what i mean by saying they have the right to smoke, i imply that they have the freedom of choice, to choose to smoke.

what i mean by saying they have the right to smoke, i imply that they have the freedom of choice, to choose to smoke.

Gene ,

 

If people were to have freedoms then there would be no reason for choice to abuse the privilege of our freedoms to damage our body .

 

slickinfit ,

Oh I know marijuana is not physically harmful as to what nicotine does to you but on the relationship between the two is , there is no such thing as 'in moderation' therefore no such thing as 'responsible' smoking , as both substances are negligent to the what the body really needs and eventually causes effects over time , where such effects produce symptoms of respiratory or mental illness .

Gene ,

 

If people were to have freedoms then there would be no reason for choice to abuse the privilege of our freedoms to damage our body .

 

slickinfit ,

Oh I know marijuana is not physically harmful as to what nicotine does to you but on the relationship between the two is , there is no such thing as 'in moderation' therefore no such thing as 'responsible' smoking , as both substances are negligent to the what the body really needs and eventually causes effects over time , where such effects produce symptoms of respiratory or mental illness .

If people were to have freedoms then there would be no reason for choice to abuse the privilege of our freedoms to damage our body .

 

If i follow you correctly you are saying that if people had free choice they would not use it too smoke.

 

On the contrary, smoking might damage the body but it also gives people pleasure, a straight choice some people choose to make. Not everyone is a health obssessed hypondriac. Some people want to smoke, drink and eat junk food.

 

More fool them but it is their choice. As long as they aren't harming anyone else by their behaviour then they should be left alone.

 

(In the USA condemned prisoners are not allowed a last cigarette due to 'health reasons')

If people were to have freedoms then there would be no reason for choice to abuse the privilege of our freedoms to damage our body .

 

If i follow you correctly you are saying that if people had free choice they would not use it too smoke.

 

On the contrary, smoking might damage the body but it also gives people pleasure, a straight choice some people choose to make. Not everyone is a health obssessed hypondriac. Some people want to smoke, drink and eat junk food.

 

More fool them but it is their choice. As long as they aren't harming anyone else by their behaviour then they should be left alone.

 

(In the USA condemned prisoners are not allowed a last cigarette due to 'health reasons')

yea but I think smoking is very harmful because nicotine is very toxic and thc is not and has never killed anyone in an overdose in recorded history. I also think nicotine is far more addictive than thc and the only benifit from smoking nicotine is to satisfy the craving and thc is a compound that has many pausitive side-effects (I am ot advocating smoking illegal drugs) which could be used as medicines and even recreational use like alcohol which I have no problem with if it were leagal but I realy think nicotine cigarettes are a death trap.

the only benifit from smoking nicotine is to satisfy the craving

 

Nicotine provides people with some pleasure. That certainly counts as a benefit.

 

It is also implicated in warding off Alzhemiers disease (if you aren't killed by the lung cancer first).

 

Yes, i agree cigarettes are dangerous to the health. But if people want to do something that is dangerous to themselves then surely that is a matter for themselves. Not governments.

The ranks of stoners left over from the 60s and 70s are pretty good evidence that THC isn't that great.