Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #13  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jun 25th, 2006, 02:42 PM       
Lifelong addiction? Sorry, I don't really understand that either. You mean you can be addicted to something for life? I thought after a few years of not doing something it's pretty much out of your system? Usually what brings addicts back is their memory of a high(which is a mental addiction, the physical side usually leaves after the drug is completely out of your system, right?) and it making them feel good, but how is a baby going to remember being addicted to cigarettes when it's born, or how it even felt?

Seems too loose to me. I know people who were crackbabies and they didn't pick up a crack habit when they got older, but they had tried it and didn't like it. I think after 20 or so years you can officially consider the addiction dead, and whatever choices they make are their own. Although, I can see arguing the psychological effects of having parents that smoke as being a "Bad influence" or something like that, but that's an issue of parenting rather than fetal development and child rearing.
I just don't see the addiction sticking around that long, unless you're arguing that it makes their brains develop in accordance with the physical addiction which it probably would(like when people addicted to painkillers or sleep meds can't regulate their own pain or sleep without it), slightly, but there's still 20 years of nonsmoking influenced development, theoretically. I guess it's possible, though, it just seems like a pointless argument.

Personally I think worrying about the child growing up and being addicted to cigarettes is pointless next to the diseases you can be born with because of it, which are highly more probably than getting lung cancer, and also the mental diseases that are very prevelant among fetal smokers like add and a few others.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
 



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:57 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.