Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I was pretty fucked last night, but strongest or strangest drink works I guess fuck it.

All I can say it when it comes time when a polygamist marriage divorces, there's going to be a huge shit storm on who gets what, where alimony and child support goes and how much, and just how long and expensive the legal process will be as a result.

It's easy to say sure legalize polygamy on the face of it, however this issue goes far beyond our country defining marriage in the typical Christian way.

Since Camaro and I keep going around in circles I'll move onto my next topic, even though my various points still stand.

How the media paints men as vicious instinctual rapists, killers, pedophiles, and wife beaters and how this leads to a general perception of all men by both women and men themselves.

Pay attention to the next thriller, drama t.v. show or movie you watch. Now see if you're able to get through one episode or movie without the man being portrayed as animalistic killer, rapists, pedophile, or wife beater. I honestly don't remember the last time I've gotten through watching a thriller without a man being portrayed as one of these things, so I'm going to keep track of the movies I watch and list how many times men are labeled in anyone of these fashions.

So the question needs to be asked, "who cares it's just t.v. what difference does it make?" Whether you accept it or not the media has a profound influence on our opinions and perceptions both conscious and subconscious. For example, my sister's crime professor asked "how can we learn about crime?" The very first answers were directly related to television and movies, she finally had to answer with "uh actual criminals themselves".

Accepting the idea that the media does have an influence on us, what may be some of the consequences of portraying men in these ways and have some of these consequences become reality? Personally I'm aware of this, but it's difficult for me to build an understandable, flowing idea on this. It would involve how ordinary men who are not rapists, etc. are treated or labeled as a result of media bombarding us with this depiction of the animal-like man.

Light you analyzed a general statement and my behavior rather than contributing to what this thread is actually about.

Here are a few of my main points about "tobacco free zones", and secondhand smoke.

-Stop using the notion that you find secondhand smoke personally disgusting as a way of labeling it as pollution. Fag smoke emits C02, which yes is a form of pollution, however tobacco plants themselves are plants which convert C02 into oxygen.

-If your main goal of restricting smoking on campus is to reduce pollution, there are much greater sources of pollution on campus such as generators and power plants. By the way just because emissions don't "smell" doesn't mean it isn't pollution come on guys seriously.

-Money is being spent to create a tobacco free campus, nothing is free guys.

Well that was predictable. An evolution discussion degenerating once again into "hold on now, are facts really facts?". My suggestion is if you don't understand a certain process of evolution or genetics, read up on it, don't fill in your knowledge gaps with faith.

youre chugging right now. Jameson boys peace

At 1/17/14 12:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Webster defines it as "things that are done to keep a woman from becoming pregnant"

Sure sounds like abstinence is birth control.

You and I have completely different ideals on what classifies birth control. Planned Parenthood labels incorporates birth control into the act of sex, i.e. controlling pregnancy during sex and after conception.

While it is surgery, it is not comparable to tubal ligation. Vasectomy is an outpatient procedure equivalent to getting a wisdom tooth pulled. Tubal ligation is a very invasive inpatient surgery more akin to getting a transplant. They are both surgeries, but they are two very different levels of surgery.

Yes and because of that fact vasectomies are highly encouraged among couples who are contemplating permanent birth control opposed to tubal ligation.

You're right, but not how you think you are. The woman has 100% control AFTER the woman and the man combine to concieve. Without conception, there is no such process and then no situation where the woman has total control.

Once conception has happened, you cannot give control to men without taking it away from women. And since the control deals with something inside the woman's body, doing it without having him control her body is near impossible.

You and I have both admitted several times that women have 100% control of their pregnancy after conception. However if you are arguing that a woman doesn't have 100% control of pregnancy before contraception think again. A woman can combine birth control methods in the following way; a condom, a copper IUD, spermicide, hormonal birth control, and plan b. All of these are forms of pre-contraceptive birth control and she has the choice in determining how thorough she wishes to be with her birth control, ultimately to the point of ~100% control.

Men on the other hand can only have the options of a condom or a vasectomy, both of which are not close to 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.

She does face the consequences. SHE is the one who gets pregnant and then has to deal with it.

So how exactly did the sperm get to the egg?

A woman has the ability to become pregnant, in the natural world this is a great power and comes with responsibility. It is why females of a species are so selective when choosing mates and when to mate. Human females are not excluded from this responsibility. Some female species have the ability to accept or deny sperm or even terminate a pregnancy. Human females are one example of this, and with this power comes responsibility and living with the consequences of your decisions.

This natural world analogy sets out to show that women in the western world have 100% control in every fashion in determining whether or not she wants a child.

How does hormonal male birth control give control to men? Simply put if a woman's purpose of sex is to have a child and the man she's planing to fuck isn't in the same boat (regardless of the man being aware of her intentions), taking male hormonal birth control effectively gives him control of the pregnancy. Furthermore, just because a woman may not want to a man wear a condom doesn't suggest to the man that she wants to become pregnant, however if she doesn't want the man to be on birth control it is clear that her intention is to become pregnant.

That's like saying shooting a gun at someone isn't meant to hurt them. Sex is biologically meant to create children. You wouldn't play with fire and then act surprised when you get burnt, would you? That's just like having sex and being surprised when child bearing is the result.

Much like in our society, sex in the natural world doesn't serve the sole purpose of creating offspring. Sex may show dominance among species, simply for enjoyment (dolphins are the only other species known to have recreational sex), as a food source (I.e. widow spiders may lure a male with sex simply to eat him without the goal of impregnation), or as a tool for migration.

At 1/17/14 11:22 AM, orangebomb wrote:
Most of us do just that, but here's the difference. We actually make comprehensive points with our insults, especially against those who continue to troll and shitpost their irrational behavior and their lack of quality, somewhat unbiased sources in their argument.

You know that superghandi64 and leanlifter1 are both troll accounts of Pox right?

My goal of insulting people is to wedge them apart from cliche' stances and arguments while discussing a topic like secondhand smoke for example. A cliche' argument against smoking is how irritating a person finds secondhand smoke to be. Taking that well-known opinion concerning secondhand smoke is redundant and as a result doesn't contribute anything new or helpful to the discussion.

Knowing that people who complain about secondhand smoke purposely act like a child in the hopes that a smoker might put out his fag, labeling people who take the position "smoking is bad because I think secondhand smoke is bad and nasty and blah blah blah" as pussy ass bitches should push them away from arguing that cliche' opinion.

I could have argued the cliche' standpoint against the banning of smoking in public places "it takes away our freedoms and the constitootion and Amurica blah blah blah". In that case you could have called me a paranoid downy puppet to stray me away from arguing that cliche' opinion.

Instead of this I brought up some quite unknown and as a result controversial ideas and facts concerning secondhand smoke and smoking in general, including that there isn't any research out there to even suggest secondhand smoke even develops illnesses far less death. If you want to argue against that point search for and carefully read through basic research that proves otherwise. I know that most diction in research may be a bit complex and confusing, but this is especially so in research concerning secondhand smoke to the point of conclusions being obviously twisted by bias, so please ask questions and read thoroughly.

Seems like he's just avoiding international conflict. Doesn't seem like a meaningful attempt to reverse homophobic legislation.

Call me unamerican because I don't give a shit.

At 1/17/14 03:09 AM, Light wrote:
Any contributions you're making to this thread of yours are severely undermined by acting like a butthurt 16-year-old kid who's learned that smoking in public is not looked kindly upon by society.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a "pussy ass bitch" in your view. Get over yourself, grow the fuck up, and realize that there are people in life who disagree with you. It doesn't mean they're awful people, and I'd say that the guy who's throwing the first insults on a public forum is the real "pussy bitch," whatever that means.

Only for this particular issue you are a selfish little bitch if you disagree with me, I've already made my case. If you reject evolution you are an inbred redneck and if you mix evolution and religion you are a religious nut job. Actually if you don't believe men as a sex themselves are currently facing some injustices themselves you are most likely ignorant or you could be a spoon fed pussy as well.

I make my case before I start labeling people, but hey I see it's working you guys are paying close attention. At least Camaro has the decency and ability to counter my points before whining about name calling.

At 1/17/14 12:51 AM, Korriken wrote: Aww, sounds like some poor tarlung is all cranky because he has to leave campus to have his fix.

and yes, this is all the respect you're gonna get out of me considering you call anyone who doesn't agree with you a "Pussy bitch" which is kind of funny, since you come off as one yourself.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

That's some good shit.

At 1/16/14 10:58 PM, TNT wrote:
Every time you post something that I agree with, you shoot yourself in the foot by mocking Camarohusky for having a different opinion. Why do you feel that it's necessary to do this?

You can read my last post for the answer to that.

At 1/16/14 11:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
So, are you saying that smoke is not pollution?

C02 emissions are pollution yes. Lighting a cigarette is comparable to lighting a match when comparing C02 emissions. There may come a point in time to limit/ban smoking entirely simply to lower C02 emissions, but currently it is a non-issue concerning climate change seeing as scientists and conservationists have much greater emission problems on their hands.

What I will not argue against is how serious and foul butt-flicking is, I've already made my point on that.

Slight digression here, but with a purpose, what do you think about zoning laws? Do you think I should be able to build a large paper mill that operates 24/7 next door to your house?

There is a difference between pollution from cigarettes and from a fucking paper mill. Paper mills produce a large amount of pollution concentrated within a small area. Cigarettes for one do not pollute close to the same scale as paper mills and two equivalent pollution from cigarette smoke is spread across a much much larger area.

I'm sure you have diesel generators on campus, if you want to talk something that pollutes our air with substance and sound, why did these not concern you more than smokers on campus? Diesel generators are incredibly loud and pollute on a scale much larger than all smokers on campus and are apparently excluded from zoning laws. When schools can put solar panels on their roofs instead (especially here in Florida) why tolerate a diesel generator? It's actually a real example of an irritating source of pollution that you can't avoid.

Of course that thought didn't occur to you even though it is such an obvious disturbance, why? I think it's because you don't give a shit about pollution, you only care about cigarette smoke putting wrinkles on your face.

How many graduating high school students have any clue what they want to do in college? At best, half. That means 50% of the students coming in are doing so for other reasons, and you can bet that a large chunk of them are going because they liked the campus. Therefore, how nice the campus looks IS important in drawing in students.

How a campus looks entirely depends on how strict antilitter laws are and are enforced, custodial clean up is, and how well grounds are kept. E.g. a campus with all of these factors along with smoking allowed on campus will look much better than a school which lacks in any one of these factors.

The most annoying thing here is that, unlike memorize and leanlifter, you actually make good points. Yet you ruin it by constantly lobbing insults at anyone who you believe doesn't agree with you (whether they actually do or not). All you need to do is just make your point.

Yeah well the truth hurts doesn't it buddy? I don't call people bitches who aren't behaving like them. People who act like little bitches are the one of the reasons why smokers are labeled as scum of the earth by society. Labeling a group of good people that way is not acceptable.

At 1/16/14 10:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Actually, abstinence is the ONLY infallable form of birth control. Abstinence only sex ed being a load of crap doesn't change the fact that the only way to 100% avoid pregnancy is to not have sex.

Sure buddy, still not considered birth control.

First off, vasectomies are not permanent. They are semi-permanent, more akin to an IUD. The not can be untied.

Second, most surgeons would perform the surgery on any of age adult male who has the money and has no health complications.

It's surgery nonetheless, expensive surgery at that. Any surgery to undo a vasectomy is much more complicated and not very successful. That is why it is labeled as a form of permanent birth control much like tubal ligation.

Ever heard of "Double Dutch"? Also, ay guy who actually cares would still want his own protection. Laziness, pleasure, or apathy is no reason to remove fault from the male here.

Any woman who cares for her own protection should be held to the same standards! News flash there are male and female condoms are you seriously that ignorant!?

First off, I have addressed it by saying that the man, while his involvement in the matter is small, it is vital. Therefore he is responsible for his action that starts the process. The includes any known possible after effects, whether they be to him or to someone else.

I can argue that the woman starts the process because normal men ask for permission for sex. Either way it doesn't matter who starts the process, ultimately it is 100% up to a woman whether or not she has a child. You aren't going to sneek around this fact.

Anyway, what would you do to change the control issue? Allow fathers to essentially co-opt the mother's body during pregnancy?

Male birth control gives fathers a say in whether or not he wants a child. It's not about taking control away from women, but giving some to men, an idea most feminists are oh so uncomfortable with.

When a man consents to sex that's not an agreement to have a child, not in this day and age.

So? By having sex without his own affirmative protection, the man is taking a LARGE known risk. Just because he's being reckless instead of intentional shouldn't excuse him from his responsibility on the matter.

When a woman chooses to not use protection she is taking the same fucking risk dude!! She is just as fucking reckless when she decides not to use a condom, birth control, spermicide, and plan b. It is clear as day, in your mind women are not capable of doing wrong when it comes to sex, but in reality they bear most of all of the responsibility when it comes to having safe sex.Women take the same risks as men when it comes to sex. When a mistake occurs it is entirely her decision, lots of women decide irresponsibly and the man has to pay for it as a result.

Sex is not an agreement to have a child and a woman has 100% control in deciding whether or not she wants a child.

At 1/16/14 10:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Many place HAVE banned skate boarding.

People talking on a college campus isnt an objective nuisance, especially as communication is vital to a good school.

Not MY campus. Headphones as in music headphones you cock.

A lot of people are irritated by it, thus making it a public nuisance. Again, your "if you don't like, who cares?" philosphy would allow litter and defecation on campus. As the only reason they're banned is because pussy ass bitches don't like it. (see, your reckless ad hominem came back to describe yourself.)

Litter is irritating AND harmful. It is harmful to local ecosystems and our water table, that's why it's illegal. Littering is not illegal simply because it's irritating. Part of the problem with smoking in America is in most states and jurisdiction cigarette butts aren't actually considered litter within anti-littering laws. Adding provisions to these anti-littering laws to include cigarettes is the first step to stop butt flicking, not banning smoking from public places.

Also, why shouldn't a college invest in being the nicest place possible? I mean if FSU is allowed to become a shit hole, the best students will go to Gainesville instead and all of their endowment and donation money will be blue and orange instead of crimson and gold. So, a small infusion to keep the campus as nice as possible will pay dividends in the long run.

What Biology majors consider between deciding FSU and UF is how extensive their class offerings are towards medical science, ecology, molecular biology, etc. UF is renowned for their premed curriculum and offerings while FSU has one of the top ten evolutionary and ecology curriculums and professors in the States. The same can be said for other majors.

FSU was not a shit hole when smoking was allowed and it certainly doesn't look any better with the addition of "Tobacco Free" signs plastered all over our beautiful brick walkways.

Oh, FYI, if you want to be taken seriously as an adult, stop with the lobbing of insults. It seriously detracts from your points.

Like I said, you are acting like a stuck up selfish little bitch and you need to know that.

At 1/16/14 09:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

You place so much blame on the woman, but the father also controls his fluids too. A condom, vasectomy, or avoiding sex could easily avoid (not in all cases, but in most) the pregnancy. No father, outside of some odd scenarios, can claim that it was all the mother's fault that the baby was born. It takes two to tango here.

Abstinence is not a method of birth control so you can scratch that out. Vasectomy is permanent birth control, most surgeons won't agree to preform surgery on young males who are classified as deadbeat dads in general. As for condoms both men and women choose not to use condoms for whatever reasons, one of the main reasons being the woman professes to be on birth control. "I want you to cum inside, it's ok I'm on birth control", "You don't need to use a condom I'm on birth control", sound familiar?

Backing up and looking at the perception, one reason that the deadbeat dad is looked upon as worse in precisely because the dad is only involved in the beginning. In the art of baby making, the father is involved for a few minutes, and then the mother takes control for 9 months (nine difficult months) after that. This means that a man only has to "point, shoot, and run" while the mother is forced ith making all the hard decisions (abortion, adoption) and is forced to do all the heavy lifting. In many dead beat dad cases, the dad is gone before baby even arrives.

There are cases of deadbeat mothers out there abandoning their children with single dads. However, the pure functionality of it all skews heavily toward men leaving the mother. A deadbeat mother has to still hold the child for 9 months, thus increasing the liklihood of her sticking around.

You either are completely missing or ignoring the point I made about women having 100% control of having a child. If she becomes pregnant and knows the father isn't interested in caring for a child or can't afford to care for a child, and yet SHE DECIDES to have the child expecting the father to take care of it, why should he be legally responsible for HER DECISION when she files for child support?

When a man consents to sex that's not an agreement to have a child, not in this day and age.

At 1/16/14 09:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
And that is ALL you need to show in order for a state entity to regulate it.

I find kids who skateboard on campus irritating. On top of this skateboarding is dangerous, because they often fall off and crash into people. Also I find people who walk with their headphones on irritating and dangerous because of their resulting oblivious nature!

No you fuckhead being irritated by something is not a viable reason for banning it entirely on campus. Like I said earlier you're behaving like a selfish pussy ass bitch, get over it.

True, but part of providing an education is providing a safe, clean, and proper environment conducive to learning. The removal of smoking aids in all three aspects.

Do professors hold lecture on the sidewalk? No. What keeps a school clean is how strict the no littering policy is and how involved campus ground workers are.

Also, in relation to actually inceeasing education, such regulation is extremely cheap. Like I said before, the police are likely not doing much extra work, the counselors are likely paid by stipend, credit, or not at all, thus leaving the only real remaining cost being the flyers.

The cost of paper itself has been enough to prohibit professors from printing and passing out handouts and lectures. If additional work needs to be done by all campus police that certainly leads to additional police being hired and as a result additional expense. As for counselors, professional counseling requires professional counselors who need to be payed.

What's your take on having gay friends as a hetero baby boy, do you actually have gay friends, and how close are you with your gay friends?

When I worked for Planned Parenthood I had two gay friends that worked with me and they were great fun. Recently one of my good middle-aged golf buddies came out to me the another day and now I have a gay friend again! Well at least one that I know is gay.

My view is they're fun people and great to hangout with. They have all the benefits of hanging out with a woman (i.e. emotional discussion, social advice, attire critique, etc.) without any of the menstruation or manipulation! On top of this we can do my favorite guy things like golf at the same time.

I'll elaborate on another part of this discussion, control over sexual reproduction men vs. women.

So the main idea of this discussion is that women in western civilization have 100% control of whether or not they want to have a child. They have this 100% control through the numerous forms of birth control available (non-hormonal, hormonal, barrier, spermicide, plan-b, abortion), this is true regardless of your own personal stance on abortion.

I am completely fine with women having access to all of this birth control, in fact while working for Planned Parenthood it was my job to educate and provide teens with birth control. That being said like I stated earlier women shouldn't have 100% control over sexual reproduction (e.g. male birth control), but also irresponsible women who decide to have a child need should be held accountable for that choice. Not in the legal sense, but by society, i.e. our perception of deadbeat dads vs. single mothers.

So generally when we think of the terms deadbeat dads and single mothers, we view deadbeat dads as bad, irresponsible people and single mothers as abandoned, victims. I'm saying we should think about deadbeat dads and how every deadbeat dad in western society was created by a woman's choice of whether or not to have a child. If a woman became pregnant and knew that the father was not interested or capable of a raising a child with her for whatever reason and yet she still expects him to care for the child (either in the form of actual lively presence or through child support), she should be viewed as a completely irresponsible mother, while the father shouldn't be responsible in any sense (including child support).

The main idea is men have legal consequences for being a "deadbeat dad" such as child support while women have no legal consequences for being an irresponsible mother by having the child in the first place. I'm not saying women should be held accountable legally, but rather men shouldn't held legally accountable for HER CHOICE.

At 1/16/14 07:36 PM, WallofYawn wrote:

At 1/16/14 07:33 PM, WallofYawn wrote:

I'd like to make the stereotype that they are all dumber and evolutionarily inferior, which is why they won't accept evolution. Both are preposterous, but the second is funny and more paletable in this particular discussion. ;)

FYI, I am what many call a "neo-pagan" but first and foremost I am a man of science and speaking from experience, both can and do co-exist harmoniously, though my spectrum is perhaps better tailored to that then say Christianity, so take what you will from that.

You know the purpose of this thread was to completely separate evolution from religion. Instead of filling in your own knowledge gaps concerning evolution with faith actually spend the time to read about genetics and evolution itself.
As a Christian, it is much more humble to admit you don't know or understand something about evolution rather than replacing that lack of understanding with faith.

You are not first and foremost a scientist nor a scientist in any sense if you truly believe what you're preaching you pompous twat. You are a fucking religious whackjob boasting your own ignorance.

At 1/16/14 06:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
No one is stopping smokers from smoking at home. However, it is irrefutable that smoking is a social buisance. It creates a very unpleasant smell, a very unpleasant smoke, and has adverse health effects upon those who are merely near it. The right of society to be free from these nuisances, or at least to have the nuisances controlled is far more important than allowing total freedom for an elective act. If we have the ability to create zoning laws to keep steel mills from belching their stench, smoke, and adverse health effects in certain parts of our communities, why can't we do the same with cigarettes and other similar items?

If smoking is so deadly in every single fashion including direct puffing and secondhand smoke why not just outlaw tobacco entirely? That is on the horizon and people like you are promoting that outcome. Secondhand smoke has not been shown to cause any kind of disease. It's not even in the same league as coal fire plants, smog, or asbestus, all of which do directly result in a respiratory illness, suffocation, or are carcinogens.

When you assume secondhand smoke is deadly like actual smoking, you make the same incorrect assumption people first made about smoking. People assumed smoking was healthy and had medical properties, turns out that assumption was wrong when evidence from scientific research proved otherwise. Scientists has been researching secondhand smoke for decades and yet no conclusion of secondhand smoke developing an illness within their case studies has been found.

You hear talk of secondhand smoke being attributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths a year when really that is all just complete bullshit. These studies are composed of non-smokers who have already died from respiratory illnesses, cancer, or asthma, and simply relating those figures to the amount of secondhand smoke in that country/area. These studies are a complete farse and any reasonable person shouldn't draw any kind of conclusion from them.

An example of an legitimate scientific study would certainly have to involve LIVING nonsmoking volunteers inhaling controlled amounts of secondhand smoke. I've looked and haven't found such an experiment you're welcome to search and post one. If you argue that this would be inhumane, how inhumane is it to conduct a similar experiment with volunteer smokers themselves (we don't find this inhumane, it's how we determined smoking to a health risk in the first place)?

Secondhand had smoke is an irritant for some people that is the most scientists have been able to conclude.

You're not understanding the issue. You're taking the same shallow approach of the uber-pro Israel camp that thinks ANY criticism of Israel automatically is anti-semetism. I'm not discriminating against smokers. I am cleaning up a pervasive public nuisance. That it so happens to affect people who choose to do a very elective activity is not intended. If they made a cigarette that didn't stink, didn't create smoke, and didn't have adverse health effects on nearby people, this would not be an issue. I wouldn't care where people smoked, However, that hasn't happened and smoking still remains a very disruptive act.

What I am upset about is people like you is further confining smokers in practicing their habit. The reasoning for doing such a thing is currently entirely opinion based (i.e. most people don't enjoy secondhand smoke, not that it is actually harmful).

I'm no politician. What I am is experienced with the law. Schools of all levels have an obligation to stop activities that can hinder the learning on campus. This including the restriction or banning of an act that creates a disruptive odor, a disruptive smoke, and one that adversely affects the health of the student body. A student can't properly learn if they're distracted by the stench, or if they're busy fighting off a throat cold caused by exposure to smoke. Schools also have the obligation to ensure their students are free of mind inhibiting substances during class.

Schools have a duty to provide education, especially when it's paid for. For instance I would love FSU to spend money on hiring much needed Chemistry professors to teach Organic Chemistry (there's a huge shortage of professors) for students which require/demand it. When this funding is being spent elsewhere (like antismoking campaigns among other things) a school has less resources to provide actual education in the first place.

What I'm saying concerning schools is provide education first, regulate education second.

At 1/16/14 05:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
No, not like a pack of wolves at all. More like cowokers congregating aroudn the water cooler at work. Instead of it being the water cooler it's at the preferred smoking location, whether it be by the ash tray, a set of benches, a lawn, or wherever. Oh, and yes, it is a common habit for smokers to make their smoking breaks a social event, as well they should.

Americans sit and smoke whether in their car or outside on a bench they sit and smoke. Europeans on the other hand walk and smoke. They have two different approaches for exercising their habit which are completely fine.

So? My driving tax dollars fund tons of bike improvements, and yet I still must yield to them on the road. It's the nature of life. Furthermore, when you add the idea that a cigarette tax is a 'sin tax' it changes the concept. Cigarette taxes don't exist just because. They exist to discourage the activity, and if that fails to earn money off of it thus making a governmentally deemed bad habit positive for society.

I am only speaking in realities. A person who does an elective activity is regulated is far more likely to accept regulation of that activity than someone else who does not participate in the elective activity is to accept the negative effects of that activity on their life.

Yup and when such an activity reaches the point of being illegal due to it being detrimental to personal health then the infringement on people's rights are oh so clear, but its already too late by that point. It's what western civilization is realizing with marijuana and finally laws and legislation are being overturned. If we don't stand up for the right of smokers to smoke, the same thing could happen to cigarettes and then we'll being spending billions on another drug war.

I'm not sure why you have such a strong negative response to this. I don't mean why you disagree, that's A-OK. However, you act as if relegation of smoking is a personal affront to you.

I'll tell you where my slant is coming from. First off, I find smoking to be a repulsive activity. It smells bad, it is abraisive to inhale, and I am mildly allergic to it. I do not hold that against those who do it, I just prefer that it is not done around me. But that's mostly irrelevant to this issue, as that could be solved by having smoking zones on campus. On a more relevant note, I enjoy college campuses. I think they are almost universally some of the most aesthetically pleasing places in the country (with the exception of the University of Arizona, ick.) I don't enjoy having to dodge smokers when spending time on a campus. The smoke and smell is a nuisance (in the legal definition), and the fact that the activity is entirely elective, and can be done in nearby areas with little to no extra effort means that the transaction costs of those who need to smoke end up being lesser than the loss of use of the campus by those who do no smoke.

The same message I gave to Feoric applies to you. Your anti smoking ideals are enabling you to behave like a pussy bitch and you need to be told that. Your strongest opposition towards smoking (clearly this is the case sense you spent the most amount of time writing about why you personally despise smoking) is for selfish personal reasons.

I don't smoke and I don't particularly enjoy cigar or cigarette smoke. However, I really loathe marijuana smoke for many reasons, one being that it makes me feel incredibly dizzy and nauseous. That being said, marijuana smoke is also just as harmless and I will not allow my personal resentment towards marijuana prohibit other people who enjoy marijuana from smoking it and in a few states their right to smoke it.

If I showed the same discrimination as you do towards smokers, I would have a lot fewer friends and would feel like a shitty person. That's what you're behaving like, a shitty person, start practicing some empathy towards people who smoke and maybe then you'll understand what I'm saying.

Seeing as unviersities are limited public forums and have a duty to ensure their students are given the best opportunity to learn, all public universities are well within their right and their mission to ban smoking on their campuses.

Spoken like a true politician, smoking has absolutely nothing to do with learning and academics in any sense.

At 1/16/14 04:37 PM, Feoric wrote:
That is true, but I think more tax dollars go towards the healthcare system where smokers and people exposed to prolonged secondhand smoke develop terminal illnesses and have pretty damn expensive treatment costs. Following your logic, shouldn't I have a say in where you can and can't smoke? For what it's worth, I used to smoke myself, and everything Camaro has said so far is absolutely true.

Prolonged secondhand smoke exposure resulting in a terminal illness? That is the biggest load of horse shit I've ever heard. What cigarette smoke and smoke and dust are known for is endangering asthma patients. In terms of second hand smoke actually developing a health condition, much less a terminal illness, no scientific literature has ever come to such a conclusion. Go google scholar anything pertaining to secondhand smoke. Studies focus on legislation implemented to reduce secondhand smoke within businesses itself.

If and when research is published that concludes secondhand smoke directly causes any illness, then you can take a humanist approach to banning smoking in certain areas. Otherwise you are being a selfish pussy that bitches about the smell of smoke and wanting to ban it in public places entirely.

As for smoking students that refused to attend a university that didn't allow them to smoke on campus, you think professors of similar morals who smoke didn't have their academic priorities straight either?

People like you who are quick to judge and dismiss smokers as stupid are the exact reason why I stand up so vigorously for their rights and the rights of any other minority that are cast aside. Smokers have a right to smoke and as long as they dispose of their smoking litter properly.

At 1/16/14 03:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
I was at a University where smoking was allowed and then banned (just as yours is now) when you were learning to read. I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. At my campus there were areas (de facto, not de jure) where the smokers would congregate, and guess what? The other 30,000 students avoided those areas as much as possible. They didn't want to have to walk through a stinky clod to get to class. They didn't want to i nhale the nastiness and cough just because they had to go near the area.

Talking about smokers congregating like a pack of wolves. I really do hope you don't claim yourself to be a liberal because you are not a humanist in the slightest sense.

The chances of losing smokers is low, because most smokers are already used to being relegated to allowed places, and while the campus may be off limits, the rest of the city is open to them.

Wow fuck you dude. Tax dollars from smokers and even taxes from cigarettes are used to fund a public university. Smoking students (excluding the fact they pay tuition) have just as much say in where smoking should be allowed on a public campus.

At 1/16/14 03:03 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 1/16/14 01:18 PM, Saen wrote: Your ideas pale in comparison to the amount of applying smoking students they'll lose in enrollment once they learn it's a smoke free campus. Students not enrolling because they'll get a "bad image" from smokers or even more hilarious "scared away" by smokers?

If you're putting your nicotine addiction ahead of your education then chances are you probably shouldn't be in college to begin with.

Yeah nice job smoke shaming people, treating smokers like they're scum of the earth. I guess professors that smoke should just pack up their research and leave huh? Fuck you dude self righteous piece of shit.

What you could have argued for is that smoking is a significant source of pollution in the form of cigarette butts. Smokers in America hardly ever dispose of their cigarettes properly and seeing those used fags along the road and sidewalk is disgusting and sad.

However, banning smoking on campus and removing trash cans with ash trays is not going to solve this problem, but will either make it worse or change nothing. What will solve the pollution problem is imposing a $50-100 fine on smokers who flick their butts on the ground, which may be enforced by any campus officer in the area.

At 1/16/14 12:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
On the outside it seems like a health issue, but it's not. Its an image issue and a cleanliness issue. FSU doesn't want to have parts of their campus essentially rendered off limits to those who do not smoke. (because, we all know that when a place becomes a smoking hang out, those who don't smoke often avoid the stench and smoke.) And, perhaps a bigger issue, tying into the cost, is new students. Less than 20% of Americans smoke (and my guess is that the number among college students and potential college students is even lower). Allowing those 20% to use the campus to smoke could scare away non smokers from enrolling. If even just 10 students choose not to enroll because of a bad image they get from the smokers, that could mean anywhere from $240K to $1.6 million in lost gross income (based on 4 years times a minimum of $6k a year, to a max of $40K). The cost of a few fliers, and even some counselors and extra police officers (worst case scenario) pales in comparion to even the lowest estimate.

Just to educate you dude a university isn't a theme park, there aren't any designated smoking areas. There are non-smoking areas which include every building on campus.

Your ideas pale in comparison to the amount of applying smoking students they'll lose in enrollment once they learn it's a smoke free campus. Students not enrolling because they'll get a "bad image" from smokers or even more hilarious "scared away" by smokers?

It is truly incredible how far you reach up into your ass to pull out that kind of shit. I had to stop drinking my coffee and laugh hard at this shit oh my fucking god.

A new phenomena is sweeping my university. Tobacco free posters, sidewalk plagues, and fliers are everywhere. Apparently as of this semester FSU is tobacco free. These signs also advertise "free" consoling if you're trying to quit.

When I see all of this crap my first thought is just how much does all of this campaigning cost? On top of the university paying for all of these signs, it has to hire "quitting consolers" and has to pay and distract campus police with chasing people who still smoke on campus. As a nonsmoker these are my immediate thoughts.

Now what does banning smoking on campus actually accomplish? Nothing, I mean this is such an obvious waste of time and resources. This begs the question who or what organization is pocketing from selling all of this "tobacco free" propaganda to my university?