ok. Let me rephrase, I just read that again. I'll edit my old post

No we don't need to eat burgers. Again you are making a conscious decision to consume a product which is detrimental to health. If you sit there and shovel burgers morning, noon, and night, absolutely I do not want you to receive tax dollars or make my insurance go up to pay for your quadruple bypass.

Destroy your own body on your own dollar.

Mad cow disease!

yah sorry.
i was being obnoxious.
and sorry to bring up an old thread, i'd just like to apoligise to the entire community,especially to Livid and Kanchi, i was being a ****wit.

p.s.
this is not sarcasm.

i really am serious...that wasnt sarcasm either.

but i still think there is nothing wrong with looking up a word to correct someone.

and i think this thread drifted so much because the question kanchi asked was answered so quickly but the thread continued to live on because it is controversial or it just affects you americans...i dont know. sorry to bring this beast back to life.

The topic wasn't dead yet. No worries.

Yeah, my bad too. As proved by my own posts in this thread, it happens to all of us.

The difference is, is that you can exercise to get the fast food off, you can not do the same for cigerettes.

Utter crap. The punishment should fit the crime. If someone is smoking and they're not supposed to be, make them pay a fine and pick up litter. It has nothing to do with school, grades, suspension, driving, anything else. Things like this piss me off. And no, I didn't read the whole thread, it's too friggin' long.

If you did, you'd realize why you're wrong.

I agree, the question asked was answered far too quickly. I think that the real problem was that everyone jumped to the same conclusion, stupid people shouldn't drive. The reason for the contraversy was that that answer, true as it may be, can also be argued not to have anything to do with smoking and in my opinion is no way to have this topic come to an end. I was pressing on for this reason and met only with hostility which I gladly returned. Now it would seem that this thread has turned into a black hole of anger that although amuzing will likely kill us all.

And I would also like to take this time for apologize for my typing. I have a problem with my nervouse system and I have the shakes. So my letters do not always come out in the right order or sometimes at all. It takes me a very long time to type correctly and I have to proof read a lot. This is bad when I am trying to type fast in response to a question or in this case an insult. Thank you to all who took it apon themselves to make fun of a disabled person.

No.

Why should they not be fined or put to community service?

1) They may not have a job
2) They may need that time to spend on school activities and homework

Why do they need a driver's license?

1) To get to school? That's what the yellow busses are for.
2) To get to a job? Don't smoke underage.
3) To get to a friend's house? Get a ride from someone else and don't smoke underage.

That you suck at debate, and couldn't offer anything to back up your side.



I don't care if you have the shakes. That's no excuse to not utilize the magic of the backspace key.



I've noticed that alot of people that don't type well, or don't put in the added effort to atleast ATTEMPT to form sentences don't speak well either.

Sorry, Wolfy, but those are both crap reasons.

1) Where was their money for cigarettes coming from? An allowance from their parents would be the most likely. If that allowance then has to go towards paying off a fine, they are punished by not having the financial means to go out and do...whatever.
2) They can do their community service in the time they would have otherwise spent smoking.

[edit: for clarification]

Apon further review, I'd like to take back what i said. The real problem is that Rob enjoys saying the first thing that comes to mind. In this case it was the statement that stupid people shouldn't drive, somthing that although completely unoriginal and obviouse, everyone could agree on. And then he decided that not only was he correct and that everyone else sucked but he also decided to take a shot at me in the process for my attempts to get an actualy discussion going. I have to say, I've never been more amuzed at anyone for becomming so completely and utterly panicked at the sight of impropper grammer.

this is Rob -> "Oh NO!!! My little world is crashing down around me!!!! Help me!"

Now I know exactly what to do if I ever need a laugh.

Poor clarification on my part. My point was that a teenager will feel more distressed over the loss of a license, but important things (such as school) won't be inhibited by a lack of a license.

I'm not saying a fine or community service are bad means of punishment, but the threat of revocation of a license is more persuasive and simualtenously less harmful to a teenager.

By the way, it takes longer to pick up litter on a highway than it does to smoke a cigarette. :p

It's funny how many people resort to a state of "haha, your reaction is hilarious!" when presented with a view they cannot argue.

Indeed.


Kanchi tries too hard.

I think you just proved my point seeing as how you are still poking at me. The basis for your arguement was my spelling. Other people on this thread get what I was wanting to point out and I'm glad. For some reason you don't get it and that makes you resort to flaming.

Everybody understood the point you were trying to make. When people disagree with you it doesn't mean they don't understand what you are saying; it means they believe your opinion is unfounded and your concept of reality is questionable.

You are not infallable. We understand you. We think you are wrong. We don't think you are wrong because we cannot understand you, we think you are wrong because we disagree. Our argument isn't founded only on flaming you, which you would understand if you bothered to read the earlier posts in this thread. The only person here who doesn't "get it" is you. Your attitude about our lack of comprehension is so atrociously arrogant that I cannot describe it accurately using mortal languages.

I apologize, i don't mean to come off as arrogant. Dissagreement is the backbone of any good arguement. I simply fealt that the conclusion made bypassed the point of the my arguement in favor of a seperate issue. Now this issue could be argued to be related but only based on the idea that taking away a driver's license for smoking is in fact an issue of responsibility, which is the arguement originally presented but only lightly discussed before it was decided that I was wrong even though I actually agreed with most of what was said.

A basis of a good conversation is its ability to flow from subject to subject but a basis of a good arguement is to answer the questions presented before moving on. When I attempted to reiterate, I was met with arrogance and hostility which have no place in either a conversation or an arguement. I admit that I met the hostility with my own and apologize for the arguement that insued.

If I am wrong then I am wrong, but I see what most of you are saying, although not wrong, as a seperate issue. I think that this issue as contraversial and still open to debate and therefor claims that I am stupid and arrogant because you disagree with me or because I think it merrits further review are unfounded, uncalled for, and have no place here. I just thought it would be interesting to see what people thought about it without having to worry about personal attacks. Seeing as how this issue can't seem to be discussed without the seperate (as I see it) issue of if smoking makes you a bad person or not comming up I think that it would be a good idea to just let this one die. I'm sorry for thinking outside of the box and I am sorry that although I wasn't the only person to see this as a seperate issue I was the only person made fun of because of it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say =/ I understand what you're saying .. but what's your point? I'm not saying adults should be penalized for smoking .. my original post was pretty much playing devil's advocate because you said teenagers don't need to drive (and therefore, I guess, they should stop complaining about the priv. to being taken away?), and I said the fact that teenagers don't need to drive is irrelevant because adults don't "need" to drive either (see previous post for clarification).

So uh .. my post actually had nothing to do with smoking haha.

The basis for my argument was that you are an idiot.

That is an alarmingly good arugment for suicide. My only problem is that I don't actively seek death, but I won't actively attempt to avoid it.

I don't want to die
Sometimes I wish I'd never been born at all

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

You're walking down the sidewalk one day. Suddenly, up ahead of you, you absent-mindedly notice a rush of people yelling and scattering into the street. After the crowd disperses, you see that everybody was running away from an errant automobile drifting down the sidewalk at a leisurely 10 mph.

What you're saying is that you'd look at the car, shrug, say "I've had a good run," and continue walking into the vehicle?

I think you and I must have different definitions for the term "actively avoid".

No, I'd sigh and step around it. I might even attempt to stop it. I'm talking more along the lines of telling a guy to go to hell if he put a gun to my head and demanded my wallet.

Pulled my trigger, now he's dead

...Anyway, I can't think of any older person who can say they never regretted smoking. It's dumb no matter what. That for me makes this whole issue irrelevant. Teen smoking... pshhh, how about all ages. What exactly do people get from smoking anyway?

It makes us look cool and sexy.

And people who smoke are better action heroes, because lighting a cigarette gives a sniper a chance to take us out. Smokers are always under the threat of sniper-related death.

This is ridiculous. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' in this matter. Stop the nonsense.

It's simply a matter of opinions, and those who disagree simply do so because they feel differently about what is important in this matter, and what they should base their opinion on.

I think the issue of underage smoking has nothing to do with having a driver's license. I agree with Brian. And that's my opinion, period.

And on the issue of 'responsibility'... people constantly do stupid things that could be used to argue that they're irresponsible. Should we take away driver's licenses from people who don't use condoms? (To name but one example) Don't even go there.

It's pretty obvious that people react like this just because it's about smoking. And no, I don't smoke, but that shouldn't even matter.

Last but not least, the fact that some of you are telling this guy he's arrogant, is the absolute pinnacle of irony. Because when I think of 'arrogant', the first thing that comes to my mind is some of the Massassians who posted on this topic. The fact that you know a lot, or have good debating skills doesn't give someone the right to be arrogant either. I'll leave it at that.

So in other words, just stick to the discussion and

Any benefits of smoking are all in the head.. but I prefer the word delusional

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here, because no one's really bothered to counter my arguments - so, apparently, I'm right.

If you are a repeat offender of underage smoking, then, obviously, things such as fines aren't effective on you. Revocation of your license (or the threat of it) seriously injures your social life, while still allowing you to do important things such as attend school and, if you live in a sizeable urban area, there may even be public transportation to get you to your job.

The driver's license really has nothing to do directly with teenage smoking - it's simply a revocation of a privilege granted by the government because lesser means of discipline have failed to work with you. Don't want to lose your license? Don't smoke before you're 18. It's not hard to figure out.

Note: I do enjoy the occasional cigar, myself, so I'm not wholly anti-smoking. If you want to smoke before you're 18, that's fine. But accept that there will be consequences for breaking the law. If do 80 in a 70 mph zone and get a ticket, I shouldn't say, "God damn cops!" because it's my fault, and my fault alone, that I broke the law.

It's not even "don't smoke under 18." Its "don't smoke and get charged over and over again under 18."

Like the old saying "the punishment should fit the crime." You have displayed your disregard of the law several times by smoking under age, so you are clearly not responsible enough to drive, you silly teenager. Prehaps this will teach you. Good day sir.

I feel like this is no different than a case in which a teenager stayed out really late and in retaliation his parents picked one random nice thing in his room and took it away from him. Sure, his parents have the right to do it and yes having his things taken away will likely make him think twice about doing it again, but in my opinion having your playstation 2 taken away for a week has nothing to do with staying out late. In a situation like that grounding the kid so that he could not go out at all would be a better option. Even if you take away the kid's ps2, he can still easily go out at night, if he was grounded he couldn't (at least in theory).

In my opinion taking away a car won't make a teenager who's already smoking quit. It will likely prevent people from starting early, but most people who start keep smoking for life (or until they get cancer and are forced to quit). Granted a reasonable alternative is hard to think of, but it would seem that the police are playing the role of a parent who decides to randomly pick something nice and take it away.

And in my opinion smoking does not always make you irresponsible. I think that it would really depend considering there are a lot of reasons to start smoking. And even if it did make you irresponsible, lots and lots of irresponsible people drive cars every day so that's no reason to take away a license unless a traffic violation results from that irresponsibility.

We know there are reasons to start smoking. I'm wondering what the good ones are.

If fines, community service, and anti-smoking program sessions didn't do anything, of course this isn't guaranteed to stop his/her smoking. There isn't any real, clear alternative to punish a minor who is repeatedly caught smoking. You can issue so many fines and send him to so many community service and similar programs, but now, prehaps you can get a different reaction to him/her by taking a privilege that is dear to him. And if parents aren't going to stop these acts of breaking the law by their teenager, pressing harder to make sure the kid learns seems best.



There is no way to "measure responsiblity". There is no responsibility-o-meter to quickly judge someone's level of responsibilty. But, cmon, if you get caught several times under the age of 18, this seems to be a good indication of irresponsibility. Maybe this is just that the kid doesn't have will-power to stop smoking, but it is also that he/she doesn't have the self-control to respect such a simple law.

good points on all accounts. Considering that you would need to get cought on several occassion before having your license taken away it would likely imply a general disregard for the law. I live in a city with a pretty high crime rate and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if a "troubled teen" who had his license taken away would not only continue to smoke in public (because after the car what else can you do to him, I'm not sure underage smoking can warrent jail time) but he would likely continue to drive anyways.

There are a lot of different people who would all respond very differently if they were caught smoking underage and faced with the possibility of having their license revoked. In fact, there is no really good way of making underage kids stop smoking aside from putting them in a detention center where they were monitored and not alound to have cigarettes. This is a pretty extreme situation, but it could be very very effective. Just as effective as taking away a car. And most facilities try to offer classes for GEDs so they would not miss out on schooling. In my opinion I see this law as the police flaying wildly at their own inability to think of a good way of making teenagers quit smoking.

Yes there is. Abolish the age requirement for tobacco.

Are you seriously saying that throwing a kid in a detention center for smoking is a better idea than just taking their lisence away?

Having a car taken away is much more extreme than taking a PS2 away.

MB, look who you're talking to here. A car represents the ability to actually get out of the house and be social. A PS2 represents (in spirit) what Massassians spend 75% of their time doing. I think it depends on the person whether or not taking a PS2 away is more drastic than taking a car away.

Hahaha, well youve got me there.