Why is smoking legal?

[JDub]

The hypocrisy and irony of this statement coming from you is mind blowing.

Going back through the thread both sides have been a bit close-minded in accepting the other side's point. I'm pretty sure that common sense would dictate that making revenue off of something that people are going to do anyway by decriminalizing it would save money spent on enforcement and incarceration. It would also free-up law enforcement, courts and prisons to deal with more pressing matters. Not only would society save money on man hours for cops and courts it would save money on food and housing for inmates on top of bringing in additional tax revenue. If you need exact numbers to believe this equation I'm going to be skeptical of not only your logic but your objectivity.

Plus...what's wrong with a little darwinism infused into policy? I always wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle (motorscooter really) even if I'm in a state that doesn't require a helmet. Kansas (though known as an anti-darwin state) doesn't have a helmet law. I don't mind if you don't wear a helmet. Idiots dying as a result of their own stupidity is likely an evolutionary benefit to our species. Why is daddy dead? Daddy was stupid. Don't be stupid. I think the threat of a painful reality is better than religious threats of eternal damnation as a behavior modifier. Better than policy threats of imprisonment too. We need to allow people the freedom of being bad examples so other people can make informed decisions based on the world around them. Not based on political theory, or the lust for power of a parent state. Someone telling you that doing a certain thing is bad for you doesn't change most people's behavior. Riding without a helmet and passing the scene of a crash where a helmetless rider's brains are fused with asphalt or another vehicle might drive that point home.

 

[Senzait]

Communications often create sub-topics. The sub-topic you're jumping me over is water being a filter. You can go discover that on your own - it's not relevant to the sub-topic.

You are literally creating an argument about water being a filter to prove yourself right irrelevant to any current topic. Call me a child?
K.

If its not relevant than why did you bring it up? Lol.
My arguement ultimately is against people saying incorrect shit to support a claim. Which is relevant to any topic and its somethings you did.

Anyway I'm done with you. I feel like im talking to a brick wall. Keep on being a stubborn fool.

 

[Supa]

My arguement ultimately is against people saying incorrect shit to support a claim. Which is relevant to any topic and its somethings you did.

Actually, it's not something I did. If you can bother to remember the original post you quoted.... it had "filter" in quotation marks. This doesn't suggest that water is not a filter, but that is the argument you invented from the beginning. Even after the clarification that it's not an adequate filter (in relation to making smoking safe) you still refused to come off of the argument.

Even with clarification you continued to make bizarre comparisons about C4 or whatever. At the end of the day, the point is that smoking is unsafe whether you're sucking it through water, ice, filters or animal orifices. The last one is probably especially not healthy.

Smoking being unsafe relates to pot and tobacco. That argument related to the original topic of "Why is smoking legal?" when someone introduced the question why marijuana was illegal if tobacco isn't. They proceeded to carry on about how marijuana is safer than tobacco - which is simply not true. If anything, they are equally just as bad.

Choosing a black and white vector of "I'm winning" when either party is completely disregarding the subject is only subterfuge. It isn't constructive. It isn't criticism. It is completely pointless and there is no "winner" regardless of how hard you try. I'll be happy to spam you just as hard as you spam me - but be warned, I type pretty fast and accurately.

 

[JDub]

Who likes smoked meats?

 

[Senzait]

Actually, it's not something I did. If you can bother to remember the original post you quoted.... it had "filter" in quotation marks.

Water pipes do not remove a significant amount of carcinogens or even a comparable amount as fiber filters. It is not an acceptable filter.

... doesn't even bother to filter (water doesn't count) which ...

Ya, sure you didn't.

Even after the clarification that it's not an adequate filter (in relation to making smoking safe) you still refused to come off of the argument.

When was this clarified?. If making smoking safe is the measure by which a filter is defined there is no such thing as a filter.

I'll be happy to spam you just as hard as you spam me - but be warned, I type pretty fast and accurately.

Oh. Im terrified.