You're a horrid habit.

Thankyou Chrashpunk for your very insightful input.

He's right. =9

At least, cigarettes and non-havana cigars are. ;)

I've never smoked, but a lot of my friends have tried and I'm pretty sure that at least two of my friends are secretly smoking. I have no need at all to even try.

If I were to ever try either weed or a cigarette, I'd try weed. It fascinates me.

Well it's a bit more interesting that much is certain. I'm fascinated by it because I only been high once.

My personal opinion is that smoking is bad, the closest thing to a smoke I've had was a rolled up bit of paper in which my step brother squeezed the stuff out of cigeret butts and rolled it up in the bit of paper, he pressured me into taking one puff, I coughed like hell and never touched cigerets or any form of smoking again.
but let's consider a few things to see just how bad they are:
1) once youre hooked you feel terrible when you don't have them, which can't be good, especially if you get to the point of squeezing the stuff out of cigeret butts to roll up in paper as my step brother did often
2) although It doesn't make everyone sick it make's alot of people sick the first time they have one
3) the tobacco industries are not allowed to advertize cigerets, although they somehow are allowed to advertize against the anti cigeret things with there "stop the nanny state" adds, which I think is a way of advertizing cigerets and shouldn't be allowed
4)if the government is making adds to try and stop people from smoking it can't be good, especially since there are organisations made to try and help people quit
5) and finally the first thing they test for when people have been in a fire is smoke inhalation, what are you doing to yourselfe and sometimes others when you smoke?

You... can't actually be serious?

I am serious

Do you also go baah like a nice little sheep?

The ill effects of smoking have very little to do with governmental disapproval of it. More like currying public favour.

Actually advertising against something that poses a very real threat to your health is more than fine. People need to be educated, and what better way than with the TV...

Yeah.

But

His point is vindicated by example, not by principle.

You seem to believe in this NWO shit and bull like the government is your enemy. This isn't one of your TV stories, this is real life with real people in charge, the majority of the government, doesn't want the shit that smokers put on the system. They raze the taxes to make more money from it and also to deter people by stopping them from being able to afford them.

But they don't raze the taxes.

EDIT: anyway, where the fuck did you get that idea and what the fuck was your point?

Not once have I ever showed the slightest signs of withdrawal and I have never been tempted to smoke a danger fag (leftover cigarette tobacco in a roll-up) whenever I've gone without a smoke. And the longest I've ever been without one is two weeks.

And the people it makes sick still smoke? Mustn't be to harsh of a sickness. Everyone that I know of after their first time has either gotten light-headed, coughed heavily for a few times or, and I swear to god I'm not making this up, took an erection. I've actually never met someone who has been sick over a cigarette, although I don't doubt that they're has been people.

Well, the advertising is happening right now. There is going to be at least one person going to take up smoking after seeing a film star, musician, comedian, whatever glamourisng cigarettes, and the tobacco companies knows this.

People know already that smoking is bad for you so advertising that smoking's bad for you is kind of null-void in my books. Also, I believe that if someone want's to really give up smoking, they can give it up without outside help.

First of all, don't blame house fires on cigarettes, blame it on the careless cunt who didn't stub it out correctly or fell asleep with it in his hand/mouth. Secondly, I've read stories about people surviving house fires because they smoked and their lungs were, if anyone could find a better way, built up against the smoke crippling them.

Hahaha.

I believe authority isn't vindicated by dint of being authority.

That's called exercising common sense.

You are coming out with good ones tonight.

@Ench -I'm gonna leave this here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...acco-retailers

Cigs have been taxed more and more by the government for the last thirty odd years.

@ Ridg - I think by that last point he meant to compare smoking to inhalation of fumes in a burning house.

e: @ WoF - You keep leaving massive holes in our arguments at the moment and yet you are being condescending towards me, that's rich. I never suggested vindicating authority because of what it is but because they set the laws which you abide by. The government is the law and they are the country, they supposedly know best and no one makes a difference by complaining. This is our lot and we have to learn to live with it.

I wonder if pseudomaturity is an actual word. I can't think of any better descriptor here.

I attack arguments on the level of principles. The principle of an argument is the foundation of a building; even if the building stands up straight without one, it'll soon get knocked down.

I actually agree with the basic opinions of arguments I've trashed points of tonight, but I definitely cannot agree with faulty arguments.

What you think I'm trying to act older than I am, what backwards area do you live in where a teenager can't voice his opinion any more...oh Glasgow, fair do's.

Nevertheless, the statement below that is void because it doesn't apply to me nor anything I've said tonight. Point something out for me and I'll explain to you in the simplest way possible what I mean.

Hence supposedly. XD

I'm not taking sides but srsly, bringing cultural or international differences into the argument is a NO.

Joe has made pretty good points (given they're a tad lampoonish on your part), but he's a pretty smart guy and doesn't stupid of anything.

Can't we all just make love and smoke cigarettes after?

(Dibs on WoF and JG)

Also I wasn't raised in Glasgow

And I know 15/16 year olds whose opinions I very much respect.

Mine?

By the way I was joking about Glasgow, as with any place there are shit holes and nice parts. I personally only drove through Glasgow, looked like any other city to me.

My mother smokes like a chimney. She's had health complications and is on a pretty strict diet because of it apparently. I don't particularly want to go through that when I reach her age, so I don't want to take up smoking.

I just chew gum.

I eat sunflower seeds.

I do enjoy a nice puff of the ol' cancer stick after a few brews, though. Only socially.

try a month, and I'm not saying everyone smokes danger fags, just that my step brother did

I might have been misusing the word sick, I ment the coughing

I agree with you here, unfortunately the tobacco companies are still finding ways to advertise

do you not understand the concept of addictive? if anyone could quit whenever they wanted the organizations wouldn't have been made in the first place, also one of the bad things about addictive substances is it makes people want more, thus making them not wan't to quit, there are many people who want to quit but can't because the withdraw would be extream, infact I've heard of one person were if they suddenly stopped the withdraw would be so bad they would die from the shock

as scrabtrapman said, I was relating the smoke inhalation not blaming house fires on smokes, also as for the people who've survived fires because of smoking, perhaps everyone should expose themselves to bursts of radiation to increas thier chances of surviving a nuclier war, or maybe we should regularly cut oursels to develope thicker skin, the lungs got stronger because they had to to keep the people alive, I'lled be willing to bet that smoking killed more people in a variety of ways than it saved in this very rare scenario

Fair enough, I just wanted to give my opinion on it, I am on the biased side and will fight for my beloved burnables. I especially know the health risks. Fuck, I'm reminded of them whenever I run steadily for a couple of minutes. But I'm going to take up exercising again to healthy myself a little.

I don't smoke. People get addicted to things because they're enjoyable, at least partially. And I've always been of the opinion that if you like doing something and you're not hurting anyone else (hurting yourself is fine), you should keep doing it.

I don't particularly want to die of lung cancer, especially since I'm already worried that I might have bowel cancer. Thus I reached the conclusion that I shall never smoke a full cigarette, and thus minimise my risk of a) addiction and b) finding that I enjoy smoking and be forced to stick to my principles (I'm an absolutionist at heart, even though as a philosophy it's pretty broken).

Second hand smoke can be pretty annoying, but then I have a choice myself over whether I stand near the person who's smoking. In queues I don't, so I get pretty touchy about it then. In other words, my frustration and disapproval of smoker ∝ number of non-smokers surrounding them.

They're not trying to advertise cigarettes, they are campaigning against the government trying to enforce plain packaging. The government can't ban opposition to it's proposals; to do such would be undemocratic and a massive violation of freedom of expression.

I personally am not sure what I find more disgusting, the current images of cut-up organs on cigarette packets or that horrid shade of vomit-green.