Sooshalist"? What the fuck?

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 20:27

>>44
Libertarians can't say socialist without crying, hence the pronunciation.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 21:19

>>45
I can't listen to you say "sooshalist" without crying because you sound like such a whiny little faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-06 8:42

>>46
You aren't getting this, are you?

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-06 13:23

>>1
these facts have convinced me, tobacco must be banned

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-06 13:36

>>47
I've never met a libertarian who I've ever seen crying (assuming you mean this literally?)  So what is the point of what you are saying? That you're an annoying little shit? STfu unless you have something substantive to say.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-06 19:58

>>49
The fact that you assumed it to be literary says something about your intelligence, and that says something about your ideology.

How is libertarianism treating you? And how is screaming how everything, even George Fucking Bush, is socialist despite the very clear definitions and common sense contradicting these retarded statements not crying in denial?

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-07 19:36

>>50
Bush justifies statism in the name of the people and technically this is socialism.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-07 19:49

>>51
Yep, repeating retarded delusions makes them right. Statism is socialism, riiiight.

Name: Libertaryan 2008-06-07 21:33

>>52
LOLNO SOCIALISM ISN'T STATISM IT'S UHH... STATISM WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE DOING IT FOR THE PEOPAL! IF YOU SAY YOU'RE DOING IT AT THE EXPENSE OF PEOPLE IT'S NOT SOSHALIST! WHAT PEOPLE DO AND DEFINITIONS DON'T MATTER TO LIBERTARYANS! IF IT IS GOING TO FIT OUR DELUSIONS, WE CONSIDER RHETORIC AS IDEOLOGY! TO HELL WITH REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE! BUSH IZ SOSHALIST! MAN IT'S AWESOME TO HAVE A BIFURCATED MIND FILLED WITH BULLSHIT!

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-08 2:18

>>52
>>53
Bush's inauguration speech proves that he believes his policies are for the people.
http://www.atthewell.com/speech/

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-08 6:58

>>36
y halo thar stoner fag. If beer goes you won't have anymore of that happy juice when you get the munchies drugfag.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-08 7:47

>>54
It would be a little bit less retarded if >>53 hadn't been posted.

So, if you openly say your policies are at the expense of people, you are capitalist?

My retarded friend, your attempts have reached a new high on patheticness. Of course he's going to say it's for the people, retarded loser - has he done anything socialist? No.

In b4 the retarded loser repeats BAWW SOSHALIZM IS STAYTIZM BAWW DEY SAY ITS FOR PEOPAL BAWWW

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-08 14:42

>>56
He says his policies are for the people, not at the expense of the people.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-08 15:23

>>57

How retarded are you? Is someone going to tell his policies are at the expense of the voters when he wants their votes? Your dumbness really knows no fucking bounds.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-09 9:33

>>58
Fidel Castro lied about wanting to create a socialist utopia in order to set up a dictatorship. What makes him a socialist?

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-09 9:43

>>59
His setting up a dictatorship, obviously.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-09 9:55

>>59
Cuba has a planned economy since the rise of Castro.
If that's not socialist for you then you should learn more about Marxism.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-09 12:17

>>59
Is there a bourgeois in Cuba? Learn definitions instead of keeping up with your scheme of perpetual denial.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-09 12:43

ITT: We are three and we think what people say matters regardless of their actions, and everyone who says they're doing things for the benefit of people are communists, and no other definition or facts matter to us.

Wait, I was way smarter than that when I was three...

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-10 22:18

>>62
Is there a bourgeois in Cuba?
Yes.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-10 22:19

>>64
Oh, so there are individual people owning the means of production for profit as a class, or you are a retard who doesn't know the definition of what we are talking about.

Hmm... I wonder which one, yet again...

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-11 4:38

>>65
Fidel Castro is unofficially bourgeoisie.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-11 5:45

if you ban smoking then we need to ban video games and being fat, also posting on message boards -you should be getting fit, serving the masterplan and working to keep those lucky elite enjoying all the luxury they're accustomed too. 

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-11 8:55

>>66
So, he's individually a class, rriight.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-11 15:05

>>67
>ban being fat
maybe then America will be a less obnoxious place to see...

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-11 21:18

>>68
Him and his cronies are the upper class of Cuba.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-11 21:47

>>70
Aaand we return to >>65, even if your crying was factual, upper class is not necessarily bourgeois, whose definition you are oblivious to, dear retarded loser. Therefore, we conclude this yet again with your whining owned with facts.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-13 12:07

moar liek boregouis

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-13 12:27

>>71
Well he inhabits the same place in society as the bourgeoisie so I fail to see why you enjoy sucking his dick.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-13 19:32

>>73
No, it isn't the same place - is aristocracy and bourgeoisie the same too in your tiny mind too? You just need to accept when you are factually owned, you were wrong once, and trying to save that you exposed your ignorance on a dozen more subjects...

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-13 20:44

>>40
Fact: your posts contain no actual arguments OR facts. Especially that one.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-13 22:22

>>75
Fact: Post-ownage, you've now resorted to that retarded post to drag the "argument" further, which you seem to be doing because it takes your mind away from your aching butt. Learn to read, rather than engage in arbitrary crying perpetually - by now you should've learned that they don't fare well against facts and logic.

Learn to read, seriously, it's a useful skill.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-14 2:18

>>74
>>76
You do realise at this point you've written way more than the people you're trying to troll? You're not a very good troll. The ultimate troll is a 1 sentence proclamation that causes 100s of people to write tomes and tomes of volumes of text attempting to disprove it. Whoever said "there is a god" is the biggest troll evar.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-14 2:30

replace them with weed feilds

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-14 2:34

>>77
You do realize that facts aren't trolling, and the fact that you posted that reply actually implies that you are a party in this reality vs. DERP DERP BUSH IS SOCIALIST etc. charade

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-16 11:00

ok

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-16 15:17

Should niggers be exterminated?

i say yes

benefits:
less healthcare costs
higher productivity (no watermelon breaks)
more farm land will be used to produce useful products (less chicken, more beef and pork)
cleaner noise environment
less house and forest fires
less car accidents

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-16 15:18

>>79
Provide a list of facts you have mentionned.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-16 19:33

>>82
Why, can't you read the thread in addition to being epically retarded? In addition to providing facts to bring you out of libertarian retardation, do I have to pinpoint them to you aswell? Do you want Moldavia and Wallachia too while we're at it?

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-17 17:34

>>83
I can't find any facts. Strike up a list.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-17 21:13

>>84
I see that you failed to comprehend even >>83 lying right above, and keep up with denying reality, retarded loser.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-19 12:58

>>81
fuck you you racist virgin

Name: RedCream 2008-06-20 16:09

Somebody needs to brush up on the history of Prohibition.

Name: RedCream 2008-06-21 3:35

I sometimes stick cigarettes up my ass and light up.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-23 2:56

>>88
that's hot

Name: RedCream 2008-06-23 5:06

>>89
Cloans have a variety of strange sexual proclivities.

Does my use of the word "proclivities" arouse you?

Shall I touch you ... there?

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-23 11:48

Prohibition was back in the day where less people were ridiculously lazy AND it was for alcohol which is a much bigger deal than useless smokes.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-23 18:02

>>91
The problem is welfare not smokes. If anything the addictive effects of smoking and it's cost are an incentive to work.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-23 18:06

Why beat around the bush, ban stupid people from life, problem solved

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-24 2:36

>>93
Because a system exists where only they suffer the consequences of their stupidity whilst making use of their unskilled labour.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-24 3:46

Cons:
Complete economic collapse
Violent illegal tobacco trade

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-24 3:58

>>95
facepalm.png

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List