01 Aug 08
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexWhat lungs? Their dirty clogged up, blackened, ruined lungs? Many people would rather be dead than have a smoker's lungs implanted in their body.
Do you think there should be some law if a smoker caused somebody who lived in close proximity to them to develop lung cancer - that they should then have to donate their lungs to that person in compensation.
- Joined
- 05 Oct 05
- Moves
- 63425
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexQuite honestly, I don't think that can be proven. Nonsmokers develop lung cancer.
Do you think there should be some law if a smoker caused somebody who lived in close proximity to them to develop lung cancer - that they should then have to donate their lungs to that person in compensation.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by jackjonesYes, the addiction forces people to spend 1000s of dollars a year for something with no nutritional content, that causes cancer, emphysema and many other problems, and that perpetuates itself by forcing its users to develop a further need for itself. Ridiculous that some people defend this ridiculous addiction. "It's my right to kill myself and hurt others as well. Let me spend a lot of money to accomplish the same thing deep breathing could do better (in the absence of smoke)." Instead of saying that, why don't they just acknowledge that they need to KNOCK IT OFF, and then DO SO?
do they get a raw deal?,what happend to free will?ðŸ˜
