In any case, I see that you didn't actually read that short and not particularly challenging article. Go chase yourself. I'm sure the rest of your opinions are just as carefully constructed as your research methods.

We really don't have to make what you're saying less wrong. You're doing a fine job of it on your own, sir.

...that's an remarkably subtle technique, devil. nice.

Ether, dear, you brought up the bread and leavening question. Wikipedia still is more effort than you have put into defending the questionable logic and information I caught you out on. Go on, if your standards are so much higher for research, show me what your sources are. Don't you see how dumb it is to say that "it's not communion unless you do it the oldest way" but that "cigarettes are a modern use of the Native tobacco ritual"?

I am trying to say this in easy, small words for your benefit, since you seem to have trouble following me.

The larger point is that humans have been burning leaves and inhaling the fumes since ancient times.

We like to make a lot of this cigarette stuff as being a corporate thing and a commercial thing and a health thing-

but smoking is actually also an ancient tradition that humanity has participated in for many thousands of years. No respect is paid to it's history, and that history puts the argument in the correct context where it belongs. When the history of humankind's enjoyment of burning leaves is omitted, and the question of freedom to live your life as you wish is omitted- then the issue becomes a witch hunt. It becomes people who don't use the product forcing their will on to people who do under the banner of righteousness and health conciousness.

Wait, so why would it be ok to allow smoking wherever you want? Wouldn't that be a smoker forcing *their* will upon all the others sharing that indoor space too? All history and corporate bull aside, a smoker exercising their choice to smoke does more harm than a non-smoker exercising their biological need to breathe clean air.

"...And for that matter, nobody ever said you have a RIGHT to breathe perfect, clean air. There is no place in the constitution that talks about how you are entitled to breathe pristine air."

Many places do not allow smoking within x number of feet of an entrance to a public building and that is being pushed hard by these people. They are also trying to push through a ban on smoking while driving with kids in the car. After they get that passed, they can get a ban on smoking with a passenger in a car of any age. After they win that battle, they'll go on to ban smoking in cars entirely. Then you won't be able to smoke on a bicycle... then, while walking down the sidewalk. And it won't end there. These people love to complain, and as long as they keep punishing and not banning the practice of smoking- they have ammo to b*tch and complain for many years to come. They also love their personal pet projects and even though smoking is evil they have no trouble taking money from smokers to fund these projects. They will tax and penalize and charge their way to funding while they demonize the smokers.

3:Why do they call them "cling peaches" if they don't really cling to anything?

You're being an alarmist. This "slippery slope" scenario you present is silly. Get a grip! It's not as if lawmakers and lobbyists sit around and think, "Who shall we pick on? Wait! It's cool to ban smokers! Let's restrict all the things they like to do!" Watch out, coffee and porn is next. /sarcasm

You're being an alarmist. This "slippery slope" scenario you present is silly. Get a grip! It's not as if lawmakers and lobbyists sit around and think, "Who shall we pick on? Wait! It's cool to ban smokers! Let's restrict all the things they like to do!" Watch out, coffee and porn is next. /sarcasm

Don't lie about being sorry. My political views are nowhere as altruistic as you seem to be so desperate to interpret them. I don't even need to argue my point with you anymore; you just twist my words into some extreme P.O.V. that you'd rather argue against. So have at it. What do I say next?

WASHINGTON, March 4 -- Congress is a step closer to giving the FDA regulatory power over tobacco products -- something public health groups have been pushing since the 1970s.

A bill approved 39 to 13 by the House Energy and Commerce Committee Wednesday during a contentious mark-up session would authorize the FDA to regulate labeling, marketing, transport, and sale of tobacco products.

It would not permit the agency to ban tobacco products entirely, but the FDA could require the removal of harmful additives from cigarettes and even reduce the nicotine in cigarettes to just short of zero.

The FDA would also be able to prohibit companies from advertising their products in ways that appeal to kids -- such as by adding clove or vanilla flavors -- or labeling their smokes as "light" or "low tar," or with other phrases suggesting a healthier cigarette.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), sailed through the House last year but stalled in the Senate as the clock ran down on the 110th Congress. Former President Bush opposed the bill then, but President Barack Obama, who has struggled to quit smoking, supports the bill.

Waxman had said the tobacco bill would be among his early priorities during this Congress, and cemented that pledge when his committee approved the bill today and sent it to the full House.

But Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said the Senate remains the obstacle to final passage.

Several Republican committee members who oppose the bill pointed to an already strained FDA that they say is failing its food and drug safety mission.

"I'm cautious of the FDA's ability to have the necessary staff and money to carry out the regulation of tobacco in every town, city, and state in America," said Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.).

"Clearly this is erroneous," Dingell responded, who pointed out the bill would collect user fees from tobacco companies to fund the FDA's added tobacco responsibilities.

Republicans favored a substitute bill that would place control of tobacco in the hands of a new agency outside the FDA, but within the Department of Health and Human Services.

After that amendment was flatly rejected by Democrats, more than a dozen other GOP amendments were voted down.

Nevertheless, six of the committee's 23 Republicans voted to move the bill forward. No Democrats opposed it.

Rep. Michael Burgess, M.D. (R-Texas), an obstetrician-gynecologist, said if the Democrats really cared about public health, they would give the FDA full authority to ban cigarettes, rather than just the discretion to require companies to adjust nicotine levels. The bill would not allow the FDA to completely eliminate nicotine from cigarettes, however.

"If our true goal is to limit the public health exposure to cigarette smoke then we would take away the thing that makes the cigarette addictive," Dr. Burgess said. "If our goal is simply to collect more tax dollars from cigarette companies, then let's be honest about what we're doing," he said.

Committee Republicans accused Waxman of pushing an "abstinence-only" tobacco bill that could place restrictions on all types of tobacco products without taking into account that some might carry a comparatively lower health risk.

The bill applies the same standards to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products, such as lozenges, which can be a less harmful alternative to smoking, said Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.).

But Democrats including Waxman and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said Congress shouldn't support legislation that gives any sort of pass to smokeless tobacco, which is highly carcinogenic. (See: Smokeless Tobacco Called Unsafe Cigarette Substitute)

Waxman said his bill would give the FDA discretion to allow companies to market their product if independent scientific evidence confirms they make a healthier alternative to cigarettes.

Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest tobacco manufacturer, supports the legislation and has said that it could spur competition among cigarette companies to see who could produce the least harmful tobacco products.

But smaller tobacco companies oppose the bill and have said it would just boost Philip Morris' market share because it requires cigarette companies to carry out expensive research and restricts new competitors from entering the market.

Joel Nitzkin, M.D., a public health physician, and chairman of the tobacco control task force with for the American Association of Public Health Physicians, said the cigarette giant Phillip Morris has lobbied tirelessly for a bill that would favor them.

Dr. Nitzkin said that Waxman realizes that without support from the powerful cigarette company, the bill never would pass.

Waxman declined to comment except to say, "Phillip Morris supports it for its own reasons."

The American Lung Association, which has lobbied for years for the bill, along with the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, lauded the committee's approval of the bill.

"FDA authority over manufactured tobacco products will finally allow our nation to begin to take significant steps to reduce the tobacco-caused death toll that claims 442,000 lives each year and results in $193 billion annually in healthcare costs and lost productivity," American Lung Association president and CEO Charles D. Connor said in a release.

Ha. I was thinking the exact thing about you. You're tiresome, delusional and self-righteous. Whiny and repetitive. And *that's* why I'm done arguing with you.

"FDA authority over manufactured tobacco products will finally allow our nation to begin to take significant steps to reduce the tobacco-caused death toll that claims 442,000 lives each year and results in $193 billion annually in healthcare costs and lost productivity," American Lung Association president and CEO Charles D. Connor said in a release.

Also note that that roughly "440,000 deaths a year" number hasn't changed since cigarette smoking has been drastically reduced.

At least Lassie could go get help after she'd pushed Timmy into the well (err, Timmy "fell"... thanks to the magic of editing).

Can a cigarette do that?

But there are some pluses. They satisfy your body's growing addiction to nicotine and...okay I guess there's just that one plus.

I feel sorry for people that don't smoke. They have no idea what it's like to want something sooooo bad, ....and get it every time.

That's kinda like thinking "How can there be no money in my bank account? I still have checks!"

I feel sorry for people that don't smoke. They have no idea what it's like to want something sooooo bad, ....and get it every time.

I guess it's weird, I feel like I missed an epoch. If I'd been born just ten or fifteen years earlier, I probably coulda smoked in a hospital.

I never once used a condom and I didn't die. I'm no Wilt Chamberlain but I have engaged in sexual congress with a large number of women, protection free. And I never knocked anyone up either. So don't believe the hype.

I never once used a condom and I didn't die. I'm no Wilt Chamberlain but I have engaged in sexual congress with a large number of women, protection free. And I never knocked anyone up either. So don't believe the hype.

You can make all the fun you like about my age, but man the '70s sure was a great decade to be a teenager.

Plus, we had quaaludes and lots of cheap and easy to obtain excellent drugs.

I thought they made a flavor of Mountain Dew specifically for that.

Ah, the advantages of having a microscopic penis.

~€~

Yeah, yeah, we know gramps... and movies were just a nickel.

~€~