What's a terrorist? Just asking...

[veracity]

Here's my point: If a terrorist, by definition, surreptitiously kills and harms large numbers of people over a long period of time, - for personal or ideological reasons, - and is not part of an organized military group.....uh...why are the tobacco companies not on the very top of the terrorist list?

No, I'm not kidding. The tobacco companies created a product that invades the body to the point of being extraordinarily addictive. That's a fact - resulting in forcing people to buy their products in order not to suffer serious withdrawal symptoms. But, - 430 THOUSAND people die in the US every year of smoke-related diseases, and 5 MILLION people worldwide die of the same causes. Their cause is profit. I just don't see the difference. They kill far more people than any group of terrorists, anywhere, any place, any time.

And that's only one group....(flashback to this Terror Permit of a few months back)....


http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/terrorpermit.htm

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

2. I think you're pushing it.

Tobacco companies are certainly evil entities, but they are not "terrorists". Last time I checked, tobacco companies didn't murder people for the purpose of influencing governments.

[righttherefeelsgood]

3. Why are they evil?

Some people, like me, like to smoke. So what? Too many busybodys!

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Your choice to do that

However, to sell a product that is both addictive and deadly is evil.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Nope

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. I would say yes

Doesn't mean either should be illegal.

Alcohol clearly will be around long after I am gone, but making money from an addiction is still where its at. MJ is a drug of entry.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[XNASA]

5. And I encourage you to smoke as much as you want.

Just don't do it in my airspace.

Am I being a busybody?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[XNASA]

10. So you don't like Halston I take it.

And my personal hygiene is beyond reproach.

Plus, I haven't been sick since I quit smoking, years ago. See how that works?

I'm all eyes when it comes to fashion sense. Pray tell, what type of clothing offends you?

We'd all love to hear.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShimokitaJer]

14. You're really reaching, dude

My cologne, perfume, or body odor may offend, but it won't harm those around me. Also, unlike smokers, I won't feel the need to reapply my cologne regularly at the table next to yours.

Cold and flu germs destroy your argument about smoking of ones own free will. No one chooses to have flu germs.

The clothing argument is just stupid.

This isn't about offending people. It's about harming people, and second-hand smoke harms people. You may cite tobacco company reports to the contrary because, just as they covered up the effects of tobacco smoking, they are attempting to trivialize the effects of second-hand smoke. And THAT is something about which you have no personal choice. The effort to spread misinformation about the effects of tobacco is theirs alone, and that is why some call them evil.

So feel free to smoke a cigar in the privacy of your own home. While you're at it, you can have a snifter of brandy, toke up, or shoot yourself full of heroin for all I care. But don't try to take the moral high ground when you're putting poisons into my air.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

15. I think it's pretty ignorant and silly..

..to be sitting here defending tobacco companies, of all things. If you know their history, they have lied in the past and covered up the truth. They profit immensely directly off of peoples weaknesses. Their product inflicts pain, suffering, and eventually, an almost-guaranteed death. Of course you have a choice whether you want to smoke, but to defend such an entity is quite silly.

Unless, of course, you own stocks in tobacco companies--then your position is understandable!

[veracity]

20. not defensible...

even owning stocks in tobacco companies isn't a basis for defending the actions of the companies. They produce a product that has NO other function but to relieve the addictive urge produced by not using it. No other product...with the exception of chewing gum, - self destructs upon use...

I think that anyone visitng this planet in the future, should anything survive of our 'civilizaztion' will be totally confused by the paradox of a society that could produce so much fantastic technology, while continuing to lure them into buying a product that would kill them.

Of course, they would also be amazed that after seveal million years of evolution, we still settle conflicts by sending young people to kill the young people of those we dislike. Ain't progress wonderful?

[veracity]

17. This is not about smokers...

...it's about producing a product that is pushed at kids (new smokers don't START smoking as adults for the most part)...and that don't give you a choice. Smokers don't smoke out of choice once addiction sets in...no matter how they deny that. But that's a whole other thread...

To replace the nearly half million dead smokers that die every year, the tobacco companies have to go after new markets - which are inevitably kids. Colas and Ginger ale are addictive as well...but they don't kill. I think if the same number of deaths occurred from these soft drinks every year, people would start demanding an end to their marketing. "

Remember- they take "harmful" products off the market. Saccharine killed lots of lab mice. I do believe tobacco is worse, but their lobbies are stronger and richer.

[Deja Q]

16. corporate america and bush are bigger terrorists...

They instill fear in people.

They hurt people for their own gain.

The terrorists Bush* describes do the same exact thing as his own folks. Hurt and kill for personal gain.

Hell, I'm almost at the point where I wish the taliban would kill us. That's fuckin' MERCY compared to what our own American people are doing to the middle/lower classes.

[amber dog democrat]

18. I think the Tobacco Companies

are acutally worse. At least the terrorists stem from motives other than proffits gained from selling to a capitve and addicted market.

Terrorists either have some twisted utipian ethos or a revenge motive.

I quit smoking 20 years ago when they were 50 cents a pack. Never reconsidered that decision.

[UTUSN]

19. "Terrorist" = "Bushista" n/t

[americanconfusion]

21. i Disagree

This is going a little far, it's not like tabacco companies are killing people by force. People now days no the risk of smoking, its simply some peoples own stupidity and thinking that it is easy to quit. I do agree that these companies are inflicting horrible influences on the youngs kids of today, yet how are we as role models helping by making cigarettes part of everyday lives. Especially when they see their own parents ligthing up at the dinner table.