| It's already restricted enough and taxed to shit. Give me a break. |
| A good reason to say "yes" to this one is that children have no choice in the matter when their smoking parents expose them to secondhand smoke. Though the question is largely irrelevant because here in the US vice taxes on tobacco are a significant source of income for our corrupt and filthy governments. No way in hell will they ban something so lucrative for both government and the healthcare system. |
| No. If people want to destroy their lungs, that's their prerogative. |
 |
| There's no point. Even with tobacco being legal, the contraband tobacco market is HUGE. Imagine what would happen if it were to be criminalized. |
| no because if they did that thousands of people would be unemployed |
| RRRRRRRRRR |
| I think smoking tobacco regularly is dumb as hell but I think it's more important for people to have the choice to be dumb as hell than to make it illegal. I'm for legalization of all drugs as long as people are educated on the harmful side effects. |
 |
| They shove that propaganda down your throat while you're still too young to realize it's propaganda for a reason. Smoking does not cause lung cancer. Nothing specific causes any type of cancer. A cell becomes cancerous when it continues to reproduce even though the telomeres at the end of it's dna have run out. Such cells continue to reproduce indefinitely, while also not performing any specific useful function, because they are missing portions of dna code, which have been snipped off, in place of the telomeres. The thing is, there is no one particular reason or condition as to why this happens. Many things can cause it to happen, but those same things can also prevent it from happening. This is why cancer research is at a dead end. It's not because they can't figure out the cause, it's because the cause is the very nature of dna itself, and there's literally nothing we can do about it. The cause of aging is the same exact mechanic of dna- telomeres. When it works correctly, the cells just stop reproducing. This means wounds don't heal, and dead cells don't get replaced, so you're body just gets weaker and weaker until it can't function anymore. If you're going to claim that all the propaganda about smoking is true, I suggest you take a look at what car exhaust contains. Then put on your tinfoil hat and hide in the mountains. The truth is, that stuff isn't actually nearly as dangerous as you think it is. In reality, it's your body that just isn't as durable or eternal as you think it is. |
sargos7 said: They shove that propaganda down your throat while you're still too young to realize it's propaganda for a reason. Smoking does not cause lung cancer. Nothing specific causes any type of cancer. A cell becomes cancerous when it continues to reproduce even though the telomeres at the end of it's dna have run out. Such cells continue to reproduce indefinitely, while also not performing any specific useful function, because they are missing portions of dna code, which have been snipped off, in place of the telomeres. The thing is, there is no one particular reason or condition as to why this happens. Many things can cause it to happen, but those same things can also prevent it from happening. This is why cancer research is at a dead end. It's not because they can't figure out the cause, it's because the cause is the very nature of dna itself, and there's literally nothing we can do about it. The cause of aging is the same exact mechanic of dna- telomeres. When it works correctly, the cells just stop reproducing. This means wounds don't heal, and dead cells don't get replaced, so you're body just gets weaker and weaker until it can't function anymore. If you're going to claim that all the propaganda about smoking is true, I suggest you take a look at what car exhaust contains. Then put on your tinfoil hat and hide in the mountains. The truth is, that stuff isn't actually nearly as dangerous as you think it is. In reality, it's your body that just isn't as durable or eternal as you think it is. You're just an enabler. |
 |
FacelessVixen said: sargos7 said: They shove that propaganda down your throat while you're still too young to realize it's propaganda for a reason. Smoking does not cause lung cancer. Nothing specific causes any type of cancer. A cell becomes cancerous when it continues to reproduce even though the telomeres at the end of it's dna have run out. Such cells continue to reproduce indefinitely, while also not performing any specific useful function, because they are missing portions of dna code, which have been snipped off, in place of the telomeres. The thing is, there is no one particular reason or condition as to why this happens. Many things can cause it to happen, but those same things can also prevent it from happening. This is why cancer research is at a dead end. It's not because they can't figure out the cause, it's because the cause is the very nature of dna itself, and there's literally nothing we can do about it. The cause of aging is the same exact mechanic of dna- telomeres. When it works correctly, the cells just stop reproducing. This means wounds don't heal, and dead cells don't get replaced, so you're body just gets weaker and weaker until it can't function anymore. If you're going to claim that all the propaganda about smoking is true, I suggest you take a look at what car exhaust contains. Then put on your tinfoil hat and hide in the mountains. The truth is, that stuff isn't actually nearly as dangerous as you think it is. In reality, it's your body that just isn't as durable or eternal as you think it is. You're just an enabler. No, I think smoking is stupid, too, cause it stinks, and it doesn't really do anthing for you. But making it illegal is even more stupid. |
| No because tobacco is tasty. On a serious note, tobacco as an industry generates massive amounts of money, and governments can receive a percentage of it through taxes. So, outlawing tobacco would cut a large portion of money out of many governments' budget. |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svpejQ1I7Z0 ^^^This is all of you people t(^-^t) |
skuka said: I think smoking is stupid as it doesn't even have any medical benefits that illegal drugs such a marijuana do. However, I don't care whether people want to waste their money and health as long as they don't do it in public and I don't inhale any of the smoke. Just a few random Google results to prove you wrong... the reliability of them isn't likely any worse off than whatever sources you can cite for health benefits of marijuana... in other words, sketchy and to be taken with a grain of salt... http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1101/does-smoking-have-any-health-em-benefits-em http://voices.yahoo.com/health-benefits-smoking-cigarettes-could-tobacco-2285571.html?cat=5 |
sargos7 said: They shove that propaganda down your throat while you're still too young to realize it's propaganda for a reason. Smoking does not cause lung cancer. Nothing specific causes any type of cancer. A cell becomes cancerous when it continues to reproduce even though the telomeres at the end of it's dna have run out. Such cells continue to reproduce indefinitely, while also not performing any specific useful function, because they are missing portions of dna code, which have been snipped off, in place of the telomeres. The thing is, there is no one particular reason or condition as to why this happens. Many things can cause it to happen, but those same things can also prevent it from happening. This is why cancer research is at a dead end. It's not because they can't figure out the cause, it's because the cause is the very nature of dna itself, and there's literally nothing we can do about it. The cause of aging is the same exact mechanic of dna- telomeres. When it works correctly, the cells just stop reproducing. This means wounds don't heal, and dead cells don't get replaced, so you're body just gets weaker and weaker until it can't function anymore. If you're going to claim that all the propaganda about smoking is true, I suggest you take a look at what car exhaust contains. Then put on your tinfoil hat and hide in the mountains. The truth is, that stuff isn't actually nearly as dangerous as you think it is. In reality, it's your body that just isn't as durable or eternal as you think it is. Wow, wow, wow. If I had a dollar for every incorrect statement in this post, I'd have a lot of dollars. > smoking does not cause lung cancer So you're saying that decades of experimental research in animals and clinical/epidemiology studies in humans were wrong? That the US Surgeon General's report on the dangers of smoking was completely unjustified? > nothing specific causes any type of cancer This statement is wrong. I'll give you some examples. Human herpes virus 8 causes Kaposi's sarcoma. Human papillomavirus causes the VAST majority of cervical cancers. > A cell becomes cancerous when it continues to reproduce even though the telomeres at the end of it's dna have run out This may be true, but it continues to be studied. Even if we do end up discovering that the lack of telomerase shortening plays a fundamental role in oncogenesis, cancer is an extremely complex disease with equally complex pathology. Cell immortality is only part of the picture. Cancer cells do become immortal, but this is mostly due to the lack of apoptotic signalling. Normally, cells reach the end of their lifespan and the body sends these signals to tell a cell to kill itself. But not in cancerous cells. There are other factors, such as lack of cell-to-cell communication. Cells normally send signals to their surroundings to notify other cells to stop growing. If this signalling is disturbed, a cell will continue to grow and divide because it believes it's all alone. I could go on and on with this, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. It's not just about telomeres. > Many things can cause it to happen, but those same things can also prevent it from happening Are you implying that smoking both causes and prevents cancer? > It's not because they can't figure out the cause, it's because the cause is the very nature of dna itself, and there's literally nothing we can do about it. No. It does depend on the type, but cancer, in general, is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. You're right in saying that the underlying problem is at the level of the DNA, but those changes are often caused by things in the environment. And I don't only mean "the environment" as in the place you live, but also your lifestyle habits (ie. SMOKING). Sure, you can have certain gene mutations that would make you more susceptible to a certain form of cancer, but you might not necessarily develop the disease unless you're exposed to a certain harmful agent. > If you're going to claim that all the propaganda about smoking is true, I suggest you take a look at what car exhaust contains. Then put on your tinfoil hat and hide in the mountains Car exhaust is indeed harmful to our health, but people don't exactly inhale it in large amounts like they do cigarette smoke, do they? |
sargos7 said: skuka said: I think smoking is stupid as it doesn't even have any medical benefits that illegal drugs such a marijuana do. However, I don't care whether people want to waste their money and health as long as they don't do it in public and I don't inhale any of the smoke. Just a few random Google results to prove you wrong... the reliability of them isn't likely any worse off than whatever sources you can cite for health benefits of marijuana... in other words, sketchy and to be taken with a grain of salt... http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1101/does-smoking-have-any-health-em-benefits-em http://voices.yahoo.com/health-benefits-smoking-cigarettes-could-tobacco-2285571.html?cat=5 You're right. Smoking does have some positive effects on health. For example, it's a well established fact that people who smoke are less likely to develop Parkinson's. HOWEVER, the negative effects of smoking VASTLY outweigh the potential benefits. |
Homucifer said: So you're saying that decades of experimental research in animals and clinical/epidemiology studies in humans were wrong? That the US Surgeon General's report on the dangers of smoking was completely unjustified? No, cause it lead them to the current data. Try researching it. This statement is wrong. I'll give you some examples. Human herpes virus 8 causes Kaposi's sarcoma. Human papillomavirus causes the VAST majority of cervical cancers. Do you know the difference between cause and correlation? Are you implying that smoking both causes and prevents cancer? No, nothing that specific, but many things that are thought to increase the risk of cancer at one particular dosage are also used to kill cancer at higher dosages. What do you think chemo therapy is? Car exhaust is indeed harmful to our health, but people don't exactly inhale it in large amounts like they do cigarette smoke, do they? How many packs of cigarettes do you think you could fit into a milk jug? How many gallons of gas does the average person buy per month? How many more people are there who drive cars than people who smoke? Seriously... |
Homucifer said: sargos7 said: skuka said: I think smoking is stupid as it doesn't even have any medical benefits that illegal drugs such a marijuana do. However, I don't care whether people want to waste their money and health as long as they don't do it in public and I don't inhale any of the smoke. Just a few random Google results to prove you wrong... the reliability of them isn't likely any worse off than whatever sources you can cite for health benefits of marijuana... in other words, sketchy and to be taken with a grain of salt... http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1101/does-smoking-have-any-health-em-benefits-em http://voices.yahoo.com/health-benefits-smoking-cigarettes-could-tobacco-2285571.html?cat=5 You're right. Smoking does have some positive effects on health. For example, it's a well established fact that people who smoke are less likely to develop Parkinson's. HOWEVER, the negative effects of smoking VASTLY outweigh the potential benefits. I'll agree with that, although my list of negative effects of smoking is probably way different from yours. It costs a lot, it stinks, and it's hell on electronics... |
| > No, cause it lead them to the current data. Try research it. Sorry, what? One of the first things you mentioned in your original post was that smoking does not cause lung cancers. The purpose of all that clinical research, which eventually culminated in the 1964 Surgeon General's report about tobacco smoking, was to identify smoking as a major cause of lung cancer. By saying that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, are you not refuting the Surgeon General's report and the data leading to it? > Do you know the difference between cause and correlation? I assure you that I know the difference between cause and correlation. A little research on your part would make you realize that HHV8 does indeed CAUSE Kaposi's sarcoma and that HPV is the primarily CAUSE of cervical cancer. > No, nothing that specific, but many things that are thought to increase the risk of cancer at one particular dosage are also used to kill cancer at higher dosages. What do you think chemo therapy is? Sure. I don't really see a point in continuing a discussion about this post. > How many packs of cigarettes do you think you could fit into a milk jug? How many gallons of gas does the average person buy per month? How many more people are there who drive cars than people who smoke? The total volume of smoke produced by a car or cigarette is not the issue here. Again, we don't stand near car mufflers to inhale the smoke. However, you do inhale a considerable amount of smoke from a cigarette. |
Homucifer said: Sorry, what? One of the first things you mentioned in your original post was that smoking does not cause lung cancers. The purpose of all that clinical research, which eventually culminated in the 1964 Surgeon General's report about tobacco smoking, was to identify smoking as a major cause of lung cancer. By saying that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, are you not refuting the Surgeon General's report and the data leading to it? I'm holding a pack of cigarettes right now, and it does not say smoking causes lung cancer. It says "Smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury, premature birth and low birth weight." On one side, and "These cigarettes do not present a reduced risk of harm compared to other cigarettes" on the other side. You are still confusing cause with correlation. The total volume of smoke produced by a car or cigarette is not the issue here. Again, we don't stand near car mufflers to inhale the smoke. However, you do inhale a considerable amount of smoke from a cigarette. The reasoning behind making smoking illegal is because of second hand smoke. |
| Nope, if anything we should low the prices, ffs. |
 |
sargos7 said: Homucifer said: Sorry, what? One of the first things you mentioned in your original post was that smoking does not cause lung cancers. The purpose of all that clinical research, which eventually culminated in the 1964 Surgeon General's report about tobacco smoking, was to identify smoking as a major cause of lung cancer. By saying that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, are you not refuting the Surgeon General's report and the data leading to it? I'm holding a pack of cigarettes right now, and it does not say smoking causes lung cancer. It says "Smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury, premature birth and low birth weight." On one side, and "These cigarettes do not present a reduced risk of harm compared to other cigarettes" on the other side. You are still confusing cause with correlation. The total volume of smoke produced by a car or cigarette is not the issue here. Again, we don't stand near car mufflers to inhale the smoke. However, you do inhale a considerable amount of smoke from a cigarette. The reasoning behind making smoking illegal is because of second hand smoke. I'm not sure what the legislation is in the US, but apparently some of the big cigarette companies sued the FDA because they believed the strict regulations on warning labels were a violation of free speech. Pretty stupid, if you ask me. http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/Labeling/CigaretteWarningLabels/ucm257774.htm However, Health Canada requires all cigarette labels to mention that smoking causes cancer, of which lung cancer is the main concern. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/legislation/label-etiquette/cigarette-eng.php If you look at the 1964 Surgeon General's report, it actually DOES say that smoking is a chief cause of lung cancer. http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/NN/p-nid/60 As for the reason for making smoking illegal, I can't really comment on that. But I'm not one of those people who thinks it should be illegal. |
| Gravity causes an object to fall. It is not the main cause of falling objects. It is not the greatest risk factor for falling objects. It is not strongly correlated with falling objects. It is the cause. You can't just read the abstract of a paper and take terminology out of context. If they say leading cause, they are not referring to cause. They are referring to correlation. It's a shame that even high level research isn't perfect when it comes to the English language, but it's only people like you who don't understand the idea of context who get confused. |
| I think that sargos7 is just arguing semantics. Smoking may not "cause" cancer, strictly speaking, but it facilitates the development of cancer in a significant way. I agree that the distinction can sometimes be important, but, from the perspective of the average consumer, the implications are the same. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Kafka-san said: I think that sargos7 is just arguing semantics. Smoking may not "cause" cancer, strictly speaking, but it facilitates the development of cancer in a significant way. I agree that the distinction is important, but, from the perspective of the average consumer, the implications are the same. That's true to an extent. If that lack of understanding of the distinction causes an outcry to ban smoking, then all of a sudden it becomes a problem. |
sargos7 said: Homucifer said: > Do you know the difference between cause and correlation? I assure you that I know the difference between cause and correlation. A little research on your part would make you realize that HHV8 does indeed CAUSE Kaposi's sarcoma and that HPV is the primarily CAUSE of cervical cancer. Gravity causes an object to fall. It is not the main cause of falling objects. It is not the greatest risk factor for falling objects. It is not strongly correlated with falling objects. It is the cause. You can't just read the abstract of a paper and take terminology out of context. If they say leading cause, they are not referring to cause. They are referring to correlation. It's a shame that even high level research isn't perfect when it comes to the English language, but it's only people like you who don't understand the idea of context who get confused. No, they are not referring to a correlation. Why do you think controlled studies are done? You have two samples of the exact same cells (or two groups of genetically identical mice) and you expose one group to the virus and the other to nothing. If the group of cells exposed to the virus develops cancer and the other group doesn't, then this isn't a correlation you're dealing with, it's a cause. |
Homucifer said: sargos7 said: Homucifer said: > Do you know the difference between cause and correlation? I assure you that I know the difference between cause and correlation. A little research on your part would make you realize that HHV8 does indeed CAUSE Kaposi's sarcoma and that HPV is the primarily CAUSE of cervical cancer. Gravity causes an object to fall. It is not the main cause of falling objects. It is not the greatest risk factor for falling objects. It is not strongly correlated with falling objects. It is the cause. You can't just read the abstract of a paper and take terminology out of context. If they say leading cause, they are not referring to cause. They are referring to correlation. It's a shame that even high level research isn't perfect when it comes to the English language, but it's only people like you who don't understand the idea of context who get confused. No, they are not referring to a correlation. Why do you think controlled studies are done? You have two samples of the exact same cells (or two groups of genetically identical mice) and you expose one group to the virus and the other to nothing. If the group of cells exposed to the virus develops cancer and the other group doesn't, then this isn't a correlation you're dealing with, it's a cause. It could be considered a cause if every single mouse that was exposed to it got cancer, and every single mouse that wasn't exposed to it didn't get cancer. That's not what happens. It's a correlation, not a cause. What would you say about an experiment where they dropped 1000 balls on earth, and 90% of them fell, but 10% didn't, and they droped 1000 balls in space and 10% of them fell but 90% didn't? |
Kafka-san said: I think that sargos7 is just arguing semantics. Smoking may not "cause" cancer, strictly speaking, but it facilitates the development of cancer in a significant way. I agree that the distinction can sometimes be important, but, from the perspective of the average consumer, the implications are the same. Sure, I'll admit that not everyone who smokes will develop cancer in their lifetime. However, the risk is MUCH higher in smokers and up to 90% of lung cancers manifest in people who smoke. This is the main issue here. |
sargos7 said: Homucifer said: sargos7 said: Homucifer said: > Do you know the difference between cause and correlation? I assure you that I know the difference between cause and correlation. A little research on your part would make you realize that HHV8 does indeed CAUSE Kaposi's sarcoma and that HPV is the primarily CAUSE of cervical cancer. Gravity causes an object to fall. It is not the main cause of falling objects. It is not the greatest risk factor for falling objects. It is not strongly correlated with falling objects. It is the cause. You can't just read the abstract of a paper and take terminology out of context. If they say leading cause, they are not referring to cause. They are referring to correlation. It's a shame that even high level research isn't perfect when it comes to the English language, but it's only people like you who don't understand the idea of context who get confused. No, they are not referring to a correlation. Why do you think controlled studies are done? You have two samples of the exact same cells (or two groups of genetically identical mice) and you expose one group to the virus and the other to nothing. If the group of cells exposed to the virus develops cancer and the other group doesn't, then this isn't a correlation you're dealing with, it's a cause. It could be considered a cause if every single mouse that was exposed to it got cancer, and every single mouse that wasn't exposed to it didn't get cancer. That's not what happens. It's a correlation, not a cause. What would you say about an experiment where they dropped 1000 balls on earth, and 90% of them fell, but 10% didn't, and they droped 1000 balls in space and 10% of them fell but 90% didn't? Like another user pointed out, you're just arguing semantics. There will obviously be sources of experimental error and error originating from the mice/cells. Also, we're not referring to any particular study here. There may actually be a study where all of the exposed cultures/mice developed the condition, whereas the controls didn't. The point is, not a single case of Kaposi's sarcoma is caused by something other than HHV8. How could you merely call this a correlation? In any case, I don't see a point in continuing this argument, since it's completely unrelated to the topic. |
Homucifer said: Kafka-san said: I think that sargos7 is just arguing semantics. Smoking may not "cause" cancer, strictly speaking, but it facilitates the development of cancer in a significant way. I agree that the distinction can sometimes be important, but, from the perspective of the average consumer, the implications are the same. Sure, I'll admit that not everyone who smokes will develop cancer in their lifetime. However, the risk is MUCH higher in smokers and up to 90% of lung cancers manifest in people who smoke. This is the main issue here. This is an example of how statistics can be skewed. The majority of people who get lung cancer are over 65. The majority of people who are over 65 smoke (or have smoked in their lifetime). Now, a better stat would be the percentage of smokers who actually get lung cancer, compared to the percentage of non smokers who get lung cancer. And the difference in percentages is actually within the range of error, given such small sample sizes. |
Homucifer said: I agree, of course—it's not like I can disagree with facts. Kafka-san said: Sure, I'll admit that not everyone who smokes will develop cancer in their lifetime. However, the risk is MUCH higher in smokers and up to 90% of lung cancers manifest in people who smoke. This is the main issue here.I think that sargos7 is just arguing semantics. Smoking may not "cause" cancer, strictly speaking, but it facilitates the development of cancer in a significant way. I agree that the distinction can sometimes be important, but, from the perspective of the average consumer, the implications are the same. For me, sargos7 needs to think more pragmatically. Sure, if people knew the precise details of their health they could then figure out how much smoking would influence their long term health outcomes—and sure, in some individuals the effects of smoking are negligible—but the fact of the matter is that most people don't know. Given the uncertainty and the striking evidence, the practical thing to do is to play it safe and advise that others do the same. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
sargos7 said: Homucifer said: Kafka-san said: I think that sargos7 is just arguing semantics. Smoking may not "cause" cancer, strictly speaking, but it facilitates the development of cancer in a significant way. I agree that the distinction can sometimes be important, but, from the perspective of the average consumer, the implications are the same. Sure, I'll admit that not everyone who smokes will develop cancer in their lifetime. However, the risk is MUCH higher in smokers and up to 90% of lung cancers manifest in people who smoke. This is the main issue here. This is an example of how statistics can be skewed. The majority of people who get lung cancer are over 65. The majority of people who are over 65 smoke (or have smoked in their lifetime). Now, a better stat would be the percentage of smokers who actually get lung cancer, compared to the percentage of non smokers who get lung cancer. And the difference in percentages is actually within the range of error, given such small sample sizes. Meta-analysis of hazard ratios of EVER smoking on lung cancer: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/12/385/figure/F1 Meta-analysis of HRs of current smoking on lung cancer: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/12/385/figure/F10 |
Homucifer said: Meta-analysis of hazard ratios of EVER smoking on lung cancer: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/12/385/figure/F1 Meta-analysis of HRs of current smoking on lung cancer: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/12/385/figure/F10 I was referring to more along the lines of something like this: http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/noteworthy-trials/nlst/aboutlungcancer http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/ http://www.livescience.com/3093-smoking-myths-examined.html http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/why-lung-cancer-strikes-nonsmokers Only ~10% of smokers get lung cancer (keeping in mind that almost all of the people who get lung cancer are just simply old, and most old people smoke or have smoked, simply because it was more popular back then, and they have lived for so long that the chances of them not even having tried it are pretty low). Yet, ~40% of everyone gets some kind of cancer, no matter what they do. |
sargos7Apr 1, 2014 10:47 PM
| Just to be clear, I'm not advocating smoking. I don't care if it causes health problems or not, and if believing that it does causes people to quit/ not start, that's great in my book. However, when that turns into irrational fears, like those expressed by the OP, and a desire to ban smoking, that's when I facepalm. |
| people's life, people's choices, that's all there is to it. |
| Not completely banned. Restricted on streets and in restaurants. |
| I don't get you humans. Cigarettes and alcohol do more damage than weed yet they're legal |
| Yes. But it's never gonna happen. |
 |
| Why is any drug illegal??? Do what you want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. |
 |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Bluey is the most watched anime in the world nowtsukareru - Apr 24 |
29 |
by ISeeLifePeople
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Apr 24 |
24 |
by _Nette_
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» Believe it or not, but my father-in-law works for law enforcementDesuMaiden - Yesterday |
13 |
by hypergoob
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» Dracula, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde or Frankenstein(books)?Absurdo_N - Apr 23 |
11 |
by xthewarwithinx
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
676 |
by Hitagi__Furude
»»
3 hours ago |