| | | Author | Message |
|---|
sinnie
  
| | #1 posted December 18, 2004 at 10:02am (EST) |
A few of you knew my dad had been diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer back in June of this year. He lost his fight with it lastnight at the age of 44. He would have been 45 on Jan 20th.
Yesterday morning he was taken to the hospital for extreme pain and they got it under control, and took him back home via an ambulance to basically die at home. His last words was "help me" as they laid him down, so I heard.
I got off work early to go up and be with him (30 miles from me) and they had him hooked on oxygen because one of his lungs wasn't working. By the time I got there he had slipped into a light coma.
He would move his eyes and his breathing got heavier when I arrived, so I know he knew I was there for him, his breathing was like snoring and his teeth were black from coughing up blood.
I ended up coming back to my place to get some clothes to go back down and stay the night and he died while I wasn't there. He was so pale he looked like a wax model of... someone that wasn't him. He had lost nearly 100lbs in the few months of him being sick, so he was basically a skeleton.
I guess the last thing I want to mention is that maybe some people from reading this will try to stop smoking. My dad wasn't very old, and as soon as he found out he had cancer, he was gone less then 6 months later. Now because of that sickening and expensive habit (that my mom has yet to quit) I don't have a father anymore, and my children will never know him, he would have been the best grandpa in the world. (He really wanted that.)
s i n n i e | Oreo
(abandoned)
| | #41 posted December 20, 2004 at 12:23am (EST) |
silent_mackey wrote:
> My condolences, Sinnie.
>
> Others - Don't use her father's death as a flame-war over cigarettes and pot. Cut the
> crap just once.
>
>
why according to you and toadreaper cigarettes aren't harmful, but I think this topic shows us the truth | MajorGimp
 
| #42 posted December 20, 2004 at 12:27am (EST)
edited December 20, 2004 at 12:29am (EST) |
I will say one thing and one thing only then I'm done. Yes cigarettes can be harmful. Will they harm every person that touches them? No. Same with booze, weed, gambling, and every other vice out there. As I said, you take a chance with them. Some people get affected, some don't. Yes it is bad what some people go through because of smoking but they started smoking through their own free will. They put that cig in their mouth, not anyone else. Some people have to learn to stop blaming the world for what they do and accept responsibilty for their actions. A Q-Tip can also be harmful too. Let's all start anti Q-Tip laws! 
Visit Clan {UO} Urban Terror Team DM Server @ 67.19.199.101:27960
| ToadReaper
(abandoned)
| | #43 posted December 20, 2004 at 12:36am (EST) |
Oreo wrote:
> silent_mackey wrote:
>> My condolences, Sinnie.
>>
>> Others - Don't use her father's death as a flame-war over cigarettes and pot. Cut the
>> crap just once.
>>
>>
>
> why according to you and toadreaper cigarettes aren't harmful, but I think this topic
> shows us the truth
Excuse me? When did I ever say cigarettes are not harmful? I have merely said at times that they are not a direct "cause" but instead a "contributing factor" to health problems. If you read my posts before then you would know that. Anyways I don't wish to continue this here, but check your facts first before ya misquote someone next time.
Sig by OuTrAgE | Lupercus
| | #44 posted December 20, 2004 at 3:41am (EST) |
...Wow. I'm sorry to hear about your father, sinnie. I remember you describing all of the effort and stress you were going through... I thought he was going to make it. It makes me sad. I couldn't help thinking about my grandfather. He had more of a resistance to cigarettes. He lived longer than most smokers, but he also suffered longer. I was 14 when his body finally couldn't take anymore. After 4 years of hospital visits, and the doctors telling him to stop smoking, he died. And he went out a shell of a man. His face was swollen, his lungs were as black as charcoal. And he couldn't even walk right. His feet were purple -- they had lost most of their nerve endings. He was in so much pain. It was his choice to smoke. But it wasn't his wife's choice to second-hand smoke, or his daugthers' to second-hand smoke from infancy onward. And nor is it my choice to second-hand smoke. Whether it was staying at my grandfather's house, waiting for the bus, walking on campus, etc, etc. The habit of smoking isn't so simple as one person's choice. It spreds out and infects innocent bystanders.
Select Image To Enter My Forum
 | thatonedude
| #45 posted December 20, 2004 at 7:36am (EST)
edited December 20, 2004 at 8:16am (EST) |
sinnie wrote:
> Thanks everyone.
>
> Those of you who do smoke, and have cancer running in your family, I really hope one day
> you can quit, even if cancer isn't in your family. It is a very very painful and slow
> way to die, he was sick nearly every day the last 8 months, and in severe pain, using
> $2500 a month pain prescriptions that still didn't work that good. He was throwing up
> constantly and in bed all the time. He probably took 50 pills a day, plus had to drink
> weird radio-active stuff for the chemo, which actually caused other tumors in his body
> before he went, that were very painful.
>
> Those of you who can't quit, I just hope it doesn't happen to you, I wouldn't wish it
> on my worst enemy
The American health care system disgusts me to the point of revoltion. It should be a basic right, such as education at the beginning of life, no one should have to pay $2500 a month to die less painfully and take medicine that causes other parts of the body to form tumors. A German or a Candian would pay anywhere from nothing to a small fraction of this cost. Something is very wrong with our 'free'-market system when it comes to healthcare. Sinnie, I think it is very noble thing wrestle with the economic/medical/political exploitations that ultimately took your father. A brave man you are, it's people with stories such as yours that can have the biggest impacts for other people in similar situations.
| thatonedude
| #46 posted December 20, 2004 at 7:47am (EST)
edited December 20, 2004 at 8:16am (EST) |
MajorGimp wrote:
> I will say one thing and one thing only then I'm done. Yes cigarettes can be harmful.
> Will they harm every person that touches them? No. Same with booze, weed, gambling,
> and every other vice out there. As I said, you take a chance with them. Some people get
> affected, some don't. Yes it is bad what some people go through because of smoking but
> they started smoking through their own free will. They put that cig in their mouth,
> not anyone else. Some people have to learn to stop blaming the world for what they do
> and accept responsibilty for their actions. A Q-Tip can also be harmful too. Let's all
> start anti Q-Tip laws!
Q-Tip doesn't have millions of dollars in advertising campaigns aimed at young adults. Q-Tip doesn't have billion dollar lawsuits against them for being the prime mitigating factor in the deaths of thousands of thier customers everyday. Q-Tip doesn't add over 50 addictive and cancer related chemicals to make thier product sell better. If one does contract cancer such as Sinnies father, again my condolenses Sinnie, it's not Q-Tip that led them to having to pay thosands of dollars a month in health care. Q-Tip doesn't make thier living off your addiction, Q-Tip helps you get wax out of your ear and only a moron that walks around with one hanging out of this inner ear will bump into a wall or whatever and puncture his ear drum. The product itself is harmless, unlike cigarettes... take away the million dollars of advertising and take out the addictive/cancer related chemicals in the tobacco and then compare cigarette corporations to Q-Tip. Otherwise that is an extremely weak comparison, probably coming from someone that smokes. I'd be willing to put money on that last comment.
| DVDFREAK007
 BTRs
(abandoned)
| | #47 posted December 20, 2004 at 8:09am (EST) |
I'm extremely sorry to hear about your dad sinnie.  I wish you and your family the best. 
Created by KZN | MajorGimp
| #48 posted December 20, 2004 at 3:41pm (EST)
edited December 20, 2004 at 3:42pm (EST) |
thatonedude wrote:
Q-Tip doesn't have millions of dollars in advertising campaigns aimed at young adults.
You like many people seem to be in the mindset that if a pretty image is flashed in someone's face, they will automatically do what's depicated. If someone is dumb enough to smoke because an ad tells them to, that's their problem. Amazingly all the ads I've seen to drink, smoke, buy things, and I haven't done any of them. Self-control is an amazing thing.
Q-Tip doesn't have billion dollar lawsuits against them for being the prime mitigating factor in the deaths of thousands of thier customers everyday.
My point was you could stab someone in the ear with a Q-Tip and damage their eardrum. They some angy Christian / politican / parent would be suing Johnson & Johnson. A lady sued McDonald's over hot coffee. People will sue if they feel 1. they can dump the blame on someone else and not have to accept responsibilty or 2. make money off of it.
Q-Tip doesn't add over 50 addictive and cancer related chemicals to make thier product sell better. If one does
contract cancer such as Sinnies father, again my condolenses Sinnie, it's not Q-Tip that led them to having to pay thosands of dollars a month in health care. Q-Tip doesn't make thier living off your addiction
You seem to think I like cigarettes. I'm not arguing they are bad for your health in any means and may cause cancer in some cases. But botton line, you put the cig in your mouth and take the chance of becoming addicted and developing health problems. Not a cigarettes company, not a magazine, not TV, not your friends, you
Q-Tip helps you get wax out of your ear and only a moron that walks around with one hanging out of this inner ear will bump into a wall or whatever and puncture his ear drum. The product itself is harmless, unlike cigarettes
Yes it would take an idiot for that to happen. That's my point, the world is full of idiots who do dumb crap. But if enough morons do it, I guarantee at least one person out there would be complaing about the harms of Q-Tips.
... take away the million dollars of advertising and take out the addictive/cancer related chemicals
in the tobacco and then compare cigarette corporations to Q-Tip. Otherwise that is an extremely weak comparison, probably coming from someone that smokes. I'd be willing to put money on that last comment.
Again, I'm not arguing in anyway cigarettes can be harmfull. My point was, which obviously you didn't get, was a person's free will is to blame here not anything else. We can argue 'till the end of the day about the harms of cigarettes but again bottom line, you put that first cigarette in your mouth, not anyone else. If you don't know if you can avoid being addicted or don't know if it will affect your health or not, then don't do it. Same with any vice. Pretty simple, no? I can back up my statements. You, like so many others spew out the same retoric "I'm not to blame, the company is! Please save me goverment!" Then we always go back to the second-hand arguement. If someone is smoking and you don't like it, go elsewhere. If that is not possible, ask them if they can smoke somewhere else. Rather than being in an enviorment you don't like and doging about it, go somewhere else temporarily or otherwise. Last, in case you haven't figured it out, I don't smoke, think it's unhealthly, and have no plans to do it. However, that doesn't mean I think I should be a Nazi and take it away from people that do enjoy it just because I disaprove of it nor should I try and find scapegoats for the people that do / did smoke because they can't take responsibilty for their actions.
Visit Clan {UO} Urban Terror Team DM Server @ 67.19.199.101:27960
| Ramsey
(frozen)
| | #49 posted December 20, 2004 at 4:16pm (EST) |
Very very sorry to hear about your dad, sinnie. That is way too young to lose a parent.
My grandfather smoked his whole life, but was always as healthy as could be. He suddenly decided to quit cold turkey when he was in his early 60's. Unfortunately, it was too little too late, and he died from lung cancer less than 10 years later. It was a terrible lingering death where he wasted away and was in a lot of pain. One of the biggest disappointments in my entire life is that this wonderful man never got to meet my boys. He was the best grandfather anyone could ask for and it is an utter shame that he was taken from us much earlier than he should have been. My wife also lost her cigarette-smoking mother recently due to lung cancer.
While I support a smoker's right to do what they want with their own body, I just wish they would think of their loved ones (and future loved ones) that will also suffer greatly when they are gone. | John
  
| | #50 posted December 20, 2004 at 5:51pm (EST) |
MajorGimp wrote:
> My point was you could stab someone in the ear with a Q-Tip and damage their eardrum.
> They some angy Christian / politican / parent would be suing Johnson & Johnson. A lady
> sued McDonald's over hot coffee. People will sue if they feel 1. they can dump the blame
> on someone else and not have to accept responsibilty or 2. make money off of it.
Whenever someone makes mention of the McDonald's case, I feel the need to say something. Have you done any research into that case? We don't need to get into it here, because I have before in other places if you care to search -- but that case was legit. Using it over and over again as an example of bad/frivolous lawsuits is just continuing the misinformation in the world.
Don't get me wrong -- there are tons of lame lawsuits out there -- but that wasn't one of them -- regardless of how many people keep siting it as such. Just FYI...
And now -- back to your arguing.
- John...
Join in on the fun of GameTZ Cache #1 -- the ongoing trading cache! | grkangel10
(frozen)
| #51 posted December 20, 2004 at 6:05pm (EST)
edited December 20, 2004 at 6:06pm (EST) |
john wrote:
> Whenever someone makes mention of the McDonald's case, I feel the need to say something.
> Have you done any research into that case? We don't need to get into it here, because
> I have before in other places if you care to search -- but that case was legit. Using
> it over and over again as an example of bad/frivolous lawsuits is just continuing the
> misinformation in the world.
>
> Don't get me wrong -- there are tons of lame lawsuits out there -- but that wasn't one
> of them -- regardless of how many people keep siting it as such. Just FYI...
>
> And now -- back to your arguing.
>
I'll have to do some reading on that one. Just from an outside view, its pretty hard to imagine how it wasn't a case just to get some money. With that said though, I haven't heard much of any in-depth info on it other than that the lady was burned pretty badly. | vDub
(frozen)
| | #52 posted December 20, 2004 at 6:16pm (EST) |
You could always talk about the case where the fat guys sued McD's because their food made them fat.
MajorGimp - second hand smoke can also cause health problems, and some people don't have any other choice than to live in it. What do you say to that?
Dreamfall: The Longest Journey - October 17, 2005 | Larstech
 BTRs
(abuse)
| #53 posted December 20, 2004 at 6:32pm (EST)
edited December 20, 2004 at 6:33pm (EST) |
Kind of wierd. My father died from a crystal meth overdose the day earlier (the seventeenth) at 1AM. Sorry to hear about your father.
EDIT: And I can totally relate on the kids/grandpa thing. He would have made the best grandpa ever; terrible father, fantastic friend, and thats exactly what a grandpa was supposed to be. Its a shame my kids wont get to meet him. He'd be the kind of grandpa who hands out $20's and chocolate like nothing, and makes fun of his no good son. I'll miss him. | Broccoli
 
| | #54 posted December 20, 2004 at 7:24pm (EST) |
MajorGimp wrote:
> You seem to think I like cigarettes. I'm not arguing they are bad for your health in any
> means and may cause cancer in some cases. But botton line, you put the cig in your
> mouth and take the chance of becoming addicted and developing health problems. Not a cigarettes
> company, not a magazine, not TV, not your friends, you
You might have an arguement for today, when much info is out about the effects of smoking.
But what about tobacco companies history? They've done some pretty rotten things to get people to buy their product. Hiding health info from their consumers, targeting younger demographic (more "at risk"?). Many people probably would never have started smoking had they known the true extent of their effects way back when. And the tobacco companies certainly weren't going to tell them. They might be acting better now, but it's only because of the lawsuits they've endured over the years.. | MajorGimp
| | #55 posted December 20, 2004 at 7:48pm (EST) |
john wrote:
> MajorGimp wrote:
>> My point was you could stab someone in the ear with a Q-Tip and damage their eardrum.
>> They some angy Christian / politican / parent would be suing Johnson & Johnson. A lady
>> sued McDonald's over hot coffee. People will sue if they feel 1. they can dump the
> blame
>> on someone else and not have to accept responsibilty or 2. make money off of it.
>
> Whenever someone makes mention of the McDonald's case, I feel the need to say something.
> Have you done any research into that case? We don't need to get into it here, because
> I have before in other places if you care to search -- but that case was legit. Using
> it over and over again as an example of bad/frivolous lawsuits is just continuing the
> misinformation in the world.
>
> Don't get me wrong -- there are tons of lame lawsuits out there -- but that wasn't one
> of them -- regardless of how many people keep siting it as such. Just FYI...
>
> And now -- back to your arguing.
>
If it would make you feel better, use the forementioned "McDonald's made me fat". Anyways, still seems dumb to me to sue over hot coffee. I mean coffee is supposed to be hot and is made with boiling water right? Also, she spilled it on herself, not McDonald's right? Meh... But yes we can agree the world is full of lame lawsuits.
"I'm working on my case againest McDonald's. I'm out to prove that a Quarter Pounder With Cheese does not weigh a 1/4 of a pound"
"You do know that is precooked weight right?"
"DAMMIT!!!"
Visit Clan {UO} Urban Terror Team DM Server @ 67.19.199.101:27960
| dracula
(abandoned)
| | #56 posted December 20, 2004 at 7:52pm (EST) |
Derpaderp wrote:
> Kind of wierd. My father died from a crystal meth overdose the day
> earlier (the seventeenth) at 1AM. Sorry to hear about your father.
>
> EDIT: And I can totally relate on the kids/grandpa thing. He would
> have made the best grandpa ever; terrible father, fantastic friend,
> and thats exactly what a grandpa was supposed to be. Its a shame my
> kids wont get to meet him. He'd be the kind of grandpa who hands out
> $20's and chocolate like nothing, and makes fun of his no good son.
> I'll miss him.
dude that really sucks. my condolences to your family and sinnies as well.
as for cigarettes, like i said, the solution is simple, raise the taxes on them.
 | MajorGimp
| | #57 posted December 20, 2004 at 8:01pm (EST) |
Dyne wrote:
> MajorGimp - second hand smoke can also cause health problems, and some people don't have
> any other choice than to live in it. What do you say to that?
Your point is taken Dyne. Yes it is a bad situation if you are forced to deal with it (I've had to live with smokers) but once again we go back to free-will. Those people you live with put the cigs in their mouths, not a company. Thereby they affect themselves and the people around them. If you get second-hand cancer, be mad at them. If a cigarette is just sitting there, it can't do anything. It causes no harm by itself just sitting in a package or whatever. It isn't until a person lights it up that there are side effects. It's the same arguement with guns. A gun just sitting on the table isn't going to kill anyone. It takes a person loading it up, aiming it, and firing it for it to cause harm.
Visit Clan {UO} Urban Terror Team DM Server @ 67.19.199.101:27960
| MajorGimp
| | #58 posted December 20, 2004 at 8:06pm (EST) |
Broccoli wrote:
> You might have an arguement for today, when much info is out about the effects of smoking.
> But what about tobacco companies history? They've done some pretty rotten things to get
> people to buy their product. Hiding health info from their consumers, targeting younger
> demographic (more "at risk"?). Many people probably would never have started smoking had
> they known the true extent of their effects way back when. And the tobacco companies certainly
> weren't going to tell them. They might be acting better now, but it's only because of
> the lawsuits they've endured over the years..
True. But common sense when all the info wasn't avaliable. Inhaling smoke into your lungs, how is that good? As can be said now, if you don't know everything about a product, you are taking a risk using it. Those people back then took a risk and some wound up sick. Same with unprotected sex with a lot of people. Some do it, which is a risk, and may wind up with STDs or pregnant. Sad but true...
Visit Clan {UO} Urban Terror Team DM Server @ 67.19.199.101:27960
| grass07
| | #59 posted December 20, 2004 at 8:11pm (EST) |
My condolences to your family  .
  | MajorGimp
| | #60 posted December 20, 2004 at 8:12pm (EST) |
dracula wrote:
> as for cigarettes, like i said, the solution is simple, raise the taxes on them.
Why people think this would help is beyond me. Heroin is illegal, highly addicting, expensive (to my knowledge), and can possibly land you in prison. Yet people do it anyways. If you want something bad enough (I mean really bad, addiction), you'll get it through whatever means nessecary. Raise cig taxes by $10 or whatever. People will either 1. be pissed but pay the extra money because they need their fix or 2. steal. Make them illegal, people will get it from other countries. As much as it would be nice to think so, the whole world isn't affected by price hikes or legality.
Visit Clan {UO} Urban Terror Team DM Server @ 67.19.199.101:27960
| John
| | #61 posted December 20, 2004 at 8:46pm (EST) |
grkangel10 wrote:
> I'll have to do some reading on that one. Just from an outside view, its pretty hard to
> imagine how it wasn't a case just to get some money.
Well, THIRD degree burns to your groan area -- that require skin graphs to fix -- should mean money. Unfortunately, it likely didn't mean big money in the end -- I think she deserved significantly more actually.
> With that said though, I haven't
> heard much of any in-depth info on it other than that the lady was burned pretty badly.
Indeed. I appreciate you stating that you'll read up on it more sometime. I just see people all the time that act like it is "THE" example of frivolous lawsuits -- and that usually means that they haven't done their research. 
- John...
Join in on the fun of GameTZ Cache #1 -- the ongoing trading cache! | John
| | #62 posted December 20, 2004 at 8:47pm (EST) |
MajorGimp wrote:
> If it would make you feel better, use the forementioned "McDonald's made me fat".
Agreed! Much better argument/example.
> Anyways, still seems dumb to me to sue over hot coffee. I mean coffee is supposed to be
> hot and is made with boiling water right? Also, she spilled it on herself, not McDonald's
> right? Meh...
I'd rather not take this more off topic with a discussion of the McD's coffee case...
- John...
Join in on the fun of GameTZ Cache #1 -- the ongoing trading cache! | fixr
| | #63 posted December 20, 2004 at 11:20pm (EST) |
Sorry to hear about your loss. My sincerest condolances.
Your post is definitely a contributing factor in my decision to quit smoking.
If you only knew the POWWAAAAH of the Dark Side... | Oreo
(abandoned)
| | #64 posted December 21, 2004 at 2:17am (EST) |
In the case with Sinnie's father and my mother, they didn't know it was bad for your health, all they knew was the people they hung around with were doing it, maybe their parents even did it and they wanted to fit in and act grown up. My mother has been smoking for 35 years now and is still in good health, now, but who knows. It effects everyone differently health wise I do agree with that, but what it does to the families it just isn't fair. Even though my mom hasn't gone through any health related illness it has effected me negatively. Everytime someone asks me, "can I bum a smoke" I say, "nope I quit." Usually they will say something like, "really how'd you quit, its so hard for me." and I say "welp I never started." We grew up knowing it was bad for you and to get into a vice like that for relaxation is far dumb IMO. If anyone thirty and younger is a smoker it is due to your own ignorance to refuse.
MajorGimp- I worked at Mcds when that lawsuit over the coffee happened and they had temperatues which could easily be bumped out of place by rushing employees. Not to mention the only training I was taught about the coffee was from a coworker and whos to say that wasn't wrong. My point being, MCDS did nothing to prevent that lawsuit until after it happened. | mackey
| | #65 posted December 21, 2004 at 3:21am (EST) |
Oreo wrote:
> In the case with Sinnie's father and my mother, they didn't know it was bad for your health,
> all they knew was the people they hung around with were doing it, maybe their parents
> even did it and they wanted to fit in and act grown up. My mother has been smoking for
> 35 years now and is still in good health, now, but who knows. It effects everyone differently
> health wise I do agree with that, but what it does to the families it just isn't fair.
> Even though my mom hasn't gone through any health related illness it has effected me
> negatively. Everytime someone asks me, "can I bum a smoke" I say, "nope I quit." Usually
> they will say something like, "really how'd you quit, its so hard for me." and I say "welp
> I never started." We grew up knowing it was bad for you and to get into a vice like that
> for relaxation is far dumb IMO. If anyone thirty and younger is a smoker it is due to
> your own ignorance to refuse.
>
> MajorGimp- I worked at Mcds when that lawsuit over the coffee happened and they had temperatues
> which could easily be bumped out of place by rushing employees. Not to mention the only
> training I was taught about the coffee was from a coworker and whos to say that wasn't
> wrong. My point being, MCDS did nothing to prevent that lawsuit until after it happened.
Try and stick to five letter words or less. You might actually be able to form those into a coherent thought..
"And the walls came down, all the way to hell
Never saw them when they're standing, never saw them when they fell." | Oreo
(abandoned)
| | #66 posted December 21, 2004 at 4:22am (EST) |
you might benefit from your own advice | thatonedude
| #67 posted December 21, 2004 at 7:50am (EST)
edited December 21, 2004 at 8:52am (EST) |
MajorGimp wrote:
> thatonedude wrote:
> Q-Tip doesn't have millions of dollars in advertising campaigns aimed at young
> adults.
>
> You like many people seem to be in the mindset that if a pretty image is flashed in someone's
> face, they will automatically do what's depicated. If someone is dumb enough to smoke
> because an ad tells them to, that's their problem. Amazingly all the ads I've seen to
> drink, smoke, buy things, and I haven't done any of them. Self-control is an amazing thing.
Yes, self control is an amazing thing as I don't smoke cigs or drink either. Moral ethics are also an amazing thing that are commonly disregarded. Not everyone has the same education/insights that we seem to share on smoking and are more easily sold than me or you. Look, I don't disagree with you that it is up to the person to smoke or not. However, advertising is an effective tool for selling product. You can run it into the ground all you want, but if you really believe that then you are out of touch with reality. People buy things due to advertising millions of times a day. Trillions of dollars a year would not be invested and our economy largely dependent upon the revenues of advertising if no one automatically did what was depicted.
> Q-Tip doesn't have billion dollar lawsuits against them for being the prime mitigating
> factor in the deaths of thousands of thier customers everyday.
>
> My point was you could stab someone in the ear with a Q-Tip and damage their eardrum.
> They some angy Christian / politican / parent would be suing Johnson & Johnson.
No, it clearly states on the package: Do not insert into ear canal. This would get as far as the McDonald's made me fat case. An open and shut case of: No crap, sherlock.
> A lady
> sued McDonald's over hot coffee. People will sue if they feel 1. they can dump the blame
> on someone else and not have to accept responsibilty or 2. make money off of it.
Yes, this is the sad sorry American way.
> Q-Tip doesn't add over 50 addictive and cancer related chemicals to make thier product
> sell better. If one does
> contract cancer such as Sinnies father, again my condolenses Sinnie, it's not Q-Tip that
> led them to having to pay thosands of dollars a month in health care. Q-Tip doesn't make
> thier living off your addiction
>
> You seem to think I like cigarettes. I'm not arguing they are bad for your health in any
> means and may cause cancer in some cases. But botton line, you put the cig in your
> mouth and take the chance of becoming addicted and developing health problems. Not a cigarettes
> company, not a magazine, not TV, not your friends, you
And you seem to think cigarette companies should not be held liable for anything. Look... if someone wants to smoke let them smoke, this is their choice, but... if they do choose to smoke they are not only smoking tobacco. They are smoking chemical additives designed to addict the person for further profit. This practice began before the public was aware that smoking added chemicals was dangerous to long term health. As time passed and the public became aware and millions were already addicted, dying or already dead nothing changed, except a little portion of the box now has a surgeon generals warning. This is ethically and morally wrong. TAKE THE CHEMICALS OUT. If cigarettes were only today designed/discovered as enjoyable and we hold the knowledge we do know, do you really think these additives would be allowed? I don't see Aquafina adding proven cancerous chemicals to thier water so people will continue to buy Aquafina bottled water over drinking pure tap water. People used to smoke tobacco au natural for pleasure/relaxation before these large companies monopolized the business and added the chemicals to make the cigs more desirable to expand thier customer base for profit without realizing thier impact on peoples health. It is a persons choice to smoke, but I also believe a business should be held accountable for damages they inadvertantly and ignorantly created. A person smokes at first because they want to, a few years down the road they are smoking because they need to. If they were smoking only tobacco, such as many did for hundreds/thousands of years, that need would not be there and if they still smoked it would be because they enjoyed it, not craved it.
> Q-Tip helps you get wax out of your ear and only a moron that walks around with one
> hanging out of this inner ear will bump into a wall or whatever and puncture his ear drum.
> The product itself is harmless, unlike cigarettes
>
> Yes it would take an idiot for that to happen. That's my point, the world is full of idiots
> who do dumb crap. But if enough morons do it, I guarantee at least one person out there
> would be complaing about the harms of Q-Tips.
And that person is you.
> ... take away the million dollars of advertising and take out the addictive/cancer related
> chemicals
> in the tobacco and then compare cigarette corporations to Q-Tip. Otherwise that is an
> extremely weak comparison, probably coming from someone that smokes. I'd be willing to
> put money on that last comment.
>
> Again, I'm not arguing in anyway cigarettes can be harmfull. My point was, which obviously
> you didn't get, was a person's free will is to blame here not anything else.
I understand you perfectly clear. It is a persons choice to smoke a cig, it's the companys choice to add the 50 or so additive and corrosive chemicals to them so they can get rich off someone elses vice and misfortune. One's free-will is being taken advantage of with the addictive properties.Take out the chemicals and I have no problem with cigarette companies.
> We can argue
>'till the end of the day about the harms of cigarettes but again bottom line, you put
> that first cigarette in your mouth, not anyone else. If you don't know if you can avoid
> being addicted or don't know if it will affect your health or not, then don't do it.
If you don't know what's going to happen in the long term, what would stop one from smoking? This is what I was arguing in my first paragraph... this is what the advertising is hoping for, an idiot savant. I see something very wrong with the idea that it is okay to exploit someones if they don't know they are being exploited. There are some ethical issues here.
> Same with any vice. Pretty simple, no? I can back up my statements. You, like so many
> others spew out the same retoric "I'm not to blame, the company is! Please save me goverment!"
People enjoy smoking, but would they enjoy it as much without the additives? I'm pro-smoking man, only anti-chemical. The company IS to blame for the addictive chemicals, and only the government can prevent them from adding them. And you 'spew' the same thing only for different situations because WTF else is someone supposed to do when they see folly such as this at play? Sit idly by while the corporations poison the public? This is called politics, bud. I too, can back up my statements.
> Then we always go back to the second-hand arguement. If someone is smoking and you don't
> like it, go elsewhere. If that is not possible, ask them if they can smoke somewhere else.
> Rather than being in an enviorment you don't like and doging about it, go somewhere
> else temporarily or otherwise.
> Last, in case you haven't figured it out, I don't smoke,
> think it's unhealthly, and have no plans to do it. However, that doesn't mean I think
> I should be a Nazi and take it away from people that do enjoy it just because I disaprove
> of it nor should I try and find scapegoats for the people that do / did smoke because
> they can't take responsibilty for their actions.
Again, I don't give a f*ck if someone smokes or not, I do give a f*ck when my country allows known dangerous chemicals to be sprinkeled on over taxed tobacco and sold to people on the acount they are most likely forever addicted to this exploitation. And did you really have to bring out 'Nazi'? Come on, have you been listening to too much right wing talk radio? I have a good friend, one of my best friends that has been trying to quit for the last couple years and cannot because he is addicted to the chemicals in the cigarettes. He needs that nicotine to calm his nerves every hour or so, though he doesn't want it anymore. If he started smoking tobacco that was just that, tobacco, then he would not have this problem of being addicted to nicotine. He can't take responsibility for his actions because the cigarette companies now have him by his addicted balls.
^^
Dyne wrote
>MajorGimp - second hand smoke can also cause health problems, and some people don't have
>any other choice than to live in it. What do you say to that?
MajorGimp wrote:
>Your point is taken Dyne. Yes it is a bad situation if you are forced to deal with it (I've had to live with smokers) but |>once again we go back to free-will. Those people you live with put the cigs in their mouths, not a company.
So I guess the cigarettes materialize out of thin air into manufactured form on a gas station shelf.
>Thereby they affect themselves and the people around them. If you get second-hand cancer, be mad at them.
But not the company that put the cancer causing chemicals in the cigarette right, they are innocent.
>If a cigarette is just sitting there, it can't do anything. It causes no harm by itself just sitting in a package or whatever. It isn't until a person lights it up that there are side effects.
I would argue it isn't until the chemicals are added that there are side-effects. Tobacco by itself is many times less dangerous than how it is marketed in modern day.
>It's the same arguement with guns. A gun just sitting on the table isn't going to kill anyone. It takes a person loading it |>up, aiming it, and firing it for it to cause harm.
And this why more strict laws are needed, to better control people that don't realize what the hell they are doing. I am not an adovocate for banning cigarettes, or guns, all together. I am an advocate for a 'healthier' cigarette without the crap they add to the smoking tobacco. So if someone does decide they don't like them anymore, they can simply stop smoking instead of battling an added addictive property.
Broccoli wrote
> You might have an arguement for today, when much info is out about the effects of smoking.
> But what about tobacco companies history? They've done some pretty rotten things to get
> people to buy their product. Hiding health info from their consumers, targeting younger
> demographic (more "at risk"?). Many people probably would never have started smoking had
> they known the true extent of their effects way back when. And the tobacco companies certainly
> weren't going to tell them. They might be acting better now, but it's only because of
> the lawsuits they've endured over the years..
MajorGimp wrote:
>True. But common sense when all the info wasn't avaliable. Inhaling smoke into your lungs, how is that good?
It isn't and I'm sure many realized this, on the other hand, it's more than likely the chemicals in the tobacco causing the harm than the tobacco itself.
>As can be said now, if you don't know everything about a product, you are taking a risk using it. Those people back |>then took a risk and some wound up sick.
Have you seen any of the old cigarette ads? People were led to believe, by advertising nonetheless, that cigarettes were not harmful to health. TV commericals presented it in a healthy fashion. Now, we are talking about the time period where trucks would drive by and spray groups of people down with pesticides and think nothing of this either. Does American society condone spray people with pesticides? No, but we sure do let them inhale cancerous chemicals still.
>Same with unprotected sex with a lot of people. Some do it, which is a risk, and may wind up with STDs or pregnant. |>Sad but true...
I'm spent.
Atheist/Humanist? FAQs about Pantheism. Einstein knew. | thatonedude
| | #68 posted December 21, 2004 at 8:11am (EST) |
Broccoli wrote:
> MajorGimp wrote:
>
>> You seem to think I like cigarettes. I'm not arguing they are bad for your health in
> any
>> means and may cause cancer in some cases. But botton line, you put the cig in your
>> mouth and take the chance of becoming addicted and developing health problems. Not
> a cigarettes
>> company, not a magazine, not TV, not your friends, you
>
> You might have an arguement for today, when much info is out about the effects of smoking.
>
> But what about tobacco companies history? They've done some pretty rotten things to get
> people to buy their product. Hiding health info from their consumers, targeting younger
> demographic (more "at risk"?). Many people probably would never have started smoking had
> they known the true extent of their effects way back when. And the tobacco companies certainly
> weren't going to tell them. They might be acting better now, but it's only because of
> the lawsuits they've endured over the years..
Exactly one of my points in my last post. It is not always the persons fault 100%
Atheist/Humanist? FAQs about Pantheism. Einstein knew. | Ramsey
(frozen)
| | #69 posted December 21, 2004 at 10:53am (EST) |
fixr wrote:
> Your post is definitely a contributing factor in my decision to quit smoking.
Good for you.
World of Warcraft = Life
Maldram - a L16 Undead Priest on Zul'jin
Darzul - a L25 Undead Warlock on Bleeding Hollow
Allyne - a L17 Human Mage on Blackhand |
| LiL_Ramsey
| | #70 posted December 21, 2004 at 11:34am (EST) |
Ramsey wrote:
> fixr wrote:
>> Your post is definitely a contributing factor in my decision to quit smoking.
>
> Good for you.
Finally. All sinnie wanted to do was inform other smokers of her situation to see if it would mean anything to them, not start a debate about smoking in general. BTW, hope it works out fixr.
World of Warcraft Stats
Xzera - a L13 Troll Shaman on Bleeding Hollow
Xzera - a L6 Gnome Mage on G'hildaga |
|S|H|R|E|K|
My Anti-Drug | MajorGimp
| | #71 posted December 21, 2004 at 2:03pm (EST) |
Look, a dead horse... 
Visit Clan {UO} Urban Terror Team DM Server @ 67.19.199.101:27960
| Oreo
(abandoned)
| | #72 posted December 21, 2004 at 4:21pm (EST) |
MajorGimp wrote:
> Look, a dead horse...
>
>
so basically since thatonedude tore apart your meager views and now you have nothing to say in your defense you say something dumb, thats a cop-out if i've ever seen one | mackey
| | #73 posted December 21, 2004 at 5:34pm (EST) |
*Takes a drag*
[ / y o u r s e l f ] | Anxiouz
 
| | #74 posted December 21, 2004 at 5:39pm (EST) |
Damn, 44's so young. Both of my in-laws smoke and it drives my wife crazy because they're such heavy smokers and she's about to become a doctor yet they still won't listen to her.
I wish you and your family the best.
1 3 5
| - | - | -
2 4 6 R | MajorGimp
| | #75 posted December 21, 2004 at 6:56pm (EST) |
Oreo wrote:
> MajorGimp wrote:
>> Look, a dead horse...
>>
>>
>
> so basically since thatonedude tore apart your meager views and now you have nothing to
> say in your defense you say something dumb, thats a cop-out if i've ever seen one
I have plently left to say actually but me and thatonedude obviously have different views on how cigarettes can be harmfull. He blames companies, I blame people. We are not gonna agree so if you can explain to me the logic in continuing to argue with him, I'd like to hear it. BTW, you might want to close that can of worms you just opened up about someone "tearing apart my meger views". Or shall I point to all of your topics like the one involving GameTZ's supposed cliques and the big evil mod conspiracy. 
Visit Clan {UO} Urban Terror Team DM Server @ 67.19.199.101:27960
| thatonedude
| | #76 posted December 21, 2004 at 10:09pm (EST) |
There will always be two or more sides to every issue. Good man not to back down from yours MajorGimp! Truly a formidable opponent.
Atheist/Humanist? FAQs about Pantheism. Einstein knew. | MajorGimp
| | #77 posted December 22, 2004 at 2:37pm (EST) |
Visit Clan {UO} Urban Terror Team DM Server @ 67.19.199.101:27960
| Broccoli
| | #78 posted December 22, 2004 at 8:12pm (EST) |
MajorGimp wrote:
>> You might have an arguement for today, when much info is out about the effects of smoking.
>> But what about tobacco companies history? They've done some pretty rotten things to
> get
>> people to buy their product. Hiding health info from their consumers, targeting younger
>> demographic (more "at risk"?). Many people probably would never have started smoking
> had
>> they known the true extent of their effects way back when. And the tobacco companies
> certainly
>> weren't going to tell them. They might be acting better now, but it's only because
> of
>> the lawsuits they've endured over the years..
> True. But common sense when all the info wasn't avaliable. Inhaling smoke into your lungs,
> how is that good? As can be said now, if you don't know everything about a product, you
> are taking a risk using it. Those people back then took a risk and some wound up sick.
> Same with unprotected sex with a lot of people. Some do it, which is a risk, and may wind
> up with STDs or pregnant. Sad but true...
Well, times back then seem like a different world. Have you looked at some of the advertising from back then?
You really should take a look, gives you a bit of a glimpse of what the world knew (or rather, didn't know) about smoking. And worse yet, the ridiculous connections and proclamations tobacco companies made to promote their product. This stuff is well documented and easily accessible, you just have to look.
Many of these old ads are quite laughable today, but were very believable back then. Look into it a bit if you're interesed... | thatonedude
| #79 posted December 23, 2004 at 3:41am (EST)
edited December 23, 2004 at 3:54am (EST) |
Broccoli... don't bother, he's a moron. I gave the other side of the issue, congratulated him for believing in his and all he could do was: . Got a real intellectual here, you know... allowing for the opposition. I like to hold that higher ground.
Atheist/Humanist? FAQs about Pantheism. Einstein knew. | thatonedude
| #80 posted December 23, 2004 at 3:45am (EST)
edited December 23, 2004 at 3:54am (EST) |
silent_mackey wrote:
> *Takes a drag*
Sorry about your choice/future problem.
Atheist/Humanist? FAQs about Pantheism. Einstein knew. | | |
Topic Page Hits: 1 today (3 in the last 30 days) |
