Rare "Healthy" Smokers Lungs Explained 175
Bruce66423 writes: New research suggests that a portion of the population suffers few problems from smoking because their genes enable the smoke's effects to be overcome. The Medical Research Council reports: "The new findings, which used the first analyses of genetic data from participants in UK Biobank, may one day help scientists develop better treatments for diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a collection of life-threatening lung disorders affecting almost one million people in the UK. The findings could also help improve interventions aimed at helping smokers to give up."
I smoke a little... (Score:1)
I don't smoke a lot but i smoke cigars daily - usually a few a day, sometimes a bit more but less in the past few years as I no longer drink. I used to smoke cigarettes quite often but not really all that regularly. When I did then I'd go through a pack a night while drinking and not smoke the rest of the time. Today, I smoke cigars.
I'm told that I have the constitution of a horse and that I'll outlive my doctor. Damn it.
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side, there seems to be a noticeable stamina improvement when climbing stairs and such, and no more morning hacking.
But. If I was reliably informed of my eminent demise, I would have some cigarettes... and probably donuts with ice cream.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You inhale cigar smoke?
Odd how this is the "spit or swallow" question for men.
Re:I smoke a little... (Score:5, Interesting)
I do. I do indeed. I love it. On very, very, rare occasions you can find me smoking a pipe that doesn't contain marijuana. I inhale that too.
I love the burst of cigar smoke in my lungs. It doesn't make me cough or anything and it tastes great. I used to like a fine cigar with rum and would sometimes dip the end in my rum (not the lit end, silly goose). Then I realized I was wasting good rum and ruining a cigar that I'd spent like $10+ on, sometimes much more than that.
I live quite a bit north of there but there's a tobacco store in Farmington, Maine. It's right off Route 2 - nice place. And they have a nice, humidity controlled, cigar section. Even better is when I can make it down to their store in Augusta - they have a walk-in humidor. It is as awesome as it sounds. I've actually considered turning a room in my house into one but I'm just not that picky.
I do have a portable humidor and it's pretty good sized. I take it with me when I travel - it's with me right now. I've decided to stay in Buffalo another night but I have to change rooms as it seems this room is promised to a couple who have some sort of sentimental attachment to this room. I am probably going to stay another night as well - I've got my reasoning.
But, yes, yes I do inhale cigar smoke. I know of some who do not. I don't really understand that. That would be like eating fat-free ice cream or drinking alcohol-free beer or decaffeinated coffee.
As an aside (like that's ever bothered me before) the Cubans do make a good cigar but I really don't rank it up there with the 'best' - at least not those that I've tried. No, I've smoked them but that was just because they were illegal and then because I could. It was a matter of the experience and not the quality. They're not bad, not by any means, but they're not the best. I'm not sure if I could say what I think is the best (and often price is secondary, some of the more expensive taste like ass and you get more consistency with a major commercial label) but I can firmly assert that it is not any specific Cuban that I'm aware of. Too bad, too. I like Cuba. I wish I liked their cigars more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
S'not a problem. I'm not a huge fan of moderation and I have no idea how I have excellent karma as I am usually so far off topic that it's become a habit. ;)
I'd guess the average cigar that I smoke would be about $10 and I smoke as many as five a day on an average day. It's costly but worth it. What confuses me is those people who'd smoke them and not inhale. I mean, yeah, I did that first but I learned better ways. That's like having a 1/2 gram of crack/day addiction and just lighting it on fire for the sm
Re: (Score:2)
I do smoke a lot of 'em so, yeah, they're probably pretty tough. I still managed to run a 5k and place first for my age group and 3rd over all this summer. The last batch of Cubans I got really had a lot of very distinct differences between them, hard to describe but inconsistent. I tend to get most of mine from across the border - in Canada. They are much better (and a lot less expensive) than if you go to Cuba (of course) though I've only been twice.
It's really hard to explain the flavor. They are definit
Here's the fast version of the 4 paragraph article (Score:5, Funny)
"By comparing smokers and non-smokers as well as those with the disease and without they discovered sections of our DNA that reduce the risk of COPD.
So smokers with "good genes" had a lower risk of COPD than those with "bad genes"."
Top notch reporting, everyone. Solid work.
Where do I get my genemod? (Score:2)
I miss tobacco.
Re: (Score:2)
You could always use a vaporizer. In theory it's everything you love about nicotine without the stink or the smoke.
Same gene for asbestos workers or coal miners? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh this is certainly the case in many places. Cancer is a perfect example. It often requires several genetic mutations for a normal cell to become cancerous, partially because there are many safegaurds against it.
Each individual starts at a random point closer or further away from any particular cancerous state, and in fact, from all of them individually, and this is true not just for cancer but for all manner of subtle variation.
Life is a big game of bet hedging. You toss 100 people naked in the cold, and
Re: (Score:2)
No gene, it is called the human nature Every side does this, or atleast it is seen as being that way to the other side.
Rare? (Score:1)
Smoke this and make sure you get the smoke deep down into your lungs. It's tobacco, it' one of the healthiest things for your body!
Re: (Score:2)
smoke kills [youtube.com]
Rare? (Score:1)
It's not rare at all. Every smoker's grandpa had those lungs.
They're still scumbags (Score:3)
It's hell on your immune system too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And gals. Equal opportunity middlefinger here.
They're content to put whatever they want in it, sell it by any means, and exploit their very clientele as much as the law allows. "Brand loyalty" is a one-way street, they give zero fucks about you. Less, even, except dead customers aren't paying customers. So, again, Fuck Those Guys.
The remaining reasons stand as turnoffs for tobacco outside t
Tobacco companies are vindicated. (Score:2)
This is what Government does for you, makes o
Bah! (Score:2)
"may one day help scientists develop better treatments for diseases"
Enough already! Any post with this statement in it should be placed in the same bit bucket as "supermoon".
Re: (Score:1)
I quit all forms of smoking years ago over health concerns. If I found out I had that gene, I'd take up smoking weed again. I miss it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Commercial tobacco, by comparison, is not just a plant but it is loaded with a plethora of toxic chemicals - including ammonia, DDT, arsenic, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide - just to name a few. More here [tricountycessation.org].
Marijuana can also have health benefits [businessinsider.com]. I have never heard of medicinal tobacco.
Re: (Score:2)
Marijuana can also have health benefits. I have never heard of medicinal tobacco.
If you look around you can find information on a number of health benefits to tobacco, many of which are legitimate. The problem is, the drawbacks outweigh them.
Re:Smoking or not, that's the question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen to drinky. Nicotine is a really pretty great medicinal. It was Adderall before there was Big Pharma, and it's not a fluke that Native Americans made it a sacrament. The main problem with smoking is not the drug, but the delivery system.
Re: Smoking or not, that's the question. (Score:2)
Also a problem is that smokers tend to saturate their system completely with the insecticide toxins (nicotine is an insecticide that plants naturally evolved). Traditional tobacco and medicinal users smoke occasionally.
That 'rummy' smell of a pickled alcoholic is similar to the saturated nicotine smell of a cigarette addict.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but I was talking about commercial tobacco -which contains nicotine - but it is very harmful.
Re:Smoking or not, that's the question. (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you have any idea how much nicotine S C Wright, J Zhong, H Zheng and J W Larrick had to give to lab rats to get to a level where apoptosis was sufficiently inhibited to promote tumor growth? And did you know that the tumors already had to be caused by something else, that wasn't nicotine?
You think there are no pharmaceuticals that are poisons? Don't be a fool. Shall we list the pharmaceuticals that also inhibit apoptosis? They're using caspase inhibitors right now to treat spinal cord injuries with drugs that have about 100 times more apoptosis inhibition than nicotine.
For that matter, why do we use pesticides on our food? Why do we design special GMOs just so we can use more pesticides on our food?
Don't be so simple-minded. Nicotine at the levels casual users use does not cause cancer. It's the delivery system in smoking that causes cancer. And do you not know that there's arsenic in apples? Will you now start posting anti-apple FUD?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Marijuana is not at all harmful like cigarettes
Right. It's harmful like marijuana, which clearly causes no parallel effects to cigarettes like elevated pulse, vasoconstriction, altered state of consciosness, and has no chance of causing addiction or of introducing naturally carcinogenic chemicals to your mouth and other respiratory passages.
That belief is strange, because it causes _all_ of those according to the reliable medical research. It's even stranger when surveys of the purity of street grade c
Re: (Score:2)
So move to Colorado/Washington where you can grow your own pot legally. And put as much or as little extra in there as you want.
At least lower one risk.
Re:Smoking or not, that's the question. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you dry out tobacco for smoking, the hippies will call it vile poison and try to have it banned.
If you dry out marijuana for smoking, the hippies will call it a miracle-cure-all medicine and try to have it legalized.
Silly hippies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that could possibly compared is the amount of tar in a marijuana joint vs a cigarette. Marijuana has more. And that's where the comparison ends.
Re: (Score:2)
The comparison is "perceived health effect of marijuana smoke vs perceived health effects of cigarette smoke."
Maybe its only tar as you say, maybe its not. I make no claims either way.
If its just tar than my statement holds up: Despite marijuana having more tar, pot smokers use a smaller volume of product than tobacco smokers so there is less of a marijuana tar problem regardless of the per gram tar ratios.
If its more than just tar than the statement still holds up for those as well.
You lie. (Score:5, Insightful)
You lie. Not only is this not happening, your little tale doesn't even pass the smell test. Dealers selling bad marijuana are not lacing/spiking it with PCP. The dealers are in this to make money and buying PCP so they can sprinkle on their weed seems like a bad story from a 1982 DARE program speech. What's next, the kid who took LSD and thought he could fly?
How about this instead: a great deal of street grade marijuana is sold because marijuana sells itself. Nothing else needs to be added.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> What's next, the kid who took LSD and thought he could fly?
Wow, Tacokill was right!
Re: (Score:2)
a great deal of street grade marijuna is very poor quality, may be pesticide or herbicide contaminated, and is very occasionally still laced with PCP in the US
You lie. Not only is this not happening, your little tale doesn't even pass the smell test. Dealers selling bad marijuana are not lacing/spiking it with PCP. The dealers are in this to make money and buying PCP so they can sprinkle on their weed seems like a bad story from a 1982 DARE program speech. What's next, the kid who took LSD and thought he could fly?
How about this instead: a great deal of street grade marijuana is sold because marijuana sells itself. Nothing else needs to be added.
Even in the extremely unlikely off chance that some dealers are cutting marijuana with some other substance (why, I cant fathom, there aren't really any cheaper drugs that are more powerful) this is just a huge argument for decriminalisation. If the quality of the product is an issue, regulate it or at the very least allow it to be produced openly and let the market weed out dodgy products.
Also as a previous Marijuana smoker in my youth, I highly dispute the notion that THC is as addictive as tobacco or
Re: (Score:2)
> surveys of the purity of street grade consistently show adulteration with different filler substances and mood-altering substances
Absolutely false.
>very occasionally still laced with PCP in the US
Also an urban myth. There is absolutely no benefit for a dealer to buy a more expensive drug to add to marijuana, given that they would lose money if they didn't outright charge far above street price, and would at that point have to disclose some sort of reasoning. Secondly, nobody buying weed who got something with "laced with PCP" would ever return as a customer (unless they were looking for that to begin with), so it's self defeating in that right as well.
Re:Smoking or not, that's the question. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is so much fail in this I don't even know where to start.
Marijuana has far more positive health effects than negative. In fact THC the chemical that gets you "high" is anti carcinogenic and has proven cancer fighting effects http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]
"Purity" of street level product. Oy vey what a statement. You realize your fruits and vegetables have pesticides and herbicides on them as well right? Not to mention all of the nutrient "uptake" from fertilizers is in that plant. You are what you eat, includes plants as well. As for "purity" of the THC content, you either have cheap herb or dank green. Even a plant you grow yourself will have varying quality of THC. In the same way that your vegetables grown in the back yard won't have 100% the same nutritional facts as something grown on a properly fertilized farm.
Finally, PCP laced marijuana? Are you kidding me? Why would any dealer bother lacing weed with PCP? You know PCP is insanely more expensive than marijuana right? Why would a dealer undercut his own prices lacing it with a drug as ridiculous as PCP? Stop quoting DARE literature from 1982.
Want to know a secret about life long tobacco smokers? They're most likely cannabis smokers as well (that anti-carcinogenic effect).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False. Marijuana is not physically addictive.
"a great deal of street grade marijuna is very poor quality, may be pesticide or herbicide contaminated, and is very occasionally still laced with PCP in the US"
False. Marijuana is very rarely laced with anything. That would be bad for business.
Perhaps you should give up your reefer madness FUD and go smoke a joint for yourself. Yo
Re: (Score:2)
"a great deal of street grade marijuna is very poor quality, may be pesticide or herbicide contaminated, and is very occasionally still laced with PCP in the US"
False. Marijuana is very rarely laced with anything. That would be bad for business.
You just claimed a statement was false and then claimed as true a statement which means essentially the same thing. You're high right now, aren't you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, it can be mildly addictive. Their claims are modest, and credible.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publi... [drugabuse.gov]
It's difficult to estimate the frequency of contamination of marijuana with other substances. But fairly frequent contamination is documented in "Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential", By Ethan B Russo
https://books.google.com/books... [google.com]
Ethan cites Johnson's old s
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Also I can not believe that all the listed ingredients are in a single cigarette.
Why not? It's widely documented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
as for those toxic chemicals and heavy metals they are also present in cannabis. They mostly come from the type of fertilizer you use, so the more modern synthetic the less contamination, and the more animal and organic fertilizers you use the higher contaminants you will have.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Marijuana is not at all harmful like cigarettes. Inhaling any smoke is not good for you, however, the main difference is that marijuana is just a dried out plant which is basically harmless.
Innocuous? Maybe. Harmless? Demonstrably not [wikipedia.org].
Commercial tobacco, by comparison, is not just a plant but it is loaded with a plethora of toxic chemicals
First off, comparisons with tobacco based smokes is the very definition of damning with faint praise. There is basically nothing redeeming about tobacco based smokes. Second, marijuana has plenty of adverse effects of its own. Just because it isn't as toxic as other products isn't really germane.
Marijuana can also have health benefits
Spare me. "Medical marijuana" is in almost all cases nothing more than a fig leaf to cover people who want to get high. I do not actually care if people want to s
Re:Smoking or not, that's the question. (Score:5, Informative)
Spare me. "Medical marijuana" is in almost all cases nothing more than a fig leaf to cover people who want to get high
Tell that to the families with children with epilepsy being successfully treated for seizures and other symptoms using cannabis oil. Your information is extremely prejudiced, and out of date. There are many people with debilitating diseases and conditions that cannabis can provide treatment or relief from.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to the families with children with epilepsy being successfully treated for seizures and other symptoms using cannabis oil.
Just as soon as you provide adequate evidence [epilepsy.com] in the form of unambiguous medical studies confirming its effectiveness for the conditions. Right now the evidence for cannibidiol is largely anecdotal and the effectiveness or lack thereof is unclear.
Even if it does work it doesn't follow that because a demonstrably small number of people get genuine medical relief I'm supposed to believe that everybody people seeking marijuana are actually doing so for legitimate medical reasons. You must be either high your
Re:Smoking or not, that's the question. (Score:4, Informative)
Marijuana has been illegal in all states until recently, and is still illegal at the Federal level. Under those circumstances, it's going to be hard to run double-blind studies. The stuff appears to provide some benefits for some people.
The medicinal uses are for muscle spasms, chronic pain, to suppress nausea in people undergoing chemotherapy, as an appetite enhancer for people with HIV, and (from what I've heard) glaucoma and epilepsy. None of these are necessarily going to be apparent in people on the sidewalk near your office.
The world is crying out for better pain killers (Score:3)
Medical marijuana has a lot of promise as pain management.
Acetaminophen (paracetamol) doesn't work all that well and can kill your liver if you have a relatively mild overdose.
Ibuprofin and NSAIDs don't work all that well for severe pain and also can have nasty side effects like stomach ulceration.
Opiates do work well, even for severe pain, but they have lots of very nasty side effects, lose effectiveness, and become addictive. These are really horrible drugs.
Humanity is crying out for better painkillers,
Put it through the drug review process (Score:2, Insightful)
Humanity is crying out for better painkillers, and marijuana, yes, medical marijuana, has promise there. Or do you not consider management of severe chronic pain a valid medical reason?
I'll consider it a valid medical treatment when it is sold through a pharmacy like any other drug. It it works for pain management then I am all for it. I'm even willing to accept that there is evidence that it could be an effective treatment for some. HOWEVER, stop conflating the issue. Most people aren't going to get medical marijuana cards for pain management. They are getting them so they can get high. If you believe otherwise you are either naive or you are one of the people trying to get high y
Re: (Score:3)
Before marijuana can be treated like any other drug, the Feds need to take it off Schedule I, where it very definitely doesn't belong.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe if you grow your own or buy in a place that is legal. but illegal marijuana is cut with all sorts of crap that makes it far far worse than the crap tobacco companies put in cigarettes. dealers will cut marijuana with all sorts of shit. and i mean that literally:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.... [discovermagazine.com] (tldr: the cdc saw a salmonella outbreak, and traced it to distributors cutting weed with feces)
illegal drugs are horrible to consume as you have zero accountability or responsibility for who put what in it. if
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe on your planet, but here on earth that is not the case at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still you should concern yourself of the effect of second hand smoke on others. For those without the Gene, as well for those people who just doesn't like the smell. Attempts for smoking bands in the States (for Tobacco) had no movement until the effects of second hand smoke came across.
Re: (Score:3)
A genetic test that defines who can smoke an who can't, great.
Oh, much, much, more interesting: a genetic variation that allows certain people to maintain the function of a huge and delicate sponge of gas-exchange membrane despite heavy dosing with a grab bag of carcinogens, incomplete organic combustion products, and all sorts of unpleasantness.
The ability to smoke without consequence is peanuts compared to some of the possible applications of working out how that effect is created.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria (Score:4, Insightful)
That is an oversimplification. First of all where I live relatively few places ban e-cigs, the few that do ban them is more about people not wanting cloaks of smoke, or nicotine steam, sprewed on them.
But to be honest you do not know what is in the vaps. Are they using the "safe" liquids you can buy at the store, or did they mix their own and have other "unsafe" chemicals in them. You are free to smoke, you are not free to poison me.
Re: (Score:2)
That is an oversimplification. First of all where I live relatively few places ban e-cigs, the few that do ban them is more about people not wanting cloaks of smoke, or nicotine steam, sprewed on them.
But to be honest you do not know what is in the vaps. Are they using the "safe" liquids you can buy at the store, or did they mix their own and have other "unsafe" chemicals in them. You are free to smoke, you are not free to poison me.
You do a lot more poison damage than I do, even where I to smoke 5 packs of ciggies a day. What's that? You want to keep your energy-sucking lifestyle? Yeah, well, I think I'll keep my pack a day.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure how it works in the States, but the grounding for the EU-wide ban in 2007 was industrial health and safety.
It was intended to protect the establishment's employeees, not people subjected to smoke in their face while dining. That latter effect is just a bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
And a good bonus at that. I seldom visited a restaurant before that ban because I find smoke disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm fine with the "no smoking" at gov/public sites, but they shouldn't be able to tell a private restaurant owner that he/she has to ban smoking at their establishment.
When you allow members of the general public to walk in and patronize your business (i.e. you aren't a members-only club), your establishment is no longer entirely private. It's been that way in the United States for decades.
Re: (Score:1)
And if you don't like that, then you should go find a place that doesn't because that's how the free market works. Keep your damn government meddling out of my chemical spraying!
Re: (Score:2)
And how would I know when I enter a restaurant that half way through my meal the person in the table next to mine is not going to start spewing unknown chemicals in my direction?
They could be required to post a sign on the entrance that states whether it is a smoking, or non-smoking establishment. By the tobacco stench you would probably notice before opening the door more than halfway. Or the ashtrays on the tables might be a clue.
I quit smoking over a decade ago, but I feel there should be places for smokers to do their thing. I prefer to not be around it, but I'm not a militant non-smoker either. Taxes on tobacco does a lot of good. And smokers tend to be less costly on the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And do you block all children from entering, or atleast the teenagers coming to eat with friends?
Way to move the goal post. Regardless, I would think it would depend on the legal age for smoking, wouldn't it? Hell, bars already deal with this. If someone's under 21, they have to be accompanied by their guardian in most places. There are tobacco bars as well. Have smoking restaurants follow the same policy.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not move the goal posts in any way. It goes tiredly towards your sign comment, which implies that adults are allowed to make up their mind about what places they enter. This is less so for kids, so just a simple sign does not work.
But you have basically come to the end conclusion of a "club" which can already exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about a sign? And how large is the sign? Does it have to be in specific places or can it be hidden? Does it have to be in braille for the blind? What about kids, will the establishment be forced to turn away unaccompanied teenagers?
Re: (Score:1)
It's always been a moral crusade, just one that happened to have medical science on its side. Crusaders were happy to use the medical aspect as a way into the hearts and minds of the public who were not so inclined to use the police power of the state to tell people what they can put in their own bodies. When e-cigarettes came about the crusaders viewed it as "cheating" against their elaborate Web of local laws taxing cigarettes and regulating their use. The campaign against e-cigarettes features the same a
Re: (Score:2)
I have honestly never ever seen that argument. I have seen,and made the argument that you dont know what is in the vapor, but always seems to be ignored.
Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria (Score:5, Informative)
They contain,
food grade vegetable glycerin
food grade propylene glycol
nicotine
food grade Flavoring agents
Some people will use lab grade which just designates the purity of the substance.
Many point to the flavoring agents as the unknown in the mix. Most are simple essential oils extracted from the plant to provide flavoring. For example, a cool mint e-cig juice will contain a spearmint essential oil.
In most cases, finding out what is in the juice is as simple as reading the list of ingredients on the bottle or the makers website.
All of the ones I have seen stick to stuff that is consumed by people regularly. They dont want the risks of using something that is not food safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That + water
Re: (Score:2)
A point that might need to be examined is -- how do the various ingredients interact when heated? Do they combine to make some less healthful chemical? Is it significantly more harmful than what you might fry up for dinner?
Tho even if not quite harmless, it still doubtless compares quite favorably to the array of ring carbon compounds etc. in cig smoke.
Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're going to ban things that "pollute the common air" based on fear, misinformation, and paranoia I vote we ban scented candles and perfumes.
Scented candles fill the air with an mix of thousands of unknown chemicals. Worse, the FDA has not evaluated their safety! I don't care how much of an idiot you look like with your miniature fires.
Re: (Score:2)
I join you in your vote. (Even though you seem to be kidding, I would be well pleased if that ban were voted in . . . and enforced with my daughter.)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the stupid is strong in this one.
#1 and #2 are on your own property. If you want your property to be smoke free, *thumps up* go for it, that is your right.
#3 is bull shit, driving a car is a privilege not a freedom. That is why you have a license by the state to operate it.
#4) you state: "my freedom to breathe clean air, some vaping or smoking asshole's freedumb to choke everyone around them with their poison"
Wow, just wow. You dont have a freedom to breath clean air. You can however breath all the cl
Re: (Score:2)
it's an ok troll. i give you 5 out 10. you tried hard, but it was overall weak and unconvincing
Re: (Score:2)
you're saying you have the right to pollute public spaces with your filth?
and we can't object to that?
you mean you actually believe that honestly?
Re: (Score:2)
You have the right to object to it (Freedom of speech) No issue there.
Places like Restaurants, Bar's, Shopping Mall's, etc. are privately owned. IMO they have the right to decide how they want there property used. Thus they can decide to be smoking or not / and you can decide to utilize there space or not.
Outside, well if you dont like it tough shit. You dont have to stand next to me, there is lots of open space on the planet. You can move.
Re: (Score:2)
you're changing the topic. a public space is a public space. not the middle of the prairie but, just like you said: restaurants, bars, malls, etc
i'll take the lame subject change as you conceding my point in an intellectually dishonest way
Re: (Score:2)
What I am saying is that you dont have the right to tell others how to live there life or how to run there business just because you want to go there.
As such, what you think are public spaces are not, they are private spaces that are used by the public and the private owners have the right to do as they see fit with their space. Just as a business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason they see fit.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly
like smoking or vaping. you're telling people "smell my shit, deal with it." what the fuck gives you the right?
what's odd is your blindness in thinking that telling someone to stop imposing their smelly shit on other people... is the actual initial imposition, somehow
you think telling someone to stop smoking or vaping is a limit on freedom, but you don'
Re: (Score:2)
Read the above again, I am saying the land owner, business owner, home owner, car owner, etc. has the right. Not you and not me, We can only decide if we want to go there, or do business with them.
You are the one who seems to think you have the right to tell other people what to do with their property.
Freedom is a box. This is my box and I control it, that is your box and you control it. What I do in my box is my business and what you do in yours is your business. You can not tell me what to do in my box an
Re: (Score:2)
you're saying you have the right to pollute public spaces with your filth?
Nope. You said that you should be able to do it using your car, but you want to limit anyone else smoking ciggies who will never even come close to the amount of pollution you put out.
Tyrannical, hypocritical and stupid - well, done, you made a hat-trick.
Re: (Score:2)
i can't imagine anyone honestly believes they have the right to impose on the freedom of others
but apparently he does, and you can't even keep track of the fucking subject matter. i suppose you're the real troll, or genuinely a stupid person, considering this thread
Re: (Score:2)
I find it highly unlikely that people who are behaving in a manner which is rude or reckless have deliberately developed a philosophical basis to justify their behavior.
Anyone interested in liberty from a societal standpoint knows that there can be no freedom which infringes on the freedom of others. Most liberty activists also hold private property rights in high regard, so I can't imagine an argument for allowing one's animal to defile the property of others.
At least try talking to your neighbors before
Re: (Score:2)
you do realize stupid and irresponsible people exist, right? it's not about a fucking philosophy you social retard, i'm describing a system of behavior without any conscious effort. people actually commit acts in your world without going "hmm, how do my current actions in this context relate to my overarching ideological motivation?"
Re: (Score:2)
i give your troll 2/10
when crafting a good troll, you have to irrationally blame your target for choices that have something to do with them
you get 2 points for the obligatory feigned outrage
Re: (Score:2)
it does, thank you
Re: (Score:2)
is this how the usa and israel created a vaccine?
No, they got their vaccine information from our shape-shifting reptilian alien overlords. How else are they supposed to create a control group as they test the effects of chemtrails?