Most Corrupt

MOST CORRUPT -> tobacco

Start A New Topic | Reply

Post Info

TOPIC: tobacco

Posted By: Nik Ashmost Posted On: Mar 17, 2004 Views: 735	RE: tobacco blah blah blah huh? I hate trying to pick your inserted comments out of the C&P. It's bad form & lacks tact. But I'll try a version of what you enjoy doing I guess. (the "" indicate what you said word for word) "the 600+ ingredient thing wasn't shot down. I actually shot down your attempt at shooting it down. Liek your 9thg rade english teacher probably told you a thousand times, read it again." ---Um, Sorry, your list was only 599 long and not of what's in EVERY cigarette. Notice that list was compiled from several companies?(hint hint) I guess I'll just go back & let you prove claim of yours before dragging this further. ****(Speaking of 9th grade English, nice spelling of "liek" & "rade" ;) ) "Thanks for the economic lesson. Actually, and interestingly, taxes are also used to fund programs, such as medicare and medicaid. Since smoking causes so many illnesses, including but not limited to, heart disease and lung cancer, it puts a tremendous strain on the system. An overwheling majority of the taxes you pay on butts go to these programs. Think of it as a Flex-pay program for your future prospects of getting cancer. You're paying for your medical care now! What a great concept!" ---Nice of you to change your wording to "ALSO used...." LOL, way to spin it ;) I'm gonna go smoke another cigarette with all it's dangerous additives like Water, Chocolate, & Wine now." "read again buddy. this was shot down a few pages ago. jeez!" ---How was it shot down? I let it go since it was clear you misread my calling water an ADDITIVE when you seemed to think I'd said "addictive". Those ingredients are on your list of 600+...er...599. You know the one, the "dangerous additives". Scroo-it. You can't convince me of corruption or hold up an argument without blabbering out 4 posts at a time full of your misunderstanding/misreading of my statements & inability to read and comprehend. (talk about who needs to read things again) Oh, and yes, the brain is physical, but the activity of the brain and what you go through when quitting is mental. My source? Myself and my past quitting experiences. I'm sorry for expecting you to understand the EXAMPLES of physical withdrawal and understand it's not a clinical definition. Talk about nitpicking All in all. As the Simpson kids said it best... Meh.
Posted By: jp Posted On: Mar 17, 2004 Views: 734	RE: tobacco What an interesting topic. From my experience (many years of working with patients with a variety of diseases including chronic pulmonary ailments) it would seem that addiction does indeed comprise of two parts, a mental as well as a physical one. The question of whether nicotinic receptor competition with Ach is mental or physical is up in the air, but it is known that these receptors have a great affinity for nicotine, hence when smokers give up, they go through a period of depression. (Again, whether this response is psychological or a chemical competition factor is up for debate) As for the physical aspect, in my opinion, the reversal of the hypoxic drive in smokers warrants consideration as a physical alteration in body function, and again, should be considered in the debate as to whether or not nicotine causes a physical addiction. I don't know if my opinion is at all useful, but well, it's worth 2 cents I think!
Posted By: Daisy Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 724	RE: tobacco Christ, I missed a helluvah lot last night. LBB-anyone who would drink liquor first can't be trusted for advice. That's just a fact. Y'know you say go "ahead and smoke I don't care what you do," to paraphrase, but everything you're spouting makes it seem an awful lot like you're on the make it illegal bandwagon. 'Course debate in this venue is hard because you can't see the face to decipher nuances of speech. So maybe you really are just a concerned health activist and not a Nazi trying to take rights from the people. ;) Nik- N--gah please! I'm usually right wit ya my brother from another mother. Alas, alack not on this one. As someone who quit smoking (sorry, need to qualify the statement here), I think that cigarettes are at least partly physically addictive. I'm telling ya there's a difference between the cravings/crankiness/feeling of need that you have during the first week of quitting and the cravings and such now a year later. Granted, I think the physical part only lasts a few days, and yes, it's not like heroin withdrawl--I never puked or nothing--but I do think that physically something happens to tell your brain "go get that ****e and smoke it." Hence the receptor thing LBB spouted. Nice Psych 101 stuff BTW--learnt all about it myself when I took that class in college. You should also mention the role environment plays in addiction. Using has as much to do with where you use and who you use with as it has to do with the chemical itself.
Posted By: Daisy Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 723	RE: tobacco (an aside) #1 Nik, Happy St. Patty's day! Not a speck Irish, but top o' the morning if y'ar. #2 I just realized I couldn't right she-ite anymore?!? I thought she-ite was the acceptable form of ** here? Goddamn it! This ing censoroship e is **ing ridiculous!! Phew--sorry--
Posted By: Liquor before beer Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 718	RE: tobacco Nik, you're last statements are WEAK. Sure sign of losing a debate - bringing up typos. Give me a break. I have noticed an interesting fact about your debating technique - you try to concentrate on the minor details and bring focus away from the main issue. Whether or not a particular cigarette has 600 or so ingredients is irrelevant. The point of it was to show that these companies add many bad things to your cigarette to make it more addictive. I don't have to really prove this point though. Countless juries have used this as the basis for their judgements against tobacco companies. Yet this fact never entered you thick skull. You chose to debate whether or not this # was exactly 600, 599, or whatever number. Pointless! My main theme also had nothing to do with whether or not it was a physical or mental addiction. Yet again, you focused your energy into debating this issue. Interesting that you would, considering you're dead wrong....but it doesn't matter. It had nothing to do with the main theme of tobacco companies adding bad things to cigarettes to make them a MORE ADDICTIVE product. But it's quite clear you can't come up with any legitimate argument to counter MY MAIN POINT. When you can't do that, you focus on the minutia. To use your technique: the word LAYMAN does not mean "uneducated". It means someone who is not an expert in a particular field. Layman's terms means translating complex jargon into simple terms that regular people can understand. Guess it wasn't enough translating for you. Daisy: Just took my name from Beerliquor. Her post was the first I responded to, and I just wrote it. Reminded me of the rhyme...Liquor before beer, you're in the clear. Oh well...sorry it made you think I could be any less trusted, it's just a name! ;)
Posted By: Meko Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 705	RE: tobacco Lik ASSmost and Harry Dillsucker... you lose! Enough! Your arguments are weak. Stop lashing out at silly little discrepancies and own up to the fact that " Big Tobacco" is corrupt! So what you smoke, so what cigarettes are bad for you, the company is still pushing a highly addictive substance equal to the addiction of heroin (ask you DR). You will most likely die young and leave your loved ones damning big tobacco and saving non-smokers a whole bunch of SS monay. Please do not think that by arguing that big tobacco is not corrupt gives you an excuse for smoking. Just admit that you love the taste of a cigarette and that you can't go without out because you are too freakin weak minded to quit! I smoked for 13 years and quit cold turkey...4 years now. It's hard ...real hard both mentally and PHYSICALLY (I got the shakes and had to temporarily substitute caffeine to assist)! For all smokers; you can tell yourself a thousand times that there are people out there that smoke all their lives and live to 80+ years, you can tell yourself that you wont get cancer; but when someone close to you dies young real young like 46 years old from emphysema maybe then you will consider taking action and quit smoking (do the math think about the monay you will save). Maybe the truth.com ads are scare tactics, I surely hope they scare the she it out of my children! Good luck with the whole hardened arteries thing; I hope it works out for ya. Also, if you are going to continue arguing with LBB; please work on building your case as you so far have failed on every attempt; please stop writing long messages that lack fact and meaningful substance. LBB I think you might be wasting your time here. However, you have fought hard and have conducted an excellent argument BRAVO!
Posted By: Daisy Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 696	RE: tobacco LBB--My apologies, just realized I was singing the rhyme wrong. Liquor before Beer, You're in the CLEAR, beer before hard you're in the yard. Beerliquor is not to be trusted.
Posted By: Liquor before beer Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 695	RE: tobacco Ha ha....I like your version. I always knew it as Beer before liquor, never sicker. Hard/yard is better.
Posted By: Nik Ashmost Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 690	RE: tobacco Lose what? I haven't seen a list YET of over 600 chemicals. Let alone proof that the 599 list is in EVERY cigarette as LBB claims. That's what I was originally trying to get through to her. But alas, I was pulled off topic, and am now blamed as the one to drag this away from my original points. LOL Sorry for nitpicking about your spelling, but it WAS ironic considering you were talking about 9th grade english and couldn't spell for crud. And if you can't even concentrate on what you're doing enough to spell correctly, how can I trust you to be reading other people's posts closely enough to understand what's said? You already mistook additive for "addictive" when I clearly said additive earlier. (see water is a Dangerous additive sarcasm) Meko - Namecalling is such a mature form of debate. You lost before you even started your post there. "you lose" coming from someone who so suddenly resorts to namecalling doesn't carry more than a thimble of water....oops, you just spilled it. Make that no water. Is that your teacher I hear calling you in from recess? I simply originally asked mark to explain why tobacco is THE MOST corrupt. And frankly, I'm still waiting to hear it. I've heard lots about what tobacco companies did years ago. But since then, forced to or however, they've cleaned up their act immensely. I've tried responding to every claim made by LBB, but have had little to none of my questions/comments successfully answered/refuted. Say I'M nitpicking? I'm simply following the course of the debate as altered by others here. Frankly, I'd be happy to ask again for the umpteenth time how tobacco is the most corrupt company around today. Here, I'll use LBB's prime debate tactic. Sorry, I shot down all your points in previous posts. Re-read them with a little more observance than you give to your own spelling and maybe you'll start to understand. Then maybe you can actually try to respond to my points instead of just say "I already told you so, so there!" Then again, this is what I get for trying to intelligently debate on this board. P.S. Daisy - Yes, I'll grant and admit that it's a slightly physical thing for the first few days after you quit. But not in the sense of the mental images that "physically addicted" brings to mind when you imagine a "physical dependancy" on a substance(which is why I used examples). Though overall, tobacco is primarily and about 99% a mental addiction. Does that help clarify? So, getting back to where it started, can I see proof yet that the list of 599 "dangerous" ingredients are in EVERY cigarette? Yes or No?
Posted By: Liquor before beer Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 686	RE: tobacco Are you serious?? Good lord. Look up. See that thing whizzing above you? It's way up there, so take a good look. It's this debate. It's gone way over your head. I don't know what else to tell you. To quote Will Ferrell in Zoolander - "I feel like I've been taking crazy pills!!" Because I feel compelled to respond, even though I'm sure to get yet another mind-numbing response....just google "cigarette additives". You'll get about 42,500 documents on the subject. Do some research for yourself. 600. 300. 200. A trillion. Whatever. It's not the point. Did it sink in yet?
Posted By: Liquor before beer Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 683	RE: tobacco Even though I'm veering off of my own point, I came across this article and found it to be quite interesting. While I agreed with an earlier claim that sugar and chocolate are probably not dangerous additives (even though you completely disregarded the long list of CHEMICALS and focused on water, chocolate and wine)...this article actually claims cocoa is among the worst. Take a look and learn something. http://www.nzdf.org.nz/update/messages/843.htm
Posted By: Frank Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 679	RE: tobacco There's an old saying...What is understood, doesn't need to be discussed. I think that's the case when it comes to cigarette additives. It's pretty much common knowledge that tobacco companies add all sorts of crazy things to cigarettes. I can't tell you the exact number, but probably the worst of them all is ammonia. Studies have suggested that it makes the effects of Nicotine incredibly (ie 1000x +) stronger. The debate continues to this day about whether or not tobacco companies should list these ingredients on every pack. In fact, the World Health Organization recently put together a framework for worldwide tobacco education and it calls for tobacco manufacturers to list their ingredients. Sorry to bore you all, but figured I'd put my 2 cents in.
Posted By: Meko Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 676	RE: tobacco Nik, sorry I hurt your feelings. I just think the play on names is funny. Wasn't trying to upset you. What does carrying a thimble of water have to do with anything? Are you talking about credibility here? Recess nice one now thats mature. I hope you give me more lessons on maturity as I will take them with a grain of salt or be that an empty thimble. There you go nitpicking againMOST corrupt. You stated in your first post, I'd like Mark to expand beyond a single word on how the tobacco industry is SO corrupt not MOST corrupt. See how ridiculous this is. Keep on smoking, keep on living in denial. You lost the argument the first time you posted give it up. You have no premise to argue that big tobacco is not corrupt! Mark has been justified a million times over, with every news paper article, TV special report and lawsuit that provides facts proving that big tobacco was and is corrupt. Stop hanging on to 599 chemicals and attacking spelling and grammar errors. Its youre credibility and ability to conduct a mature, honest debate that are in question here not mine! . Even Europe agrees; on 11/06/2000 the EU filed a RICO (Racketeering Influenced and CORRUPT Organization) case in compliance with the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization ACT. The charge is that RJ and PM are responsible for the smuggling of 350 billion cigarettes per year (1/3 of all cigarettes traded internationally). No needs to site resources as there are so many. Come on, they are corrupt! Thats the argument. Frank: I agree what is understood doesnt need to be discussed. Case and point Marks original post is sufficient and thoroughly justified.
Posted By: Nik Ashmost Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 671	RE: tobacco Ugh.... Meko: "There you go nitpicking againMOST corrupt. You stated in your first post, I'd like Mark to expand beyond a single word on how the tobacco industry is SO corrupt not MOST corrupt" --Considering the POLL TOPIC is which is MOST corrupt. It was implied that my asking why it's SO corrupt was the equivalent of asking why mark thinks it's the MOST corrupt. Got it? (sorry for the recess comment, but considering you resorted to name calling, it fit) LBB: "Whether or not a particular cigarette has 600 or so ingredients is irrelevant" --No, it's the FOUNDATION of your original claim. YOU claimed that Marlboro puts 600+ ingredients into every cigarette. I'm refuting that. That's ALL I was originally doing. Simple enough yet? I guess your sudden decision of irrelavence shows your admission of being mistaken...? Can you accept the fact that since your list required the submissions of SEVERAL various companies that perhaps it's just a cumulative list of all POTENTIAL ingredients? And you people think I'M nitpicking & veering off-topic????? LMFAO. I'll avoid responding to all the attempts you make to drag this away from YOUR OWN original claim and see how well you can back up the "Marlboro man puts 600+ chemicals in every cigarette" claim. Fair enough? FTR, I've never said smoking is not a health issue. I've openly explained that I understand it's unhealthy. So don't try acting like I'm in denial of anything. I just don't stand for incredibly exaggerated claims.
Posted By: Harry Pillcrusher Posted On: Mar 18, 2004 Views: 670	RE: tobacco Maybe you guys are right...and maybe cigarettes are bad for you...and maybe all the pro-cigarette hype that has been going around lately is slightly inaccurate. I don't make the frickin things. I just introduce my good friend tobacco to my other good friend fire and all three of us chill out on the weekends.

Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next Page ->