Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Protagoras
You also managed to miss my main point.

I reiterate. We would all be better off if the money which has been pissed away trying to convince people of the obvious,to wit: 'that cigarettes are bad for you', had been, was being, and would be in the future, spent on basic research into curing cancer.

Maybe you feel safe from cancer as a nonsmoker or as someone who is never around smoke from cigarettes. I am happy for you.

Tremendous numbers of people who have never smoked have died of cancer. Many of them before tobacco was introduced to Europeans. When tobacco is gone people will still get cancer. All sorts of cancer, not just lung cancer.

My point is simple. We can fund fundamental research into the disease or waste fortunes trying to make 'nicotine niggers' out of smokers.

We can find a cure which will benefit anyone and everyone who gets cancer, whatever the type or cause, or we can spend fortunes villifying people so we can write smug bromides on the internet.

Frankly, I view the latter as a tremendous waste.

69 posted on 08/28/2006 7:53:53 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: Smokin' Joe
I have owned Philip Morris stock, on and off, for many years now. If the money was spent on cancer research that has been spent in courtrooms, all mankind would have benefited. Just look at the settlement with the states. The money was supposed to be used for health care and anti smoking adds, but has been frittered away on potholes and other projects. The government just lost a case for 145 billion from tobacco. What were they going to do with it if they won? Send money to rebuild Lebanon?
70 posted on 08/28/2006 8:03:31 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: Smokin' Joe
Both my parents smoked, my wife has always been healthy, never smoked, has cancer. She was exposed to a ton of cigar smoke from her father, but that's not my point.

You assume all the money spent in campaigns against smoking would go to a cure for cancer. Maybe but I doubt it. As for smoking, just my humble opinion but it is a dirty foolish addictive and unhealthy habity. It always made me laugh that there was a scientific debate over whether constantly inhaling smoke into your lungs was unhealthy. Duh.

You enjoy it, that's ok with me, but in my opinion it will be a good thing if smoking becomes a thing of the past.

71 posted on 08/28/2006 8:04:27 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: Smokin' Joe
I reiterate. We would all be better off if the money which has been pissed away trying to convince people of the obvious,to wit: 'that cigarettes are bad for you', had been, was being, and would be in the future, spent on basic research into curing cancer.

I didn't miss it, I just have no reason to think that your OPINION is correct. I happen to think that many, many young people have actually taken the warnings to heart and avoided starting a terrible habit. I readily concede that many others have not.

Maybe you feel safe from cancer as a nonsmoker or as someone who is never around smoke from cigarettes. I am happy for you.

I do not, so much for that. Safer? As in "not as likely to have the same health issues as smokers",,,maybe. But I was a heavy smoker for a long time and do not have any illusions that I quit soon enough or that I am safe now even though I quit 18 years ago. I also am not self-righteous or a "reformed whore". I am not a smoking Nazi, I regularly go to places where people smoke. But if you care about yourself, your health, your family,,,,it is a stupid thing to do. I was stupid, now I am less stupid.

Tremendous numbers of people who have never smoked have died of cancer.

You are rationalizing your habit, not making logical arguments.

Many of them before tobacco was introduced to Europeans. When tobacco is gone people will still get cancer. All sorts of cancer, not just lung cancer.

Ya think????? Lung cancer rates are higher among smokers, period. I have never heard anyone make the case that it would disappear or wouldn't exist in the absence of smoking. So you just made a classic straw-man argument.

No one called anyone the names you cited or vilified anyone so the same applies, Straw-man.

It's not evil to smoke, just stupid, and selfish. You aren't a villain, you are a dummy.

And the lung cancer is just one health issue, maybe the least. But it's just the most terrifying to most people who understand that 85% of all lung cancer is metastatic at the time of discovery. That is almost always a death sentence.

73 posted on 08/28/2006 8:21:05 AM PDT by Protagoras (Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: Smokin' Joe

"to make 'nicotine niggers' out of smokers."

Don't you know that every generation needs its sub-humans to pick on?


80 posted on 08/28/2006 9:23:56 AM PDT by spanalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson